USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part 1 : trend analysis, 1984-1989

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part 1 : trend analysis, 1984-1989
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--Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Bus lines--Florida--Management   ( 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 - C01-00119
usfldc handle - c1.119
System ID:
SFS0032231:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00119
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
Florida. Office of Public Transportation Operations.
0 245
Performance evaluation of Florida transit systems : part 1 : trend analysis, 1984-1989
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1991 June
650
Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation
Local transit--Florida--Evaluation
Bus lines--Florida--Management
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/?c1.119



PAGE 1

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I Trend Analysis, 1984 1989 For Florida Department of Transportation By Cente r for u ban Transportation CUTR Fi n a l Report, June 1991

PAGE 2

1989 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I Trend Analysis, 1984 Prepared for 'lbe Omce or Public TraDsit Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urbaa Transportation Research University of Soutb Florida Flnal Repon, June 1991

PAGE 3

ii this page lS b'ank

PAGE 4

1989 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART I TREND ANALYSIS, 1984-1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE TABlE OF CONTEN"l'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ill US1" OF T ABI..ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v UST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X1 FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. WIRODUcnON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. The Purpose of Performance Review . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Performance Review Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. The Role of Privatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 n. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A. Statewide Directional Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 B. Florida Fixed-Route Total Trend . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Ill. SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A. Metro-Dade Transit Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B Broward Transit D i vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 C. Jacksonville Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . . 101 D Hillsborough Area Regional Transit . . . . . . . . . . 123 E. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority . . . . . . . . . . 139 F. Tri County Transit (Orlando) . . . . . . . . . 155 G. Palm Beach County Transportation Authority . . . . . . 177 H. Ta!Jahassee Transit Authority . . . . . . . . . . 197 I. Regional Transit System (Gainesville) . . . . . . . 211 J. East Volusia Transit Authority . . . . . . . . . 227 K. Escambia County Transit System . . . . . . . . . . 241 l.. Lee County Transit Authority . . . . . . . . 255 M. Sarasota County Area Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 N. Lakeland Area Mass Transit District . . . . . . . . 285 0. Manatee County Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 P. Smyrna Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Q. Pasco Area Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . 339 R. Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) . . . 345 S. Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority . . . 371 T. Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority . . . . 377 U. Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority . . . . . 379 iii

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECI10N PAGE IV. SUMMARY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 381 APPENDIX A l..i.st of Definitions . . . . . . . . 383 APPENDIX B Review of Data Sources . . . . . . . 391 iv

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES TABLE INTRODUCTION I-1 I-2 Performance Review Indicators and Measures, Directly-Operated Transit Services .................. Performance Review Indicators and Measures, Purchased Motorbus Transit Services ................ STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS II -Al Statewide Directional Trends in Key Indicators and Measures, 1984-1989 .... ..................... II-B1 Statewide Total Performance Indicators (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) ................... . II-B2 Statewide Total Effectiveness Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) .................... II-B3 Statewide Total Efficiency Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) . . . ........ ... ll-84 Statewide Total Performance Indicators (Including Purchased Motorbus) ................... II-BS Statewide Total Effectiveness Measures (Including Purchased Motorbus) .................... II-B6 Statewide Total Efficiency Measures (Including Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . ... . . . SYSTEM-BY SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS ID-1 ID-2 m-3 Organizational Structures of Florida Transit Systems ... . Modes Operated by Florida Transit Systems (1989) .... . . Abbreviations for Florida Transit Systems ....... . ...... Metro-Dade Transit Agency m-Al m-A2 m-AJ m -A4 m-AS m-A6 Directly-()perated Motorbus Performance Indicators ..... . Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators ......... Directly-()perated and Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . .... Rapid Rail Performance Indicators ........ AutoDI8ted Guideway Performance Indicators ........ .... System Total Performance Indicators (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . ....... PAGE 12 13 17 19 20 21 30 31 32 40 41 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 v

PAGE 7

TABLE m-A7 m-AB illA9 illAlO ill-All m-At2 m-A13 m-At4 m-Al5 m-A16 ill-Al7 m-Ats illAl9 m-A20 m-A21 UST OF TABLES System Total Performance Indicators ................... Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . .. Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . Directly-operated and Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rapid Rail Effectiveness Measures . . .. .. . .. ....... Automated Guideway Effectiveness Measures ............. System Total Effectiveness Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . . System Total Effectiveness Measures .................... DlrecdyOperated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . .... Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . ............ Direcdy..()perated and Purchased Motorbus Efficiency' Measures ............................. Rapid Rail Efficiency Measures ................... .... Automated Guideway Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . System Total Efficiency Measures (Excluding Purchased Motorbus) . . . . . . . . . .. System Total Efficiency Measures ................... ... PAGE 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Broward Transit Division illBl Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 ill-82 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 m-83 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Jaclcsonville Transponation Authority ill..Cl Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . . . . 102 illC2 Automated Guideway Performance Indicators . . . . . 103 illC3 System Total Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . 104 illC4 Dlrectly..()perated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . lOS m..cs Automated Guideway Effectiveness Measures . . . . 106 illC6 System Total Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . 107 ill-C7 Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . 108 m..cs Autt'mted Guideway Efficiency Measures . . . . 109 ill-C9 System Total Efficiency Measures . . . . . . 110 vi

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Hillsborough Area Regional Transit m-Dl m-o2 m-D3 Performance .............................. Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ef:ficienC)' Measures ............................... . Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authoril)' m-El m-El m-EJ Perfonnance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness Me3SW'es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Efficiency Measures 0 0 0 0 Tri Counl)' Transit (Orlando) m-Ft m-F2 m-F3 m-F4 m-F5 m-F6 m.f7 m-F8 m-F9 Directly-Operated Mo torbus Performance Indicators ....... Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators ............. . System Total Performance Ind ica tors .................. Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ........ Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures .............. System Total Effectiveness Measures .. ... . .......... Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures .......... Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures ........... ..... System Total Efficiency Measures ..................... Palm Beach Counl)' Transportation Autho rity ID-Ol ID-02 ID-Ol m-G4 ID-G5 m-G6 ID-07 m-G8 m -G9 Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators .... Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators ............. System Total Performance Indicators ................ . Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ...... Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures .......... System Total Effectiveness Measures .................. Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures ...... Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures . . . . . ..... System Total Efficiency Measures ........... Tallahassee Transit Authority PAGE 124 125 126 140 141 142 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 m-Hl Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . 198 ill H2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 vu

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE m .. JO Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Regional TraD.Sit System (Gainesville) m-u m -12 ID-13 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Efficiency Measure$ 0 0 0 0 212 213 214 East Volusia TraD.Sit Authority m -Jl Perform.ancc Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 m .J 2 Effectiveness Measu.res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 Escambia County Transit System m Kl m -K2 ID-K3 Performan.ce ln.dicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Effectiveness Measures . ............................ Efficiency Measures 0 0 0 0 0 242 243 244 Lee County Transit Authority m -Lt m u m .LJ Performance Indica.tors .............................. Effectiveness Measures . ............................ a Efficiency Measure$ o o o o 0 o a 2S6 2S7 2S8 Sarasota County Area Transit m -Ml m -MZ m -MJ Perfonna'ICIC Indic:a.ton ............................ .. Effectiveness Mea$11teS . . ................................. m 273 1:14 I ake\and Area Masa Tramit District YW m -N1 m -N2 m-N3 Performance lndicaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Elfectiveaess Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '2J!i1 Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

PAGE 10

LIST OF TABLES TABLE Manatee County Transit m-o1 ID-02 ID-03 m-04 m.os ID-06 ID-07 ID-08 m-09 Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators ........ Purchased Motorbus Performance Indicators ...... ....... System Total Performance Indicators ................... Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ....... Purchased Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . ............ System Total Effectiveness Measures ....... ... . ... .. Directly-Operated Motorbus Efficiency Measures . .... .... Purchased Motorbus Efficiency Measures ................ System Total Efficiency Measures ................. ..... Smyrna Transit System m -Pl ID-P2 ID-P3 Performance Indicators .................... .......... Effc.ctiveness Measures ... . .......... ... ........... Efficiency Measures 0 0 0 0 Pasoo Area Transit System PAGE 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 324 325 326 ID O I Performance I ndicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 ID -02 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 ID-03 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) m -Rt Directly-Operated Demand-Response Service Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 IDR2 Purchased Demand-Response Service m-R3 m:R4 m-RS m-R6 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 V anpool Performance Indicators . . . . . . . 348 Directly-Operated Motorbus Performance Indicators . . 349 System Tolal Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . 350 Directly-Operated Demand-Response Service Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 ID-R7 Purchased Demand-Response Service m-RB ID-R9 IDRlO Effectiveness Measures . . ...................... Van pool Effectiveness Measures .................. Directly-Operated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures ... System Tolal Effectiveness Measures .............. 352 353 354 355 ix

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE W-Rll Direc:tly..()perated Demand-Response Service Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 m-R12 Purchased Demand-Response Service m-Rt3 m-Rt4 W-RlS Effec:tiveness Meas\lles . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V anpool Effectiveness Measures . . . .............. Direc:tly..()perated Motorbus Effectiveness Measures . . . .. System Total Effectiveness Measures ......... . . ...... 357 358 359 360 Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority ill-51 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . 372 ill-S2 Effectiveness Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 ill-53 Efficiency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 X

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE INTRODUCITON 1 1 1-2 1 3 Performance Evaluation Statutes 0 0 0 0 Florida's Transit Systems . ..... . ......... ........ Factors Affecting Transit Perfonnance 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS Statewide Total Excluding Purchased Motorbus D-Bl D -B2 D-B3 D-B4 D-BS D -B6 D-B7 D-BS D-B9 D-BlO D-Bll D-B12 D-813 D-814 D-815 IIB16 D-817 D-81 8 II-B19 II-B20 D-B21 County /Service Area Population o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles o o o o 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o Total Operating Expense ........ ... . ............ ... Passenger Fare Revenues o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Total Employees ........................... ...... Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated o 0 o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o Vehicle Miles Per Capita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o 0 o o o o o o 0 0 o o o Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile o 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 Average Age of Fleet ............................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls 0 o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 Operating Expense Per Capita o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip o 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o 0 o o o 0 o o o Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile 0 o o o o o o o 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 o o o Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Farebox Recovery Ratio ............................ Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o Revenue Hours Per Employee o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Passenger Trips Per Employee o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Average Fare ......... ........................... Statewide Total Including Purchased Motorbus II B22 U -823 D-824 D-825 D-826 II-827 County /Service Area Population 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o Total Operating Expense ...................... ...... Vehicles ()perated . . ....................... ..... Vehicle Miles Per Capita o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o PAGE 3 5 7 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 29 29 33 33 33 34 34 35 xi

PAGE 13

FIGURE n-B28 n-B29 n-B3o n-831 n-832 LIST OF FIGURES Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ..................... Operating Expense Per Capita ....................... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .................. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ............ V chicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . .. PAGE 35 36 36 36 37 SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS Metro-Dade Transit Agency xii System Total Excluding Purchased Motorbus m-At m-A2 m-AJ m-A4 m-AS m-A6 m-A7 m-AB m-A9 m-AlO m-An m-At2 m-Al3 m-At4 m-AtS m-At6 m-At7 m-Ats m-At9 m-A20 m-A2t County Population . . . . . . . . . .............. Passenger Trips . . . . . . ...................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ................... Total Operatins Expense ............................ Passenger Fare Rev-enues ............................ Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated .............. Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . ...... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . .... Average Age of Fleet ................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents .......... Revenue Miles Between Roadc:alls . . . . . . ..... Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . .... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . Opcraq Expense Per Revenue Mile . . ... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ....... Farebox Recovery Ratio ............................. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ............ Revenue Houn Per Employee . . . . ... Passenger Trips Per Employee . .. Average Fare ..................................... System Total Including Purchased Motorbus 69 69 69 70 70 70 71 72 72 72 73 73 74 74 74 75 75 75 76 76 76 m-A22 CoUDty Popula.tioo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n M-A23 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n ID-A24 Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . i1 ID-A2S Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . 78

PAGE 14

FIGURE IDA26 ID-A27 ID-A28 IDA29 ID -A30 m-A3 1 ID-A32 ID-A33 LI ST OF FIGURES Passenger Fare Revenues ...... . ............. . . . Vehicle Miles Per Capita ..................... .... ... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ......... . ... ...... Operatin g Expense Per Capita ........................ Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .... ..... .. ... . Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile .... .... .......... Farebox Recovery Ratio .................. ......... Average Fare ... . ...... ............ ............. Broward Transit Division m-B1 m-82 m-B3 m-84 ID-85 ID-86 m-87 m-88 m-B9 IDBlO m-811 m-Bl2 m-813 ID -814 ill-815 m-816 ID-817 m-818 ID-819 m-820 m-821 County Po pulation 0 0 0 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ...... .... ..... .... Total Operating Expense .......................... Passenger Fare Revenues ..... . ... ................. Total Employees .... ............ ...... ......... . Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ........ ..... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . ....... .............. . . Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................... Average Age of Fleet ... .... . .......... . . . ..... Reve nu e Miles Between Accid ents .................. Rev enue Miles Between Roadcalls .................... Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . Operating Expense Per Passenger T rip . . . . . . . Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ................. Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . ... Farebox Recovery Ratio ............................. Vehicl e Miles Per Pcalc Vehicle ......... .. Revenue H ours Pe r Employee ................ Passenger Trips Per Employee ................. ... Average Fare ........... ................. ......... Jacksonville Transporta tion Authority IDC1 m-C2 m-C3 ID-C4 m-cs County' Population . . .................. ........... Passenger Trips . . . . ........................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ....... Total Operating Expense ............................. Passenger Fare Revenues ..................... ...... PAGE 78 79 79 80 80 80 81 81 91 91 91 92 92 92 93 94 94 94 95 95 96 96 96 97 97 97 98 98 98 113 113 113 114 114 xili

PAGE 15

FIGURE ID-C6 ID-C7 m-es ID-C9 ID..ClO ID..Cll ID..C12 ID..Cl3 ID..C14 ID..Cl5 ID..C16 ID..C17 m-C18 m-C19 ID-C20 ID-C21 UST OF FIGURES Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ............... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .................. Average Age of Fleet ............................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . .......... Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls . . . . . . ......... Operating Expense Per Capita ........................ Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ............... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . ..... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . ........ Farebox Recovery Ratio ............................. Vehic:le Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . ........ Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . ........... Average Fare ..................................... Hillsborough Area Regional Transit xiv ID-Dl ID-02 ID-03 ID-04 m-o5 m-06 ID-07 ID-08 ID-09 m-010 m-on m-012 ID-013 ID-014 ID-015 ID-016 ID-017 m-o1s m-D19 m-020 m-021 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Passenger Trips . . . . . . . .................... Vehic:le Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . ........ Total Operating Expense ............................ Passenger Fare Revenues ............................ Total Employees .................................. Vehic:Ies Available and Vehic:les Operated ......... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . ................... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . ............. Avenge Ase of Fleet ....................... o Revenue Miles Between AccideniS ............ Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ..................... Operating Expense Per Capita .. .. . . . .. .. ..... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .................. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ......... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ....... Farebox ReCC>Very Ratio .... 0 0 o o o o o Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ....... Revenue Hours Per Employee ........................ Passenger Trips Per Employee ............ Average Fare 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o PAGE 114 115 116 116 116 117 117 118 118 118 119 119 119 120 120 120 128 128 128 129 129 129 130 131 131 131 132 132 133 133 133 134 134 134 135 135 135

PAGE 16

UST OF FIGURES FIGURE PineUas Sunc:oast Transit Authority m -El m-E2 m-E3 m-E4 m-ES m -E6 m-E7 m-ES m-E9 m-Eto m-Ell m-E12 m-E13 m-EI4 m E t s m -EI6 m-E17 m-Ets m -E1 9 m-E2o m-E21 County Population 0 0 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . .. .. Total Operating Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Passenger Fare Revenues ....... ...... . ............ Total Empl oyees ..... ............... ...... ....... Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ............ . . V ehi cle Miles Per Capita ............................ Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................... . Average Age of Fleet ......... .................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents ................. ... R e venue Miles Between Roadcalls .................... Operating Expense Per capita .. .... . . ............. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ... . ............ Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . . Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . F are.box Recovery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . Revenue Hours Per Employee ............ ........ ... Passenger Trips Per Employee .................... .... Average Fare ...................... ...... ...... Tri County Transit (Orlando) m-Fl m-F2 m -F3 m-F4 ID-F5 m -F6 m-F7 m-Fs m -F9 ill-FlO m-Fn m-F12 m-F13 m-F14 County Population . . . :. .......................... Passenger Trips ................................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ....... ......... Total Operating Expense ............................ Passenger Fare Reven u es .................. ..... Total Employees ................................ . Vehic l es Available and Vehicles Operated . ............. Vehicle Miles Per capita .......... ........... Passenger Trips Per Reveaue Mile .............. Average Aa.e of Fleet ........ . .................. ... Revenue Miles Betwee n Accidents ..... ...... Revenue Miles Betweea Roadcalls ........ Operating Expense Per Capita ............. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . .. .......... PAGE 145 145 145 146 146 146 147 148 148 148 149 149 150 150 150 151 151 151 152 152 152 166 166 166 167 167 167 168 169 169 169 170 170 171 171

PAGE 17

FIGURE ID-F15 m-F16 m-F17 m-F18 m-F19 m-F20 m-F21 LIST OF FIGURES Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile .................. Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . F are.box Recovecy Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . Vehicle Miles Per Peale Vehicle ................ Revenue Hours Per Employee ................. Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . Average Fare ..................................... Palm Beach County Transportation Authority m..o1 ID-02 ID-03 m-G4 m..o5 m..o6 ID-07 m..os ID-09 ID-010 m-ou ID-012 ID-013 ID-014 ID-015 ID-016 ID-017 ID-018 ID-019 m..o20 m-021 Coun.ty Population . . . . . . . . . ...... . ...... Passenger Trips . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ...... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles .................. Total Operating Expense ............................ Passenger Fare Revenues ...... . ............ Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ..... ....... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . .. Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . ........ Average Age of Fleet ............................ ... Revenue Miles Between Ac:cidents . . . . . . . Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ..... .............. 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 Hours Per Employee . . . ... Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . ............... Average Fare ..................................... Tallabassee Transit Authority xvi m-H1 m-H2 m-H3 m-H4 m-HS m-H6 County Population .................................. Passenger Trips . . . . . ........................ Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . .... Total Operating Expense: .... Passenger Fare Revenues ............................. Total Employees ................................... PAGE 171 172 172 172 173 173 173 188 188 188 189 189 189 190 191 191 191 192 192 193 193 193 194 194 194 19S 195 195 202 202 202 203 203 203

PAGE 18

FIGURE m -H7 IDH8 m-H9 ID-HlO m-Hll m-Ht2 ID-Hl3 ID-Hl4 ID-HlS IDH16 m-Ht7 m-Ht8 m-Ht9 IDH20 IDH21 UST OF FIGURES Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ............. . Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............................ Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . . .. Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . . . . . . . .. Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls .................... . 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 Hours Per Employee ...... ................. Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . .......... Average Fare ......................... ... ...... ... Regional Transit System (Gainesville) ID-11 ID-12 IDI3 ID-14 m-IS m-16 m-17 ID-18 ID-19 ID-110 m-nt ID-112 ID-113 m -114 m-11s ID-116 ID-117 ID-118 ID-119 ID-120 m-121 County Population . ....... ........ .............. Passenger Trips ................ ................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ..................... Total Operating Expense ............................ Passenger Fare Revenues .... ...................... Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated .. ... . ...... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . ........ . . . ..... . . Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .............. ...... Average Age of Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . ........ Revenue Miles Between Roadc:alls ............... Operating Expense Per Capita ................. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ................. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . .... Fare"box Recoveey Ratio .... ......................... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ............. Revenue Hours Per Employee ........ Passenger Trips Per Employee .............. Average Fare . ................................. PAGE 204 205 205 205 206 206 207 207 207 208 208 208 209 209 209 217 217 217 218 218 218 219 220 220 220 221 221 222 222 222 223 223 223 224 224 224

PAGE 19

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE East Volusia Transit Authority m-Jt m-12 m-J3 m-J4 m-J5 m-J6 m-n m-Js m-J9 m-no m-111 m-112 m-113 m-114 m-115 m-Jt6 m-Jt7 m-ns m-Jt9 m-120 m-121 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passenger Trips ......................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles .................. Total Operating Expense . .......... Passenger Fare Revenues .................... Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ........ Vehicle Miles Per Capita ... ...... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . Average Arge of Fleet ........................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . ........ Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls : . . . . . . . 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 Peale Vehicle ................... Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . Passenger Trips Per Employee ............ Average Fare ........................... Escambia County Transit System m-Kt m-K2 m-KJ m-K4 m-KS m-K6 m-K7 m-KB m-K9 m-KlO m-Kll m-K12 m-Kt3 m-Kt4 County Poplllation .......... Passenger Trips ............ Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ............ Total Operatina Expease ..... o o o o o o o o Passenger Fare Revenues .. 0 o 0 o 0 o Total Employees 0 0 0 Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ...... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . .. Average Age of Fleet ........................ Revenue Miles Between Accidents .. Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ............. Operatin& Expense Per Capita ... o o o Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .......... PAGE 232 232 232 233 233 233 234 235 235 235 236 236 237 237 237 238 238 238 239 239 239 246 246 246 247 247 247 248 249 249 249 250 250 251 251

PAGE 20

FIGURE m-KlS m-Kt6 m-Kt7 m-Kts m-Kt9 ill-K20 m-K21 LIST OF FIGURES Operating Expense Per Revenue Mil e ................ Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ......... ..... Farebox Recovery Ratio .............. . ........... Veh i cle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ..... ................ Revenue Hours Per Employee ........................ Passenger Trips Per Employee ........................ Average Fare ..................................... Lee CoWity Transit Authority m-Lt m-u m-1.3 m-u m -LS m-L6 m -L7 ID-L8 ID-L9 IDLlO Ill-Lll m-u2 m-L13 m-Lt4 ill-L15 m-Lt6 m-L17 ID-L18 ill-L19 ID-L20 m-ut County Population ................................. Passenger Trips . . . . . . ......... ........... . Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . . ..... Total Operating Expense ................ ........... . Passenger Fare Revenues ...... ................... Total Employees ............. ............. .... . Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated . ............ Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............ ............... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .................... Average Age of Fleet .............................. Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . . . . .... Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls . . .. .. . .......... Operating Expense Per Capita ...................... Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . . . . . . ... Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ................. Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ............ Farebox Recoveey Ratio ............................. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . . ...... Revenue Hours Per Employee ........................ Passenger Trips Per Employee ........................ Average Fare ... . ............................... Sarasota CoWity Area Transit m-M1 m-M2 m-M3 m-M4 m-MS m-M6 County Population . . . ........................ Passenger Trips . . . . ........................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ........ Total Operating Expense ......................... Passenger Fare Revenues ............................ Total Employees .................................. PAGE 251 252 252 252 253 253 253 260 260 260 261 261 261 262 263 263 263 264 264 265 265 265 266 266 266 267 267 267 276 276 276 277 m 277 xix

PAGE 21

FIGURE ID-M7 ID-M8 m-M9 ID-M10 m-Mu m-M12 ID-M13 m-M14 m-MlS ID-M16 m-M17 m-M18 m-Mt9 ID-M20 ID-M21 UST OF FIGURES Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ............ Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . ...... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . ............. Average Age of Fleet ............................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . . . . . . ... Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls . . . . ............. 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 Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . ........ Passenger Trips Per Employee . .................... Average Fare ..................................... Lakeland Area Mass Transit District XX m-N1 m-N2 m-N3 m-N4 ID-NS m-N6 m-N7 ID-N8 m-N9 ID-N lO m-Nu m-N12 m-N13 m-N14 m-NlS m-Nt6 m-N17 m-N18 m-N19 m-N20 m-N21 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Passenger Trips . . . . . ........................ Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ............... Total Operating Expeme ............................ Passenger Fare Revenues ................. ; ..... Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated ........... Vehicle Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile ................ Average Age of Fleet .............................. Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . ........ Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls .......... Operati;Dg Expense Per Capita .. o o 0 o Operati;Dg Expense Per Passenger Trip .... .. Operatins Expense Per Revenue Mile . Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile .... Farebox Recovery Ratio 0 0 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ..... Rev-enue Hours Per Employee o o o o o o o o o o o o Passenaer Trips Per Employee ......... Average Fare ..... o o o o o o o o o o o o o PAGE 278 279 279 279 280 280 281 281 281 282 282 282 283 283 283 291 291 291 292 292 292 293 294 294 294 29S 29S 296 296 296 297 297 297 298 298 298

PAGE 22

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Manatee County Transit W-01 W-02 m-o3 W-04 W-OS ID-06 W-07 ID-08 ID-09 ID-010 m-oll ID-012 ID-013 ID-014 ID-015 ID-016 m-011 m-018 ID-019 ID-020 ID-021 Count)' Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles ..................... Total Operating Expense ........... . ............... Passenger Fare Revenues ........................... Total Employees ................ ........ ........ Vehicles Availaole and Vehicles Operated ............... Vehicle Miles Per Capita ................. ..... ..... : Passenger Per Revenue Mile ................ .... . Average Age of Fleet ............................... Revenue Miles Between AccideniS .................... . Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ..................... 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 Peale Vebide ...................... Revenue Hours Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . .. Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Fare ................. .... ............... Smyrna Transit System m-Pl m-P2 ID-P3 ID-P4 W-PS m-P6 m-P7 ID-P8 m-P9 ID-P10 m-Pll m-P12 m-P13 ID-P14 City Population ................................... Passenger Trips ................................... Vehicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . . . . . Total Operatin& Expense ......... ........ .......... Passenger Fare Revenues ....................... Total Employees .................................. Vehicles Available and Vehicles Operated .............. Vehide Miles Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . .... Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . . ... Average Age of Fleet .............. ................. Revenue Miles Between Accidents ................. Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls ..................... Operating E.xpeDSe Per Capita .................. Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip . ............ PAGE 313 313 313 314 314 314 315 316 316 316 317 317 318 318 318 319 319 319 320 320 320 329 329 329 330 330 330 331 332 332 332 333 333 334 334

PAGE 23

FIGURE m-Pt5 m -Pt6 m-Pt 7 m-Pts m-P19 m-P2o m-P21 LIST OF FIGURES Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ..... ... .. ........ Maintenanc:c Expense Per Revenue Mile ................ Farebox Recovery Ratio ............................. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle . . ............. ..... Reven u e Hours Per Employee ........................ Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . . . . . . ...... . Average Fare ..................................... Spac:c Area Transit (Brevard County) xxii m-Rl m-R2 m-RJ m-R4 m-RS m-R6 m-R7 m-RS m-R9 m-RlO m-Rll m-R12 m R13 m R14 m-R15 m-R16 m-R17 m-RlS m-R19 m-R2o m-R21 County Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V chicle Miles and Revenue Miles . . . .............. . Total Operating Expense ... ......... . ............. Passenger Fare Revenues ............ ......... . . . Total Employees .................................. Vebicles Available and Vehicles Operated ............... Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............................ Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile . . . . ............. Average .Age of Fleet ............................... Revenue Miles Between Accidents . . . . . . ......... Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . .. Operating Expense Per Capita . . . . . . . . . . . . Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip .................. Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile . . . . . . ...... Maintenanc:c Expense Per Revenue Mile . . ............ Farebox: Recovery Ratio ............................. .. Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ....................... Revenue Hours Per Employee .................... Passenger Trips Per Employee . . . .............. Average Fare ..................................... PAGE 334 335 335 335 336 336 336 361 361 361 362 362 362 363 364 364 364 365 365 366 366 366 367 367 367 368 368 368

PAGE 24

FOREWORD Under contract with the Office of Public Transit, Department of Transponation, State of Florida, the Center for Urban Transponation Research (CUTR) bas conducted a performance evaluation of Florida s fixed-route transit systems. This repon is based on data from federally required Section 15 repons, which are submiued to the Urban Mass Transponation Administration (UMT A) for each fiscal year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. UMTA, which has required these data since 1979, provides enensive documentation on bow the data are to be coUected and reponed, and requires auditor certification of the submitted data. Section 15 repons are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system performance because the data are standardized, undergo elrtensive review, and are the resul t of a substantial data coUection and reponing process by the transit systems. Some Section 15 data are used by UMT A and by states and localities for calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extreme l y imponant to transit agencies. This repon is one of three documents prepared as pan of the perfonnance evaluation project. In addition to this technical memorandum (Pan I, Trend Analysis, 1984-1989), a second technical memorandum was prepared (Pan 11. Peer Review Analysis, 1989). Finally, a summary repon was produced which highlights the information and findings of both technical memoranda. This is the second statewide transit evaluation conducted by the Florida Department of Transponation (FOOT) and CUTR. CUTR would like to thank FOOT, the Florida Transit Association, and each of the individual transit systems for their cooperation and assistance in the prepuation of the memoranda and summary repon. Cenw /D' Urkn TtrJNp
PAGE 25

2 this page IS blank

PAGE 26

1.989 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART II Peer Review ADaJysls, 1.989 I. INTRODUCI10N Rapid growth in Florida bas resulted in increased attention to public: traJISit as a potential solution to solving e ver-increasing transportation problems in the state. Along with the increased emphasis on public: transit comes the nec:essity to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems. Florida legislation requires the Florida Department of TraJISportation and Florida's traDSit systems to develop and report performance measures. The relevant Florida statutes are noted in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 Performance Evaluation Statutes FLORIDA STATUTE 341.041 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.071 FLORIDA STATUTE 341.052 (3) l)'llom,._...., poid-Wid Mltlyol gcMIIVnlli1llly -..---(1) ... pubiC ,.,...,.llllbi -...qwn. .... co ....... wll'l ioc:ll ""'*'* can_,.,...,. pllnL (2) 'adl ..--poiloln..,.._,......, ... be 6CIOIOW'ed. b'f .. deCMflt ..... bellllc:llld (3) 'adl po.CiiC-p--... __ .... _ll>opoOidhlyii'G peibn--b lhe)'lllr.(4) 'fo-olgllile 1D ,.,,..., . olgllile po.CiiC-p--COli 'lilY-.. 1.341.071(1) 'aft 1 11181, II'G... 341.071(2) 11ft1.t-3

PAGE 27

Consistent with the legislation, this repon provides an overview of the individual and collective perfonnance of Florida's fixed-route transit systems. There are nineteen systems that provide fixed-route motorbus services. Of these nineteen systems, thineen also offer some type of demand-response service either directly or through a contract with an outside vendor (this repon does not address demand-response services). Two systems (Metro-Dade Transit Agency and Jacksonville Transponation Authority) operate automated guideway systems (peoplemover) while a single system (Metro-Dade) operates a rapid rail system. In addition, a commuter rail system is currently operating in South Florida (Tri-Olunty Olmmuter Rail). A twentieth system (Space Coast Area Transit in Brevard Olunty) is unique when compared to other systems around the state. Space Olast provides demand response and vanpool-based transit services only. The report is presented in two parts. Pan I, Trend Analysis, begins with a summary of statewide trends, followed by a consideration of the Florida fixed-route total trend. Pan I also presents the perfonnance trend for each of Florida's fixed-route transit systems over a six-year time period (1984-1989). A variety of tabular and graphical data are included which portray the changes in several perfonnance, effectiveness, and efficiency measures from the years 1984 to 1989. Appendix A provides a list of definitions of the terms used in the report. Appendix B presents a review of the specific sources for data used throughout the analysis. Pan n, Peer Review Analysis, (separately bound) presents tabular and graphical data contrasting the perfonnance of Florida's transit systems with each other and with similar systems from around the country for 1989 only. Appendix A provides a list of definitions for terms used in Part D and is identical to App!:ndix A of Pan L Appendix B presents a review of the specific sources for data used throughout the analysis and is identical to Appendix B of Pan L AppeDclix C of Pan D provides a summary of the peer selection process for the analysis. In addition to these two pans, a separate summary report was prepared which highlights the information and findings of both tubnical memorandL Unlike the 1988 Perfonnance Evaluation, this report includes both summary comments and conclusions based on observation and analysis of the performance trends. The summary comments for each Florida transit system are included in Part I and appear after each system's trend graphics. No summary comments were provided in Part IL The Florida transit systems included in this report are noted in Figure 1-2. 4

PAGE 28

FIGURE 1-2 Florida's Transit Systems greater than 200 buses lo-49 buses 1-9 buses other systems v 19 total urban public transit systems v 17 systems with fixed-route bus services v 2 systems with peoplemovers (:MDT A, JXTA) v 1 system with rapid rail CMDTA) I v 1 system with demand-response and vanpool services only (SPCT) .. v 1 system providing commuter rail service (TRIC) 4 .. 0 MDTA M.tasOalaT.-A.emq 't'O&.T IROW &ceu.T.-Ot.t... ECTS r. I c::...tr'T .... s,... JXTA Jt ... r . 'r .....,._., u:rs 1.-c a1r..-...._.., HNn" H2' L ...... liT... SCAT s.u c. .,.,_T,_ PSTA L.tMT J"'-Me.T.-etcldld 0TCT Trtc-..,T.-(Oifld MANC Me IIJIC...,T .... Nc:r ,_....,.C...,T--.1&8a.... SM1S S..t:lliiT,...S,... TALT 'r:anatT .... ...-a.., PaS ,_.,_T,_.S,... Mn R afT .... ,....(G.kMf., SICI" S....C..j,wT .... .. 5

PAGE 29

A. THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW Since performance analysis is only one means of evaluating performance and is limited to those aspects included in the analysis, the reader should exercise considerable caution in interpreting the results. It is panicularly strong in reviewing cost effectiveness and efficiency; however, it does not repon on the extent to which other objectives of the transit authority are being attained. For example, the performance evaluation will not directly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction with regard to levels of service, taxpayer and public attitudes toward the agency, employee morale, success in attaining minority hiring or contracting goals, quality of planning. contributions to economic development, air quality improvements, or other goals that may be important to the agency. In addition, several aspectS of quality of service are not measured in performance reviews. These include vehicle cleanliness and comfort, operator counesy, on-time performance, quality of marketing and passenger information support, and level of satisfaction with hours of operations, frequency of service, and geographic coverage of 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 nec:essarily provide information regarding which aspects of performance are within control of the agenqand which measures are not. Figure 1-3 is a schematic of the factors that ultimately a1fect transit agency performance. The figure indicates that transit system management has varying degrees of influence over the various factors. Performance reviews are a useful and imponant tool in monitoring and improving transit system performance. However, it should be reCX>gniud that the results of trend and peer analyses are only a starting point for fully understanding the performance of transit systems. The issues identified as a result of the analyses provide the basis for a series of questions that can lead to an enhanced undentanding of the "bows" and "whys" of system performance. 6

PAGE 30

FIGURE 1 Factors Afl'ect!Dg Transit Pedo rmance Operating Environment o.n.Jty 1..1/ndU. C<*/ SI.JIPCWf 4 F.,.Polt:y 4 S...lctAWilr PatldnO Pr1ldee Zoning l.lt*o.lgn Transit System Management & Staff -.. AT__, .a. ,_,..,., -. Performance Management Influence I jmjted Wluen c c Some Influence ... S trong Wluence Market Environment !UitJOW. .... ... ,.11:1 CAlle .-vIDAnt e T,...IOlotdl .. 7

PAGE 31

B. PERFORMANCE REVIEW DATA BASE The major source of data for the performance review is Section 15 repons. To receive federal funds, transit properties are required to repon a variety of data in a standardized format, resulting in what is known as a Section 15 repon. These repons provide standardized measures of reporting that enable a more accurate comparison of information between properties. Since 1979, when this reporting requirement was instituted, additional refinements in data collection and reporting have increased the accuracy and comparability of the data. The data are for the fiscal year used by each transit authority. For Florida properties, the fiscal year runs 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 any uuique characteristics of significance. Data Rellabil!tf All Section 15 data submitted to UMT A are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each report is thoroughly CJllmined to identify errors. questions. and inconsistencies. UMTA identifies problems and requires each reporting agency to respond to these prob l ems before the final repon is accepted. The quality of the data published in UMTA's "National Urban Mass Transponation Statistics Section 15 Annual Report" improves each year as transit systems become more familiar with collecting and reporting data and as definitions and procedures become more standardized. Despite the fact that the data are becoming more reliable over time, there still remain problems with the quality of the data for some transit systems. For this study, data were taken from published summary repons of Section 15 filings and from individual Section 15 repons provided by the transit agencies for fiscal year 1989. With the exception of data on service area population and the inflation rate, all information was provided by the transit systems. CUTR did not collect any original data or conduct any audits or on-site analyses of the data or data collection procedures. CUTR did, however, review the data in detail and correspond with the transit systems concernin& questions or inconsistencies. This review involved identifying irreauJarities in trends and numbers that 8

PAGE 32

were believed to require additional review and verification, such as reviewing ratios and data trends to identify changes that were atypital, given the overall trends. Additionally, a completed system data file was provided to each property for review and verification. In many instances, data were changed or significant modifications were made. In several cases, data previously submitted to UMTA were cbanged to reflect new information or refinements in definitions and data collection. In some instances, transcription or other errors were discovered in the data. In other instances, erroneous data from previous years which could not be corrected were extrapo lated or estimated to provide the most accurate information possible. The level of attention to data review was considerably greater for Florida properties than for peer properties from outside the state. The data used for peer comparison in Part IT of this repon consisted of data reported for 1989. Since these data are more recent, they are expected to be of higher quality. The absence of trend data for non-Florida systems precluded applying many of the reasonableness tests to the peer data that were applied to the data of Florida's transit systems Para DeOn!llons To fully understand the data presented in this report, it is important to understand the definitions of the terms used in Section 15 documents. In many instances, these definitions diHer from initial perceptions and may be subject to interpretation. Appendix A provides a detailed list of definitions for terms by UMT A The data collection procedures further specify exactly what is being referred to by a given term. For example, trip" refers to an individual boarding a transit vehicle. A person riding a bus from the comer to the office takes one trip to work and a second trip to return home. Likewise, a person who takes a bus, transfers to Metrorail, and then transfers to Metromover would be colmted as taking three trips. In spite definitions and continued re6.aements in data collection procedures, there remain some discrepancies between systems as to bow terms are defined and bow information i.s collected. Accordingly, caution should be in interpreting findings, especially for those variables that are more likely to be subject to variation in definitions. &les include some variation in the specific definitions of "roadcalls" and "accidents" by the various properties. Other agencies diHer in bow employees are categorized among administrative, transpOrtation, and maintenance tasks. Still other discrepancies can result from differences in the strucrure of the agency and the allocation of responsibilities among the various 9

PAGE 33

governmental entities. For example, some transit systems establish their own transit police/security forces, wbile others rely on the municipal or county law enforcement agencies to provide tbe necessazy services. Differences such as this can result in a significant variation in operating costs. Numerous other, more subtle cost allocation differences can impact the data. For example, street sweeping and garbage pickup at park and-ride and other transit facilities may be provided at no cost by a given jurisdiction or may be a contract or in-bouse cost of tbe transit system. Legal services, computer services, engineering and design support, administrative support, and otber costs are often sbared costs that may or may not be accurately allocated between tbe transit system and a parent governmental body. The national inflation rate, as defined by the percentage c:bange in tbe Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (including commodities and services) from year to year, was used to deflate cost indicators so that they could be presented in real terms. From 1984 through 1989, service and labor costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, wbic:b are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to increase somewhat faster tban inflation even if the amount of service provided were not increased. PcrCormanct Indicators and Musum The evaluation measures that are used throughout the performance review are divided into three major categories: performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures. Performance indicators report the data in tbe selected categories tbat are required by Section 15 reporting. These tend to be key indicators of overall transit system performance. Effectiveness measures typically refine the data further and indicate the extent to wbic:b various service-related goals are being ac:bleved. For example, pas
PAGE 34

pro\'ide a good representation of overall transit system performance. Other measures and categorizations may be developed with the same data. Table I-1 lists the indicators and measures pro\'ided in this report for transit semces and also pro\'ides sub categories where appropriate. The extensive list of indicators and measures pro\'ides a voluminous amount of data, all of which are required to fully understand the performance of a transit system. ll

PAGE 35

TABLE J.l Performance Review Indicators and Measures Directly-operated Transit Services ............ ............... MeotyJM __ ...,_ ....... ......, eo.t !1ft IIIIIM)' __ .... Collila &p. ""' Collila P.n s nget T rtpe !xp.""'--PlnangerMIIM ,__eon ..... ,-Oporotlng !xp. Pot .._ Trip Pentngtt T ttpe Pw c.pt-. OporaUng &p.""' .._---Pt111nger Tripe Pw Awenue Mile OporaUng Eql ..... ..... -Psst'ngtf TtiPt Ptt tb.lr Opomlng &p. ""' ... Hour ---&p ..... ---g..,..,.,....,_. -. Eq> &p. ---.St>Md -.Age of-(In )'Mil) ..... TOpo
PAGE 36

Many of tbe measures tbat can be easily calculated for services tbat are directly-operated cannot be calculated for purchased motorbus since many performance indicators are unavailable. Table 1 indicateS generally what performance indicators arc available for fixed-route, privatized transit as well tbose measures tbat can be calculated witb these indicators. TABLE 1-2 Performance Revtew Indicators and Measures Pun:based Motorbus Tr&Dsit Serrices ............ lndlcftDra Uectwnee.a.....-.. EJihMnor MIIIUNI S.Mce NH -Supply Vlhide MD Pw Caprta OporatinQ &p. Po< Capluo PuunQofTriPI Oporaolng e;., .... Polk Vlllldo Mllet Sor,... C4no""'pdon ()poratinQ E.'41 Pw Pu I I 'IQtf Ttfp __, Tdpo l'lr Caplu e;.p, .... "-Mile --hi Oponoino >
PAGE 37

14 this page IS blank

PAGE 38

II. STATEWIDE TREND ANALYSIS The statewide trend analysis provides a summary of the combined performance of Florida's trans i t systems. The analysis is comprised of two sections : ( 1 ) statewide directional trends in key indicators and measures, and (2) Florida fixed-route total trend. The statewide trend analysis provides an aggregate measure of transit performance in Florida. A. STATEWIDE DIREcrJONAL TRENDS Table llA1 provides a summazy of statewide directional trends in key indicators and measures for the time period from 1984 to 1989. Based on the percent changes in data for these years, the directional trends illustrate the direction in which Florida's transit systems are moving in various areas of performance. The table establishes how many systems are experiencing an increasing trend, decreasing trend, or no change for selected indicators and measures. Performance Ind!catoa A majority of Florida's transit systems are experiencing increasing trends in each of the selec ted performance indicators. Performance indicators include ridership, service miles, operating expense, passenger fare revenues, number of employees, and number of vehicles. EITeccivenesa MeasuRs A majority of Florida's transit systems are experiencing a positive trend in safety and reliability measures. Nine of sixteen systems show an increasing trend in revenue miles between accidents (safety) while ten systems indicate a positive trend in revenue miles between roadc:alls (reliability). The ability of a transit system to supply service in its area c:an be measured in tel1115 of vehicle miles per capita. Seven systems show an increasing trend in this effectiveness measure 15

PAGE 39

The magnitude of service consumption can be measured by the ratio of passenger trips to revenue miles. Only four systems have experienced a positive trend in this area of performance. The average age of fleet for twelve of Florida's transit systems has increased from 1984 to 1989. Emc!enc;y Measaru All systems show an increasing trend in each of the following cost ratios: expense per capita, expense per passenger trip, and expense per revenue mile. All but one syStem have experienced an increase in maintenance expense per revenue mile. Farebox recovery (passenger fare revenues divided by operating expense) bas declined for fifteen of sixteen systems. Vehicle utilization (vehicle miles per peak vehicle) and employee productivity (revenue hours per employee) have shown increasing trends for eleven and thineen systems, respectively. Another measure of employee productivity, passenger trips per employee, shows a positive trend for only six systems. The average fare from 1984 to 1989 bas increased in only eight systems while the reiDaining eight systems have shown a dec:line. 16

PAGE 40

TABLE IlA1 Statewide Diredlonal Trends In Key Indicators and Measures 1984-1989 PERFORMANCE tNDICATORS Coun!y P opuladoa ' Pas.seager Tripo . '', < ;;). ; ' ,, ,.. . ;w..-.. Vebid .. Operated ill Mmmum Service EFFECTIVENESS MEASUUS EmCIENCY MEASUUS Vebicle Milca Per Pcalt Vellicle ,_,):.<. V : ', .: ' _., 0 'i' "' -'' : .: : ,' 9 7 12 4 ., a o ,, 11 4 9 7 10"' :. :, .. 11 5 10 No Cl>aqoe 0 , .. .. 0 1 0 0 0 NOTE: This table refluu System Total treads ror eacb ageacy, ID thGoe cuca Mlere tbc system totallread is uuvailable (i.e., o/a), tbc trelld for cli:UIIy-operated motorbal, ot fot syszem total crdudiJic purclwe4 mOiorbu&, is used. Treads for PCI"S ODd TRJC are Dot iDduded siAee 1989 wu tbcir 6tsl )'UI or opdalioo, The treAd for SPCf is DOC illduded due to missing uead data. 17

PAGE 41

B. FLORIDA FIXED-ROUTE TOTAL TREND Tables DBl through D-83 and Figures fi-Bl through fi-B21 represent Florida fixed-route total trend in various indicators and measures excluding purchased motorbus (privatization). Similarly, Tables D-84 through D-B6 and Figures D-B22 through D-B32 provide the total trend including purchased motorbus. As indicated in the introduction, indicators and measures which include privatized services have less data available. For that reason, many indicators and measures cannot be reponed. The tables provide the fixed-route total trend for each year from 1984 to 1989 along with the percent change from the beginning to the end of the time period. Selected indicators and measures are also presented graphically. 18

PAGE 42

19

PAGE 43

TABLE 11 Florida Trault S)'llclll To&als Slatcwlclo To&al Ell"cdiYcMss Mca011a (t:.chtdl .. h ...... ased MoiOrbua) uncnviNESS MI!ASIIUS IN4 IllS -.,., -.,., ":,..a.;,; SI!RVICBStii'PLY

PAGE 44

N ... TABU: 11 Florida Trnslt Totals Stalrwlde Total Em, :< $1.l!l ()pt:ntia& l!.aptuc Per PI I 1..,., tao $lUI > Ji... e. . """ ... ... .. ... '" ., l :;, , -........ .. ,_. . ..... ., .. "-... Op OPI!aAnNO RAnG$ Pt .... ..... r..'l..n... It '<* .. "'" :::r ,f ;jJ-<"' '.' . n..:....,_ .. ..;, : J. Sifttlollt. vrw ... IPtMO ,._ :/ VEHIQ.P Unt.JZATION .. .... QIOO). t 3.49 Vdlldc -" Pu Pult VclUde (000) ik."' -'' .. r.t:!Y .. . '" ... ...;: ... Niloo Per Total Vdoid,r.'(<' .. ,.'h.t < t : ; .. : t ,?.f ---.... Opu. l!alflol'o< (000) ... ........ . . ,.. . . Ill 'S ''( < ... ,:.-. .. .c" -c ,' '" . . ... -.. .... ...... ..,,.,,.. ... , .. '1' } >-''1 ................ "'""Y""' z;. , ... . ................... .,. 0.: . \..":2:-t'... :;., ..... __ 0,. . . -;'< I '' "<.. 'Vr I .:.:1" : -., .. WY:. .. ._. ::--: PAitll ,;., ..... .. .,.;._.:.,: '';!.'"' " .. -:"> :;,. .. ......... ,, """' ..... ... ...,.,..-. ... , Hf? . t ,,.. '"' ""'.ill , I 'fl<' f'<: '' ..... . $16U4 $168.00 < '. l h l" S\BI $03) '' t .. s14f ') .>.< , , ... "t $0.31 ; 13.61' ; . : ,. -. $41.221 SSU3 .. : ;!;; >i ' ; ;p.pJ. 82.03'11> f'" " > . I -:.-. i :. :"..,.,_'llll'. '" ... ... 'ff': 160 0$.1 I '. .. ;t i:- "241\'11> .. ' &1.11\5 : .!OJ.S 3.48 > ..... 0-fl 34.69 I )4.36 .. . ., 1.4$ '"'" 1.4.S ,. vi. 1<, ... >:':"" : ''1; > 1...41 1.42 1117 ,,.. '"' ". """L . ; t . : .--It&! I) ., ... . ': ,, .. iolli(, __ $1).40 $0.43 <> ... .. "'. "=&.I;).'L< I < .. .. .... "'. ,,, .. ... ,V'> SSW SSUl .,, .--.. -" I -.,..;; 1 LOI ;: t "tL'..L :10.44\5 74.87'11> $0. 41 :,:S4.oi SSS.11 r :sLIM -" . 2S.&S\5 .. c ... .,. --c,,, 0 :11,91 .. " ..... 7' 34.01'11> i . f,: .... 31&24'11> ... ., 32....... .. 11S\5 >-rip-jc. ,........,,. .u ..... fH ' ..., '> .. ,.J.?UM Y u._.1 ;.' s jJ_.ll 'ji -:--."f.' ],So 3.60 l.SI 0.->"'"0.9i, o.9a .. ;, . >. .. ':'),,,. . "' '" ,.. , 11.69 31M 36.63 &91'11> "' .;; U1 ., ;l.6C 7.061(, U2 -:} "" ) 'M.,<> ,O.'il\l. t;. 1.5S ,,,_ 1),11$ 1.41 > :z.; ; I : < ''..:,_' 4 ,. '':<-!:'!""' -v ,;,_ l:>o-),. "','> .,..:s:, "' .... .'; .. .,..,. 1.1S 6.24 > ,S.-l-'{1, ,,i.. 1 Zl.ll :16.10 :,_ >."i4'i -:. :, ... 192 ... ,..,. -. ,., A "'' I "'-'>< ,',1<',/ .-1.U .. .. l.lll I 1 .61 '. '''.54.Sl "is.n .. ., : lAS ,, .. . .. :_ < _'''' ... ... .. ..sq us Ul I OS I J'' 'rs?.sl ... 27.ZI ..""' ,1.44 3.05 .. .. _. ... '(I 1 __ .--.u" 16S.;; ,)t,:,.t"'--)M: ).99 so,.) r "l so. ...... : < ..... 10.41 $, _.,,._ -f.;,.
PAGE 45

22 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Performance Indicators 0 -, .. -110 40 0 -.. -.. .. ... .. lO 0 -FIGURE U-81 County /Servk: e Atea Population I i ; i I I ' . : i ... ' ' I I ; ' ; I ' FIGURE 11-82 PasaengetTripe I I ! I ' ' i ' i FIGURE 11-83 i i I I ... ' ; ; ' ; -Velllcle Mllea and AfMnue MIIM -. ............... i : : ' : ; i I I I I --IMolt .... ,., -....

PAGE 46

STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Performance Indic ators FIGUR 11 Total Operating Expenae ... ..... .... .-,......-.. ... -.... ,. .. 1011 .. .. FIGURE 11 Pusenger Fare Re-;enueo ... ... +..,_ ----'--------.... ... '"' 1861 ... FIGURE 11-88 Total .. 000---.... .... +-------... ,... ... ..., ..... 23

PAGE 47

24 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Pertonnance fndlc:ators FIGURE U-87 Vehlelea Available and Vehk:lea Operated For Maximum Service ..... t:== -: --: ... -.... .... -

PAGE 48

STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Elfe<:llveness Measures FIGURE 11-68 Vehicle Mi'--Per Cai>Ota FIGURE 119 Paaaenger Tripe Per R........., M i le u+--------------FIGURe 111 0 Awrage AGe of Fleet . 2 0 -25

PAGE 49

26 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Effectiveness Measures FIGURE 11-811 Revenue Milee h:eidenle u.,--------------, u-1-------------------i ... ... ... FIGURE IH!12 RoNenue Mil .. 8e'-1t1 Rolldc:ale I I1 1-------0 ... ./" -. --

PAGE 50

STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Emcle ncy Measures F I GURE 11813 Operating E x p e nae Per C11>ita 111.00 -,. .. .... .. ., ... .... FI G U R E U -814 Operat ing Ex-Per P asa enger Trip ..... 1.10 .6---== -..... i ---------------1 ..... ----.... ----.... .. ... -... ... F IG URE 1 1 Operating Per Alllenue M ile NAOr-------,-------------, auot-----;..... __; ____ -----i .... ........ ..,. .... 27

PAGE 51

28 STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Emdency Measures FIGURE 11-8111 Maintenance EJcgenae Per Reve,.,. Mile ; v . 10.00 10.00 - ' ' ; ' ; .... ,. .. ,.., -FIGURE 11 Farebox Recovery Ratio ------l ... ... -+--,--------1 -+------------+---+-, --1 ........... ..., .....

PAGE 52

STATEWIDE TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Emcleney Measures FIGURE II -B1 9 Rew,.,. H our a Per Emc>loyee ... ... .. ..7 ... ... FIGURE U-B20 Puaenger Tripa Per ... -.. --------------------, 11.000 j----,---... ,. ... I : : : : ... 1101 F IGURE IHI21 A-ageF-i I ! I ; i : : -... I ' ... -2 9

PAGE 53

-; i :11 I IQ ... t j i s ;-t l. !:a ; i I 0 i i J I l l i -8 l "' 30

PAGE 54

I ::E l .= te M' ;Jl ..:. "' l! ..... "' 3. "" ::E .a--ci "ll t::i t: "' i l .! "' i I I i I a J' s I IS s: a :q) l!: .... _,. ., ... a .. :"&-'i' -..,-.r ..... ) . '. :'> . ..... ...,:.<>- o "< .... "' ' _., . : t ,... a .... : w -! t . ;r' : I ,. .. e ... ..,.. l :: ' .. s > I I l . a t i ; J : ; i L l ... . r '. ;( .. > ., < 31

PAGE 55

32

PAGE 56

STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Perfonnance Indicators FIGURE 11-822 County/Service Area PopUlation 12 +-------'... ... ..7 .... ... FIGURE 11823 Pauenger Tripe .. 110 ;==-------------------------. .. r-----------------------FIGURE 11 Vellk:le Mllee and Revenue Milee .. -..... ......... N' u ;-:.:. :..::.: =;;..,..-----1 10 .. ------.----1 ... ... Jltst,......_ 33

PAGE 57

34 STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Performance lndlallon aao ...._ litO FIGURE 1-826 Total Ogeratlng Expenae ----..... """+-----'--,..---------.... .. ... -.... FlGURE 11 Velliclea O!lerated In MaximLrn Service . :-: -... -

PAGE 58

STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Effectiveness Measures 10.0 ... ... ... 0.0 .... FIGURE 11 Vehicle Mllea Per Caoit. .... 1101 .... INI FIGURE 11 Puaenger Tripe Per R..-.e Mile .... 2.1 t===r===,___;,=:::::l::::::=9 1 0 T +-----___..:. __ ........ .,. .... 35

PAGE 59

36 STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Eftlcleney Measures FIGURE A-829 Operating Ex-Pot Capita t1tM+---------------;__---------j ..... \M6 .... ,... .. ... .... FIGURE 11 Operating Ex!leMe Per Paaaenger Trip lt.OO-f---------------..;-----,.---j ..... +----....;.----....;...----.;....---i-----1 ... .... FIG\HI-831 Operating Expenea Pet Aewnue Mile t:uoi----------.. --------1 ..... _______ .., ..... ........ ..,. .....

PAGE 60

STATEWIDE TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Efllclency Measures FIGURE IIB32 Vehicle M l leo Per Peak Vehicle oo,ooor--;--------.,---, a.ooo!=============l oo,ooo+-----'--------,-----4 ... ... ... ... ... ... 37

PAGE 61

STATEWIDE TREND SUMMARY 1. NOTE: It is imponant to note that statewide trends are significantly impacted by the performance of Metro-Dade Transit since this system comprises nearly 40 percent of statewide service and over SO percent of ridership. 2. From 1984 to 1989, the number of passenger trips in Florida increased 11 percenL However, some fluctuations were observed over this time period. Statewide ridership increased gradually from 1984 to 1986, declined slightly in 1987 and 1988, and then bad its largest increase in 1989. In general, the sutewide changes resulted from the offsetting influences of Metro-Dade Transit and the other Florida systems. 3. The amount of transit service provided (revenue miles) increased gradually (21 percent) since 1984. 4. Statewide operating expense increased 52 percent since 1984, primarily due to service expansion and inflation. 5. The number of revenue miles between accidents increased 29 percent since 1984 indicating promising trends in vehicle safety. 6. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls increased 114 percent since 1984 indicating extremely positive trends in vehicle reliability. 7. Although increasing consistently from 1984 to 1988, operating expense per passenger trip appears to be stabilizing in 1988 and 1989 which indicates positive trends in cost containmenL 8. Operating cost per revenue mile increased 28 percent since 1984. Infiation has increased 19 percent. 9. Average fare has risen 19 percent, from 43 cents in 1984 to 51 cents in 1989. It is imponant to recogni:r.e that the calculation of average fare includes full fares as well as discount fares and does not always clearly indicate when changes in fare policy have been made. 38

PAGE 62

III. SYSTEM-BY-SYSTEM TREND ANALYSIS There are three basic organintional structures under which Florida transit systems currently operate: six independent authorities, ten county-affiliated systems, and three city-affiliated systems. All of the systems are governed by some type of Board of Directors or Commission. The Board of Directors for independent authorities are typically comprised of appointed members representing different local entities within the service area. Alternatively, the governing bodies for county-affiliated systems and city-affiliated systems are comprised of members from the county commissions and city councils, respectively. A summary of organizational structures by system is provided in Table ID-1. Table m-2 summarizes the various modes operated by each Florida system. A majority of the systems offer fixed-route motorbus service as well as some type of demand-response service. In addition, Metro-Dade Transit Agency provides rapid rail and automated guideway transit services. Jacksonville Transportation Authority began operating its guideway transit system in June 1989. Tri-County Commuter Rail began operating in January 1989, as well. Each Florida transit system that provides fixed-route service is included in the system-by system trend analysis. A brief system profile is provided for each system prior to the presentation of the trend data. Tables are then provided which include performance indicators, effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures. Specific comments about the data or modifications that were made to the data are also provided. Key indicators and measures are then illustrated graphically. At the conclusion of each system section, interpretative comments are provided to explain significant changes in the key indicators and measures. Abbreviations for Florida's transit systems used throughout the system-by-system trend analysis are provided in Table ID-3. In some cases, the conventional abbreviations were not used in order to achieve graphic:al consistency. 39

PAGE 63

TABLE IIIl Orpnlzational Structures ot Florida Transit Systeau SYSTEM Metro-Dade Transit Aaenc:y Sarasota County Area Traaslt Manatee SD.yma 40 Transit COUN'IY CI'IY AUTHORI'lY

PAGE 64

TABLE 111-l Modes Operated by Florida Transit Syst e m s (198') SYSTE M MetroDade Tl'a a sll A&ency TJUsltblvtsl o a -< .. . JacksoaYille Transportatlo a Aut horit)' . -< Plaellas SUDcoast Transit Aut hority Tri *''? ;.< lYe:$"' ., ..,._t 6 P alm Beach CoUDty Transp Authori ty ,. Tallah assee /l'raiUlt :Authority?, :, :-:1 Rqioul Tnmslt System (GaiDenille) "-. _,.. _: .... .. 't,-:<-' -East Voliisfi'TiUslt Allt laortty Escamb l a Co1111ty Tnmalt Syst em Ue ,;.. .ct Sansota County Ana Transit Maaatee County Tl'anal t - *'.) . : : Smyma 'Inllslt SJRea' __ ,..,._ ..,. ... . ;.::;; l:::C Space Coast Aru Transit (Brnvd Co.) -.. .,... .... .. P Area Traa.ift Sji&aa asco ... ""':"' ,...,._, ___ ,' Trt-County eo-uter Rail Allth o rit)' KEY: MB fixedroute motorbus CR commuter rail RR rapid rail M B CR RR A G { { { , { ;t . { .[ I .[ . .. . { t ... ... 1!;-J' ji, ' ,, . ' :;.. ',t { ., .. ' \ .: ... : 'i' { -' .. < .( .. -.( ,.. .r.: .,._ "'_(, ' .. .. 0' -.:, ....... .:. ... \,. . ., .. .. y ... { 1 ." '.(:': "'" ;. ;;\ '\(, \ .(' .. .. '{j' . .. .(. < i .. ., { I ; .... .... .. :.: 1-... "..f ;:. l 1 ,.,. '*::., ... .. ....... .. -; ]!, ..;..."'"' . ' .f AG automated guideway DR demand-response D R { .[ .[ .[ ... .. .. .( .. .[ .,. :.l .[ . .f. .f ' { .f .. .. .. 4 1

PAGE 65

TABLE lll-3 AbbreY!atloas for F1orlda TraDslt Systems ABBREVIATION SYSTEM 42

PAGE 66

A. METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM PROFILE Orppizatlonal SIIUcture Metto-Dade TrllllSit Agency is a department of Dade County, which is charged with the operation of a unified public uansit systeDL The agency was created on October 28 1 986, a result of the restructuring of the former Metropolitan Dade County TrllllSportation Administration. MOTA is managed by a Director appointed by and responsible to the County Manager. The Director is responsible for the management, construction, and operation of Metrorail, Metrobus, Metromover, and special ttllllSportation systems. Goytm!pe Body and ComgoslllonMOTA is governed by Dade County which is, in effect, a super-municipality with governmental powers effective in the Z1 cities in the county and the unincorporated areas. Dade County has a two-tier, commission-manager, type of government. The Board of County C o mmissioners is comprised of a mayor and eight comm i ssioners all of whom are elected officials serving four-year terms. The County Manager is appointed by this governing body. Service Area MOTA operates within the geographic boundaries of Dade County; however, portions of three bus routes extend into Broward County. Modes Fixed-route motorbus services, purchased motorbus services. purchased demand responsive services, rapid rail transit services, and automated guideway transit services. During the 1 989 fiscal year, MOTA began the construction of a 2.5-mile extension of the existing downtown Metromover system, which is expected to be completed in March 1994, at an estimated total cost of approximately $248 million. Recent Maior Chaaees/SlplOcagl Evenll Recently, a county referendum failed to pass which would have provided Metro-Dade with needed funding. As a result, fare levels have increased with more increases expected in the near future. 43

PAGE 67

44

PAGE 68

i 0 ; '>y. t: .. .. .a s -0 I : a ')'' .. = =:s <_:;.: ... . ... .. ..... ca.;a :;t 8 8 Z a 0 . ::-ia >S t::E h .-' .. :: ....... .> ;.-,-t :Ill < i .. I 5 c;:i (;;>: i' iQ i j ,, ' i 5 ,_:_-a . A . .';!: { '11 2i \')"/< ( "'' "' '-':f ) .. ' > .... 1 .. <:<:.: I t rroJIJ > av. ' . J "' J f !j.. j l! > 45

PAGE 69

I 46

PAGE 70

! i m'i- ... ,.. :!) . '-. 0! a < i a f'!oo ,..; s . a :S::r ..,-' .. ;1:--;. ':; .,.! ,., {,';' .. "" < ,. ., .,, "' I!! . .. -1 i .... ,,.. t -...... .., ... i s= It I t a , r!fi 0 q .. !> ... >:;;; .. :f. ,t 8 j;! ;; i FJ $. 11. ,. ...; \!' a ; r a ,;;;;. ;;.. ;, C> ... :i i J.!l -. ''i i\ ; I ; 1; a -,._ a .... "'f: N -s .. 8 !:! ..... f-1 c! a. i >6 o = i :l', - a r '" !i! "1 .. C> Sl i -I ... -47

PAGE 71

I ifJ ::EJ I I :a.il I l .J .. r. I I .. l ] I 48

PAGE 72

, $ t tj -'l ... ;) -::; ' -;( :;1 -;,; .. I'! 1 a :a ' .. v'' ., .f<'<. a !;; { 'I 49

PAGE 73

!,; . .... ... : . . $ i It j J! 2 I -2 .!1 i ji -. 5 0

PAGE 74

-, . .. < -.. "-:>' t. ;. . )(,. , '; SI, ':* . .. ,... .. -8 ; # '' o s .. N ,: ... -., .. . $' . . :. 51

PAGE 75

VI N URCl1VIHES$ Ml!ASUUS 5eRVICI! SUPft. y TABU III .U Metro-Dade Traosll A&eaq Purcbascd Motorllu Uecti- Moaora .,.. IMS ,.;..'Ji' i/ t.: i,:t!.: .t:t!: ., .. ....

PAGE 76

i .. ; :: "' <' $ r -' .... _., ;_ ..;;-: :t ;';. .. :,:a'Y: ;t. "' *'' .. " ... /"i' i;l;; ;i i '(! ,wt: ... '-1 i: ' ... ,.._ .;.,.> 4 ....... e a .(' .. 1Q .... .. "' "' i ... .: ...... .. ... 53

PAGE 77

n ... I -,.I! ::j H';. s:t' '!;.IIJ..O I! .:. .:. I l .. .:. : ) i

PAGE 78

ErnCri\'IHE$$ MEASU'RES SeAVICB SUPI'L Y :::: TABU: IIIAll Melro-Dade Tnasll Aaeaq AuloODaled Guldtw117 Elfcctl- Measures 1914 I < ,. "!:4;.. > "''-"'<:;,fa 1 ,-;. .4 ..... .-.. -' I .,.. ., . .J, ,.,. ,.Q.OII > 0.71 ; ' . .,., 1.81 9.02 .. 89.<9 .,.. .,., ,o.z:: 0\9: i<:' '---v"' .. I :, - > ,.._;.:.J:n._ ,,_; ,,J.16 , ..... -. . ,. .... ,( "' . .... ' ....... ._,. 1.11 I 9.21 \ ,.c._ ...... .., ;/:. .. ? 0 .18* '.3.&4. <,. 'u1. l:.;.i.;;{, .. o.1o ; :/ I : .. UlO 4 00 I lOOOO'A> }j!J ,. :. AOo>. /#,,,(;""?<'( < . > "'"' :\'),'t' : I I I I .,, > ., ,,, '"I "-'12.S6: .-.l\(t';-.- : I ;'";' lUll.' . '" ... M " l--"]i" r'' ; :. I I

PAGE 79

' I -i! i -I -:! ;!i i! il -I I '3 -{!. J 56

PAGE 80

!1 ,o;. ::1, ,. l!' t: 57

PAGE 81

I! il I i -I j:; i Pip -:El l5 58

PAGE 82

I ; -" ,T' ,, "i .,_ > < I I '. ... < Ci' ....-.... : ,,,. ... < :-.. ,,.. ... : -1 < .......... ....... ...... ....... '"' .. .... .. . ,"( ... { < 59

PAGE 83

I 60 ;:f) ;.: : : ,-. 8:w

PAGE 84

61

PAGE 85

lli i ; i 2 ,., y;:-: i , I -=tS i -..... ... '<.' .. 1(.1 t' ):1 .. I t I , 1 < . ' :1 . i i I I : I I I i :t i . ' ; . .. . . . 62

PAGE 86

.... .. -e 0 -0 :e ... i i I .. = t:e i -d' -! E "' i .. i ; 3 s I Z .1 ; rt o. r .. 63

PAGE 87

! _d I I 64

PAGE 88

. COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Passenger trip length for various modes, 1984-1989 (see table). Year MB Rlt AG 1984 4.38 7.JlS n/a 1985 4.32 8.10 n/a 1.986 4.13 8Z7 0.76 1987 3.89 7.84 0.76 1988 3.73 7.84 0.76 1989 3.8 1 7Jr1 0.86 Wby are motorbus vehicle miles/revenue miles moving in the opposite direction of vehicle hours/revenue hours from 1988 to 1989 (see table)? Molortnla 0a1J 1988 1989 Vohldo Miles 21,373,440 20,886,020 Rntnao Mila 18,508,2A0 18,473,460 Vdoldeftovs 1,610,9SO 1,617,910 RemwtBCMitl 1,498,620 Response: The increase in revenue hours may result from a definition difference. Beginning with 1989, layover time is included in revenue hours as specified by revised UMT A reporting guidelines. Since prior to 1989 layover time was not included in revenue hours, this may explain the increase in revenue hours when there was a decrease in revenue miles. The increase in vehicle hours can be attributed to decreases in average speed which resulted from increased traffic congestion. The number of motorbus roadcalls declined significantly from 4,507 in 1988 to 2,652 in 1989. Is there an explanation for this decline? 65

PAGE 89

Response: There is a combination of factors which contribute to the decrease in the number of roadcaUs: the replacement of old coaches, the refinement of the UMT A criteria for detennining the reponabillty of a roadcall incident depending on wbether or not service is interrupted, and the improvement in the management of roadcaUs by meeting a bus with the service truck at a scheduled layover point and inserting a replacement bus. The amount of purchased motorbus service increased significantly in 1989; however, the number of MBP vehic:les declined from 71 vehic:les in 1988 to 41 vehicles in 1989. Why? Response: The initial numbers sent to MDT A for review were incorrect. The number of purchased motorbus vehic:les in 1989 was changed from 41 to 72. In addition, the number of vehicles available and operated for maximum service in 1988 was changed from 71 to 24. When the correct numbers are inserted for 1988 and 1989, the resulting relationship between purchased service and vehicles is c:onsistenL For direc:tly-operated motorbus. the data indicate a fairly significant increase in employment between 1988 and 1989. What accounts for this change? Response: The figures reported in Section 15 do not represent employees; they represent employee equivalenL In 1988, the number of employee equivalents was developed from full-time employee counts and did not represent the impact of pan-time employees or overtime hours worked. In 1989, the MOTA reporting mechanism was improved to represent work hours divided by 2080, including pan-time and overtime hours. For direc:tly-operated motorbus, in general, the number of administrative employees has increased from 1984 to 1989 while the number of non-administrative employees is below 1984 levels. Did employee daific:ation definitions change or is there an explanation for this change such as an increase in privatization? Response: The total number of employee equivalents has generally decreased since 1985. The decrease in non-administrative employee equivalents has been due to both service reductions since 1984 and MDTA allocation adjustments. The increase in administrative employee equivalents is due to allocation adjustments made by MDTA. What explains the large discrepancy in the percent in passenger trips, vehic:le miles, and operating expense for purchased motorbus? The percent change in passenger 66

PAGE 90

trips is significantly greater than the percent change in either vehicle miles or operating expense. Response: The initial numbers provided to MDT A for review excluded the purchased motorbus provided by the provider with more than fifty vehicles. When these numbers are included, the relationship between vehicle miles and operating expenses is consistent from 1988 to 1989. The discrepancy in the increases in passenger trips is explained by the nature of the service purchased. In 1988, the purchased motorbus service was predominantly service to suburban areas with low ridership. In December 1988, the Private Enterprise Participation Project was implemented resulting in the contracting of transit service on five main-line routes with large ridersbips. What accounts for the significant decline in the number of rapid rail administrative employees between 1988 and 1989? Response: Total number of employee equivalents bas not changed; however, a reallocation of slaff hours by MDT A bas shifted classifications from administrative to non-administrative. Wbat explains the dramatic change in the number of automated guideway maintenance employees between 1988 and 1989? Response: The reallocation of slaff boun has also affected the classification of employees for automated guideway and has resulted in a shift from administrative to non administrative classifications. In additioa, MDT A terminated the maintenance contract with Westinghouse and hired In-house maintenance slaff in 1989. Wby did automated guideway vehicle miles per lcilowatt hour increase significantly from 1988 to 1989? Response: The numbers provided for MDTA review were incorrect. The corrected numbers result in a consistent ratio from 1988 to 1989. What accounts for the near doubling of automated guideway vehicle miles from 1988 to 1989? 67

PAGE 91

Response: The numbers provided for MDT A review were incorrect. The corrected numbers show a slight decrease. Why did rail revenue and vehicle hours increase so much more than revenue and vehicle miles from 1988 to 1989? Response: In 1989, rail revenue hours, like motorbus, increased as a result of the change in UMT A reporting guidelines requiring that layover time be included in the revenue hours. In addition, system operating speed was decreased as a result of single-tracking operation required during the construction of the Tri-Rail Station. The c:alc:ulated average age of rail fleet increases from 3 years in 1988 to S yean in 1989. 68 This is not possible. Is there an explanation for this inconsistency? Response: The year of manufacture for all rail vehicles is 1984. In the Section 15 repon for 1988, MOTA incorrectly reponed the year to be 1985. Therefore, in 1988, the average age of the fleet was four years and five years in 1989.

PAGE 92

METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTQRBUS PerformaD\\e l11dlcat o n ... -... ... ... ... ... -.. .. 0 .. I I I ' ! ' : j I AGURE UI-A1 County Population I 1 i ' ' -FIGURE W-A2 ParungerT,._ I : I ' ' I FIGUII! a.-A3 I I i ' i . Vehicle lola. and Rive ..... Mille ; ; \ .. I -I I I i ! I I ! . ----...... .............. ... .... -69

PAGE 93

70 METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Performance lndfcaton FIGURE III-A4 Total Operating Ex-.... .. ... ........ ' ...... .,... .. ..... ... ... ol---------------------1 .... ... 0 0 j ' ' ' I I FIGURE Ae Total Emplo,.ee ' 0 : ' : -... 0 I i ' ' I I ... -

PAGE 94

METRO.DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYS'l'EM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Perfol'lll8Dce Jndlcaton F I G URE Ill-A 7 Velllclea A vai lable and Vehiclea Ope
PAGE 95

72 METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYS'I'EM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Effectiveness Mea511res .... .... ... ... ... ... ' i I F IGURE IIIA8 Vehicle Mile Per Capita I I I ' ' ; I ' ; .... .... ... I I ' i I FIGURE III-AI p_., TriQa Pw A--Mile r----------------------------, i ; +---;__ ........ .., ..... .I I I . I ' FIGURE Ill-A 10 .....,,...Ate of Fleet """' ' : ...,.. I I I . .... -

PAGE 96

METRo-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Eaectlnness Measures FIGURE Ill A 1 1 R-nue Milee Bet-en Accidents 20.000 v 1.000 0 -' A ' I I ... : : ' ; i .. .. .... FIGURE III-A12 Re>enue Mile Be-Roadcalle 1-0 -i -: . -: ' : / --/__ .. ---:-........ .. -' .... ... -73

PAGE 97

74 METRO.DADE TRANSIT AGENCY stSI"EM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORB U S Emde ncy Measures -IO.DO -FIGURE III-A13 Opetatlng Expenae Per / ; i ; i I I ; i i I \ i ' ' ; : t ... ... ... FIGURE IllA '14 Operating expen .. Per l'eaaenoer Trill 00.71 +----;---...;-----+-----'-----1 FIGURE UI-A16 Cil*allnO Ex- Per An. .. ..,.,.,..,. Mle ... .. ..

PAGE 98

ME I RO.DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Emcleacy Measures FIGURE liiA18 Maintenanc:
PAGE 99

76 METRo-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL EXCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Emdenc:y Measures 1,000 710 ... .... 0 FIGU RE II-A18 RIWnue Houno Per EtnpioyM i ' ; I ' i I I I i I ' I i ' ' --FIGURE IU-A20 ,...__ Trtpa Per EoEmmll)b.-,..,,..,. -... ... ... .. .. ' I I ' I I / I -' I -' ' ' -. -.. .. -

PAGE 100

METRo-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Perfoi'II18Jlce Indicators :1.0 .... ... OJ) -.. -.. .. .. -.. . . . . j l ; I l ' -: i : I ' FIGURE Qh\22 County Populat ion ' I ; ; ; : : -F I GURE III-A23 Pteenger Trtoe ; I I I i ; : . -.. FIGURE III-A24 ' -1 ' ' I ' -.... ' . ' . i I Vehicle liCHee and flew.-1\CIIee ......... . .. .. .. ............. ... ------.................... .. ...... n

PAGE 101

78 METRO.DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Paformuce lndlcaton 1180 ....... FIGURE IU-A211 Total Operating Ex- .......... 1110 _.,. ..... I ... ... ... .... ... "' I I i I . ; I ... -..., FIGURI! UI-A21S I I i .............. I i ' ; I ' : .., --

PAGE 102

. METRo-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Eft'ediveD.ess Measures FIGURE III-A27 Vehicle MiiH Per Capita ... ... ... ... "" 1 .. FIGURE UI-A28 Pulenger Tripe Per Mlle ........ ..,. .... 79

PAGE 103

80 ME I RO.DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS Ellldeney Measures FIGURE Ill-AU Olletating Exl)enM Per CaQita : 1 I l ../'i I --1--" I : l : ' ! ' I I l ' I : .. o ... I i ... ... ... FIGURE IUA30 Operating Ex-Per P-anger Trip -.... IUO .,.. -... ...... ... I I i i I I I ' ' : ' : : : -' ' --FIGURE .A31 ()pet .. alll.. Ex!** Per ........... . I ; ; ! I I : ; I I I I ... --... ... -

PAGE 104

METRO-DADE TRANSIT AGENCY SYSTEM TOTAL INCLUDING PURCHASED MOTORBUS EmcienqMeasures -h ... ... .. ...... -..... -' j ' ' I FIGURE DI-A3 2 Farebox Rec....,y Ratio i ' ___..... I ; ' I ' ' ' ' ' ; ... ... ... FIGURE IR-A33 A--Fate / ----.... -81

PAGE 105

MDTA SUMMARY 1. The decrease in passenger ttips from 1987 to 1988 is partially a result of an increase in fares in late 1987. Despite this ridership decline, passenger fare revenues increased significantly. This OUrred because the increase in fares more than offset the decline in passenger ttips resulting in an overall increase in passenger fare revenues. 2. The number of passeoger trips increased significantly from 1988 to 1989 as a result of stable fares and increased revenue miles of service. 3 The nnmboer of employees declined significantly from 1986 to 1988 with the decline being primarily comprised of a decrease in motorbus employees. Aa:ordlog to Metro Dade, this decline was caused by employee allocation adjustments and some service reductions resulting from increases in privatized motorbus services. 4. The number of employees increased significantly from 1988 to 1989. Metro-Dade indicated that, beginning in 1989, part-time workers and overtime were included in the calculation of fulltime equivalents. Prior to 1989, the parttime workers and overtime hours were not a part of the employee reporting procedure. S. The number of vehicle miles per capita provided by directly-operated service declined from 1988 to 1 989. When vehicle miles per capita provided by purc:hased motorbus is included in the system total, this measure attually increases. 1bls indicates that a portion of the directly-operated service is being replaced by contrac:ted service. 6. From 1987 to 1988, passeoger ttips per revenue mile significantly declined whieb reflec:ts the reduction in ridership discussed in #1. Revenue miles of service also increased from 1987 to 1988, further contributing to the decline in passenger trips per revenue mile. 7. The number of reYenue miles between accidents increased significantly from 1984 to 1985 and 198S to 1986. No explanation for this trend was identified. 8. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls significantly increased over the entire time period. Prior to 1988, a non-Section lS roadcall definition was used at Metro Dade for the recording of roadcalls, according to the agency. The roadcall reporting definition was correc:ted in 1988 data and thereafter to reflec:t the UMTA definition and 82

PAGE 106

resulted in significant improvements in per!onnance. A funher increase in r evenue miles between roadcalls in 1989 was indicated by Metro-Dade to be attributed to : (1) the replacement of aging coaches, (2) funher refinement of UMTA roadcall definition, and (3) improvements in the management of roadc:alls, i.e. providing a replacement bus at a layover point to eliminate disruptions of service. 9 Operating expense per capita incr eased significantly from 1984 to 1986 due to operating expense rising at a much greater rate than county population. The majority of th e increase in operating expense was caused by the swtup and expans io n of rap id rail s e rvi ce and th e addition o f automated guideway in 1986. 10. From 1984 to 19 87, maintenan ce expense per r evenue mile increased significantly. Once aga i n, the increase in expense can be primarily attribute d to swtup and service expansion in rapid rail. The increas e s in maintenance expense for motorbus service was minjmaJ. 11. The increase in maintenance expense per revenue mil e fr o m 1 984 to 1987 was followed by a significant d e cline from 1987 to 1988. This incr ease in maintenance productivity can be attributed to refinlllg the newly-operating rapid rail system and a d e clin e in the average age of Metro-Dade motorbus ve hicl es from 6.5 years in 1987 to 5.1 years in 1 988. 12 The far ebox recovery ratio gradually declined from 1984 to 1987 due to operating expenses increasing at a greater rate than passeng e r fare revenues. No exp lanation for this trend could be id entified. 13. Farebox recov ery increased from 1 987 to 1988 due primarily to the system wide fare incr eases discussed in # 1. 1 4 The number of revenue boura per employee increased signifi cantly from 1986 to 1988 due to the dediDe in total employees discussed in #3 along with a modest increase in revenue miles of service. 83

PAGE 107

this page IS blank

PAGE 108

B. BROWARD TRANSIT DIVJSION SYSTEM PROFILE Orpgizatlonal Strgctwe The Broward County Mass Transit Division is a divis ion of the Broward County Public Services Dcpanment Goveminl 8o4x and Comgosl!lon The Transit Division is governed by the Board of County Commissioners for Broward County, which is comprised of seven elected district representatives. Sea!ce Area The service area covered by the system inctudes Broward County, Nonb Dade County (Nonb Miami Beach, Carol City), and South Palm Beach County (Boca Raton). Modes The system currently provides fixed-route motorbus service as well as contracti.n& for some services such as social service transpOrtation which provides door-to-door transportation for qualified elderly and handicapped persons in the area and Tri-Rail Commuter Rail feeder bus service. Recent Major Eyents Major changes in service facilities from 19841988 inctude a new bus garage and operating facility located in Pompano Beach (operational 1984) and a new transfer fac:ility in downtown Fon Lauderdale (operationa11990). Other major events that may bave affected system performance include the reconstruction of Interstate 95 which began in mid-1989 and the stan-up of Tri-Rail Commuter Train Service which began operatiag in January 1989. 8S

PAGE 109

. i .... I ..r -= = ;-iii ll! i j! :: I I ... 86

PAGE 110

87

PAGE 111

88

PAGE 112

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). Why does trip length vary so significantly from year to year? 1984 S.48 198S 4ZT 1986 us 1987 s.os 1988 S.44 1989 4.69 Response: The significant variation of trip length may be attn'buted to variations in the sampling techniques used to calculate the ridership statistic:s. In 1988, Broward County Transit began employing the UMTA circular 2710.4A technique (revenue-based sampling). In addition, lac k of familiarity with the proper sampling procedures may have caused some of the fluctuations as weU. Why do passenger trips and passenger miles move ill opposite directions from 1988 to 1989 (see table)? Can this be explained by the change in passenger trip length? Yeu Puocaaer Tripi Pu-..MDea 1988 13,797,650 75,(128.480 191!1 14,4W"l Response: The ezplntiOD provided for the inconsistency in trip length also applies to the inconsisteDCy in passenger trips and passenger miles. Broward County Transit believes stroJIIIy thai the reported 1989 passenger miles of 67,589,570 is low. No explanation bas been determined other than the po$Sibillty of sampling errors. Motorbus vehicle miles, reveuue miles, and revenue hours all increased from 1988 to 1989 while vehicle hours declined (see table}. Why? 89

PAGE 113

Motoo11ea 1911 1919 VaJdeMIIII 9,618,710 9,682,Sl0 llaftaMIIII 8,910,7SO 8,973,210 VaJdeHan 654,250 649, 760 a-.. Han 637,110 638,700 RespoDSe: BROW provided corrected numbers for 1988 vehicle and revenue hours which eliminate this inconsistency. Vehicle hours (1988) were changed from 654,250 hours 10 638,301 hours. Revenue hours (1988) were changed from 637,110 hours to 611,928 hours. Passenger fare revenues decline significantly from $6,454,480 in 1988 to $5,844,630 in 1989. Wby did this oc:c:ur if ridership increased over this same time period? RespoDSe: BROW provided corrected numbers which eliminate this inconsistency. Passenger fare revenues for 1988 were changed from S6,4S4,480 to $5,581, 1S4. Passenger fare revenues for 1989 were changed from $5,844,630 to $5,751,696. The corrections result in an increase in fares of $169,942 as opposed to the decrease indicated previously. Wby did the number of vehicles operated in maximum service increase from 132 vehicles in 198810 199 vehicles in 1989 when vehicle miles of service remained vinually the same and the spare ratio in 1989 is only 5 percent? RespoDSe: BROW again provided corrected numbers. The number of vehic:les operaled in manmum service in 1988 was 2f17 while the m1mber in 1989 was 196. The number of roadcaDI dfdlned from 4,897 in 1988 to 4,195 in 1989. Why? No explantiOil was provided by the agency. 90

PAGE 114

BRO W ARD TRANSIT D I VIS ION Performuce la dlcaton 1 .1 ........ ..., 10; I I I I .,. ..,........, v tO 0 .. : FIGURE 111 County Population I I I ' I I i ' i I I I FIGURE 111-82 p_,.,r,;p. I ""' : "-.L -. FJGUMB3 I ' -. I I ''elllcll ... n ne ..... MIIM . -....... ====4 ...... . .. . .. . .. 0 ... -__....._ Asaw.91

PAGE 115

92 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Performaac:e Iadleators ... ,., .,. FIGURE 111-8 4 T otal ep.ratlng Ex-........... -.... ... ... .., ... tiM .. F IGURE 111-811 Paeunger Fate .. .. ... ... 'IMf .. .. ae .. ---1111--

PAGE 116

BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Pedormance lndlc:aton FIGURE 111-B 7 Velliclu A vai lable and Ve l\lclu Ol:>efate
PAGE 117

94 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVIS I ON ElrecttveDeSs Measures FIGURE 0 1 Vehicle Ml lea "-<' C &lllta ...... ?: .... F IGURE IIHI9 Pul8ng Tripe "-<' R_,.. Mile v ... ... ... ---' 0.0 -. ""'-: : ' -... FIGURE I IHI10 Average loqe of FIHI .. ... ' ' I : ' I I ; . -! ; ' . ' I i ' ' --

PAGE 118

BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION E11'ectlveness Measures FIGURE IU-811 R ... ....., Mllea Between Accldenta 2'-000 "" 0 ... ..... ""'-I : I ' ' : ... ... 1H1 -FIGURE 111-812 Revenue Mllea BetMen Roldcalla .... I -0 ... ' : : --. ' ---95

PAGE 119

. 96 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Emcleacy Measllftl NOJIO nuo ..... ...... OOJIO -FIGURE 111-813 Operatng Ex-Per Ca4lita ' ' ' --' ' I I ' ' ; ' ' ' I ' ' -FIGURE 111-814 -... Operating ExpenM Per ..__ Trip ..... --. / ' ...... ' ' ' > . ----.. oo.n . .., FIGURE W-816 Operating ex-Per Mile ; . ' -' ' i ' I I ' I I t&.OO i ... .., --

PAGE 120

BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION Emdeucy Measures FIGURE 01818 Maintenance Expenee Per Revenue Mile -.... -.... .... ... .,.. -,. .. ... ,. .. FlOOR IU BTT Fatebox Reccwry Ratio ' . i ' . --4: -......... .., .... 97

PAGE 121

98 BROWARD TRANSIT DIVISION EftlcleDC)' Measures ... 0 ... FIGURE 111-81& 114M,... Hount !' Employee i ' ' ' ; I ' ' i ! ' ' ' i i i ' J ' ... -.., ... F IGURE ID-820 Pueenget Tripe !' Emplo)w / : I 0 .. ... 10.00 -' ' -' ' ' ... ""': I ' ' ' ; ' ' I i : ' ' ' ... -

PAGE 122

BROW SUMMARY 1. Ridership Ouctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1987. According to the agency, possible explanations for the fiuc:tuations include sampling errors, seasonal fiuc:tuadoos, and a general lack of famillarity with the proper sampliDg procedure$. However, the significant dliDe in ridership from 1986 to 1987 is primarily a rcsult of a SO percent fare increase from SO cents to 7S cents 2. Passenger fare revenues incr eased significantly from 1986 to 1987 due to the SO perce nt increase in the run cash fare referred to in #1. The i ncrease in fares more than offset the d
PAGE 123

9. Despite declining ridenhip, farebox recovery improved from 1 986 to 1987 due to the fare increase while the subsequent decline in farebox recovery in 1988 is attributed to the increase in reduced-fare ridership alluded to in #8. 10. The significant decline in vehicle miles per peak vehicle observed from 1987 to 1988 resulted from the increase in the n umber of peak vehicles reponed. The agency reported 154 peak vehicles in 1987 while 207 peak vehicles were reponed in 1988. 100

PAGE 124

C. JACKSONVILLE TRANSIT AUTHORI'JY SYSTEM PROFILE Omnlza!lonal StractuR Jacksonville Transportation Authority is an independent authority Govemlnc Body and Comgosldon The Authority is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of seven members: three arc appointed by the Governor of Florida; three are appointed by the Mayor of Jacksonville; and the Florida Department of Transportation Region Secretary is automatially appointed. Serriec Area The Jacksonville systelll provides transportation services in Duval County. Modes This includes fixed-route 111otorbus services, demand-response services, and, most recently, the first phase of the Automated Skyway Express (operational June 1989). The second phase of the guideway system is scheduled for completion in 1995. Recent MaJor Cbanas/Siplftcant Eyents In 1984, J&cksonville underwent a major route rcsuucturing, the puzpose of which was to increase the speed of services. Despite an intense marketing and cduc&tion campaign, it is believed that the route rcsaucturi.ng has played a contributing role in the decline of system ridership. 101

PAGE 125

J .. i j r li I i ill 2 I li li I i5 102

PAGE 126

bj i '5. -s-I =U ilf i IJ i 103

PAGE 127

l:'i h ; ;ii o (o'd i a !! ; I 104

PAGE 128

I i J I .. lOS

PAGE 129

d i = 106

PAGE 130

ii,. ... ,;;(e. .;,:: .<. I tr 1 ;. ; t .. ; 1 :s< .-..., .. > . < 1 07

PAGE 131

! =l! i j:E 11 f-!+--__;__"'---'" ""! a I V U :a.(i{ . .. 108

PAGE 132

! ' -!!::& Q!j I =t -t aJ_ i :!! ,., n -"o -.. I -109

PAGE 133

b i Ji ...... ....,l; -+-110

PAGE 134

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passeoger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). Values for 1984-1988 were adjusted in previous report. 1984 5.22 1985 5.22 1986 5.22 1987 5.22 1988 5.22 1989 s.as Wby did motorbus vehic:le miles increase from 1988 to 1989 when motorbus revenue miles decreased from 1988 to 1989 (see table)? Year Vebide Miles Miles 1988 6,0S6,620 5,96',0211 1989 6,12A,GXI 5,782,ll0 Response: JXTA provided correct number for 1988 revenue miles. The number changed from 5,964,020 to 5,752,706. Wby did motorbus passenger miles increase significantly from 41,916,100 in 1988 to 46,846,670 in 1989 while motorbus passenger fare revenues decreased from $4,409,320 in 1988 to $4,328,510 in 1989? Response: Revisions in tbe fare poUcy contributed to this trend: a weekly discount pass was offered &Dd fares for tbe elderly (age 60 and over) were eliminated. Why was tbere a significant increase in tbe number of motorbus employees in 1989? Total motorbus employees increased from 374.6 to 402.6, an increase of 28 employees. Of tbe 28, 23.6 were transportation operating employees. Response: JXTA Indicated that employee data was incorrect in 1988. Transportiltion 111

PAGE 135

operatiog employees should be changed from 252.2 to 268.2 whidl results in an increase in total employees in 1988 from 374.6 to 390.6. 1989 employee numbers are correc:t. Is there an explanation for the signific:ant decrease in the m1mber of motorbus vehicles operatiog in maximum service from 165 in .1988 to 138 in 1989? Response: JXT A indicated \bat the number of motorbus vehicles operated in mnimum service was reported incorredly in 1988. The 1988 figure should be c:banged from 165 to 138. As a result. there is no change in vehicles operated in maximum service from 1988 to 1989. Why did motorbus roadcalls increase from 1,252 in 1988 to 1,795 in 1989? Response: A new maintenance manager was hired and a new definition for roadcalls was used. It is believed that the number of roadcalls was underestimated in 1988. NOTE: Partial year of Automated Guideway data included in spreadsheeL 112

PAGE 136

JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performance lndlcaton --... ... 200 0 ... -,. I I 0 : ; i i I ' ' ... ; ; I I ' ' FIGURE III-C1 County POI)Uiallon I ; I : ' I i I I I ' .. .. -FIGURE 111-<:2 p, .. ,._ Tr!Qe ' ; I ! I I . .. ; -FIGURE III-C3 ' ; 1 ' ; ... ' ' I VeNcte Mttea llld Mille .-! i . 1 i -----...................... ... 113

PAGE 137

114 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTAnON AUTHORITY Perfoi'IIWice lnclkaton F lOUR III-C4 Total Opvatlng Ex-uo-... f:::;;:; _:;; __ ;; ,_;:; _ ;:; __ ;:: __ :; __ :;:_; __ :: __ :::: __ ::: __ :::_ :: __ __ :: __ :: __ :=:' __ _::_:-: __ ': .. =:' .. 9. .......... .., ... ..... ..... .. .. .. .... ... aao ... 0 i i I I FIGURE 111-Ce . I I ' .... I I i --

PAGE 138

JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Perfoi'IIWice IJidlcaton FIGURE 111-CT Velliclea Available and Vehlclea Operated FCI Maximum Service .... ----... ---- +------'---------------.,-----l 1N4 ... ... ..., ... t ._.. ... ._...._ V.tlalea ap.ra_. 115

PAGE 139

116 JACKSONVILl.E TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ElrectlYelless Measures FIGURE w-ca Vehicle Mllee ,.., CApita 1M4 ... ,... 1HT 11U 11M FIGURE 111-ce 1'11111._ Tripe Par Mile ........ .,. .... t l 0 -' i I I : ' : -. . . ' I I ' I -

PAGE 140

JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Elrectlvcaess Measures ...... ...... v ...... 12,000 0 ... ..... FIGURE 10-<:11 R-nue Mile Bet ... en Accidenta ' ' -"' i I . ' ' . I ... .... .... -FIGURE 111-<:12 ..... Mil .. Be-Aoodeala ' / : ..... 0 -... ' . ... -117

PAGE 141

118 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Emdeac:y Measures 021.00 121.00 lf4.00 ...... FIGURE DI-C13 Operating Expenaa Per Capita ; I i I I I I -: ' j ; ' I ; i I I I I ! l . ; ... -... FIGURE IIIC14 Operating ExPer Pauenger Trtp -..... ...... +-------.,---,...----i----1 ......... .., ..... F1G\JRE lii-C15 OlloH111n0 Ex-Per n... ... Mile -: ; -' I ..... I . ' : ....... i l I I : ' ' ' ; ...... : . ! ---... -

PAGE 142

JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EllldeDq Measures FIGURE III-C18 Maintenanc e Per Flew,... Mile --i I IIOAOf----"-1 ----'-' : I ; ; ... ; ... .... ... -FIGURE 111-c11 F.,.box ReCOYef)' Rallo nt--'------------1 ....... ..,. .... 0 I -........ . : -' ; I ' / I I I : : I ' I i . --119

PAGE 143

120 JACKSONVILLE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Ellldency Measures ..... 110 ... ... FIGURE III-C1 8 i ' I ' . ' ' ; ' I ' ' ' I ; ' ' ; ' I I t : .. ... FIGURE AI-C20 .... -----__ _. ____ __ _. ____ -... ... ------

PAGE 144

JXTA SUMMARY 1. After experiencing gradual in ridership from 1984 to 1988, a slight increase was achieved in 1989. The increase can be attributed to ridership on the newly-established automated guideway system. The decline in passenger trips from 1987 to 1988 resulted from sampling procedure problems identified by the agency in their 1988 Section 15 report. 2. Passenger fare revenues gradually declined over the entire time period due to declines in ridership, the implementation of a discounted weekly pass, and the provision of free service to the elderly. 3. Significantly fewer accidents were reported in 1985 than in 1984 and 1986 resulting in an unusually high number of revenue miles between accidents in 1985. No explanation could be identified. 4. The number of roadcalls fluctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1989 resulting in inconsistent revenue miles between roadcalls. A majority of these fluctuations cannot be explained; however, the significant increase in road calls (decline in revenue miles between roadc:alls) from 1988 to 1989 can be attributed to the hiring of a new maintenance manager who instituted a new roadc:all definition. The agency indicated this new definition is consistent with UMT A requirements. The definition used prior to 1989 was believed to result in an underreporting of roadc:alls. S. Operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile all indicated significant increases from 1988 to 1989. During this time, operating expense in.c:reased at a rate much greater than population, ridership, and revenue miles of service. A portion of the increase in operating expense can be aTtributed to the newly-establisbed automated guideway system discussed in #1; however, no other explanations could be identified. 6. The farebox recovery ralio bas continually declined from 1984 to 1989 since operating expenses have risen and passenger fare revenues have declined. As indicated in #5, the increase in operatina expense can only partially be explained; however, several factors contributed to the dec:line in passenger fare revenues as discussed in #2. 121

PAGE 145

1 22 this page IS blank

PAGE 146

D. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Orpn!zallonal Slr!lctl!re Hillsborough Area Regional Transit is an independent authority. Goremin1 Bocb' agd Comgosllloa HART is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of ten members: four representing Hillsborough County, three representing the city of Tampa. one representing the city of Templ e Terrace, and two representing the state of Florida. Seaice Area HART serves all of Hillsborough County exduding Plant City. Modes HART provides only fixed-route motorbus to the service area indicated above. Contracted services indude some vehicle and facility maintenance, janitorial service, and other minor services. Res:cnt MaJor Cbua/Sim!Ds;ant Ennts From November 1985 to October 1989, HART was in the process of constructing the Marion Street Transit Parkway. Route expansion and refinement bas been postponed in anticipation of coordinating any route restructures with the opening of the transit way. 123

PAGE 147

riUOtiW'ICIINDIC.lTOIIS ... / TABLE IIIDl Hllbboroucb Alu tsl...a Trault l'af--IJIS "" ..., ,,.,

PAGE 148

i a I 125

PAGE 149

126

PAGE 150

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip Iengei!, 1984-1989 (see table) Values for 1985 were adjusted in previous report. 1.934 4.27 1985 4 40 1986 4.48 1987 4.30 1988 4.22 1989 4.lS From 1984-1988, the number of ro u te miles bas ranged from 770 to 800 miles. The number of route miles in 1989 is reponed as 1,515.70 Why? Response: AD adjusted niunber was provided in an updated Section 15 report. The number of route miles was cllanged from 1,515.70 route miles to 837 route miles. Why is there a significant increase in the number of employees from 1988 to 1989 (see table)? 'lftupoNU y-()pen!llll MaJ.tmMI Admfphtftdft Tocal ..... ,..,_ Em pi-1911 Z7S.OO 69.00 38. 00 38200 1919 307.10 74.110 42.30 414.20 Response : The sipificant increase in employees is a result of the ac:quisition of ap p roximately 20 new buses. The number of vehicles available for maximum service increased from 175 in 1988 to 194 in 1989 127

PAGE 151

128 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT .. .... ... .... -. 0 -.... Performance Indicators I ' ... FIGURE 111-01 County Population ' ' ' i I ; I I F IGURE Ul-02 P._ilger Tripe i I ' i 1 l .-! ; I ' I ' ' ! ' I ' I l I . i I i -FIGURE -.oa v.Ncle M ... and "-"-Mllea i . I I l I t r r t i .... .... ... I i 1 I : I ... -.......... Rase--. -

PAGE 152

HillSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Perlormuce Indlcaton F IGURE 111-04 Total Operating E.xgenae 120T 110 ..... ... ... .., ... ,... F IGURE Ul-06 Paaunger Fano R... .... 120 -. . \ \ -.. FIGURE ar-oe Totll ' ; I ' ' ., --; I \ I I ' l --129

PAGE 153

130 HillSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Performance lndlcaton FIGURE UID7 Velllclee Avallallle and VelllciH O!lerated F Maximum Servlca . ... -...... -------.---... ----.. --. ... 11M ... ... ..., ... .. tJ
PAGE 154

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Elrectlveness Measures .... ... f-' ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0.0 ... .-' ' I : FIGURE 111-08 Vehicle Mllea Pw C apita ' : ' ' I i ... .... .... ' i ' FIGURE lllo09 Paaaenger T ri pe Pet R_,.. Mi le -i I __... ' ' -1 I ' ' ' I i : ' i ; : : ... FIGURE IUD10 A-.ge Al,le of Fleet I 1 ' ' i : --! i : ' :........--, 0 ... ' i I -' ' i i i ' ' I I --131

PAGE 155

132 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Etrectlveuess Measures FIGURE UI-Q11 Mil" Be-h:eldenta ........ ' ' I /! i ' v I ' -........ 7 .000 -..... ... -! i ; i I I . I I . I I -FIGURE W-Q12 Fle'
PAGE 156

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT EmdeDCY. Measures FIGURE 01-013 Operating Per Capita . ' ' ' ....... ; ' ' N.OO ' I i i I ' I ' ' -, ... ... ... -FIGURE 111 Operating ExpenM Per Puaenger T r ip ; ' ; ; ' ' ' ! I ' ' . ..... ..... ' -' i ' --... FIGURE 111-015 QMrallng E>tpenM Per Revenue Mile -' I l .... ' . . : ... ' i I I I I I I ' \ I . i I . ..... -... -... -133

PAGE 157

134 HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Eftlclency Measures ..... ..... ..... -FIGURE III-D1e Main-Ex- Pat R--M i le ' ' ' I ' I ; j i ' ' I I ; ' : I l ; i i I I ... -.. ... i i FIGURE III-D11 Fatebox ' ' i I i I .... ... ... .. ' i I ' ' ... I ; I i j ! I ' i ' ' I FIGURE -o1e v.lolcle ...... ,., PNk v.lolcle -.......... 0 i ' I 1 ... I I I 1 I I . ; -! ' I i l i I I I i -

PAGE 158

HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT Emdency Measures 1.200 ... -0 FIGURE 111-019 Revenue Hour. Per Emoloyee ' . : ,/' ' ; I ' I l I ' l ; ; ' ' ... .... ... ... FIGURE 111-o20 "-Tril>a Per Emoloyee 11-t---:---------'----; ........ .., ..... ' ' ' ; ' ; ' I ; .... to.tl j i i i l I : ' i ' I ' -... ... ... 135

PAGE 159

HART SUMMARY 1. Passeager trips reponed from 1 985 to 1987 were adjusted to better reflect aA:tua1 ridership based on farebox c:ounts sinc:e reponed numbers appeared to be higher than actual due to sampling problems. Tbe &ignificant increase from 1988 to 1989 is attributed to c:ontinuing sampling problems. However, the agency indicated that an inc:rease in revenue miles of service along with shoner headways may have c:ontributed to inc:reased ridership in 1989. 2. Passenger fare revenues increased from 1984 to 1985 due primarily to an inc:rease in passeager trips. However, from 1985 to 1986, fare revenues c:ontinued to inc:rease despite stable ridership and no fare inc:reases. No explanation was identified. 3 A significant decline in employees was observed from 1987 to 1988 and is believed to be an employee classification inc:onsistency in reporting possibly related to the treatment of pantime labor and overtime. Tbe subsequent increase in employees in 1989 can be attributed to the need for additional employees to operate and maintain twenty new buses added to the existing fleeL 4 From 1988 to 1989, passeager trips per revenue mile increased significantly as a result of the inc:rease in passenger trips described in # 1. S. The number of accidents was abnormally high in 1985 causing an obvious dip in revenue miles between accidents. No explanation was identified. 6. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls inc:reased significantly from 1985 to 1987. 1bis may be attributed to the declining age of the vehicle fleet (from 4.4 to 4.1 years), but may also be impacted by cbanges in definitions used by the system. 7. Operating expense per passenger trip inc:reased gradually from 1984 to 1988 with a sudden dediM in 1989 Tbe sudden decline is a result of the significant inc:rease in ridership in 1989 diswt in # 1. 8. The farebox recovery ratio is c:lwa.cterized by a continuous decline from 1984 to 1989. 136 According to the agency, recent declines can be attributed in pan to an inc:rease in reduced-fare ridership and a dec:rease in peak period full cash fare ridership.

PAGE 160

9. ImprovemeniS in employee productivity were experienced in 1988 and 1989. The decline in number of employees in 1988 (discussed in #3) explains the increases in both revenue boun per employee and passenger trips per employee in 1988. The increase in passenger trips per employee in 1989 resulted from the significant increase in ridership described in # 1. 137

PAGE 161

138 this page IS blank

PAGE 162

E. PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Orpn!zallonal Stn!ctuR Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority is an independent authority created by special act of the Florida Legislature (Chapter 70-907, House Bill No. 5465). Goyemine Body and ComPOsition PSTA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of appointees from the member municipalities who are either elected officials or private citizens. Seryke Area PST A generally serves Pinellas County with the exception of Kemeth City, Bellair Beach, Bellair Shores, Treasure Island, and St. Petersburg Beach. The service area includes 24 municipalities and all unincorporated areas with no major Central Business District. Modes PST A provides fixed-route motorbus services, demand-response services, and purchased demand-response services. Recent Mawr Chan&U/Sicnlllcant Eunu On October 1, 1984, PSTA and the St. Petersburg Municipal Transit System merged to form a single county-wide authority. III separate referenda, Gulfport and South Pasadena also joined PSTA. All assets of the municipal system were transferred to PSTA from the city of St. Petersburg. As a result of this merger, PSTA began operating out of two separate facilities with its headquarters located in Oearwater and former munic:ipal employees located in leased facilities in St. Petersburg. On July 13, 1988, the St. Petersburg Division relocated from the c:ity offices in St. Petersburg to a new maintenance garage and operations center built and owned by PST A. III April1989, service was expanded to include 150 additional A.M. and P.M. trips. Also, a new electronic farebox system was installed in the PST A bus fleet. 139

PAGE 163

140

PAGE 164

.: . 141

PAGE 166

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). 1984 a/a 198S 6.32 1986 4.92 1987 4.77 1988 5.08 1989 5.19 Passenger fare revenues fell from $2,867,040 in 1988 to $2,717,120 in 1989 while service and ridership were increasing. What is the explanation? Response: Passenger fare revenues reported in 1988 were subsequently updated from $2,867,040 to $2,680,247. A!l a result, passenger fare revenues a<:tually increased from 1988 to 1989. There was a significaut increase in the nwnber of transportation operating employees from 257.8 in 1988 to 299.9 in 1989, an increase of 421. The number of maintenance employees declined from 61.5 in 1988 to 54.7 in 1989 and the number of administrative employees increased from 421 in 1988 to 52.3 in 1989. Wbat are the explanations for this increase in employment? Were there any employee reclassifications over this time period? Response: The increase in operating employees from 1988 to 1989 was due to extended semce provided by PST A. New administrative positions were created along with the extended service and previously unfilled positions were filled. The number of maintenance employees declined due to employee turnover; the open positions were not filled during fiscal year 1989 NOTE: PSTA provided numerous updated Section lS numbers: 1986 passenger fare revenues were changed from $3,179,210 to $3,003,480 to remove demand-response fare revenues. 143

PAGE 167

144 1987 passenger fare revenues were changed from $2,973,100 to $2,185,450 to remove demand-response fare revenues. 1988 passenger miles were changed from 42,217,410 to 44,537,410 to reflect updated number provided by PSTA to UMTA. 1988 operating expense was chBD3ed from $14,695,160 to $14,164,800 to reflect updated number provided by PSTA to UMTA. 1988 passenger fare revenues were chBD3ed from $2,867,040 to $2,680,250 to remove demand-response fare revenues. 1988 vehicles operated in maximum service were changed from l2S to 98 to reflect updated number provided by PSTA to UMTA. 1989 operating expense was changed from $15,824,230 to $15,819,830 to reflect corrected number provided by PST A. 1989 vehicles available for maximum service were changed from 137 to 138 to reflect corrected number provided by PST A. 1989 vehicles operated in maximum service were chBD3ed from 129 to 112 to reflect corrected number provided by PST A.

PAGE 168

... PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Perfonnance Indicators FIGURE 111-E1 County Population M 1.2.,. .... ,... ... .., 1 1 ...... FIGURE 111P-nger Tripe ........... ? ..... FIGURE 11-3 VtNcle MIIM IIIII RIW,.,. Mille u-,.:. o ,. 'I' o o ....... ... OA -I ' I i ' 1 -... --._....... ..... Re ... 145

PAGE 169

146 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Pertormuu:e lndlcaton 120 ..... 111 ... .. .. ... .... -..... .... lOA -"' ... 0 FIGURE 111Total Operating Expenae ' ' ; I I l ' l i ' I ' r ; ... ... -FIGURE 111Pueenow FIN Arfenuea I I ; ' ' ; r ! I FIGIIIE 111-EI i I l ---r I I r l I I \ ' I i 1 ... I ' I I I I I ---

PAGE 170

PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performance lndleaton F I GURE lllE7 VehlciM Available and Vehicle& Operated For 114axinun Sentie& __ ; ; __ ; __ .. ... ... ,... .., .... .... .... hkl ... . v.HIIIIIN ()sMratM 147

PAGE 171

148 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Elrectlveaess Measures ... ... ... ... ... I I ' I FIGURE IU-EB Veflicle MU. Pet CaQita ' i ' I i I I i I ' I ; ' -I i I I l i i F IGURE IU-Etl Puling Tripe Per R-.ue Mile . I ... ... ... -. 0 -' i j i ' I i I i I -. I ! -... FIOUAE 111-E10 -.get.gaOfFIMt ,..-/" ' ' ' ; 1 ' ' ; -' I ' ' -

PAGE 172

PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY -11.000 "' 12.000 .ooo 0 ---Effectiveness Measures FIGURE 111R-.... Mileo Bet-en A ccidonto I ' : ""-' / ; ' : I . : : : : : .... .. ... FIGURE IKMite Bet-Roadc:ah : / / l / : v 0 : : -' 1 ; ' . ; --149

PAGE 173

150 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emdency Measures 1 11.00 ....... .... FIGURE III E13 Opera101Q Ex-Per Capita ; l I ' ' i : I I ' ' . i I i ; ' I ' ' ' i ' ' I i I i ... ... FIGURE ID-E14 Operating ex-,.., ,..._, Trip ..... ...... 11.00 -.. -11.1'0 .... .. ' I ; ' i _..... I I !_...,... i ' ' i ; ! : ' -FIGURE WE111 Operating Pet A118'.,.,..,,.. Mila : ' ; . : 1 I i I ; : I i I : ; I 1 ' I ... ... -

PAGE 174

PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emclea1:1 Measures III-E111 Maintenance Expense RANef'AI8 Mile ..... I ; ' ' : ; . i ..... -. / ' I i i ..... ...... ..... ... .... "' --0 .. ' .... .... .... FIGURE 111-E17 Farebox Rec0Ye1Y Ratio ' . . i ' -........:. ; : ; ' ' ' ; I -FIGURE UI-E18 Vehicle Mil .. "-< .... V-i ' ; / ; i ' ; ' i I ' I I l I I j : I I I ; ' I ... ... ---151

PAGE 175

152 PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emclency Measlll'eS ...... -0 -0 .. -..... -FIGURE 111-E19 Rewnue HO
PAGE 176

PSTA SUMMARY 1. NOTE: The 1984 numbers reflect the sum of data for PSTA and the St. Petersburg Municipal Transit System. For this reason, 1984 data was not included in this discussion to avoid inconsistencies resulting from the comparison of pre-merger and post-merger data. 2 From 1985 to 1989, operating expense increased gradually due to increases in the number of employees and maintenance expense. The increase in maintenance expense may be attributed to the aging of the vehicle fleet from 5.7 years in 1985 to 7.5 years in 1989 3. The number of employees flucruates dramatically from 1985 to 1989. No factors were identified to explain these fluctuations with the exception of the significant increase in 1989. According to the agency, this increase resulted from an increase in revenue miles of service, the establishment of new administrative positions, and filling previously vacant positions. 4. The number of accidents decreased significantly from 1985 to 1988 with a sudden increase in 1989 resulting in improved safety until1989 as measured in terms of revenue miles between accidents. No explanation was identified for the accident trend. 5. Revenue miles between roadcalls gradually decreased from 1985 to 1987 due to an increase in roadcalls po$Sibly caused by the aging fleet discussed in #2. Revenue miles between roadcalls then inaeased significantly in 1988, and declined slightly in 1989; however, no explanations were identified for these fluctuations. 6. Operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile aD gradually increased in each year from 1985 to 1989 due primarily to the increases in operating expense discussed in #2 7. The farebox recovery ratio consistently declined in every year of the analysis. The declines are a result of the increasing operating expense coupled with the relative stability in passenger fare revenues. 153

PAGE 177

154 this page IS blank

PAGE 178

F. TRI COUN1Y TRANSIT (ORLANDO) SYSTEM PROFILE Oaan!zatlonal Structure Tri County Transit is an independent authority created by interlcx:al agreement to provide public transponation services. Goyemln& Body and Comoosltlon Tri County Transit's Board of Directors is comprised of members appointed by parties involved in the interlocal agreement including Orange County, Seminole County, Osceola County, the City of Orlando, the East Central Regional Planning Council, and the Florida Department of Transponation. Sealce Area OTCT provides service to Orange County (including Orlando, Winter Park, Maitland, and others), Seminole County (including Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, and Sanford) and Osceola County. Modes Tri County provides fixed-route motorbus services, purchased motorbus services, and purchased demand-response services. Recent MaJor Chanees/SIIJ!ifkant Events A new downtown terminal was built and began operating in 1985. In addition, major bus purchases took place in 1985 (8 buses), 1986 (2 buses), and 1987 ( 40 buses). These purchases were necessary to replace some 12-year-old buses and to expand the fleeL A major market research study was conducted in 1984 which resulted in the recommendation that several changes were necessary for the system to become a viable transportation alternative. The most significant chang e was the reorientation ofTri County's routes to eliminate the need for transfers in the Central Business District. OTCI' staff developed a service plan to transform OTCT from a radial route system to a timed-transfer system with oudyiDa transfer centers as well as a downtown "hub." As a result, some crosstown routes were also intrOduced. Fi.D8lly, a fullscale operational analysis was performed in 1988, which included recommendations for the implementation of a full timed transfer system. 155

PAGE 179

156

PAGE 180

I -! i . il I ==! !tl i r i5] .. l I = ,.. I o ."').<.<: .I ;, ; ; a: ;... ..; .. \t '"'; .... :et: ... h J ;; -a ;:; ' 2 .. "'. ... . ...... -' 0 7,;. 157

PAGE 181

158

PAGE 182

"' TABLE IIIF4 Tl1 Couul)o'I'rauh (Orioudo) Dlrectlr-Openkd Molorbu Measures un:cmDIESS l.lr.uva liM SI!RVICI! S\Jr1U . . YJ.WII< NJico ,C( 1 ' \.:>_,,< r 4$6 .J: .... to;,;, >(,><-,.." , ..... : ''' SI!RVICI! CONSUNmOH ;. ' t -Vf" :n'G .. ;-<4,; .. Pwt.rTrtpl fer a.w-. Nile t9J . . . . ..... . ., '<( ..., "' ._, )! QUAUIY 01' SllllVICI! r.o. . _ . . . .ws-."( ,. :. ...... ... . "-,...,-(lo ,....) 6.30 IIU ,. ":; 441' . ... ; .... 'fJW. < . . 1.79 "'"'' : 1 -:,-... "":'' "" <':'\':5 ,_ .... . N A.., ... .. ,,. .-:: '\)!<'$,'').. I ..... 'i Ul 0: "'-1 . ,., .... "' J; \ : .. ,.,.. < < . ,.,,;a . ... .. ; ti.ol.;i'l!( .". . .,> .. ..... b ........... 111"'-' '"' .. .. iMi ...... "" ''() } w '<,:.?'!' .-:.;.. : . .--..o.l . <.;:)., -... .-f. ',.: ...... .... ,;:, J,i'.a) 1 : !IQ!.Q) I,(IIAAlO '"' .,. : '"''"""" ... .. . ......1 .. > , . & ., > ';>.,_ .. ;: t : 1.:16 IJO V. 'A'<, _., ,.. ,, '('.14111" 4.00 < ,.. 't;i: U'ri ::-,;-;. ....... 3.20. > , '< 133.00-' ., .. ctinoo .' .. .; :>-"' "F..,..,_._ .;_,_ A< m.oo :!SilOO ..... ,,, ...... ,.. . . . . .. --, ,:., . .. :. *'"'A ... 1 t . ., , '''"""""' .. V ; :l:R ' : ;, . li: n'f " ".<1,011.00 ::,?!'li M "':, > ro-'1<' .. :' . M.-.......... ,.w. ----ll(om) AVAIIAIIIUIY ; b """'' ............. "' . 116 3.71 uo Mi; ... .. ,, .... <, >.;, ... .. I 435 10.46 _,. ... ''Y"'""-" 1m -j;.. t< _"'' 4.lO .... >' < :.!,{ .( ......... '' '"" ,,;,;:, ...... 1.83 .. c ... .,. 1_1.., > . Vt /" .1.0.3" -, ( '\. '" . -73.8* ,r". 1l34 $ : .$'"' -6.41 . ,"l' ,, ... '" 'Ll9.00 > .. 4IG.OO .. /".;. 1"l3.00; '. f , .. t. ,.. .. ;< : . ...... ..... ...... $ ;.).; ....... "!'

PAGE 183

e i .. 1 1 I :;1 -. ! 1.1::11 i51 t .e I I ..... "': J :1 a j -, I l '; J j . t .. , J tl 160

PAGE 184

1 <:. <:. 5 n - ., T .. . ,'J. 'i <:. 'i-ii-9 '3 I I I 'y "" ""' i lf -"i' ... .. l!i .., , .. "" . A ;., ... ...- -;. '$: I"-S t'l: ;.., .. ""' ; ... -,. -. .... 4 !il : -.. "" .... -. ... ,, "' """ :} .f t: > w .)' .... ,.)' .. .. '' ... .. ) . lq t q . 1 . 'I: .,. B ... ? .. :r.: . ; .. ,:; . .. . iM .... .. ta I ... L> .... .... . . ,. ...... ,.. . -"" . -, t i" 1 :t-" ., -'( ; -: l : I "1 -' ( '' ;1j:f. I . J I i a I I : j I .nr .. r! l: l!; f !!J rlrt frF I >1 a! < . 161

PAGE 185

= : !1 ... :1 -' t "' ( I I 162

PAGE 186

I 163

PAGE 187

i ..,! "OJ I =J i i5! i -164

PAGE 188

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Directly-operated motorbus passenger lrip length. 1984 (see table). The flu<:IUations are significant over time. Are there any explanations? 1984 3.89 1 98S 3 .93 1986 3.89 1987 SS7 1988 5.41 1989 4.84 Response: In 1987, Tri County Transit underwent significant route restru<:IUring. This restru<:IUring resulted in transfer patterns and longer lrips directed toward the Central Business Dislrict. The simultaneous reduction in ridership is believed to be a result of this restructure. In 1988, a Comprehensive Organizatioual Analysis (COA) of routes and demand patterns was conducted. This analysis resulted in recommendations for a multiple transfer network routing system which bas been implemented with a great deal of success. The route changes in recent years are believed to be the explanation fo r the inconsistent average lrip length. Many performance indicators for purchased motorbus are not available in the Section 15 repon. can this information be provided? Is it currently included in directly-operated motorbus for indicators such as expenses and revenues? When did your system begin using purchased motorbus? Response: On a limited scale, Tri County Transit began contracting some of its express routes in 198S. Many of the performance indicators required of directly-operated services are not requited of purchased transponation services. As a result many indicators are unavailable 165

PAGE 189

166 TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Pertormuce ladlcaCors ... -... ... ... ... .I 0 .... I ' ' .... . j l \ ; 1 F IGURE III-F1 County PQillllatlon ' l I . : ... RGURE IH-1'2 Pa .. en;er Tripe I ; ""' ; I I r ' ' ' : I -.., 111-1'3 j ' ; I I : 1 / f l ' ; I -Velllcle Mllea and AIMI,... Mllea l l I ; I I -........ I ! ... ... 0.0 I I \ ' I ' ; ; --.., -........... ---------

PAGE 190

TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Performance Indicators FIGURE IIIF<4 Total Opatino E>cpenaa 112 ...... -"r---=:j;;; ... s . ... .. ... .. ... .... ... AOtwf ' 1""--_..M,.__. FlGURE 111-F& p....,_ Fare AewiUia .... ""' .. .. .., ,... .. -... 110 ,. 0 Ncn. 1.: J' fll ,_ ............... ._. ' i I I I I I FlGURE IH'I ' i I ' I I I I I ' .... _, I I I i I .or. .................... MMr-... -167

PAGE 191

168 TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Pertormllllee lndlcators FIGURE III-F7 Vehldee Available and Vehlclee ()l)erated Fot Maxirrun Service t10-l---___j-___;___7__,..i= -.!.- - -r i ... ... .... ... v.t1o .. v.niDIII OioiR ..

PAGE 192

TAl COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Eft'ectlveoess Measures 0.0 ... 0.0 ... i i III-F8 Vehicle Pet Capita . ' ' \ ; ' ; I l ' i : ' --FIGURE ni-F I l'uMf1ger Tripa Pet Re-Mile ... -.......... i ; i/ ... ... 0 .0 0.0 -. 0 ... ' I I i i I i ' ' ' I ' ' I i ; ... -... -' ' I ' ' I I I i I I I I I I ' ' I I i ' I . -... 110'1-. I s ,_ t tt"'ll ._ ,_ 169

PAGE 193

170 TRI COUNlY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) -0 ... 1.000 0 ... Eft'ectheoess Measures FIGURE 111-F11 .... Mllea Be'-n Accidenta I j ' / ' i / I ) ; I i . . . ' .... .. -..... ,.w. ............... .... FIGURE 11-1'12 .... Mila Bet-Ro'KiciJ!I ' i I I Ll . I . I i ' ; I v I . ' i I l ' --NO't'a 'rt tr hnCMebi ..,....,

PAGE 194

TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Emclency Measures ., ..... FIGURE III-F13 O.,eratlnQ ExPer : ..... v ' ' : ..... ' ' ; ' ; ' ' -... -... FIGURE UI-F1 4 Operating ex.,.., .. Per Paaaenger Trio ., ... ...... / ' -IOAO -.. ... /i v I ! 1 I ' : . FIGURE IIH'18 Olleratlng Pw Alw .... Mile uo ; -. I ......; JL10 lt.AO .. : i i ; ... i : : : : i : i I I --171

PAGE 195

172 TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Emduey Measures FIGURE IH-F18 t.Calntenance Expenee Per AewiUI Mile IUO ; I V : ...... ..... ... ,. 10.00 ; ' i i ' : i . I ... NOll. ................... .... FIGURE IIH'17 F""'box Rec.,..,y Rallo .... --.. -.. ... _ _____ _:.. ___ -..... 0 ----lriCI'IWi ......... ld 1 ............. FIOURI!! UI-F18 Vehlcll Mllee Pllr Peak VeNcla . . . i I l : I ' ; ' i i ; ; -... --

PAGE 196

TRI COUNTY TRANSIT (ORLANDO) Emclency Measures ..... ..... -0 .. FIGURE ID-F19 R-nue Houra Pet Employee ' ' I ' -.... ' ' ' ' ' ' ' i : ' ' ' ; ; ' ' ' ' ' -... FIGURE 11-1'20 "-'-'Tripe -r----... ; : ' -..... I I . I -! I ' i i ' ; ' I ' -; ' ----.,... mts,. 'Utflll .. ,_,. ' / ; -....... / I ' I ; I I ; i i I ' I ' ' .. ---liMna I $ ... tMef Mlo ...... 173

PAGE 197

OTCI' SUMMARY 1. The significant decline in ridership from 1986 to 1987 can be attrib u ted to significant route restruc:turing since service chqes are often followed by a period of adjustment for existing users. The decline was followed by a significant ridership increase from 1987 to 1989. According to the agency, the increase c:an also be attributed to the familiarity with the new service design as well as the implementation of a multiple transfer network routing system in 1989. The multiple transfer network, whic:h resulted from a comprehensive organ i zational analysis conducted in 1988, provides delay-free transfers at various centers throughout the business district. 2. Passenger fare revenues increased every year from 1984 to 1989 which can be attributed to increases in ridership in 1986, 1988, and 1989. Despite a dec:line in ridership in 1987, passenger fare revenues still increased. The increase in 1987 cannot be readily explained. 3. An unusual dip in the number of employees reported in 1987 resulted from incorrect reporting of full-time employee equivalents. 4. The number of vehic:les availab l e for maximum service increased significantly from 1986 to 1987 due primarily to an increase i n the reported number of purchased motorbus vehic:les available for maximum service. In 1986, S vehic:les were available for use in the provision of privatized service all of whic:h were used in maximum service. However, in 1987, 6S vehic:les were reponed as being available for use when only four vehicles were necessary to operate the service. 5. The number of passeuaer trips per revenue mile fluctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1989 and can be explained by the changes in passenger trips over time whic:h were disc:us.scd in #1. 6. Significant dcdines in the average age of fleet in 1987 and 1988 resulted from the acquisition and replacement of vehic:les. 7. The number of revenue miles betwee n accidents increased significantly from 1986 to 1988 but declined in 1989. No explanation for the trend was identified. 8. Significant decreases in roadc:alls from 1987 to 1988 resulted in an increase in revenue 174

PAGE 198

miles between roadcalls. The decrease in roadcalls can be explained by changes that were made to roadcall reporting procedures in order to be consistent with UMTA definition requirements. 9. Operating expense per passenger uip increased significantly in 1985 and 1987 due to the fluctuations in ridership discussed in # 1. 10. Maintenance expense per revenue mile increased significantly from 1984 to 1985 and from 1988 to 1989. No explanation was identified. 11. Revenue hours per employee peaked in 1987 due to the significant decline in the number of employees described in #3. 12. Wide fluctuations were observed for passenger uips per employee. No explanation was identified. 13. In 1987, average fare increased significantly. This increase resulted froa1 passenger faR revenues remaining stable despite the decline in ridership discussed in # 1. According to the agency, stabilization of fare revenues can be atuibuted, in part, to a full casb fare increase on February 1, 1986, from 60 cents to 15 cents. However, other reasons for this discrepancy have not been determined at tbis time. 175

PAGE 199

176 this page IS blank

PAGE 200

G. PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTifORJTY SYSTEM PROFILE Oqanjn!iona) Sti"ACb!R Palm Beach County Transportation Authority is owned by Palm Beach County. However, the system management and employment are provided under contraCt by F1orida Transit Management, Inc. Govemlna Bod7 and Composition -The five-member Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners oversees the transit system and must approve PBCTs budget as well as major projects undenaken by the system. Semce Ami PBCI' provides transit services to Palm Beach County. Modes -Fixed-route motorbus services. PBCl' also provides some purchased transportation services including a feeder bus service for the Tri-County Commuter Rail system that is operated by Natioaal Transit Services, Inc., under contract with the County. In addition, the Spectrao Dial-A-Ride service is provided through a contract with Yellow Cab. Reg:nt Ma!or Cbanaes/SIIJ!lftcant Events -none. 177

PAGE 201

-! i s 5I n i -u 0 -! i! i "' ..,1 -IJ I ; -I i!i 1 78

PAGE 202

-... i i -H ; o u .. \ ; g-C> I -a i 5 :1! .. .. 1:-f iS .. -... ; u i 1 7 9

PAGE 203

b i a. .i'll 0 -1$ ii I F! i '5J "' ; 0: i 180

PAGE 204

-00 -TABLE III-G4 Polm Bado Coaaly Tta .. portaUN Authority Dlrecllr.Openl< Molorbu Ell'ectl-u Mwures ltfRCOVENESS llaSUII&S SEIIVKJ! SU,LV v,"'* NJica r .. poi;j!!' .. SI!AVKJ! COHSUwrnotf I .. '><'If"" ' 9 .... : ''""' ... ,_.,..,Trip Pu --., .. ..... ... w, 159 ')Y,, ... '':' ... .... ,h.l I.OZ ,.: .s ':' ">Y;;-;:' '"""'": ' <. .. .i. 1,1\ ,JtW QUAlitY Of'SD.VICB . 'Mlt' ' .. ... %4 .. ,. :: : (0. .... .... ,.. '"": .. : . ?' ,, ., "'-AlJ!I. ., .... ( .. !'*) -l"t.l!'l ,__ . .. -: .. ; ' ..... : . .,, ' ,, ff:w ... 4.'111 .;<;..;;., \ "'-' ;.io.M "'" "' ns.oo .,.. ... 154:) ,, (>.'!Y>. ... . .... ) ... /.' 1.()3 U17 .. .. . ... I ,,;\"tv..... '+' w t--"' ..... ''*" ;"7" u.n uo . S.lO > '"" c. 111!.M m.oo .. ... ,w ''"c"\1.421,_ ., """Ao!ec':';l;i/oi/ ,... 1.07 1.()4 0.97 $.19'11 : U.17 .. -. 7.60 7 .10 I.IZ ..... ;: w ><"'-"' _,.. . . J' >1m!!'' . """' .. $' 111. 00 ?92.00 712.00 6.39'11 'Y ,.._ .. "" ; ,_ ... ,. . -'> .., ... ' ,, ;.;-r ,.9.2At' ...... _,.,_.... 1< .... -." ;# 2.11 171 2.71 -7 .tn. < SA& ...,.

PAGE 205

b! 10 I = !j .s 1--+--' aJJ U I I a I 182

PAGE 206

. I'! .. : 183

PAGE 207

Ill < f l Ill 1 :!! !;j a ... :!.<'1':::! : :: %\.: > -' < <-:. < ;. ('; -,. ,:} ... ; :/< ,,J,l 184

PAGE 208

.!:> "3! '& { ;, ' . "'7 ./. >J . .... . '? . v . > 185

PAGE 209

l;-'5 A -E il -::E li a ;e 186 I i -i I > . ' ;

PAGE 210

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Directly-operated motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). Values for 1984-1985 were adjusted in previous report based on average trip length from 1986-1988. 1984 6:Y, 1985 6.31 1986 6.33 1987 6.11 1988 6.{18 1989 6.4S Many performance indicators for purchased motorbus are not available in the Section 15 report. can this information be provided? Is it currently included in directly-operated motorbus for indicators such as expenses and revenues? When did your system begin using purchased motorbus? Response: The purchased motorbus reported in the Section 15 report is for feeder bus service to Tri.Cowuy Commuter Rail. This feeder service was contracted from January 1989 to September 1990 and was provided at no cost to its users. The service is now being operated directly by PBCf. Many indicators for the purchased motorbus are unavailable. 187

PAGE 211

188 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performance ladlcaton - ... ... 0.0 ... u. ' i I I ' I -FIGURE 111-01 ; ' ' I i I i : ' FIGURE IU-G2 Puaenger Tripe ' i I ' ' . -.... ; ; i l ... i ; i ... i i i ... -FIGURE .-a3 Vellicle Milee WI .,..,_ Miles ' i : ' -1 ----r -r ----... 0.0 i I I I i I I : I I I ----............... ,_ ..... ....

PAGE 212

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Pertoi'IIUUlce ladlcacors FIGURE nl-G4 Total Operating Expense .. ; . ; .. . . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ,... tM7' ... FIGURE 111-G& PaaaengerFareRew,.... ... .... F=--..,--------------------, ... ... 1'111 .., ,.. .. 110 120 10 0 ... .,.. I 7 I.., rd Meta ....... I ' ' l I l FIGURE 11-Ge I I ' ' i I I I I I I ' i ' I I --189

PAGE 213

190 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Performaac:e Indicators FIGURE IIIG7 Velllclea Available and Vehicles Operated For Maximum Service ... ... -..., ... -\'11M ,.,.11:111111 V.tfDIII

PAGE 214

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EIJ'ec:tlveness Measures FIGURE 111-G8 Vehicle Mil Per Calli! ; . ,... ,... 'il. ..,. ,... FIGURE UI-G9 Paaaenger Tripe Per Fl-.. Mile ... ,... .... ..., ..... FIGUAI! IU-G10 Awraoe Aqe of Fleet -. ; t j I I ,.,. j : __ __ i I .. -----.. .. . lriO'ftl lrt V a ,.. .,_., ..,. .. ._ .... 191

PAGE 215

192 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Eft'ecllvenas Measures 20.000 21.000 14,000 ......... 7,000 0 .... FIGURE UI-G11 A_,_ Mllu Be-Accidents ; ' : / i : ' ' i ; ; I ' ' ' : I ; -.... ... RGURE II-G12 Aewtlle Mltee Bel-Roadcalla .oool----'----------1 .ooo+--------------------1 MC7ftr I. .......... ...........

PAGE 216

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Emc:lenc:y Measures FIGURE I IIG13 O!lerating Expense Per Capita 110.00,..--......,-----------, 07.141:===:---:----:--==::::::=-4 u.ao+---:----'---'---....,----l ... 11M1HI1MI1N71MIMe FIGURE ntG14 Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip ..... ....---------------. ..... ... ... .... FIGURE III-G15 Operating Expenee Per Revenue Mile -I . ' I ...... 11.00 I ' ..... I : I ... ... 193

PAGE 217

194 PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Emcleacy Measures FIGURE IU-G18 Maintenance Pw "-nnie Mile ...... ..... ...... ..... -. I i : l I ' ' I I I ' ' -... ... HOftll-fn''-.,..,..,. .. FIGURE llt-017 f'webox Fleco
PAGE 218

PALM BEACH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EIDdency Measures -1,0.&0 700 uo 0 -FIGURE Ill-Gill Revenue Houre Per ' ' ; I ' I I I i I I ' ' i ; ' ... -.. .. FIGURE I D-G20 -.._ Tripe ,._ EmpiO)'M .... . -t---------------1 ... -ouo 10.11 00.00 -.. -NOt'a 'ts'* ......... I I I I I ... FIGURE 11-<321 AverageFve ' ' I ; ' i I I I 1111 ' ; I ' I ' 1 NOlet 1rtti,....Utf ........... -19S

PAGE 219

PBcr SUMMARY 1. Service inc:reased significantly in 1989 (vehicle miles and revenue miles) due to the provision of feeder bus service to the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail). 2. Operating expense increased gradually from 1984 to 1987, declined slightly in 1988, and increased significantly in 1989. The significant increase in 1989 resulted from the addition of contracted feeder bus service to Tri-Rail. 3. After gradually declining since 1984, vehicle miles per capita increased abruptly in 1989 due to the inc:rease in revenue miles of service whic:h resulted from the operation of the feeder bus service to TriRail. 4. The number of accidents fell dramatically from 1987 to 1989 resulting in significant increases in the number of revenue miles between accidents. No explanation for this trend was identified. 5. Operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile all increased significantly in 1989 as a result of the operation of the feeder bus service to Tri-Rail. 6. The farebox recovery ratio gradually declined from 1984 to 1989. No explanation was identified. 196

PAGE 220

H. TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Orpg!zat!onal StructuR Tallahassee Transit Authority is a department of City governmenL Goveminl Body agd Comgost!log The City Commission serves as the Board of Directors for TALT and bas five elected members. Sealce Area TALT provides service to Leon County. Modes The system provides fixed-route motorbus services and demand-response services to the community. No fixed-route services are contracted to private operators. Rcc:egt MaJoa: Chagces/Sim!Oeant Events The downtown transfer terminal, C.K. Steele Plaza, was constructed and began operating in August 1985. At the same time, the basic route system underwent extensive modification. Ridership bas increased very little over the last few years and is just now recovering from a series of fare increases. 197

PAGE 221

i b -lj lit I r: :f J = iII i .i! i 3 -1 98

PAGE 222

.., i i :5 b 11 ;! ... ::E -ft -. !j i -.= I -199

PAGE 223

a ; ' 200

PAGE 224

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). 1984 1.51 1985 2.48 1986 2.83 1987 2.96 1988 2.65 1989 2.6l Passenger fare revenues declined from $820,060 in 1988 to $801,790 in 1989 while the number of passenger trips and passenger miles increased over the same time period What is the explanation for this inconsistency? Response: One poSSibl e explanation wbicb helps to explain the inconsistency is a significant increase in the use of discounted monthly passes. The ridership per monthly pass increased significantly from 1988 to 1989. 201

PAGE 225

202 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performance Indicators 'hwrlllllfl 200 ... FIGURE IA-H1 Ccunly ... 2 I 2.0-... ... ' -... FIGURE III-H2 Paaaenger Trlpa -' ./ I ' ; ' : ' ... FIGURE 111-H3 VehiCle Milea and .,..,...,. Milea ..... --.......... ... . . . . . . . ... 1.0 u .... -: ' : ' I ' -... -\IMIII.. ..... ... -..... ... -

PAGE 226

TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performuce Indicators FIGURE 111-+14 Total Operating Ex.. : : .. : .. : .. .. : .. . .... aoo n.,,... .... FIGURE I IIH6 Paaaenger Fare .... +---'-------------------! ........ ., ... ... 10 0 i i I I -FIGURe III-H8 ToUI : ' I ' ; ' : I ' I I ! ... ' : I ' ; I -203

PAGE 227

204 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performance lndlcaton FIGURE HI-H7 Velliclee Availol>le MCI Velllc:lea Operate
PAGE 228

TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Effectiveness Measures FIGUflE IU-HB Vehicle Miletl Per Capita ... .... FIGURE W-H9 Paaaenger Triga Per Rewnue Mile .... ........ ..,. ..... .. -FIGURE III-H10 A-age Age of Fleet ......... .., .... 205

PAGE 229

2Q6 TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Effectiveness Measures FIQUR III-H11 R_,.,. MIIM Between Accident. oo.ooo..---.,.----,------.,.--.., -...... MOO ..... 1.200 0 .... .... FIGURE W H12 Re\enue Milea Between Roadc:de i : i ; ' '--....__ ---' ; ' .... --

PAGE 230

TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emdency Measures FIGURE IIIH13 Os>eratinQ ExDenM Per (;ag ita .... ... .... ... .... FIGURE llf-H14 Operating EJcpenae Per Passenger TriD .......... --------., ........ M1 ,.. .. FIGURE ltiH16 Operating EXJ*III Per Aew.-Mile - ; ; i I I I euo ; ; i i ..... I I ' ..... I I I I -... 207

PAGE 231

208 TAl LAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emdency Measures FIGURE III-H18 Maintenance ex.,_. Per Mile to.10+---i-----L-----_.:_----l -.. FIGURE IUH17 Fatebox Recovery Rallo .... onr---------------, _.:_ __ -4 ............ .., ..... ....... -0 -'_../"" I ' i I ' I I i I -' ; I I I i I I I i I I ... --

PAGE 232

TALLAHASSEE TRANSIT AUTHORilY Emclency Measures FIGURE IUH19 Rewnue H.,.,. Pw Empiovee ..... F==::::::===:::======J -...... 10.000 IQ,fl 10.01 0 ... 10.00 -... ... ... FIGURE IIIH20 Paaaenger Tripa Per Employee i -...... i ./ i i ... ; I I ' ... FIGURE QI-H21 Average Fare ' ' ; I ' I I -i I ; ' I I ... 209

PAGE 233

TALT SUMMARY 1. The decline in ridership from 1986 to 1987 resulted from the 50 percent increase in full cash fares (from SO cents to 75 cents) instituted in the same time period. A subsequent increase in ridership in 1988 resulted from the inclusion of student ridership from F1orida State U ni versity (FSU) previous l y excluded since they ride at no cost. 2. Service was expanded in 1986 (revenue miles increased) as a result of the restruc:turing of routes. 3. A significant increase in passenger fare reven u es in 1987 resulted from the Institution of the fare increase referred to in # 1. 4. Wide fluctuations in the number of accidents over the 1984 to 1989 time period caused the number of reve n ue miles between accidents to also fluctuate widely. No explanation was identified. 5. The number of roadcalls Increased significantly from 1985 to 1987 resulting in a decline in revenue miles between roadcalls. The decline may be attributed to an aging vehicle fleet (6.3 years in 1985 to 8.1 years in 1987). However, in 1988 and 1989, the number of revenue miles between roadcalls gradually increased despite the continued aging of the fleet (9.4 years in 1989). No explanation for this trend was i dentified. 6 The operating expense per passenger trip increased from 1985 to 1987 due primarily to the declines in ridership diseusseo in # 1 7 The farebox recovery ratio gradually declines for each year with the exception of 1987 when the fare increase was instituted (discussed in # 1 ). 8. Employee productivity as measured by passenger trips per employee gradually declined from 1984 to 1987 due to the decreases in ridership dlsc:ussed in #1. Likewise, the increase in employee productivity observed in 1988 resulted from a rebound in ridership that same year. 9. Average fare increased in 1987 when the fare increase was instituted, but then declined in 1988 when FSU students, riding free, were counted in ridership. 210

PAGE 234

I. REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) SYSTEM PROFILE Or:pniutional StructuR Regional Transit System is a department of the City of Gainesville. Govemlne Body and Composition The City of Gainesville has an elected commission made up of five members, all of whom are responsible for policy decisions regarding ARTS as well as other city departments. In addition, ARTS has an advisory board comprised of citizens from the community which provide$ input to the commission regarding the transit system and its structure. semce AR ARTS serveli the city of Gainesville and parts of Alachua County. Modes Fixed-route motorbus services. ARTS also provideli all of Alachua County with demandreliponse serviceli. Recent Major Cbanps/Sip!Ocant Events none. 211

PAGE 235

i f 2 ;I! =h -r. ijl &I r:i 1! i I -212

PAGE 236

!! a l -213

PAGE 237

& 1 i :z sl = !j 214

PAGE 238

Motorbus passenger trip length, 19841 989 (see table) 1984 2.63 1985 z:n 1 986 2.41 1987 l.SS 1988 l.SS 1989 l.SO There is a significant decline in trip le n gth from 1988 to 1989 as the table above indicates Passenger trips increased from I, 732,680 in 1988 to 1,886,410 in 1989 while passenger miles decreased from 4,418,320 in 1988 to 2,838,550. Wby did passenger trip length decrease in 1989? Response: An updated 1989 Section 1 5 report was sent to UMTA in July Passenger trips in 1989 changed from 1,886,410 to 2,167,740 wlule passenger miles changed from 2,838,550 to 4,952,232. As a result, average trip l ength in 1989 is adjusted from 1.50 miles to 2.28 miles The number of deadhead miles increased significantly from 46,020 in 1988 to 133,140 in 1989 Is there an explanation for this increase? Response: No explanation provided Despite passenger nips increasing from 1,732,680 in 1988 to 1,886,410 in 1989, passenger fare revenues have c.f
PAGE 239

The number of roadcalls increased significantly from 1,079 in 1988 to 1,646 in 1989. Is there an explanation for this increase? Response: The significant increase in roadcalls is a result of an aged fleet that ARTS has just begun repl acing in late 1989. 216

PAGE 240

REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) ladlcators FIGURE IU-11 PopulaUOn 240T 1184 ... ... ...., ... ,... FIGURE 111-12 Paaaenger Trill --. 2 0 -' ... -- .... FIGURE 111-13 -- Velllcle Mllea IIICI M\lee ... ... +-----.:.._ __ __ .ot . .. : ......... .., ..... .............. --............. 217

PAGE 241

218 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Performance Indicators FIGURE 111-14 Total Ooeratlng Ex.. l .. +-----+----+-----7-----+---__, .,.2 1-. i i ' FIGURE 111-15 Passenger Fare i i I . --------. .... -FIGURE .. l----i--"""'=----""""==l Ht-----------------------; ...... ,... ., ....

PAGE 242

REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Performance Indicators FIGURE 111 Velli<:l Avallable and Velli<:lea Operated For Maximum Service . : . : .. .. . . . -. .... .... ,. .. ,.., .... ... 219

PAGE 243

220 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Elfectlvelless Measures .... 7.1 ... ... .... FIGURE IU-18 Vehicle Mllea Per C8lllta ' I i / I : __., I I i i ' ' ' ' l ... .... ... FIGURE Ill-Ill Puaenger Tripe Per R--Mile .... 2.1 ; 0.7 0.0 -.. - 0 ... ; ; ' ... ' ' I ' ... I ' i I I ; -... FIGURe W-110 A-.ge AQe of Fleet !'\ I \j l I r ' i I ' : ' ' ' -... l . ... i i ' ...;. '\. '\ I -

PAGE 244

REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Etreiveuess Measures FIGURE 111-111 R"""nuoo Mllea Bet-en Accidenta eo,ooo --18.000 v 0 ... / ' ; ... ; ; / I ' ' .. 1011 ... FIGURE 111-112 "-nnie Miles Bet-n Roadcala .... ---221

PAGE 245

222 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Emclenc:y Measures FIGURE 111-113 Operating Expenae Per Capita .oo.-------,----------, Oto.oo+---'-----: --------1 ; -.... .... 1011 .... .... FIGURE Dt-114 Operating Ex pense Per Pua-Trip ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... I _...,.. : ... I I / : ' y I I : : ; ' ; FIGURE Dt-M5 Operating ExPer AAeiiVwerenue Mile ..... ..... v 11.10 ... .,. ..... ... I I i i I ... i I i ; ..:.. I ./! : ( i i ! I i ---

PAGE 246

REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Emctenc:y Measures FIGURE 111-118 MUII8nance Expenae Per Rew,_ Mile ..... ' ..... -...... / / .. ... ..... ... .... .... r-...... .... .... ... .... ; . : .... .... ,.., .... FIGURE 111-M7 Fuebox Aec0118ry RatiO ,. .. -----------... ... ---FIGURE 111-111 VeNcle Mia. Per Peak Vehicle .............. -. / ...... 0 ; I ' I ... . . ' i i I i --223

PAGE 247

224 REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM (GAINESVILLE) Emdency Measures FIGURE I H19 Per Employee i / i ' i / TOO 0 ... i I ' ' ; I i .. .. ... ... F IGURE IIH20 p..._, Tripe Per Employee .... 60.000 I 0 -""' 10M ..... - ' . : : . ; ; I ' : -FIGURE 111-121 A-.geF.,. . ./. ,.... i ; ' I I ' I ' -/ ; ... ............... ' ! I

PAGE 248

ARTS SUMMARY 1. Ridership fluctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1989 After an increase in passenger trips from 1984 to 1985, ridership declined significantly in 1986 and 1987. These reductions resulted from fare increases which were instituted in late 1985 (from2S cents to 35 cents) and late 1986 (from 35 cents to SO cents). 2. In general, the number of revenue miles of service fluCtuated widely from 1984 to 1989. During this period, there were numerous changes in top-leve l management (four directors from 1985 to 1988). Service (revenue miles} expanded significantly in 1988 and 1989 as a result of route restructuring (1988) and increases in the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. 3. The decline in passenger fare revenues in 1985, 1986, and 1987 resulted from ridership declines which more than offset the fare increases. The stabilization of ridership and passenger fare revenues in 1988 and 1989 can partially be attributed to the restruCturing of routes in 1988 that was discussed in #2. 4. Vehicle miles per capita increased significantly in 1988 and 1989 due to the increase in vehicle miles that resulted from the service expansion discussed in #2. 5. The fluctuating passenger trips per revenue mile which increased in 1985 but declined in 1986 and 1987 is driven by the fluCtuations in ridership discussed in #1. 6. Significant declines in the average age of vehicle fleet in 1987 and 1989 resulted from the acquisition of new vehicles and the replacement of aging vehicles. 7. Significant increases in revenue miles between accidents were observed in 1985 and 1989 when the number of accidents appeared to be unusually low. No explanation was identified. 8. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls fluctuated widely from 1984 to 1989 with no apparent explanation. However, the agency indicated that the decline in 1989 resulted from the use of aged vehicles which were not replaced until late in the fiscal year. 225

PAGE 249

9. Operating expeose per passenger trip increased significantly in 1986 and 1987 due to the Ouc:tuations in ridership discussed in # 1 10. A significant dip in maintenance expense per revenue mile was observed i n 1986 and resulted from a decline in maintenance expense experienced that year. No explanation for this decline was identified 11. The farebox recovery ratio declined significantly from 1984 to 1987, but has since begun to stabilize due to the stabilization of passenger fare revenues discussed in #3. 12 Despite stable employment levels, employee productivity measures (revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee) Ouc:tuated wide l y due to inconsistent changes in the number of revenue hours and passenger trips. 13. The average fare increased significantly in 1986 and 1987 due to the fare increases mentioned previously. Average fare declines in 1 988 and 1 989 resulted from an increase in reduced-fare ridership as well as the implementation of a free pass program in 1989 for students (lcindergarten through 12th grade) 226

PAGE 250

J. EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AurHORJTY SYSTEM PROFILE Oaauiza!lonal Stru
PAGE 251

I ; -! ; f u I i a i l l .. ...... .. ""li: > > .. "' ,.,._ V .... < .. . 5 i I g l I! z:. j 228

PAGE 252

n # :'1 $i l:'. i '1:'1 i l:' .. "'= = ... .s I i -.! 229

PAGE 253

230

PAGE 254

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). 1984 3.56 1985 3.69 1986 3.69 1987 3.58 1988 3.70 1989 3.50 Vehicle and revenue miles increased from 1988 to 1989 while vehicle and revenue hours decreased over this same time period (see table). Why? Measure !988 1989 Vehicle Miles 1,496,810 1,510,330 Reve.aue Miles 1,391,480 1,403,580 Vehicle Houn 107,260 106,680 Re""'"" Houn 1113,600 101,510 Response: Potential explanations provided include some route restructuring and a cut back in layover time. OtheJWise, this inconsistency cannot be explained. 231

PAGE 255

232 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performance Indicators -T ... ... 200 100 0 .... ... -. . . ... FIGURE ID-Jl County PCCI
PAGE 256

EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performance lndlealors FIGURE IUJ4 Total Operating Expense .. __ .... -..... . .a-1---r---.;_ ____ : : I .... .... .. .. FIGURE Ul-J6 Passenger Fare Aevenuea .... 1400-l---"---'---_: _____ -1 100 10 0 -! I ; I ; I -FIGURE 111-Je Tot .. Employe .. 1 ' I I . . : .... : : : I -233

PAGE 257

234 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Performauce Indicators FIGURE III-J7 Vetllclee Available Vetllclea Operated For Maximum Service 30 ... ... ... ....

PAGE 258

EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Eaed.lveness Measu res FIG URE IIIJ8 Vehicle Milea Per Cll)ila r-------------,----, .... ,... ...... ...,. ... FIGURE IIIJ9 P-..ger T rlpa Per M i le '-......._ . ... ... ... 0.0 .-. ' - ' ' : ... FIGURE UlJ10 A..,_ Age o l Fleet ' ' . ' -.... --235

PAGE 259

236 EAST VOLUSJA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Eaectlveuess Measures FIGURE QI-Jl1 R--Miles Between Aecidenta . I : /-' I i / . ; ....... v i ' ; 10-0 ... ...... / 1,200 0 -: I ; : .... ... ... FIGURE DI-J12 Re-Miles BetMen Aoedcah ' ..;.. / : ............ i / ' : ' ........ ---. -... ... -.... --

PAGE 260

EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emclency Measures FIGURE IIIJ13 (Jgerating Expenu Per Capita 110.00.,.---,------,--------. .. .oo-1--------' --'----..,---l -... -.... FIGURE IIIJ14 Operating Expenae Per Paaoenger Trip ..... ....------------. ...... --L----.. ... ........ .., .... FIGURE IIIJ16 Ogeratlng Expenae Per Afleo.,,. .. ,_ Mile -l----........ _, .... ZJ7

PAGE 261

238 EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Efllclency Measures FIGURE 111-Jte Maintenance Expenoe Per RIIY8nUOI Mile ..... I I I I I ' I I ' I I : i I I ' . ..... 10.11 ; ; .. ..., ... .. .... ... FIGURE UIJ17 Farebox RecCMry RatiO .... f_ ......... .., .... -0 -I I I : : I i I -. ' I I i I I I I I --

PAGE 262

EAST VOLUSIA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emciency Measures FIG\lfl 111-J \ 9 R.,.,,.... Hout11 Per Employee t.ooo.-----------,-------, ... .... .. .. ... FIGURE III-J20 Paaaenger Tripa Per 24.000.(_ _ ...... o.ooo+---------------------1 ........ .. ...... IOAO 10..00 ...... ..... ...... ' I ' FIGURE III-J21 A-age FIAI ; ............. ' ' ' ; I ' --' . I t I ... -239

PAGE 263

VOLT SUMMARY 1. Passenger fare revenues declined from 1984 to 1986 while a 20 percent fare increase in lat e 1986 (from SO cents to 60 cents) resulted in increases in fare revenues from 1987 to 1989. 2. After gradual declines from 1984 to 1988, passenger trips per revenue mile showed an increase in 1989. The declines resulted from service expansion (increased revenue miles of service) that was not met with increases in ridership. However, a sudden increase in ridership was experienced in 1989 and cannot be readily exp lained. 3. The number of revenue miles between accidents fluctuated widely and no explanation was identified. 4. Likewise, the number of revenue miles between roadcalls fluctuated widely and no explanation was identified. S. A significant decline in maintenance expense caused a dip in 1985 maintenance expense per revenue mile. The decUne in maintenance expense cannot be readily exp lained. 6. While declining steadily from 1984 to 1986, the farebox recovery ratio stabilized from 1986 to 1989. The fare increase in 1986 appears to have significantly contributed to the stabilization of the operating ratio. 7. The significant average fare increase in 1987 represents the full cash fare increase instituted in late 1986 which was discussed in #1. 240

PAGE 264

K. ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM SYSTEM PROFILE Oaanizatfonal Strae11111! Esc:ambia County Transit System is a department of the county government. Goyem!nc Body and Composition ECTS is governed by the Board of County CommlMioners, whicll is comprised of five members who are e l ected by district in staggered two-year terms. Servtce Area ECTS service area is the urbanized area of Es
PAGE 265

I'UIOaM.\NC E INDICATORS ,,.. TABLE IIIKl Escabla Coual)' Tnull s,.._ Paf.,...._I..UC.Ion INS '* '"' "" "" .. Clio ... IJI4.1J19

PAGE 266

i -i I .ll I :;.1 i b i -243

PAGE 267

..

PAGE 268

Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). 1984 4.63 1985 459 1986 4.71 1987 4.64 1988 4..56 1989 4.83 The average age of vehicle fleet was calculated as 10.2 in 1988; however, this calculation included purchased transportation vehicles. Therefore, 1988 vehicle age has been adjusted to 12.6 years to reflect direaly-operated vehicles only. NOTE: All data were reviewed by ECTS. No comments were provided and all data were indicated to be accurate 245

PAGE 269

246 ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Performance lndlcaton ... oo -200 100 0 ... ,.. o.a O.A ' ' ' ' ' -' ...... : I ; 0.0 -F I G URE IH-K1 County Population I ' L I ' ' i I FIGURE IU-K2 Paaaenger Tripe ' ; I I ' I I I FIGUIE OI-K3 ' ... I . Vehlde Mllee n .... Mllee ... -... ... 0.0 : ' ; I i i i 1 l I I i I .... neucw .... .... -

PAGE 270

ESCAMBIA COUNlY TRANSIT SYSTEM Pertormuce laclic:aton FIGURE AI-K4 Total Ogerating Ex-oM=' .. IUT . ?. . .. . 7 . . . : .. : .. . .. ... ... ,... tta? ,... ... Aot11ei1 pene Mtl811 Oft> n... -1400 1200 10 10 10 0 I FIGURE IU-K5 PaasenQer F.,. I i"". i ; i l ' i . ' ' -... I i l I I : FIGURE 111-K& ' ; i ' I . ; l I ; -... -247

PAGE 271

248 ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Perfoi"'IWlce lndleaton FIGURE fti-K7 Velllelee Available and Velllclea Operata<:! For Maximum Service =l I t I 1t f;.;. ;.: ;.: :.= "-'' :.:.; :.:; :: :.:. :: -;_ +T...c ;.;. ;.;. ;.;. ;.;. ;.;. .'-'f. ; i ... ... .. .. .. ... .. v.tlllllll w. 'Mkllll OMA'I f

PAGE 272

ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Ell'ecdveaess Measures FIGURE lliK8 Vehicle Mil Per Capita FIGURE 111-KS Paaaenget Tripe Pet R_,.,. Mile ........ .., ..... .. .............. 0 ; ' FIGURE m-KtO .e. .. rage Age of FIHt ' I . v ' ' . . ; I -... .... -249

PAGE 273

250 ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Ell'ectiYeDess Measures FIGURE HI-K11 A_,.,. Mllee Bet-Accidenta -0 .... .... .... -FIGURE 111-K12 Re>oenue Mllea Between Roedcale ; ' I / ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' i ' . --.. -

PAGE 274

ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Elllclency Measures FIGURE IIIK13 Operating Exgenee Per Caoita 010.00.....--------------;_,.......-... .. I .... -FIGURE UI-K14 Operating Expense Per P-enget Tric> --10.71 +---------;__ __ _.; ___ ;__ _ ...... ___ .., __ -lUI ..... FIGURE m-K 1& Operating El
PAGE 275

252 ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Entclency Measures FIGURE IUK1 8 Maintenance Expena e Per R ... ,... Mile 11.00 10.11 ...... 10.00 -... .. --,._ t I I ' ' / i : I i : i i ; t I ... -... ... FIG URE III-K17 Farebox ReCO\NY Rallo ""i "'-L I : I : l ... --FIOUN!II-K18 / --V.V.."'"'icce .. lil ..... Per "-M Vtlllcle -... --

PAGE 276

ESCAMBIA COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM Emdenc:y Measures ..... ... ... 0 -...... 11,000 ...... 1,000 0 --FIGURE IIIK19 Rew,... Hoo .. Per Employee ' ' ; \ : ' : . i I i ... .. .. .... .. .. FIGURE III K20 PaNenoer Tripe Per EmployH ............. ' . ' : ! : ' --; : : .... "' 7 ""': . : ' . : -253

PAGE 277

ECI'S SUMMARY 1. The number of passenger trips peaked in 1985, declined in 1986, and subsequently stabilized. No explanation for this trend was identified. 2. Operating expense gradually increased from 1984 to 1988 and then significantly increased in 1989. The significant increase is primarily due to a corresponding increase in main!enance expense in the same year. This increase can be attributed to the need for additional maintenance for an aging bus fleet (13.6 years in 1989). 3. A significant decline in passenger fare revenues was observed in 1988. Sinc:e ridership decreased only slightly, the dedine may have resulted from an increase in re!iuc:ed-farc ridership. 4. Passenger trips per revenue mile increased from 1984 to 1985, dedined significantly in 1986, and stabilized thereafter. The peak observed in 1985 is driven by the increase in passenger trips wbi<:b was disalssed in # 1. S. The number of revenue miles between accidents fluctuated widely from 1984 to 1989 and no explanation was identified. 6. A significant increase in the number of roadc:alls was reported in 1986 resulting in a significant dec:line in the number of revenue miles between roadc:alls. 7. Operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue all increased significantly in 1989 due to the significant increase in operating expense dlsassseo:l in #2. 8. Declines in the farebox recovery ratio in 1988 and 1989 can be partially explained by the dedinin& passenger fare revenues disalssed in #3 and the increasing operating expense disa'ssed in #2.

PAGE 278

L LEE COUN'IY TRANSIT AUI'HORJTY SYSTEM PROFILE Oq:anlzattonal StructvR Lee County Transit is a divisio n of the Lee County Depanment of Transportation and Engineering. Goycmlaa Body and Composition LCfS is governed by the Lee County Board of Commis.o;ioners, a five-member public policy body responsib l e for overseeing all of Lee County operations Sgylcc t\Ra LCfS provides public transportation services to Lee County. Modes LCI'S operates fixed-route motorbus service and contractually provides handicapped transportation services. In the future, LCfS expects to operate ferryboat passenger service between the Fort Myers/Cape Coral areas. Recent Major Cbaga/Simlftcant Events In 1 987, LCfS began operating the Fort Myers Beach Trolley System. The system operates on a "park-and-ride" basis, p r oviding convenient parking and transportation to the Fort Myers Beach area with four Jrollics. The service is offered seven days a week and is free to all riders. It is believed that the recent, significant increases in passenger trips can be attributed to the provision of the trolley system and a more favorable fare structure. 255

PAGE 279

! !i!. z:. I -r = i tl i .! i -;<:1 256

PAGE 280

I .;;. a II' lii 'F: -.,"' 257

PAGE 281

. i 258

PAGE 282

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). Value for 1988 trip length is inconsistent with other yean. 1984 6.2.4 1985 6.2S 1986 n/a 1987 6.30 1988 3.84 1989 6.29 The number of passenger trips fell from 1 136,240 in 1988 to 1,122,580 in 1989 while passenger miles increased from 4,368,240 in 1988 to 7,056,230 in 1989. Is there an explanation for this inconsistency? This inconsistency is also seen in the passenger trip lengths shown in the table above. Are there any explanations for this c:hange in trip length? Average speed is inc:onsistent from 1984 to 1989 (see table). Why does average speed vary so sigo.ific:antly? 1984 18.88 198S 18.90 1986 Z1.19 1987 l5.6S 1988 11.32 1989 15.91 Response: After reviewiq the data and the questions above, LCrS indicateS that passenger trip length and average speed are inconsistent due to c:omputational error. However, LCTS in unable to rec:alc:ulate the data or provide any updated information. 259

PAGE 283

260 LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Perfol'IIUIJice lndlcators ...... --' I FIGURE 111-L 1 County Poc>ulatiOn I I -;---200 100 ... ... ; ' I ... I l < < ... FIGURE 111-\.2 PUMnger Tr_,. I I I . ... / ... ; / o.ot---... _ ... .. ----------FIGURE IH.3 VeNc:le MllH and "-"e,.. Mllee .. -; I ' u I ....... .. .... ... 0.0 -! I i I j l I I j --..... _______ .... .... -

PAGE 284

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Perf o muuu:e ludicalon FIGUil& III-L4 Total Operating Ex..... .... .... .. -.. 1. FIGURE 111-ll Paeaenger Fate Ae-. nr ......... -ltiO 10 .. 10 .. ... 0 -. ' - . . ' ; ; : ............. ; i I I ' ' ; ... FIGURE 11-ll ; : ; ; -' . --l ; ' ; ... ............ -261

PAGE 285

262 LEE COUNlY TRANSIT AUTHORilY Performance Indicators FIGURE 111-\.7 Velllc:lee A v allable and Velliclea Operated For Maximum Service ... -...

PAGE 286

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Ell'ecClveness Measures FIGURE IIIL8 Vehicle MUee Callita ?------------------------------0.0 .. 0 -FIGURE IIIU Puling Trlga A-.. Mile I /-- I 7 ' ! ; I ' ; ; ----' ; ; ' I I I i ' I I ' l --263

PAGE 287

264 LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Eft'ec:tlvuess Measures t--0 -0 -FIGURE 111-L 11 R_,.,. Miles Be'-Accldenta / i I ; ; !/ ! ""; ' I ._, . i ; ; i i l I I I I I : ... ... 1N1 ... .. RGURE IIH.t2 Rewnue Mllea Bet-Ro-ala / I I I ; y i ; . I I : ' ----

PAGE 288

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emdenq Measures t10.DQ ..... --FIG UR E UI-L 13 Operating ExpenM Per Capita i ' ! i ------I ; I : ' : : ' ' : i i : I : ' : ' i ... .... ... ... FIGURE 111-L OpetGlng Expenu Per Pueonger Trll) ..... : ' i I 1 ./ I ./ / 1 "" : i : 1 ' i 1 ..... : I ; i ---... FIGUN! 111-L 15 ODetatlnCI ExpenM Per Alwnue Mile i I ..... ; i __.-.- RIO ..... I I I : I I I I I 1 ; I tAO ; ---... 265

PAGE 289

266 LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY Emclau:y Measures toAO toAO to.20 to.DO -.... .... .... .. "" FIGURE 111-L 18 Main-e Ex- Pw R-nue Mile ' -/ ' ' ' I ; ' ; ' ' ; i ' .. ... FIGURE 111-1.17 Fuebox Rallo i ; ' ; : ........... i I ' ' ' i ' -----. ... .., FIOURE D1-L 18 VtNcle ... ,... ""* VeNcle ' ; : i ' i : I I I I i .... 0 ... I ... .., --

PAGE 290

LEE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY EMeleucy Measuns .... --0 0 ,... ...... -FIGURi 111-t.tll R-nue H01n Per Employee i i i ! ; / ........ ; I ' : ' ; -... ... FIGURE llf-L20 Paaaenget Tripe Per ErnployM . : .r... . : / ; : : ; I -.... \ .......... ; ......._, ; I T ; : I . \ I ... . ...... --267

PAGE 291

LCI'S SUMMARY 1. According to the agency, passenger trips and service levels (vehicle miles and revenue miles) were inconsistent due to computational error. As a result, measures c:alc:ulated using these indicators should be evaluated with caution. 2. Ridership significantly increased from 1987 to 1988 due to the provision of a trolley service along the FL Myers beach area which was free during the first year of operation. In addition, two new reduced-fare passes were instituted in 1988 inc:luding a monthly pass and an all-clay pass 3. Revenue miles of service dec:lined gradually until 1987 when service began rising. The sudden increase resulted from the operation of the trolley service. 4. Operating expense increased significantly in 1988 and 1989 due to the increased cost associaled with the operation of the trolley system. 5. While the trolley service was free in late 1987 and early 1988, a 50 cent fare was charged beginning in late 1988. As a result, passenger fare revenues increased significantly in 1989. 6. A significant increase in employees in 1989 was nec:e.ssary to ac:commodate the operation of the trolley system. 7. Passenger trips per revenue mile increased significantly in 1988 due to the addition of the trolley service. 8 The number of revenue miles between accidents fluctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1989 The siplific:ant decrease in 1988 resulted from an increase in accidents. Ac:c:ordina to the apacy, the accident increase can be attributed to system growth, changes in reponiDa procedures, and c:loser scrutiny of accident/incident reports. 9. A significant decline in revenue miles between roadc:alls was experienced in 1987 but no explanation was identified. Subsequent increases in 1988 and 1989 also c:ould not be explained. 268

PAGE 292

10. Operat:iDg expeDSC per passenger trip decreased significantly in 1988 due to ridership increases on the trolley service. 11. The farebox ratio declined gradually throughout this time period with the exception of a slight increase in 1988. The slight increase in 1988 is inconsistent with the free trolley service provided in that year. No explanation was identified. 12. Employee productivity measured in terms of revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee showed signs of improvement in 1987 and 1988 when the increase in revenul' miles of service exceeded growth in employment. Declines in revenue hours per emPloyee and passenger trips per employee Oc:aUTed in 1989 but no explanation was identified. 13. A sharp decrease in average fare was observed in 1988 due to the introduction of the beadl trolley service. Although the new service helped increase ridership for the system, it did not produce corresponding increases in passenger fare revenues since the trolley service was free in 1988. In addition, new reduced-fare options were instituted as disalssed in #2. 269

PAGE 293

270 this page IS blank

PAGE 294

M. SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Oran!zational StmctuR Sarasoca County Area Transit is a department of Sarasoca County government. Goumtnc 1k14J apd Composltlop SCAT is governed by the Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners, which is comprised of five members representing districtS and elected in county-wide voting. Seaice Am SCAT serves the urbanized ponion of Sarasota County including' the cities of Longboat Key, Sarasota, Venice, Englewood, and Nonh Port. Modes SCAT provides fixed-route motorbus service and a downtown trolley service (operational November 1987). RCCCDt MaJor Cbanas/Sip!Ocapt Eyenta none. 271

PAGE 295

TAIU IIIMl I'DJOUoi.UI(Z IIIDICATOU -.. c-o, ......... (QIID) )l A' 1 'H t J .. I , ... :J<:V H.-1 --__ .... :14UO ,. .. ''.;:-. .-... oii-.c ' '" S)'. (, >"''"'"'(.";l' ..... l ,:.. . , . TOIIII" hesse Pq 1111 (000) .Tai.aN i F1*zn p,.r; .... .... Q. ... . ,. !.j ..... t':s? SI)Q.IO ::" . ,. .. .. tli0&2t -Z!UO 1-257.'111 :ln1N 14.-..,.,.,..,.. -$U41'11 SM0$4 :'aM.ri lit,' .t. .......... .... SlfJt . .... . . 3UII' .-. r 't '"'-4=---.a.; }:1'. -ol

PAGE 296

273

PAGE 297

274

PAGE 298

Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). Value for 1985 was adjusted to match 1984 trip length in previous report. 1984 4.34 l98S 4.34 1986 4.2S 1987 4.03 1988 3.78 1989 4.09 Is there an explanation for the increase in roadcalls from 517 in 1988 to 727 in 1989? Response: The reponed number of roadcalls in 1989 is correct. SCAT has been experiencing significant maintenance problems with the fleet that is currently providing service. However, SCAT is in the process of replacing many of the problem vehicles in 1991. NOTE: Vehicle houn in 1987 were changed from 61,960 to 60,990. The number of employees in 1987 was changed from 55.6 to 50.5; the number of transponation operating employees in 1987 was changed from 40 to 34.9. All changes were made to reflect an updated 1987 Sectioa 15 repon that was not received prior to production of the 1988 performance evaluation. 275

PAGE 299

SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT ladlcaton -n 100 0 -u... ... 0.0 -... ... II ; ' ' ' i I I I I ' i ' FIGURE W-M1 Coomy Poclulatlon I I l I I I I I ' ' -... FIGURE W-M2 Plluenger Tripe I I i I i I ' I ' I I I -... FIGURE 111-M3 ' I : ' -I I ' I I i Vehlcll MUM .rid MllM I I l I I .. i-; r ... ... 0 I i ' I I -... ........ .... ..... -

PAGE 300

SARASOTA COUN1Y AREA TRANSIT Performance lndlcaton .2A ..... .... .... 10. 10.0 ... FIGURE 111-1.44 Total Operating Ex-i : I ' .... -:-=--r : .. ...... ' ' I ; l I j I I I ; FIGURE UI-M5 PaaaenQ;w Fare .,...... -lUI 1110 .... 00 -.. .. ... 0 -. I i l : : I . I I -' I ; -' ' i ; ' -FIGURE Ill-Mil ; ' ' : I \ ' : ' -I ' I j I ; -. I i I I I ' -277

PAGE 301

278 SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Pafonal"ce ladlcaton .. 10 I'ICJURE 1Hof7 v.Nclll ......... and v.tllciM CliMnllied Fot Maxlmum a.rvlce I : I ' I ' . l -. t ......... 10 0 I I I ---,.'l'll!m" ...... ,.. Cll s f

PAGE 302

SARASOTA COUNlY AREA TRANSIT Ell'ectlveness Measures FIGURE 111-M8 Vehdele Miles Pet Capita ... ... .... ... .., ,... till F IGURE III-M8 f'uaeneet Tripe Per A-. M i le .. . FIGURE ID-w.G A-ege Age o1 Fleet / 7 ; I 0 I I I ' -... ---. ' I -279

PAGE 303

280 SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Eft'ectheaas Mtullft:S 0 FIGURE III-M11 R_...,. MilH Between AccicMflta I ' ' / I 1'\. ' "'-l i i I ' I I I I ; i I I ' I ' ' ' ... --FIGURE UI-M12 Al>o-Mill Between RMdcale i ' ' ' : V! ; I I ' I -0 I ' -i ; i I ; ' ; -

PAGE 304

SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Measures FIGURE III-M13 O!>efatng Expenae Per Capita -... .. '"' ... FIGURE IIIM14 ODerllllng Ex-Per Puaenger Trill IUO tJ.10 7 ""' .. AO 10.70 -... -... FIGURE .... 15 Operating Per AAI .. -.. .. ,.,. Mile IUO I i I : --' i 1-"" ; I ; : ..... ..... : : IO.N : : ... ..,. --281

PAGE 305

282 SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT Elllcleaey Measures FIGURE UI-Mte Maln18nance Ex- Pw Flew,.. Mile v I I ...... eo.oo ... .... .... .... ... ... ... -0 ... I i i i I i I l i i I i : : i i ' ... -FIGURE II-M17 Farebox Aec_,. Ratio i I I i I I I I I I : ' I I : I I I : .. : ' : : --FlGURI! IU-M18 Vehicle MIIM Pw Pule V.'lelllll'llcleic .. I i I : . : ' I I ; I I I I I ; i I I : l -.., -

PAGE 306

SARASOTA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT -oo 0 -10.000 -..... -Eftldeac:y Mea siU"H FIGURE -nue Hoon Per Employee I I . . i i . I . ; i ' ' ' --... -FIGURE -M2 0 ,...., .. .,._...,.-T ripe Pw Emnctl)lo:'*"J'"",.. : I i I I ' ' . . -' : ; I -I j i I : . I I : I I I I ' . I -283

PAGE 307

SCAT SUMMARY 1. The number of passenger trips decrused in 1987 due to a 2S percent incruse in fares (from 80 cents to one dollar) in October 1986. 2 From 1984 to 1988, service supply remained relatively stable while significant increases in revenue miles of service took place in 1989. 3. Passenger fare revenues remained stab l e from 1984 to 1986 aud incrused gradually from 1987 to 1989. The fare incruse in late 1986 more than offset the resulting decline in ridership about an overall incruse in passenger fare revenues in 1987 Increases in ridership contributed to rising fare revenues in 1988 aud 1989. 4. An unusually large spare ratio was neoessary from 1984 to 1989 due to severe maintenance problems experienced with a fleet of 23 Sldllcraft buses. 5. The number of vehicle miles per capita incrused significantly in 1989 due to the increase in revenue miles of service discussed in #2. 6 A significant increase in accidents in 1988 aud 1989 resulted in a deterioration in safety as measured by revenue miles between accidents. No ezplanation was identified. 7 According to the aaency the higb nunther of roadc:alls from 1984 to 1989 (partiallarly in 1984 and 1989) can be attributed to the severe fleet maintenance problems discussed in #4. 8 The farebox recovery ratio gradually declined from 1984 to 1989 which is partly due to in creases in revenue miles of service without corresponding increases in ridership 9. The significant increase in average fare in 1987 resulted from the 2S percent fare incruse di..,ssed in # 1. 284

PAGE 308

N. IAKEL\ND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICf SYSTEM PROFILE Or:pnlza!loaa! Sh'!!ct!!DLakeland Area Mass Transit District is an independent authority (special taring district). Goumln18odr and Comgosjtlon -lAMT is governed by a five-member Board of Directors comprised of three City Counc!l members and two County Commissioners. Scri!c:t Ana l.AMT serves the Lakeland urbanized area. Mqda Setvices provided by lAMT include fixed-route motorbus setvices and demand response setvices. Rcc:tnt Malor Chaaaa/S!mllklnc Eymts -Major changes over the specified time period include several new vehicle acquisitions including 11 fixed..route buses in 1983, four demandresponse vehicles in 198S, three fixed-route buses in 1986, four new demand-response vehicles in 1988, and five fixed-route buses In 1989. In addition. a three-and-two-thirdsaae site was recently acquired for a new admin!sttation and maintenance facility. 285

PAGE 309

286 I I

PAGE 310

287

PAGE 311

288 I I

PAGE 312

Motorbus passenger trip length. 1984-1989 (see table). Is there an explanation for the significant increase in trip length in 1987? 1984 5.00 l!l6S s.oo 1986 s.oo 1987 5 .41 1988 5.39 1989 S.lS Response: The system significantly expanded its route system in December 1986. The increase in trip length corresponded with the route expansion. Total operatins expense is reponed differently in two different places in the 1989 Section 15 repon. Operatins expense is comprised of vehicle operatious (010), vehicle maintenance (041), non-vehicle maintenance (042), and generale.dministration (160). All categories are consistent except for vehicle operations. Form 310 (page 1 of 5) indicates vehicle operations to be 5763,685 while form 310 (page 2 of 5) indicates vehicle operations to be $814,689. Whicb is correct? Response: The correct figure for vehicle operations is $763,685. A corrected form was provided. In the last performance evaluatioa, CU1R used county population as a proxy for service area population for the majority of transit systems in Florida. The 1989 Section 1S repon indicates that LAMT aa urbaa area with a population of less thaa 200,000 while the Polk County population is estimated at 410,860. Whicb do you feel is more appropriate? Response: LAMT essentially serves the Lakeland urban area whicb has a population of approximately 200,000. 289

PAGE 313

What is included in auxilia.JY tranSportation revenues (Form 210, Line No. 06)? The 1989 Section 1S repon indicates $112,573. Should this be under local cash grarns and reimbursements (Line No. 09)? Response: Auxiliary transportation revenues includes all advenising revenues collected by the system. The $112,573 is correct and should not be included under local cash grants and reimbursements. Average fare revenue per boarding increased significantly in 1989. Did the fares increase? Response: Fares have not increased since the transit district began operating 1rus service in 1980. No explanation for the increase in average fare was provided. 290

PAGE 314

LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Performuce Indicators ... n. ...... o 0 ... ' ' : : I ' ' ... ,.., .. .. FIGURE 111-+11 County PopUlation ' i I i ' ; ; ' : ' ,. .. ,.. F IGURE lll-N2 I : ' : t I i I ... -o i n ... -0 FIGURE UI-N3 VeNeta MIH and Aetrue t.alea ' ' : : : : I L i : -.... -...................... .... 291

PAGE 315

292 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Perfoi'IUJice Iadlc:ators ... ... 10.0 ... FIGURE III-N4 Total OpetatJng Ex. i i ; ; I ....---:. r ......... "T i ; i I ' I ; -... -........ "". lolftel I I .......... FIGURE DI-N& Plaaenger F .. AeYenuea ,_.. I "" .... t-... .. ... ,. 0 -i I ' ' -. ; I ' -' I : ; ; ; ' ; f -... F1GURE m-NS ; . i I I ; I ; I -... I / i .Y' ' ' i ; I -' ,.......-I ; I : ... -

PAGE 316

. LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Performance Indicators FlGIJRE UIN7 Velliclea Available and Vehlclea Op.,..ated For Maximum Service ...--. .... ........ 12 . .. . _ : :-.,. .__ ___ ..:; +------:..._ .... .... .... WQM -... '#Mto!M ()pWM:Id 293

PAGE 317

294 LAKElAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Elrectlveness Measnres ... ... ... ... .a ... ; i ' I I FIGURE UI-N8 Vehk:le Mlle8 Per c.pjta : : ' ' I I i ' f i I I I i ; ... ... FIGURE 111-NII PuMnger Trlcle Per Revenue M ile I ' ' ; i : --' ... ... ... .I 0 ... ' ... > ; ' i ... : FIGURE 111-NIO ,__ Alii 01 FIHt ' ' ' --. : ; / ' I .v I ' ' ; I i : I ... --

PAGE 318

LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Eft'ectlveaess Measures -0 ... FIGURE III-Nt1 R8Yenue Milea Bet-en Aecidenta : : ' / l I ' ; ''V ' : ' .... .... .... ... -FIGURE IUN 1 2 RIM,.,. Milea Bet-ROidcalla ........ _, ..... 295

PAGE 319

296 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Emdeney Measures -..... ..... ...... ..... ... UAO ..... ...... -..... ...... -... FIGURE IIIN13 Opwatlng Ex-Per C&plta i 1/ i i I ' ! I i ............... i I I I I i I I I I i I I I I ' ' I I -... -UI-N14 Expense Per P-.nger Trll) ' I I I i i I ' I ' I ; l i ; 1 I ' ; ' I I ' ... ... FIGURE UIN15 Opwating EJcpenle Per Rewnue Mile I : I ' ' : I I i I I I I I I I ' I ' I I ' I I --... -

PAGE 320

LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Emdenq Measures FIGURE ln-N18 Maintenance Ex- Pet Rewnue MUe 10.10+-----.;---'--_; ____ __;_ ___ --l ... ,... -FIGURE UI-N11 Farebox Rec
PAGE 321

298 LAKELAND AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT Emdeuey Measures FIGURE 11-NIII Ro,.,.,. Houre Per Elnployeo ... ... -... ... FIGURE RI-N20 Pa11enger Trlpa Per l ' : -........-: - i I i : -' : ' FIGURE Ut-N21 AvengoFaro ' ,._ : : ; : -i==:::: : ==--:--_ I I ; : I 1 j ----1 : l i ... .. ... _, .....

PAGE 322

LAMT SUMMARY 1. Ridership increased steadily from 1984 to 1989 primarily in response to significant expansion in service (increasing revenue miles) in 1987, 1988, and 1989. 2 There were vinually no deadhead miles from 1984 to 1989. The agency is confident that this is correct because service is designed to require very few deadhead miles. 3. As a result of the service expansion mentioned in #1, operating expense also increased significantly in 1987, 1988 and 1989. 4. Despite stable fares since 1980, passenger fare revenues increased dramatically each year from 1984 to 1989 due primarily to significant increases in ridership. 5. Significant increases in the number of employees in 1 987, 1988, and 1989 were necessary to accommodate service expansion. 6. The service expansion in 1987 and 1988 discussed in #1 resu lted in a greater frequency of accidents (decline in revenue miles between accidents) whicl! may be attnouted to the addition of inexperienced bus operators. 7. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls fluctuated dramatically from 1984 to 1989 No explanation was identified 8 Despite slight declines in 1987 and 1988, the agency experienced an overall increase in farebox rec:overy from 1984 to 1989. This promising trend is explained by the increases in passenger fare revenues which were disc:ussed in #4. 9. Employee productivity (revenue miles per employee and passenger trips per employee) gradually improved along with service expansion and increasing ridership indicating that the agency is experienc:ing some economies of sc:ale. 299

PAGE 323

300 this page IS blank

PAGE 324

0 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM PROFILE Orunga!lonal Strud!!n -Manatee County Transit is a division within the Depanment of Public Works of Manatee County. Govemine BociJ and Comoosltion Manatee County Transit is governed by the Board of County Commissioners. Service Am -The system provides service to the urbanized parts of Manatee County. Modes MANC operates fixed-route motorbus services as well as demand-response uansponation services. Recent Malar Cbaues/Sim!Dcant Events -During the 1984-1988 time period, a new administrative complex was constructed and the courthouse transfer station was refurbished. 301

PAGE 325

& I -. d B !(! !2 i ll -5I b I 'a -iS -302

PAGE 326

e 0 q!i =ti !If :E:E 1 I ! -.. &! i :a 303

PAGE 327

i :1 5 -j I Js B = -! II I Ill 304

PAGE 328

Ei'n:CTIYEMESS ME.UIJilS seRVICI! SUPPLY .. :v'"* '"' SERVICII CONSUNmON . . ..... .... t r :.: .>;..& t Hdt::R., . .. P,rr..,.r'l'rifl r.tane ... Nile ; ; . ,.,, '",''''!' .: OUALnY OPSI!Ilvta! .-.. .}"'.' -('. 4 . .. .. > .... ;$.!$: . ....... ...... ""'., ..... (lo ,..a) -i" .... < .;)".4, ) .. ... ,. i -----111(000) AVAIUIIIIUIY . .. . .,, (qc!O); ti, :.;; .., TABLE 111-04 Monoroe Co""l)' Traaslt Dlrcdi)'-Openled Moeorbwr ElrodiftDu Matares -IJU -IJI7 ... .. ji6\ i .,:s: ' < >.-' '>'< .,......__ ,.,.., -.... . ... ....... -. .... . -, .)r. ,, l' ; '><$ .... ""' .. 1.1 ..... ... {1 'l. :i-,'( : v ;,,I!Mt:&d'* . :.t:! ......... ;..;,; :.i< UJ t.l6 1 .16 1.07 .. '""' '<' "'- <,. > ' -<. ""''"" ;'> f';''( ?< '"" _,' k' ... ,. .., ,,..-I<."' '"' "-;t; . . :'( z }JJ:.s. ... ,. < ,.,: -,;t ..... ; .... " \! '"'E < u . ... w; . , uo 3.10 4.10 uo ..... ........ .. > '., -""' ' ,,... (M)"' ,, .1;.-. .:: : r '>'i'U'' :1499, ,,._; tQO:: ''-!' { 16.00 .',v<:.:t.: \, : :!:3 '\<-. ''}: ... .( y .... -. ,1--.-... :. %10.00 90.00 97.1l0 2S7.00 "''' ;,.;. :HH"' :t . .. , ,_. h rui .. ". s r.t:-2.11 6$7 s.ss 1117 .. : , ,?':(';< ' ;-.. v > o, ... .. { ,..;111;< . : ry -, -I fit c .. i'l: 1-1 *''"t;"W-"" v .. ,_, ..... 'it' 171 .. ,(, ,;_ ""'' :. V'. .:, . : . . ,, .. f, -.. '>'il<. .:' .. I.Ql 1.10 -1n10'1' -r.-.. .. .. .... .. : .. . Hllq . . . : ft .u, : . ; ;.:?.>' h) "$1< '!'N.;., ... .. ..... "'"'" """-'"' .... Ul s.zz -'}" lxl" '(( .... ;. .. ,lt ,., .,.,, .. (: 29 1 00 379.00 ,..,. .. ..... _,.. ': , . -lsJif' ",, ;, )>' .:i5
PAGE 329

306

PAGE 330

i -!! d <$S l bl ':! !IS 1-fJ i :IllJ I 307

PAGE 331

i II sll I =. .!J::E i il C? b ! i5 308

PAGE 332

! i ll I !'l g .. "', . i ,., .... ': ::E '< >.. :E] ... t : l .... ';l ,., I ." ..... .., ' 309

PAGE 333

.... ..... 0 lniCIENCY MbSUUS cosr I!I'I'ICII!HCY ,,.. TABLE 111.()9 M ... tee Coual)' Truslt 8)11< Total Ellldalc7 Meuolru IM5 .,. tm .,. '"'

PAGE 334

COMMENTS/MODIFICATIONS Motorbus passcuger trip length, 1984-1989 (se e table). Value for 1984 trip l ength was adjusted to match 1985 trip leogth in previous repon. Why is there a signjlicant increase in 1989? 1984 1965 3 .60 1986 4 13 1987 4.86 1988 4 .<13 1989 S37 Passeaaer trips and passenger miles both increased &om 1988 to 1989 while vehicle mile3, revenue miles, vehicle hours, and revenue houn all declined from 1988 to 1989. Is there an explanation? NOTE: The questioos indicated above are all addressed by the changes made in an updated 1989 Section 15 repon provided by MANC. The following changes were made in the updated repon: Passenger trips were changed from 618,290 to 559,848. Passenger miles were changed from 3,318,390 to 2,437,382. Vehicle miles were changed from 557 640 to 525,289. Revenue miles were clwlged from 538.420 to 507 615. Vebicle hOlliS were chansed from 33,990 to 32,410. hOlliS were chansed from 32,680 to 31,279. Route miles were changed from 147.80 to 123.7. The number of roadcalls fluctuates significantly from 1984 to 1989 (see table). Why? 311

PAGE 335

1984 220 198$ liO 1986 97 1987 m 1.988 291 1989 319 Response: No apparent explanation provided. 312

PAGE 336

MANATEE COUNlY TRANSIT Performance IDdlcaton 200 n. ..... FIGURE w-01 eo ... ty Pooulatlon ... +-------------'----'-----______________ +----._ ________ __ eoo ,._,. ... 1111 F IGURE 111-o2 P-er Tripe ... ... ---------,.----1 " 200 0 -I I --FIGURE 111-03 VeNcll Milee and Reve..,. Mlle. . ..... --. ... . I I : -101? ............ ... 313

PAGE 337

314 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Performance lndlcaton FIGURE nl-04 Total Operating Expenae ... ..... n. ...... .... ttiO ... -... ... 10 tO 0 --Aotuellb..... ... II FIGURE 111-06 RevenuH ' I ' . . i ' ' ' I ' ' ..,. .,. 1rttlhi 7 ............. I ; I i FIGURE m-oe Total ; ' . ' -----. ... ' i l . IIIOTI! ,_.,. ,_,,u ... llatl._---

PAGE 338

MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Performance Indicators FIGURE 111 Vellicl Available and Vehicles Operated For Muirnum Se
PAGE 339

316 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Elrectlveuess Measues ... 1.0 0.0 ... ... ... ... OA 0.0 . I--0 -FIGURE 11-08 Vehicle M1lea Per Clllita I l ' I ' ' I ' ' I I ' I ' ' ' : ... ... FIGURE Ul-09 Paeeenger Tripe Per Mile i : ' ........... I ' 1 ' i ; I I I ; I I I -' : ... FIGURE W-o10 Aveteoe Aqt of Fleet : ' ' . I ' ; ... ' i I ; ' -' I I ' ' -

PAGE 340

MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Efl'ectheness Measures FIGURE 111-011 Rewrue Mllee Bet-en Ac:eidente ........ A I -' i ' ; eo.ooo ...... ........ 0 ...... I 0 -. ' : ' ' ' ... ... ... .... FIGURE II-Q1 2 Rewrue Milee Bet"'"" Roadcalle ;,...... I ' -. -. : -... -..... .......... ... 3 1 7

PAGE 341

318 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Emcleacy Measures t10.00 ..... v ...... ..... 00.00 .... FIGURE 111-013 ()petating Ex-Per capita ' ' i ; I _j_ ........... I i ' I I ! I l ' ' . . ... -... FIGUR 10-014 ()perming Expenae Per Puaenger Trip ..... I ' ; I I ' -' / ' ; ' ; ' 11.10 ...... ' ' ' ; -00.70 ' 00.00 .... -... FIGURE 10-015 Operat i ng Expenee Per Reve,.. Mile v ..... ..... 10.?1 -.... ' ' ... ; I ' ' ; r ' I I ' ... -

PAGE 342

MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Emcleney Measures .. .10 FIGURE 111 Maintenance Expenae Per Rewnue Mile i / ..... ; 10.20 10.00 ... ---i I ' ' ... ... NOft. '"*""' ,.,_.. .. _. ... .,..._ 4Me FtGURE 111-()17 Farebox Recovwy Retio .... .------------, '" +------...;_ _____ ,__---j ... ... ... -.................... .. FIGURE Ul-()18 Vehicle Mllee Per Pelk Vehicle -' ... .-... 0 ... --319

PAGE 343

320 MANATEE COUNTY TRANSIT Emdeney Measuru ,...., ..... ,..... -0 -FIGURE Ul A_,.... H-. Per Employee ' I ; ' ' I I ' ' ' I ' ' ; I ! I i i ' ' ' : ' ... ... -.,.., .. .............. ... FIGURE 11-020 ... _;_ __ ... to. II 00.00 -... ---NO'f'a 1rie',... If ........... ' ' . : .....- j I I I I ' I ' I ; ' I I ' I ' ' ... -

PAGE 344

MANC SUMMARY 1. The number of passenger trips declined significantly in 1986 and 1987 primarily in response to reductions in service supply (revenue miles). Improper sampling procedures have likely impacted the coUection of accurate ridership information. 2. The dip in operating expense in 1987 resulted from the reduction in service (revenue miles), tennination of employees, and a decline in maintenance expense (3 vehicles eliminated from the bus neet). A subsequent increase in operating expense resulted from a slight service expansion in the foUowing year. 3. The decline in the number of employees in 1987, 1988, and 1989 coincided wi. th overall service reductions. 4. The number of accidents reponed in 1985 was significantly lower than other years while increasing significantly in the years 1986 to 1989. This resulted in a peale in the safety measure (revenue miles between roadc:alls) in 1985. No explanation was identified. 5. The number of revenue miles between roadcalls peaked in 1985 and was foUowed by significant declines in more recent years. According to the agency, the decline in this measure may be partially attn'buted to unsuccessful contract maintenance. 6. Operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile all indicated a distinct dip in 1987 due to the significant decline in ridership that was discussed in # 1. 7. Employee productivity as measured in tenns of revenue miles per employee and passenger trips per employee peaked in 1985. 321

PAGE 345

322 this page IS blank

PAGE 346

P. SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM SYSTEM PROFILE Oaaniza!lonal Slrgct1Jre Smyrna Transit System is operated as a department of the City of New Smyrna Beach. Goveminz Body and ComJ!Osl!lon The system director, appointed October 1, 1989, also oversees the airport and manages the City Industrial Park. Because Smyrna Transit System is a deparnnent of the City, it is governed by the Board of City Commissioners. Sea!ce Am SMfS was created to provide public: transportation services to the residents and visitors of New Smyrna Beach. Modes The system provides fixed-route motorbus services and demaodrespoose services wbic:b require prior notification because the fixedroute vebic:les alter their routes to accommodate this service. Kectnt MaJor Cbanm/Sim!Ocant Events Smyrna Transit System contracts internally with the city municipal garage for bus maintenance. 323

PAGE 347

u il -- I ---= R : i -I ., I -" -.. 324

PAGE 348

32S

PAGE 349

326 ..... a -. "' . ... ij .-.. .-' .., ... : J i:-r :c ., .... ,.. ..... t

PAGE 350

Motorbus passenger trip length, 1984-1989 (see table). 1984 5..50 1985 5 .40 1986 4.73 1987 4.89 1988 5.02 1989 5.02 Maintenance expense reponed as $13.00 in 1989. Please provide correct number. Response: SMTS provided the correct amount for maintenance expense. The number was changed from $13.00 to $34,196. What is the number of full-time maintenance employee equivalents in 1989? Section 15 report indicates zero. Response: The number of maintenance employees was changed from zero to four. What is the number of full-time administrative employee equivalents in 1989? Section 15 report indicates zero. Response: The number of administrative employees was changed from zero to one. In 1989, vehicle hours is reponed to be equal to revenue hours at 4,500 hours. Explain this inconsistency. Response: Vehicle hours were reported incorrectly. The number of vehicle hours was changed from 4,500 hours to 4,750 hours. While vehicle miles remained relatively constant. revenue miles declined significantly. Why? 327

PAGE 351

Response: Vehicle miles were reponed incorrtty. The number of vehicle miles was changed from 87,500 miles to 81,250 miles. What happened to the nonloc:al operating revenues in 1989? Response: The UMT A Section 9 grant was not approved by the end of the fiscal year; therefore, no federal money was received for fiscal year 1989. The reponed labor produc:tivity (revenue hours per total employees) declined in 1989. What explains this? Response: Labor produc:tivity declined for two main reasons: (I) inc:rease in vehicle down-time due to maintenance failures, (2) a pan-time employee was reclassified as a fulltime employee in 1989. 328

PAGE 352

SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Performance ludlcators FIGURE III-P1 Clty Population n ........ .. 10 0 ... n .. 20 10 0 -100 ,. .. .. 10 0 -' ' i i ' ... ..... -- ; ' ' I i ' I i ' ; ; i .. FIGURE III-P2 Pauenger Tripe i I I I i ' I -FIGURE 111-P3 ' . i ' I I ... ' ' ' Vtlllcll t.lll-. llld Rewnue Mille I 'I I . . .... ; .. .. ' . . .. -\
PAGE 353

330 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Perfonnuce lndkaton n .. .... .... -00 -ftl ... .. 10 .... 0 ... FIGURE II-P4 Total ()pertlng Ex- I ' I ' ; I . ........... . I I I I ; ' I I I I ; ... -.. n....,.... I : ; : ' ' I -: . ............_, ; ! ' ; I -... FIGUAE 111-Pe Total Empicrye11 I . I j ' i i -... ' : ' -' I i / ' i/ i . -

PAGE 354

I I 0 ... SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Perfol'lllllllce IDcllcaton FIGURE IIIP7 Velllc:IH Available and Vehlclea Ol'erated For Maximum Serv ice i . -- I I I ; i i i i -,. .. .... .. .. 331

PAGE 355

332 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Elredlveness Measures ... ... ... 0.0 -o.a o.e 0.0 .. 0 FIGURE 111-P& Vehicle Mllea Per c.p!ta I ; I ' ' i I ' ' i ' I I I I I ' ' ' ' ; ' ; ... ... ... FIGURE UI-P8 Mile i ' ' i I ' ; i . ' i ; --. I I ; ... ... -' --. ; ' ; i ! I I i I ... ... -

PAGE 356

SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM EJrectlveness Measures FIGURE UIP11 Aellenue Mllee Be-n Accidents ; --\ ' : \ : ! : I ' 0 -,...... 0 : \V i ' . : I --... NO'na ...... Ala_. ....... ,, FIGURE II..P12 Aoedca11e ' Jr\ : : ' ! : I ; I \ ' ' . !/_ \ I : . : ---333

PAGE 357

334 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM Emdeney Measures 11LOO ..... ... ' i I I I ; '-.. ' i ' I I I I I ' I ' -FIGURE IU-P14 Opetlllfno Exs-a Per ,......, Trip ' ' ' -! ' .......... ...... ... ..... ..... .... --' I ' ' - ; ' ' ' -AOUAE III-P1I Operating ex-Pw Mle ; ' / ............ .Y ' ' ' I ! ' I I I ' ---

PAGE 358

10.0 0 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM EM d ea cy M easu res FIGURE W-P18 Maintenance Ex p ense Pet RewNII M ile ' : J.-' ' to ... -10.00 ..... ....... ---......... .. .. ... -0 ... : ' ' ' I ' i I ' i ' I I ! I ' --... FIGURE PI-P17 Farebox Recovery Retlo I ' I : i ' ; I I I ' ' I ; I I ... FIGURE IU-P18 VtNcle Mille ,_, PNk V ehicle I ' / j_' : I I ... .... -335

PAGE 359

336 SMYRNA TRANSIT SYSTEM EmcleDCY Meuures FIGURE UIP111 H-. Per Emplc7fee V'1\ ' ' I ' -' \ 1 I ' I i I I I -I ' i ' ' I 0 ... ' ... --' ' ... Paenger Tripe Per Employee i I ,_ 0 ... ' ' ' --' i -! ' -! ' ' ' -. I J : ' :/)\ I l I . ' ' ; ; -. : -. ' i I j ' I I . ' --\ \ --

PAGE 360

SMTS SUMMARY 1. NOTE: Many of the indicators and measures for Smyrna Transit System are likely impacted by the fact that the system had no director from 1987 to 1989. For that reason, reponed data and reponing methods may lack consistency over time. 2. Operating expense declined significantly in 1987 which resulted from the downsizing of the vehicle fleet from four to two buses. Tbe subsequent increase in operating expense in 1988 and 1989 cannot be explained. 3. According to the agency, the general declines in passenger fare revenues resulted from an increase in reduced-fare ridership (elderly & handicapped). 4. According to the agency, the increase in the number of employees in 1989 can be attributed to two factors: (1) maintenance requirements necessitated an increase in employees due to increased vehicle downtime. Tbe maintenance problems resulted from the reduction in vehicle Oeet from four vehicles to two vehicles, (2) full-time city employee classifications were altered in 1989. S. Despite reducing the vehicle Oeet from four to two vehicles in 1987, service supply was maintained indicating that the remaining two vehicles were heavily used from 1987 to 1989. 6. Revenue miles between accidents and revenue miles between roadcalls fluctuated widely from 1987 to 1989. No explanation was provided. 7. According to the agency, employee productivity measures (revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee) generally declined due to excessive maintenance problems and inconsistencies in city employee classification. 337

PAGE 361

338 this page IS blank

PAGE 362

Q. PASCO AREA TRANSIT SYSIEM SYSTEM PROFILE Oaaa!zatlonal Stmctun: Pasco Area Transit System is division of Pasco CoUIIty government. GoxemlnLBod! and Comoosl!lon -The transit system is governed by the Pasco County Commission which is comprised of five county commissioners Seaicc Area The Pasco service is provided to the West Pasco Urbanized Area. Modes Since June 30, 1990 oaly demaadresponse services have been provided. Prior to that time, limited fixed-ro ute motorbus was provided. Rece!!t MaJor Cbaam/S!p!QQnt Eventa P r eviously known as the Pasco Shuttle, the system operated fixed-route service in Pasco County. After realizing limited suceess, the service was reccatly changed and now provides demand-response service only The new service appean to be doing well as demand is greater than expec:ted. The system is now receiving federal funding through UMT A 339

PAGE 363

340

PAGE 364

.. I I I I 341

PAGE 365

n --I -342

PAGE 366

Pel'S SUMMAilY 1. Sinc:e Pasco County Transit began operating in 1989, no trend is available for analysis. 343

PAGE 367

this page IS blank

PAGE 368

R. SPACE COAST AREA. TRANSIT (BREVARD COVNTY) SYSTEM PROFILE Orpnmutonal Stn!ctuR Space Coast Area Transit is a dcpanment of Brevard CoUDty. Goyeminc BoclJ and Composition The system is governed by the Brevard CoUDty Commi Mion which is comprised of four elected commissioners. Seafce Area Space Coast provides tranSit services to Brevard CoUDty. Moda Space Coast directly operates demand-response service as well as contracting t o provide additional demand-response and vanpoo! services Recut Ma!or Cl!anm/S!p!fteant Eyents none. 34S .

PAGE 369

! ;I i]l '"'r l!i .. J I t l! I s I .. f J X I I C( "'=i rr .

PAGE 370

n ,l = <(< ........ .... *". i 1 >! X .. ,., "J/' J a 11 I !!11:1 = ; '"' !.5 .,..; a s c!! Q -l I a l 347

PAGE 371

l'i I 5J i ; II > I .. -II I

PAGE 372

.::. j:; i l'l ::': !110 -1 li a "'i i 0 i a iS 349

PAGE 373

n r "'!i r !:; ; =f !-I ; t .. 0 I s 3 50

PAGE 374

this page IS blank

PAGE 375

352

PAGE 376

UIICJ'I\'ENE$5 MIWtlUS -SI!II.VICI! SUPPI. y TABlE IIIRI s,_ Coast Ana 1ft""' Vaapool fJfectlwolal Malam IJIS -.,., .,.. .,.,

PAGE 377

J :il I ell i l "' I 354

PAGE 378

e .. AI I avj i lpo U>J l I 355

PAGE 379

! .. ]j I hJ i!!) 'ttl I i 3S6

PAGE 380

I ! a i :::11 t' =j f "'h. i ... l l. I 357

PAGE 382

E .. .. I! ::E iii' :!: l" !"' !l"' i !.:I "'l q f I iS 359

PAGE 383

! i !li" !J .g. i 360

PAGE 384

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Performllllc:e ladic:ators ... ... 121 0 ... ' I I j I ... 100 ' 100 I ; i I FIGURE lli-R1 Culatlon I ; I ; ; r I I ' I I ! I : t ... FIGURE III -R2 Passenger TrlQa I : I I / ' / ; I -0 ... ; ... ' ; --FIGURE III-R3 I --I i I I ' ... ... i I I i Vehicle Mi ... .ncl FlewiU M I ... ... I ... !A l / l_ "." . ......... 0 ... I ... -' v I I ; : ' I .... -NOTII .., ...... _.. _. n n 361

PAGE 385

362 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Performance llldlcators ....... ...... FIGURE IDR4 Total Operating Expense ' i ; ; :__ I 7'' ' ....... ....... .. ... . . . . .... I t . : ' i I I I ... .... .. """* b PIM lnftedofto-A4M ... FIGURE lll-R6 Pauenger Fare Reve""" .. nma out--..:....-, ,-_;_ -... -.. eo ... 10 0 ... I ' NOT-. ......._Dftd; Oaar*1 II ..... ,.,,_. FIGURE III-R8 ; : ; ! ;_......---' i I ........... I ' ; I I I . I i ; -MCJ'I'I, ............ ._ O!Nf.-M Da I 1" 111.__. ' I ... -

PAGE 386

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Pedorma.ace l adlcators FIGURE IU-R7 Voltidea Available and Vehlclea Operated Fot Maximum Servlee 120r---------------------------, +----;--i-----:__ : ----::::. / .......... i t I 1 ... .., ... ..., ... ,....rbt ,...._.. .... Yet' NOTI: .......... 363

PAGE 387

364 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Eft'ec:llveaess Measures 1.0 1.0 4.0 ... 0.0 -FIGURE lll-R8 Vehicle Mgea Per 1 1 1 ; : 1 V! I : I ! : i I ' ... .. .. FIGURE Ul-Rll PaMenger Tripe Per Revenue Mile .... .... ...... ------------..., .a+---;-..:.. ___ ----l u+---'----.,..----'-D.2t-----..._ ---. / 2 0 -... -i I I l I I ; ... MOTa..., ........ ... Ill-RIO Average Age of Fleet ..:.. . -. -. . i I ... .. MOTII ....... Dms4 .. ,_...., ... -' - : i I -I

PAGE 388

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Effectiveness Measures FIGURE PIR11 R.,...nue llliloo Bet-Accidents 40.000 ), i I i I .. .000 ; 7 ' ' ; 2 4.000 12,000 0 ... 12.000 1.000 ..... 0 .... y I ; j i I ... ... .. .. NOfli ,,..,..,.... o----..-. .. t. onm ,.., ...... .......... FIGURE III-R12 .... RIMtnue Miles Between Roadcalla ' . j I I / i v I ' ' ' ' : ; ... ... ... NOTIL I ..... Cllo"ltt Oil I ,. o_ ... ....,.. ... ..., ..., ............ ... 365

PAGE 389

366 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Emclency Measures ..... ..... ..... ,...... u.oo -... FIGURE UI-R13 ()s)eratlng Exgenae Pet capita I i ' i y i i j ' ' ' i i i I ' i ' I . I ! i ... ... FIGURE UI-R14 .... ()s)eratlng Exgenae Per Paaaenger Trip -,/ ..... ...... ..... .. / i t ' . ; I I ... -----. --- ' I I I ----' I I I FIGURE IU-R15 Operating ""-Pet flew.-M ile -I lUI ...... 10.11 -... i I i ... ; I ; ' i . . .. I I ' . ' I . ' .. -. ' ... -

PAGE 390

SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Eftldency Measures FIGURE IU-R 1 & Maln'-nc Expen .. Per R...,,.,. Mile .... ' I /i ' I _L_ I ""' i I ..... .. ..., ..... 00.00 -1ft ... ...... ...... 0 -I i I ' I I I I I I I I I ... ... -' I MOm ........,. ow.-. ..,.,."" .. .. ............ FIGURE II-R17 Firebox A.c.....,. Ratio ' '!,.. ....... : l ' I -' j : i / : ... ... .. MOTio ......... -. ... -FIOUAE II-R1& ' i ... VeNcle lollle Per Pult Vellil;le : / : . ' I ; i I I I ; I ' I ' I ... ... en. ........... .. .... ... -367

PAGE 391

368 SPACE COAST AREA TRANSIT Emcleacy M eas ures 1,000 1,200 000 -0 ... ..... ..... ..... F IG URE III-R19 ReveroJe Houra Pet Employee ; I ! ' ' v I "-Y I l I I ' ' ' i I i I I ' I I I ' I I I ... -... .. NOftl ......... DII'Utl) O!Mr ... 4 D-slllllunfllleN&Ii .... FIGURE III-R20 "-' Tr ipe Pet Einl>l-I i ........ ' .._...., ; -I I I ! i I ; I -' I I I ' ' I ' ' I I ' ' -.. or. ........ D A fllss II ... etit1 Fare eGAO-r----:-----,------, ........... ., ..... NOTt. ......,. Dh Olio o._,,. .... ,. ..... ..,.

PAGE 392

SPCf SUMMARY 1. The significant increase in passenger trips in 1986 coincided with significant service expansion (increasing revenue miles). The service expansion included large increases in the provision of directly-operated demand response service, the introduction of vanpool services, and the operation of one motorbus vehicle (one fixed route in 1986 ooly). Subsequent service expansion in 1987, 1988, and 1989 resulted in further increases in ridership but at a much smaller rate. An increase in the directly-operated demand response fare from 50 cents to one dollar in 1987 contn"butcd to the smaller increases in ridership. 2. Operating expense increased significantly in 1986 as a result of the service expansion discussed in ill 1. The increase in expense is due primarily to service expansion in the directly-operated demand response mode. 3. A significant decline in passenger fare revenues for directly-operated demand response service in 1988 cannot be readily explained. 4. The directly-operated demand response service expansion in 1987 r esulted in significant new ridership and increased passenger fare revenues. Coupled with a decline in operating expense, farebox recovery increased significantly (peaked in 1987). An increase in the directly-operated demand response fare contributed to the peak in 1987, as well. 369

PAGE 393

370 this page IS blank

PAGE 394

S. TRICOUN'IY COMMt.JTER RAIL AtmiORITY SYSTEM PROFILE Or:pnizat!onal Structure The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority established by the Florida Legislature for the purpose of owning. operating. and maintaining a commuter rail system in the tri-county area of Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. Govemlne Body and Composldon Tri-County Rail is governed by a nine-member board of directors: four representing Broward County, two representing Palm Beach County, and three representing Dade County. In addition, there are two ex-officio members, one representing the FOOT District and one representing the High Speed Rail Transportation Commiuion. Sen1ce Arta The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority is charged with operating and managing a commuter rail system for the area defined by Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties. Modes Commuter Rail. Rmnt Ma!gr Chanees{Sip!tlg!nt Events none. 371

PAGE 395

372 I -

PAGE 396

l> 'i -5 -.. I -! r i 373

PAGE 397

374

PAGE 398

TRIC SUMMARY 1. Since Tri-Rail began operating in 1989, no trend is available for analysis. 375

PAGE 399

376 this page IS blank

PAGE 400

T. CENTRAL FLORIDA COMMUI'ER RAIL AU'I1i0RITY SYSTEM PROFILE Orpnizatjonal Sln!ctuR The Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority established by the Florida Legislature for the pwpose of owning, operating, and maintaining a commuter rail system in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties. Goyernln& &dy and Comoositlog The governing body is comprised of nine voting members: one commissioner each from Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties, and the Governor appoints five members who are residents of the area served by the authority. An ex-officio member is also included to represent the High Speed Rail Transportation Commission. Seryiq Ami The Central Florida Commuter Rail Authority is charged with creating and operating a commuter rail system in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties. Modes Commuter Rail. Recent Malor Cbancn/Sip!Ocant Ennts none. 377

PAGE 401

378 this page IS blank

PAGE 402

U. TAMPA BAY COMMUTER RAIL AlJTIIORITY SYSTEM PROFILE OrpnjzaUonal Stn!cture The Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority is an independent authority and therefore an agency of the state of Florida established for the purpose of planning, developing, maintaining, operating, and managing a commuter rail system in the Tampa Bay area. Goyem!nc Body and Composition The governing board of the Authority consists of seven voting members and four nonvoting members. The Metropolitan Planning Organizations of Hillsborough. Pinellas, and Pasco Counties each select a member as their representative on the board. The county commissions of Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties each appoint a citizen member to the board who is not a member of the county commission, but who is a resident of the county from which he is a appointed. The Governor appoints one member to the board who is a resident in the area served by the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. In addition, ex-officio nonvoting members are appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, the Florida High Speed Rail Transportation Commission, and the local transit authorities. The terms of the county commissioners on the governing board are two years while all other members serve staggered four-year terms. Sealc;e Area The Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority is charged with developing a commuter rail system for the area defined by Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. Modes Commuter Rail Rec;ent MaJor Chanm/Siplftcant Events Governor Chiles' administration recently cut the funding for the Tampa Bay Commuter Rail Authority. Therefore, the status of the authority is uncertain at this point. 379

PAGE 403

380 this page IS blank

PAGE 404

VI. SUMMARY In summary, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida transit systems under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida. The performance evaluation includes a trend analysis (1984-1989) and a peer review analysis (1989 data). This document (Part I) is the trend analysis while a separate document (Part D) reports the results of the peer review analysis. The trend analysis reviews the general statewide trend as well as the Florida fixed-route total system trend from 1984 through 1989. In addition, this report presents the performance trend for each of Florida's fixed-route transit systems for the same time period. The data is presented in both tabular and graphical formats to enable the reader to more easily evaluate the trends and comparisons. Summary comments based on observation and analysis of the performance trends are included for each Florida transit system. Comments and questions about this report can be directed to the Office of Public Transportation, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 26, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-0450, T elephone: (904) 488-m4. 381

PAGE 405

382 this page IS blank

PAGE 406

APPENDIX A LIST OF DEFINITIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS County Pqpulatiog Used to approximate the service area population for each of the Florida transit systems and is taken from the 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract, with the exception of Smyrna Transit System (SMTS). The population of the city of New Smyrna Beach was used to approximate the service area population of SMTS. Although the transit authorities actual service areas may not correspond exactly with the county boundaries, this measure provides a good approximation of overall market size for comparison of relative spending and service levels among communities This is particularly true i n Florida where transi t systems are, for the most part, county-based. Na!logallnOa!lon Bate Used to deflate the operating cost data to constant 1984 dollars Inflation-adjusted dollars provide a more accurate representation of spending changes resulting from agency decisions by factoring out the general price inflation. The inflation rate reported is the percentage change in the Consumer P ri ce Index ( CPI) for all items (incl u ding commodities and services) from year to year. During the 1984 to 1989 period, service and labor costs tended to increase at a faster rate than did commodity prices. Therefore, transit operating expenses, which are predominantly comprised of service and labor costs, may be expected to have increased somewhat faster than inflation even if the amount of service provided were not increased. rassena:r Trivs -Annual number of passenge r hoardings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle. Thus, if a passenger has to transfer between buses to reach a destination, he/she is counted as making two passenger trips. Passeneer Miles Number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length (in miles). This mtmber provides a measure of the total number of passenger miles of transportation service consumed Vehicle Miles Total distance traveled annually by revenue service vehicles, including both revenue miles and deadhead miles. 383

PAGE 407

Bmnuc Miles Number of annual miles of vehicle operation while in active service (available to pick up revenue passengers). This number is smaller than vehicle miles because of the exclusion of deadhead miles such as vehicle miles from the garage to the start of service, vehicle miles from the end of service to the garage, driver training, and other miscellaneous miles that are not considered to be in direct revenue service. Vehicle Hogrs Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles including hours consumed in passenger service and deadhead traveL Bmnue Hours Total hours of operation by revenue service vehicles in active revenue service. Rog!e Miles Number of directional route miles as reponed in Section 15 data; defined as the mileage that service operates in each direction over routes traveled by public transportation vehicles in revenue service. Total Opera!lne EmenseReponed total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operations of service vehicles. Total Ogeratine Egenses S> -Total operating expenses defla,ted to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for operating expenses. Total Malntenanc:e Expense Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset of total operating expense. Total Ma!gtenagc;e Eme!!se $) -Total maintenance expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of determining the real change in spending for maintenance purposes. Total Capital EQense Dollar amount of spending for capital projects and equipmenL Total I.ocal Bmnue All revenues originating at the local level (excluding stale and federal assistance). Operatine Bmnn Includes passenger fares, special transit fares, school bus service revenues, freight tariffs, charter service revenues, aunliary transpOrtation revenues, subsidy from other sectors of operations, and non-transportation revenues. 384 J i

PAGE 408

Passeneer Fare Bmnues Revenue generated annually from passenger fares. Total Emplo.yees To!al number of payroll employees of the transit agency. It is useful to note that the increasing tendency to contract out for services may result in some significant differences in this measure between otherwise similar properties. It is important to understand which services are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee levels. All employees classified as capi!al were exCluded from this report. Irapsoortatlog Ooerana Employees All employees classified as operating employees: vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel, direct personnel Ma!gtenanc:c Employm -All employees classified as maintenance employees who are directly or indirectly respoDStble for vehicle maintenance. Admjnjs1Iatlye Emplones All personnel positions classified as administrative in nature. This report includes all general administration employees (marketing. planning. and support) as classified by UMTA in Form 404. Vehicles Available Cor Malllmum ServiceNumber of vehicles owned by the transit authority that arc available for usc in bus service. Vehicles Operated In Maximum Sery!ce -The largest number of vehicles required for providing service during peak hours (rypically the rush period). Snare Ratio -Vehicles operated in maximum service subtracted &om vehicles available for maximum service divided by vehicles operated in maximum service. This measure is an indicator of the number of spare vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent is considered appropriate in the industry. However, this varies depending on the size and age of fleet as well as the condition of cquipmenL Total Gallons Consumed To!al gallons consumed by the vehicle fleeL Total K.llo!!IU Hours of Power-Kilowau hours of propulsion power consumed by a transit system (rapid rail and automated guideway). 38S

PAGE 409

Averaae Aft or Fled Traditionally, a standard transit coach is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However, longer service lives are not uncommon. The vehicle age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment, the sophistication and features wheelchair lifts, electronic destination s i gns, etc.), and operating environment (weather, r oadway grades, and passenger abuse) all affect the ma i ntenance needs and depredation of the bus fleeL Number of Accidents Total number of reportable accidents resulting i n property damage or injury. Section 15 reporting procedures require that accidents be reponed in three categories including collision accidents, non-collision accidents, and station accidents. Total Roadeal!s A revenue service interruption during a given reporting period caused by failure of some medlanical element or other element. EFFECI'IVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles Per Capita Total 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 of the extensiveness of service provided in the service area. Passen&cr Trigs Per Cag!ta Average number of transit hoardings per person per year. This number is larger in areas where public transponation is emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and is a measure of the extent to which the public utilizes transit in a given service area. fassenaer Trill' Per Bemave Mile The ratio of passenger 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. Passenaer Trlgs Per Bmuue Qogr The ratio of passenger trips to revenue hours of operation; repons on the effectiveness of the service since hours are a better representation of the resources consumed in providing service. 386

PAGE 410

Ayerap SpeedAverage speed ofvehicles in operation (including to and from the garage) calculated by dividing total vehicle miles by total vehicle hours. Revenue Miles BetHCCn Accidents Number of revenue miles divided by the number of accidents ; reports the average interval, in miles, between accidents. Revenue Miles Betwun Roadcalls Number of revenue miles divided by roadcalls; an indicator of the average frequency of delays because of a prob l em with the equipment. Revenue Miles Per Route Mile.Number of reveuue miles divided by the number of directional route miles of service. EFFICIENCY MEASURES Opera!lne Emnse Per Capita -Annual operating budget divided by the county /service area population; a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. Ooeratine Expense Per Peak Vehicle Total operating expense per vehicle operated in maximum service (peale vehicle); provides a measure of the resources required per vehicle to have a coach in operation for a year. Operatine Expense Per Passenpr Trip-Operating expenditures divided by the total annual ridership; a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key indicators of comparative performance of transit properties since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service Operaline Expense Per Passenpr 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 while others provide shon trips. Operatine Expense Per Kmnue Mile Operating expense divided by the annttal revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with which service is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. 387

PAGE 411

Opmt!ng Emmsc Per Bmnac Hoar Operating expense divided by revenue houn of operation; a key comparative measure which differs from operating cost per vehic:le mile in that the vehic:le speed is factored out This is often important since vehicle speed is strongly influenced by IO<:al traffic conditions. Maintenance Emcnsc Per Rcvenge Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenu e miles. Melntcnance EJIImR Per Opmt!ng Expense Calculated by dividing maintenance expense by operating expense; expressed as a percent of total operating expense. FanboJ; Rec;ona Ratio of passenger fare revenues to total operating expenses; an indicator of the share of revenues provided by th e passeng ers I.ocal Rcw!ue Per Operating E:mense Ratio of total local commitment with respect to total operating expense. Opmtlng Rml!ue Per Opmtlng Expensc Operating ratio calculated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense. vehicle Miles Per Peek YtblcltVehic:le miles divided by the number of peale vehic:les. It is an indicator of how intensively the equipment is used and is influenced by the bus travel sp eeds as well as by the levels of service in the off-peak time periods. A more uniform demand for service over the day would result in a higher number. Ythlcle Koua Per Peak Ycblc1c Substitutes vehicle houn for vehicle miles and again refiects how intensively equipment is utili?M!, Reymge Miles Per Ycbldt Milt Refiects how much of the total vehicle operation is in passenger service. Higher ratios are favorable, but garaae location, training needs, and other considerations may influence the ratio. Rcyenne Miles Per Tote! YchldaTotal revenue miles of service that are provided by each vehicle available for maximum service. Rncnac Roan Per ToLII Ythlcla Indicates total revenue hours of service provided by each vehic:le available for maximum service. 388

PAGE 412

Bmnac Boars Pu Emplom Reflects overall labor productivity. Bmnue Roan Per Opeallne Employee R eflects operating personnel productivity Revenue Hours Per Mainlenance EmpiQyee Reflects maintenan ce employee productivity. Rmnue Hours Per Aclmlnlsla!lve EmplQxee Reflects l!dministtativc employee productivity. Ycb!cle Miles Per Maintenance Emplo.yee Another measure of maintenance employee productivity Pauenr;er Trips Per Employee Another measure of overall labo r productivity Iotel Ycblc!es Per Maintenance Emplo.yee V chicles available for maximum service divided by the numbe r of maintenance employees. Tolal VcblcJes Per Aclmlnlstat!n Employee Vehicles available for maximum service divid e d by the number of administrative employees. Ychlclc Miles Per Gallon Vehicle miles of service divided by total gal l ons consumed and is a measure of energy utilization. Ycblclc Miles Per JQ!gwatt-Hr Vehicle miles of service divided by total kilowatt-hours consumed and is another measure of energy utilization. A!Jar:e Fan Passenger fare rev e nues divided by the total numbe r of passenger trips. 389

PAGE 413

390 this page IS blank

PAGE 414

APPENDIX B REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES SOURCES FOR 1984-1987 DATA National Urbu Mass Transportation Statistics 1984-1987 Annual Section 15 Reports' Daca I!em County/City Population, National Inflation Rate Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Miles Total Operating Expeose2 Total Maiotenanc:e Expeose3 Total Capital Expense Loc:al RevenueS Operating RevenueS Passenger Fare Revenues' Total Employees6 Operating Employees Maintenance Employees Administrative Employees Vehic:les Available for Malrimum Service' Sourg: 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract Table 3.16 Table 3.16 Table 3.16 Table 3. 1 6 Table 3.16 Table 3.16 Table 3.13 Table 3.07 Table 3.07 Table 3.04 Table 3.01 Table 3.01 Table 3.01 Table 3.14 Table 3.14 Tabl e 3.14 Table 3.14 Table 3.17 (1984) Table3.16(198S ) 391

PAGE 415

Data Item Soun:e Vehic l es Operated in Maximum Service7 Table 3.14 (1984) Table3.16 (198.5-1987) Total Gallons Consumed Table 3.12 Table 3.12 Kilowatt Hours of Propulsion Power Average Age of Fleet' Number of Accidents9 Number of Roadcalls10 Table 3.17 Table 3.15 Table 3.11 N<>ns: 392 'All stallsllcs are for dlrccllyopcrated motorbus service liDless Olhetwise noted. 'Operalilla cxpensc excludes aD rccouciJiaa itciD$ includina expensc, !cues and rmtls, and deprccialioa. 'Includea >dlicle mainte!WICC &Dd DODYChicle maintenance cxpellSC. 'Referred 10 as toca1 public capital assistaDoc in federal Sectioo 15. This f.gurc is reponed as a lraDsil system total and thuefore may include pnrcbscd aDd/or demand-raponsiYC transponation serviocs. 'Local rCYCDue illcludes aD rCYCDue ill Table 3.01 except for federal and stale Operalilla rCYCnue iDdudes ttiDSponalioa re-ucs, nontransponalion r...,nucs, &Dd subsidy &om other sectors of operaliona (denoted u "ocher" ill coiWIIIl 10 of Form 3.01). Row:n-are reponed u a tr&Dolt system total and lhucfore may illclude purcbascd and/or demand-rcsponsi>e transportatioo serviocs. HOWCYCr, puscoger fare ........,ues for fixcdroute servicca can be extracted from tbe data source. 'Employees arc dislributed amq three categories oa Form 3.14: transponatioa, maintenance, and general admiDislratioa. Tbese three categories arc IISCd for disuibution ill our data as wdL 'Data reponed diffcrmdy ill 1984 than in followilla years which required puiJillc data &om diffeteDl forms ill !hat year. Vehiclca operated ill muimum service arc for thole used for clirec:tly.opered services only. 'The followills >dlicle rypea MrC illcludcd ill tbe c:alallatioa of...,,.. age of tlecc motorbua (BA, BB, BC), artindawt motorbus (AB), double-decked bus (DB), troUey bus (TB), and acbool bus (SB). Also, age of rail Dect includes IMI..wclc rypea: rapid rail (RR) and Slreelcar (SC). II should be '""Piml that some of tbcae wobicla may be IISCd ill tbe provisioa of demand-resp
PAGE 416

SOURCES FOR 1988-1989 DATA Actuall988 Section IS Reports1 Qata Item County/City Population (Florida systems), National Inflation Rate Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Miles Total Operating Expense2 Total Maintenance Expense Total Capital Expense3 Local Revenue Operating Revenue Passenger Fare Revenues Total EmployeesS Operating Employees Maintenance Employees Administrative Employees Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Total Gallons Consumed' Kilowatt Hours of Propulsion Power' Soum: 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form 406 Form406 Form 403 Form 006, 310. 312 Form 310, 312 Form 103 Form 201, 202 Form 201, 202 Form 201, 202 Form 404 Form404 Form 404 Form 404 Form003 Form003 Form 402 Form402 393

PAGE 417

Data I!tm Source Average Age of Fleet7 Number of Accidents' Number of Roadcalls? Form 408 Form 405 Form 402 NOTES: 394 1AD statisria are for clitectly-operated motorbus service Wlless otherwise DOCed. 'Opualhla ..., .. exdudu all reooarho followiDg types were included In the calculatioo of age of fled: motorbua (BA. BB, BC), articulated motorbus (AB) double decked bus (DB), trollcy bus (TB), aud school bus (SB). Also, age of rail Oeel indudcs types: rapid rail (RR) and streetcar (SC). It should be fCC08Dizcd that some of these vebidcs may be used iD the provisioa of dcmaad-respoasive traasportalioa seniccs as these ..,hicles eaD.DOI be ideatilicd oa Form 401!. 'Includes oollisioa, aoD-COUisioD, and slatioa accideals. UMT A asaumes thai Form 40S exdudea purchwl trus.portadoa scMcc::L 'IDcluclu mechanial failure aud other rcasoas. UMTA assumes that Form 402 (roadcalls) exdudu purchased traDspOrtatioa ICI'"ic:ea.