USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1996 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems ; part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1996

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1996 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems ; part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1996
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:
Local transit--Florida--Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Bus lines--Florida--Management   ( lcsh )
Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation   ( lcsh )
Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
oclc - 39938935
usfldc doi - C01-00193
usfldc handle - c1.193
System ID:
SFS0032293:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1996 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART IV Demand-Response Peer Re,iew Analysis, 1996 Prepared for The Office of Public Transportation Operations Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urb a n Transportation Research University of South Florida Final Repor t, March 1998

PAGE 2

ii

PAGE 3

1996 PERFOR!\1A.NCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS PART lV -DEMAND -RESPONSE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS, 199 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION rABLE Of CONTENTS ............................. . ... ... , .... ... ... .... ........... ... ... ...... ..... ......... .. LIST OFT ABLES ........... ............ ............ ................... .. ... . .......... .... .......... ....... ........ .... LIST OF FIGURES ................. .... . . ....... ... . .... . . . ...... .... . . . ................. . ............ FOREWORD ....... ... . . . . . ... ............ . .. . ... . .. . . ..... ..... ... . . . ....... ..... . ... . . ... . ..... I. "fl. Ill. IV. lN'fltODUCTION ........... ....................................................... . ............................... . A. The Purpose of Performance R eview .................. . .... . .... ... ... ...... ..... o o o B. The Purpose of Peer Review Analysis ......... . ............................. ............. 1 1 C. Performance R.evie\v I>ata Base ... ..... .. ......... . .... . .................. ..... ....... .......... ......... D. The Role of Privatization .............. .............................. ......... .. ... .... ............ ....... E. Peer Selection Process ........ o >99 DBMAND-RBSPONSB VEHICLE CATEGORY .. ... ..... . --. .... . ........... . . . . ..... .... ..... .............. . Metro-Dade Transit Agency Broward County Mass Transit Division. LyiD< (Orlando) Hillsborough Area Regional Transit 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VBHICLE CATEGORY County ofVolusiadba VOTRAN Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority . ........ ......... ... .. ....... ......... ... ..... ..... Pllsco County Public Transportation Service Space Coast Area Transit Indian Rlver CoWlty Council on Agin& Inc. 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY ... ............ ....... ... . . ... . ... . . .... .... Okaloosa County Coordinaled Transportation, Inc. Somota County Area Traosit Pulm BeaclJ County Tra0$portalion Agency 'Bay County Council on Aging-Bay Coordinated Transportation Jaclcsonville Transportation Authority PAGE iii v v i I 3 6 7 7 II 12 15 31 49 iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS SllCl'ION PAGE v VI. iv 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Manatee C
PAGE 5

L IST OF TABLES TABLE PACE INTRODUCTION 1-t Performance Review JndJcators and Measuros, Dirodly O pented Oemanc:J..Responsc Trll!1sit Services ........ .... .... . 1 0 1 2 Performance Review Indicators and Measures., Purd,ased Transit Services ............... ..... ..... . 11 >99 DEMAN[). RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY 11-1 lndlc11tors ..... ......... ... , ..... . ...... . . . ............... . . 16 Jl-2 Effectiveness .............. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ll-3 Efficiency Measures ...... .... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VI!HICLBCATEGORY W-1 Performance lndic:ator1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 111 Me .. um . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Ill 3 Bflieiency Measum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 40 20.49 DEMAN[). RESPONSE VBHICLE CA TEGOR.Y IV 1 Perfonnancc Indicat ors .... ........... ..... ...... .... ............... ... ... 1 o SO lV -2 Measure s ................ o 53 tV3 E ffici ency Measures .................. I o o I 56 1 190EMAN[).RESP0NSB VeHICLE CATEGORY V 1 Performance 11\d. lcators ..... .......... I I 1 I 1 I ... .. ..... 66 V-2 S ffectiyen.ess ........... .... .... I I I I.... 69 V3 Effiei enc:y Me:asuros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o o o o o o 72 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF F IGUR ES FI GURE PAGE INTRODUCTION 1-l Perfonnance Evalualion Statutes ... ......... ... .... . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 J-2 Florida's Denland-Response Tra n si t Sysrcms .. ...... . ........ .. . .... .... . . . 5 1 3 Factors Affecting Transil Perfonnanoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 4 Geographic Area for Selection of Peers ... ....... . . ... . .... . . . ............... .......... . . . . . . 12 >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY If.! 11-2 11-3 11-4 u-s 11-6 117 11-8 IJ-9 11-10 11-11 11-12 1113 IJ-14 Il-l 5 11-16 11 1118 11-19 ll -20 11-21 1122 11-23 Service-Arc:a l,opulation .......... . ....... ....... ... ...... .... ............ .... ... .... Passenger Trips ............. ........ 0 0 0 Vehicl e Mile:s ................ ........ .... ..... .. ... .... .... ............. .. . . Revenue Miles ............. ........ .... . ..... ... ..... ............... ... . ... .................... ... ..... . Total Operating Expense ...................... ... ... ... . .................................. .... ... Passenger FareRevenue .............. ................ ......... ......... .................. I 1 Tolal Empl oyees ... . .............. ...... 0 0 Vehi cles Available for Maximum Service ..... . .... .... ..... ................ ....... . . .. V'ehicl cs Operated in Maximum Service .......... .................. ...... . . . . .... ... ... Vehicle Miles Per Capira ...................... .... ... .... ..... ............. . . . . ..... .. Pas!:ienger l'rips Per Revenue Mite ... .. ... .... ....... ... ....... .... ............ Aver age Age of Fleet . ......... ...... ........ ... ... ,, ... ..... ...... ... .... .. Revenue Miles Bet\\'een Incidents .. .......... . ... ... .... .... .... ........... .... .... ..... . Revenue Miles Between lntem1ptions .. ... ... ..... ........ ........ . .......... ................. ... ...... Openuing Expense Per Capita .... ... .. ........ ... ................. ...... ................. ..... ... Operatin g Expense Per Passenger Tri p ...... . ... 0 Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile ...... .. ... ..... ..... .... ..... ... ........ ... Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mil e ........ ... . ... . . ...... .. f'arebox Recovery Rati o ....... .... . ... . ..... .............. . ...... ............ .... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ... ... .... ..... ..... .............................. ....... ... . ... Revenue Hours Per Emp loyee...... .. ... ... ... .... . .............. ... . ..... .... . . Passen ger Trips Per Employee ...... ..... o A vcrage Fare .. ... . ............... o 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 21 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY III-I Service Area P o pulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 IU2 Passenger T rips .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. 44 111-3 Vehicle Miles ..... . . ............ __ ..... ..... .. ... . .... . ... ..... ........ . ... 44 1114 Revenue M.iles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 vi

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIG U RES F1GVRE IU-S IU 6 III-7 10-$ lll-9 Dl-10 Ill II Ill1 2 Ul-13 m -14 Ill1 5 Ill1 6 Ill 1 7 01-18 11119 Dl-20 Ui-21 III-22 DJ-23 Total Operating ExpMse ... .......................... ........ .......... ............... . ....................... Passenger Fare Revenu e .... .......... ... ... ................. ....... . .... ......................... .... ... TotaJ Empl oyees .... ... .. ....... ..... ................... .... ...... . .... .................... .. ............ ... Vel1i c l es Available for Maximum Service ... ................. ...................................... . ............... Vehicl es Operated in Maximum Servi<:e .......... ..... ...... .... ................................. ...... .. .. ... . Vehicle Miles Per Capita ............. ... . .... ................. .... .... .......... .... ... ..... .... ..... . Passenger Trips Per Revenue MUe ...................... . . .... ....................... ; .... .... r A\'crageAgc of Fleet ............. ..... . ................. ....... .... ............ ..... . ... . .... ... ... . RevenueMiles Between Incidents ............... .......... . ..... ........ .......... ..... ........ ... ......... Revenue Miles Between Interruptions ... ..................... .. .. . . ..... . ......... . ..... ... ... ........... . . Operat ing Ex p ense Per Ca pita .............................. ........ ............ ... ............. ........ ..... . O p erating Expense Per Passenger Trip ........ .. ... .... . .... ........ .. ...... . .... . ......... . . . .... .... ..... .. Operating: Expense Per R evenue Mile . ............ .......... ........................ ..... ... ................... Maintenance Expense Per RevenueMile .......................... . ..... . . ....... ............ ... ....... ... Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... .......... ....... ......... ............... . ...... ......... . . .... . . . .... . Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ...... ................ ..... ......... ... .... . ........ ... ... ..... ............ Revenue Hour$ Per Employee .................. . .......... ....... ......... . .... .... ............. ....... ..... Passenger Trips Per Elnployee ....... ... ..... . .... ..... ...... . ............................. .......... .... A \'etage-Fare ... ........ . . ........ ..... . .... ... .................. ... .. ...................... . . ..... 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEIDCL E CATEGORY PAG E 4 4 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 4 7 47 48 43 48 48 IV I Service Area Population ...... . . ............. .... ..... .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 59 IV 2 Passenger Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 IV--3 Vehicle.Mi!_es ...... ...... ............ ............ ......... . ..... .... . .... ... .... .... ..... ... ......... 5 9 IV4 Revenue M iles ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 IV-5 T o tal Operating llxpcnse ... ...... .......... .......... .... . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . 59 IV6 Passenger Fare Revenue ... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 I V Total Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Q l V 8 Vehi c l es Availabl e f or Maximum Service.. ....... ..... ....... . .................................................. 60 IV9 Vehic l es Operated in Maximum Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 60 IV-10 Velticl e Mil es Per C apita . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 IV -11 Passeng..-'lrit" Per Revenu e Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 6 I IV-12 AverageAgeofF i oct. .. . .. . . .. . . .... ... .. . . ... ..... ...... . ... .. . . . .. .... . . . . . . . . .... 61. IV -13 R evenue Miles B
PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES F IGURE IV-16 IV-17 IVl8 IVl9 IV 20 IV-21 IV-22 IV23 Operating ExpensePer Passenger Tr ip ......... . .. ....... .......... ......... . ................. ....... Operaling Expense Per Revenue Mile ... ................... ........ .................. ..... ........ Main tenance E xpense Per Revenue Mile ........ ................... ........................... ..... Farebox. Recovery Ratio ............ ........ ............. ..... . . ........... .... ........ ..... Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ..................... .................. ......... .............. ... .. Revenue Hours Per Etnployee ...... ....... ... ....... .. .... . . Passenger Trips Per E.Jnployee .............. ..... ............................ ............... A V'etage Fare .................. .. .... ....... ..... .... .... ............ ..... ... . ... 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY V .J Service Area Populalion ....................... .... . ..... ..................................... .......... ..... V Passenger Trip$ ................... ... .. ..... ...... ........ .... .. ....... .... ..... V 3 Vehicle Miles ......... .... . . ..... ... ........ ... .. ... .... .... .......... .... ...... . V 4 Revenu e Miles ............. ..... ....... . ................. .............. ... .. ....... V S Total Operating Expense ... ....... ... ............... ............. .... ................... V-6 Passenger Fare Revenue ................. ........... ......... . ..... .......... . ......... . ........ V. 7 Tolal Employees .. .. ..................................... ............ .......... ......................... ..... V Vehicles A vail able for Maximum Service .......... .... ...... ........ ..... ... ..... ....... ... ..... V-9 Vchiele s Operated in Maximum Service .......... .......... .......... ... ................ ... V-10 Vehicle Per Capita ............ ................ ... .. .... .... ................ ....... V-II Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile .... ........... ............ . . ..... ............. V Average Age of Fleet. ............................ . . ..... ....... .......... ............ ............ ........ . . V-13 Revenue Miles DeNeen Jnciden.ts .. ... .... ............. .. ................... ......... V-14 Revenue Mites Berneen lnrerruptjons ... ....... .. ... ........ .... ..... ...... ... ................. V-IS Operating Expense Per Capita ... . ....... ... . ....... ... ... ..... .......... .. ... .................. V -16 Operating Bxpense Per Passenger Trip ... .......... ...... ..... ......... . ......... ............... ....... .. V -17 Operating Bxpensc Per R.cvcnue Mile ....... ... ... .......... ...... ............ ... ....... ......... .. V-13 Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile ......... .... ....... .... .... ............ ..... .... V-19 Fa r cbox Recovety Ratio ...... ..... .. ........ ........ ...... ................ ... ........... V 20 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle ....... .... ... .... ... .... ... ....... . ....... V -2 1 Revenue 11ours Per Entployee ...... .... ... . .... . ........... .... ..... .... ..... . . ..... V-22 Passenger Trips Per Employee ............... ........ ............................... ................... ......... V-23 Average Fare ....... ....... ... ........................... ............ ....... ... viii PAGE 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 1S 1S 1S 1S 1S 76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 78 78 78 78 78 79 79 79 79

PAGE 9

FOREWORD Under contract with the Public Transit Office of th e Florida Department of Transportation, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida's transit S:>;Stcms. This report is based on data from federally-required National Transit Database (NID) reports (formerly Section 15), which are submitted to the Fed eral Transit Administration (FTA) for each fiscal year b y systems receiving Section 9 funding. FTA, which has required these data sinc e i 979, provides extensive documentation on how th e data are to be c ollected and reported, and requires auditor certification of the submitted data. NTD reports are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system performance because the data are standardized, undergo extens ive review, and are the result of a substantia l data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some NTD data are used by FT A and by slates and localities for calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extremely important to transit agencies. This report is o n e off our documents prepared as part of t he performance evaluation project. In addition to this report (Part IV, Demand Response Peer Review Analysis, 1996), three other reports were p repared (Part I, Fixedlloute Trend Analysis, 1984-19%; Part II, FixedRoute Pe er Review Analysis, 1996; and Part Ill, Demand-Response Trend Analysis, 1984-1996). This is the ninth sta tewide transit evaluation conducted by the Florida Department ofTransportation (FOOT) and CUTR. CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each of the individual transit systems for their cooperdlion and assistance in the preparation of the memoranda. CenJcr for Urban TransportQ/.ion Research Uni-enily o[SouJh Florida l'el ephone : (813) 974-3120 Project Managers: Jce/ R &y YiCJorla A. Perk Staf!Suppwt: Steven Westcnzweig Leis Dowridge Florida Deparfme:nJ Office of PubUc Transp(}ffatlon Operations Public Transit Office 60S Suwannee Str..,t, Mail Station 26 1(11/almsee, Florida 32399-0450 FDOT Project Manager: Ike Ubalra, A.l.C.P. Telephone: (850) 4144500 . I

PAGE 10

2

PAGE 11

1996 PEIU'ORMANCB EVALUATIO N O F FLORIDA TRANSIT S Y STE&fS PART IV D!l lllA ND-RESPONSEPEilltREVIEW ANALYSIS, l!m L Dn'llODOCTION R.opld lil""'1h io Florida bas resulted io iua.-1111-"'public tronsil as a potmtial solution to ever-ma-ma tnnsporUdioa problems ill !he swe. Aimg with tbe increased empbosis on public transtt comes lbe oec:essity to ..,...111e dfoc:tiveoess .. d eflicieocy oflnmsil systems. Florida le&lslation requi=lhe Florida Department ofTm.Jpor11l]on ond Florida's transit systems to develop ..,d report performance measures. The relewnt Florida Slolu!CS aro noted In Figure 1-1. FLORIDA STATUrE 341.041 FLORIDA STATUrE 341.0'11 FLORIDA STATUrE 341.052 FIGUR.&l-1 341.G41 tHO BUPPL! M BNT TO Fl.: (3) 'Deve lop r:x,blish, and admlnltlar 1t1 t 1 meosurea CQOCernlng $ys1em manogotnenl. performanoe, produellvi\Y, oost distribution, and sal'e1yd governmentally owned public 1mnsit &yst.ems..! (1) .... -... -... -----(<) 'Eacfl----... and perforn meaauos, IT'MJI:t be IPil>"'d by !he""'.....,"' and whld1 mutO bo oolocted tram""'"""'., dew!lopod P putlllc tran&il provlclo< &holl PIA>II h In tho local newspaper of h$ area the procfUotlvfty and performance measures establlahed tor the yur ... (4) -ro remain eligible to receive fundlng ... o ll glble public tronell I>"Y'Idefs must comply wllh ... s.34t .071(1) by JulY 1, 1991, and ... a. 341.071(2) by Jury 1 tD92 .. .' 3

PAGE 12

Consisu:nt with Florida Statutes, a series of four reports has been developed that provides an overview of the indivJdua.l and coJJeclive petformance of FlorMSa's trens.it sys.tems. The series examines both fixedrl6 and demandresponse services throughout the $l&le. Fixed-rouce saYicc is a type of transportation that involw:s passeng_er revenue vehicles repeatedty foUowing 1 consistent time schedule over lhe same rouce.. In Florida, fixed-route modes: include motorbus. heavy rail, automated guideway, ond icfcmioo of the Florida clemandreoponse 101al tn:nd. Part Ill olso pr=ts the demand-response modal pcn..-manc:e trend fO< cadi of lhe included Florida onnsit systems o-a 13-year rime prsiod (19114-1996). A YVie
PAGE 13

JllCUJU: J l Dt m ucJ .. Jt.cspoa.se Trausit Systems greater than 99 DR vehicles 50-99 DR vehicles 20-49 DR vehicles 1-19 DR vehicles ... 8ay County COA-Coord. Transpcutation Miami M.-tro Dado Tran&i1 Agency -"' Space Coatt AIH Tnlnalt Oktllooaa Ohlooaa CtJUrrt.y Coord. Tran sportMion ........ 8tOW11td County MHI Tnrult Divi$ion O rlan do L Y" T ramit Esoambla $cambia County ArM Transll Polmhach Beach County Tt8n$portatlon Age n c y Oalneavl l e Region .. Tronlh Sy a t a m Pasco PNco County Public Trenaportetlo n Stf\/Joo HllfabGn:lugh Hlffsbotough Alta R.tJionel Tnnslt ""'-s Pl'ntbs Suncoatt T Authority Indian Alver Indian Riwr Co1.1nty COA SatasotOI Set .. ote Cwnty Area TraMl t Jacbonte Authority SL Lucio St. Luda County COA L-..:and lafcll!land Ataa MaM TrM'IIt District Ttl-Tellhla ... Transit ..P'---Lea Laac.-tyt-Volurlil Coumy o f VoUia ... VOTRAH ........ 5

PAGE 14

A. THE PURPOSE OF PERFORJ\tANCE REVIEW Since performance analysis is only one of many means o f evaluating performance and is limited to those aspects inc.luded in the analysis, the reader should exercise considerable caution in interpreting the results. It is particularly saong in reviewing cost effectiveness and efftciency; however, it does not report on the extent to which other objectives of the transit agency are being anained. For example, the performance evaluation wil l not directly measure several relevant considerations such as passenger satisfaction with regard to levels of service. taxpayer and public auirudes 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 measllred in performance reviews. These include vehicle-cleMJiness and comfort, operator courtesy, performance, quality o f marketing and passenger information s upport, and level of satisfaction with hours of operations, frequency of service, and geographic coverage of the service I n addition to understanding the limits of this analysis, the reader shou l d use caution in interpreting the meani ng of the v arious measures. The performance revi e w dCie$ not necessarily provide information regarding which aspect! of performance are within the control of the agency and which measures are not. Figure 1 3 is a schematic of t h e factors that ultimately affect transit agency perfoiTilance Perfonnanee reviews are a useful and important tool in monitoring: and imprOving lraJlsit SySltfn perl'onnance. However, il should be recognized that the results oftrtnd and peer analyses are only a starting point for fully understanding the perfonnance of transit systems. The issues identifiod as a res.ult of the analyses provide the basis for a serie s of questions that can lead to an enhanced understanding of the "hows'" and "whys" of system perfonnance. FIGURE 1-3 Factor& Affecting Transi.t Ptrf'ormancc 6

PAGE 15

B. THE PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS A commoa method of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency oftmnsit systems is a peer review analysis, which is CssentlaJJy a comparison of a system's porfonnauce with the pcrfonnance of similar systems or 11pcet'S" around the country While conditions among various properties may vary in some respects., a peer review provides a basis for evaluating relative perfonnanco. As oneoftbe tools of performance review, peer review is vccy useful io. that it raises questions and identifies areas that may need ftu:ther review and analysis. However, as mentioned in tlte-previous section, caution s h ould always be taken when interpreting the results of such an analysis. Significant differences should bo explored to identify the specific operational character i stics t h at may explain these differences. The major purpose of a peer review analysis is to provide a genml overview of system perfounan. ce as C()lllpan:d to similar systems throughout the country. An overview of CQmparative perfonnance assisrs in establishing initial hypodleses concerning perfonnance strengths and areas that may require additional attent ion. The resulrs of a peer analysis, therefore can he-lp transit systems better allocate effort and resources. C. PERFORMANCE REVIEW DATA BASE The major source of data for the performance review is National Transit Database (NtD. fo.rmeTiy Sectionts) reports To receive fedcnd funds. transit properties are required to report a variely of data in a standardized fonnat, resulting in what is known as an NTD report T hese reports provide standardized measures of reporting tJ)at enable a more aocunrtecomparison of infonnation between properties. Since 1979, when lhis reporting requirement was instihlted, additional refmemenrs in data collection and report(ng have increased the accuracy and comparability of the data. The data are for the fiScaJ year u.scd by each trunsit autbori.ly. For Florida. propcrtic.,.. the fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. Fo.r other properties, the fiscal year may be different. For clarification of any discrepancies, it is recommended tbat th e appropriate transit system be contacted to verify data and ident ify any unique cbarnc:.teristic:s ofsignificance. Data ReUahiHty All NTD data submitted to PTA are subject to considerable review and validation through manual and automated methods. Each is thoroughly. examined to identify errors, questions, .and inconsistencies. FT A identifies probl ems and requires eacll repbrting agency to respond to these problems before rhe final report is accepted. The quaJity oftbc data published in FTA 's "National Urlxm Mass Transportation Slatistics Section 15 Annual Report" improves each year as transit systems become more t.uniliar with oollecti.ng and reporting data and as defmitions and procedures become more standardh:cd. Despite the fact that the data arc becoming more reliable over time there still remain problems: with lhe quallly of the data for some transit systems. For (his study, data were taken from published summary reports ofNTD fiJings and frorn individual NID reports p rovided by the transit agencies for fiscal year 1995. With the exception of data on tbc inflation rate, all infonnation was provided by tbe transit systems. CUTR did not collect any orjginal data oroonduct MY audits or on. site analyses of the data or data collecti
PAGE 16

Additionally. a completed system data file was provided to each property ror review and verifKatioo. In many inslances, data were changed or sign ifi cant modifications wct'c made. I n several cases., data prt.'o'iousl)' submined t o fTA wen. changed to reflect new informcuion or refinemen t s in definitions and data col1ection. ln some instances, trin$Criplion or other aTOI"$ were diKOvered in the dalL In ocher CITOOeOUS data ftom previous years whidl could not be QOfTeCt.e:d were ex.tr3p0lakd or es1im11cd 10 provide d!e"""' acc:ura1e infonnalion .,.,.iblc. The level of anen1ion 10 d>la review was eoosidcnbly l"llcr for Florida .,...,..U.S !han for peer properues from OlltSide 1heswe. Theelol& used forpeercornporison in Part II of1hisrepon coosisled fO< 1996 Since 1hesedo1& an: more m:eor, lbey are expecatcd between the transit sys rem a nd a parent governmmta-1 bod)'. The nalional inRation rate. as def111ed by the pcrcenti:g.c chan&e in che Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all items (i n cludi n & commodi ties and services) from year to year, w u used t o defl.11te COSl indicators so that they could be prcsentod i:n real terms. From t 984 through )996, service and l abor costs tended to increase at a faster rate chan did co m mod it)' prices. Therefore, transil operating cx.penses, which are predominantly compri.sod of service and labor cosu, may be ex peered ro i ncrease somewhat faster than in Oat ion even if the amount of service provided were not incrc1sed. J:ecrormance l ndjcalors and MC;lltllre!\ The mcRSUres that are used throughout the pcrform:mco rovi cw divided into three major categori es: pcrfonnencc indi(:.fttot's, cffoc:tivenes.s measures-, and cfficienc)' measures. Ptrformance indicators t'cport the data in tltc selected categork'$ that are required by Nl'D reponing. 11ese rend to be key indicators of overall transit $ystcm performance Effectiveness measures typically n::Ono tt\o: clnta funhcr and indicate the extent 10 which vadou s serv i cc-t'elated goals are being achieved. For examp l e, passenger trips per capita is an indicator of the effec tiveness of the agency in meeting transportation needs. Efficiency measures involve reviewing the level o f rtsources ( l abor or cost) t'eqt.1i:rtd to adlieve a given level or outpul. lt is possible to have very efficient service that is not efrectivc or to have highly effective service that is nol efftcient. I n a ddition, the service can be both cfficienc and effeclive or ineffident and ineffc:ctivc in ettainina a aiven objective. 8

PAGE 17

The substantiaJ amount of data available through NTO report i ng provides ao opportunity to develop a large number of measures. Sets of performan<:.e effectiveness measures, and efficiency measures have been selected that are believed to provide a good representation of overall transit system. performance. Othe r measures and catcgorization.s may be developed with the same data. Table lllists the indicators and measw-es provided in this report for response transit services and also provides sub--categories where appropriate. The extensive list of [ndicators and measures provides a voluminous amount of data. all of which are required to fully understand the performance of a transit system Data Availability One of the 'primary improvemeslts to N1D reponin& that has occurred over ti m e is lhe evolution of the NTD fom1s to aJJow transit systems to report more easily service mode and type data for a wider range of indicators. For example, early versions ofFonn I 03 {form related to a system's capital funding) required tr.ans.it systems to list tohtls fur fderal, state. and miscellaneous souru:s of public capital assistance that were applied to their systems dW'ing a given rasca l year. The more recen.t versio.ns oftbis form not only report the various sources of capital funds applied t o a system by service type (directl y operated vs. purcltased). they also provjde bNakdowns of how th,e capital funds were 'used by the mode(s) with.in each sel'\'lee type. The only fonn that has not been updated in thi::s fashion is Form 203 (operating funding). W h ile improvements have bcon to the form over time, i t is still difficult (and often impossible) to distribute the various funding categories among the modes a system operates since the revenues are reported as system totals. A system tha t directly operates motorbus and demand-response modes often will report the passenger fare revenues for both oftbese modes together without providing a breakdown. Even in tb.OGC cases where a lm:akdown is evident for the m odal distributions for other tategories such as charter servioo funds, auxmary transportation funds. non lransponation funds, and government funds (federaJ, state, and local) cannot be distinguished. As a result, for purposes of this study. the operating funding data are typically reponed for each sy.stcms primary mode (us.ually fixed-route motorbus) with spec-ific breakdowns reported by mode where availa ble. Unfortunately. for the directly-operated demand-response-mode this means that data will often be unav ailable (i e nta .. in the included tabl es) for indicators sucb as passcnger fare revenue, operating revenue. and total local revenue, as well as for any related measure$. 9

PAGE 18

Performance I ndicators Serv iot A rea Popula ti o n Serv i ce Area Size Trips Passeng Miles Vehjele Miles Revenue M iles Ve h icle Hours Revenue Hoor& Oper3tift9 Expen$0 Toea! Operl)lit lg EXPense (1964 $) Total Maintenance Expense Toca l Maintenance Expense ( t934 $) T ola f Capital Expense Total Local Revenue Oper.ttil'll) Revenue P assenger F are Revenue row Tran:sponation Operaung Employees Maintenance Employees Adm ini strative Ve hicl es Available fo r Ma.ICimum Service Ve h icles Operated i n Maximum Service Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consumed 10 TABLE 1 Pcrrormance Review Indicators and Measures Directly -Operated Demand Rnpon.se -Transil Services Effe ctiveness Measures Effleleney Measures Service Supply Coat Effldency Vehicle M.i5es Per Capi ta Operating Expense Per Capita Operat ing Expense Per Peak Vehicle S81Yk:e ConsumpUon Operating Expense Per Pas-senger Trip Passenge r Trips Per C a pita Operating Expense Per Pas,enger Mile Passenger Trips P e ( Revenue Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile Passe nger Trips Per Revenue Hou r Operating Expense Per Revenue Houf Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile QuaUty of Service Mainteo.ance Expen se Per Operating Exp. Average Speed Avetage Age Of Fleet yo.an) Operating Ratios NumbOr of FarObox Recovery Reve:nu& Set\'loe JnterrupUons Loca t Revenue P o r Operating Elq)cn:$c R evenue Mil e s Befwee n Incidents Per Operating Expense Revenue Mil e s Between Interruptions Vehlde Utll lzatt.on Veh i cle Miles Per Peak Vehicle Vehic le Houra Per Peak VehicJe Revenue M ile s Per Ve hicle M ile Revenue M ile s Per Tol sl Ve hi des Revenue Hours Per Tolal Veh icles LabOr Producti vity R.evenve Hours Per EI'I'IJ)Ioyee Passenger Ttfps: Per Employee Energy UtiUzat lon Vehicle MiiH Per Gal lon Faro Average Fare

PAGE 19

D THE ROLE OFPRIVATIZATlON Privatization is beooming increasingly important ln tile transit indusb'y across tbe United States and in Florida In 1984, no Florida transit systems contracted for the provis .ioo of fixed-route mororbw service. However, in 1996, three FJorida transit systems contracted with the private sector to provide some fixed-route service. Privatized service is more common for demand-response service. For those transit systems included in the demand-response reports, in 1996, nine systems provided purchased demand-response service, four directly operated IJ1eir demand-response service, and eight proV"ided both purchased and direclly-operated demand -response service. In contrast, in 1984, nine Florida systems provided demand-response service, only three of which contracted for some portion (one system) or all (two systems) of this service. The importance of privatization as i t relates to this report concerns the avnilabWty of data for these contractual services. Many of the measures that am be easily calculated (or services that are directly-operated cannot be calculated for purchased motorbus since 1nany performance indicators are unavailable. Table 1-2 indicates generally what performance indicators are available for dcmand-rcs.ponsc. privatized transit as well as those measures that can be caJculatcd with these indicators. TA8LEJ.2 Performance Review Indicator-s a n d Mcasurc.'l1 P u rchased Dema n d Respons-e Transit Servil:t'S Effootfvencss Mc-.t$Ut0$ EffiCiency MWSUM Service A rea Popufallon Service Supply CO$l Efficie ncy SeMce A rea Size Vehicle M il es Per Capit a Opl!f8ting Expense Per Capita Opemtln g Per Peak Vehic l e P asse nger Trips Sorvko Consumption Operating Per Paueogec Tf1> Passenger M il os Passenger Trif)$ Per C<:lpita Opetatlng Expen$0 Per Passenger Miec Passenger Trips Per Rcvonuo M il& EliCpenso Per RuvcnuCJ Mile Vchiele Mile$ Pas$engetTtll>$ Per Revenue Hour EliCpenso Pe-r Revenue Hour Revenue Mile$ Vehfcle Hours Q u ality of Service Operating Ratios Revenue Hours Average Speed none Total Operuti flg Ex pense Avai1abllity Vohldo Utilizatio n TO(al Operating Expense (19a4 $} none VehiCl e Mile$ Per Peak Vellielo Vehiele Hour$ Pet Pe<'lk Vehicle Vehicle$ Av
PAGE 20

E. PEER SELECT ION PROCESS The mcthodolO&Y for the selection of demand-Rspon se peer systems ror the snuewide peer review is relatively simple and lmost iden1ical co that used for the seleetion of ftxcd-rOlog,y fii'Sl utilized a loclltion 6h er during the initial nnsit system identirtca!ion phase (i.e., only systems that were located within a specified g oographit area consisting or 12 s t a tes ill the southeastern United States as shown in Figure loo4, were oonsiderc:d for possible loclusion in the:. actua l se l ectio n pro$:5), the demand-response selection proctS s needed tO co nsider the entire Uniced States during it s initial syste m iden tiftcation phase due to an inadequate nwnber of potential demand-response peer systems within dte 12 southeastern states. l nslead. tbc addittona1 exoaenous factor of"geographic location .. was i.dded 10 lhe l.ndicators utililbd in the peu selection proceu ro give additional weight to those transit systems located wlthin the desired 12-state teglcm. PIGVRE 1-4 Geographic Ana for SeJec1lon of Peer s Tau In the rli'St Jtep of the selection process, lhe perfonnancc of each of the potential non-Florida peers was compared to tho avenge of the Florida $)'stems for each of the four poer groups. A peer received one point for eaoh measure for which ic was within one standar d dev iation of lhc Florida systems' mean. One-hal f point was g i ven f or each m easure that fell bdwcen one and two standard devia t ions from 1he Florida systems mean. 12

PAGE 21

. Three of the-measures (service area population density, miles, and average speed) were considered to be of primary importance in the peer selection process. To give weight to systems that were close to Florida's averages for these tfuee variables, one half-point extra wall awarded to peers falling within one or two standard deviations of the Florida systems' means in each of the demand-JCSponse vehicle categories. Afle:r the total scores were detennined, the potential peers were ranked jn descending order. For lhe J to -19 group, tlle top nine scorers were recommended as peers for Florida systems. For the 2(}-to-49 and groups, the top seven scorers were selected as peers. In the greater -than-99 group, the top six peers were selected. It should be noted that someof the reoommcnded peers elected not(() participate in the peer review analysis or were Wlable to provide their NTD reports in a timely manner. Jn these cases, several of the next-highest scoring systems that had been chosen in each category to serve as backup peers were utilized instead. To lUustrate the peer selection pr()Oe:S:S, consider the example of the City ofBl Paso-Mass TraositDepartmcnt in 'l"cxas. ln fiscal year 1995 (the YCIII' on. which the selection process was based since this was the most recent year that FT A -validated NTO data were available for all potential peer systems), El Paso operated 53 demand-response vehic.Jes in maximum service placing it into the 50-to.-99 peer group. Using setVioe area population density as a representative variable, it was determined that :El Pasos density of2. 178 persons per square mile was within one standard deviation oftbc Florida average for this peer group. which was 1,499 persons per square mile. Therefore, B l Paso was gi\'en one point fortbis measure. In addrtion, because density was c.o.nsidered to be o-ne of the lbree key measures in the peer se lection process (aJoug with revenue mil es and average speed), El Paso was onc-balf point extra since Its density was within one standard deviation of the Florida average. In total, Bl Paso scored 10.0 points in the analysb. making: it one of the 2 highest scorers in the group. As one top seven scorers in tbo so-to-99 category, El Paso was, then, chosen as a peer tOr Florida system$ operating: between SO and 99 demand--response vehicles in maximum service. Comparison of peers uriliz.ing: standard deviations is different from the past methodology. which se.lected system. s based on wherber they were 10 or IS percen1 within tbe Florida averages. II is important t o not e that tbe results of this analysis wore not radically than the resulls derived from tlle previous approach. However, the use of standard deviations is a wfdely-ernploycd, $tatistically valid k:.Chnique tlu'll proved to produce expected, common-sense results. Sec.tions U,JJJ, IV and V ofthJs report, which follow, pJ'ovide detailed resuJts of the peer analysis for each of the four demand-response vehicle categories. 13

PAGE 22

14

PAGE 23

II. >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Metr<>-Dade Transit Agency .Browtn'd Count y Mass Transit Divisi. o n Lynx (Orlando) HiiJsborough Area RegionaJ Transit Milwaukee County Paratransit System Dalla s Area Rapid Tran sit Tidewater Transportation District Commission (Nortblk) Detroit Suburt>an Mobility for Regional Transportation (S.MARl) Pierce Transit (Tacoma) Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District o f Oregon IS

PAGE 24

PEllfORMANCE I N DICATORS s.Mce AIM PopNiioa (000) SOMotAteaSize(_.,.-) Pa-Trip$ 1,000) Pas.stDGtr Miles (000) Vthlclo MIOs (DOO) Revenue Milos (000) Vthlclo Hou!l {000) Revenue Hours (000) Rout.UiiM Total Optrltlng Expense (000) Total Ml""""n"' Elcpenaa {000) Total Capital Expense (000) Totallocaj-.,.. ( 000) OoetllloQ R.-(000) ...._ .... _{000) Total Eq:bjoos T111Nj>01101ioo EnoployOH Mtln4tnance Adminian!He Employee Vetlicte& Avalable for Maximum SeNioe Vehldet Operated in Maximum SeMce Spare Rllio Total Gallons Consumed (000) 16 TABLE 11-1 Sysltm Total Perfonu.a.99 Onload-Rttpo""' VeM:Ie Colegory -.,. .... ....... TOUJ Total Ellel. DRP 1161.28 1 ,858. 65 1,100.00 241.50 695.30 216.00 112.88 6117.66 ..,. 5 ,108..23 8 193.77 .... 7 7,302 .&$ 9 ,5&4.14 10. 72 5,648. 12 7,583.05 711. 71 80&84 582.-10 lj.11 660 .68 486,77 4UI nla n/a n/a $8,856.19 $19.038.67 $2,112.10 nil $1,532:.37 ....... $23. 33 $11.71 nil $3,347 .43 nla $2, 112.10 11,.408.10 nla $1"13.10 St.AQS.IO f477 .70 1111. 10 ... 44430 &3.10 ni l 352.10 u.ro ... 2.30 0 70 nil 87.90 11.70 477.00 294.00 31. 00 2
PAGE 25

PEAFORMAHCE INDICATORS TABLE 11-1 (oontl aued) System Total Performance Indicators >99 Demand-R>sponse Vehicle Category 17

PAGE 26

PERFORMANCE INiliCATORS -AtuSilo( --.) P .. TriPS (000) Poue-MillS (000) Vohiolo MUM (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vohldo ljouiO ( 000 ) Rev.nue Hour& (000) 1\o""'MIIoo T o tal ()poratlng EXP< ... (000) Tol.lil Maintenance (000) Total C 1 pital .,_.,.., (000) Total LOQI Rewnue (000) Pausnow F1re CQOO) Total & "*"ees T._...,. Opoooting E-Mt1n1eNnc:e Ernp1oyee& Admin_ E._ .. Vehicles Available for Maldmum Sorvlct Vehicles Operated In Maxlm!Mn SeMct Spare Ratio Total Gallons Consumed (000) 18 TABLE 11 Sysltlll T otal Performanee IJldkators ,_, Dc111ndRtspouc Vcbide Category ,._ ... Ottando Elod DRP Ind. DRP T..., 811.28 888.28 1,ZOU1 591.71 591 7 1 2.13&.00 <0.87 aua 58. 29 4,932.38 U1LOO 138 .17 4,30U3 U1U4 114 5 1 3,888.111 4,711 ... 1U8 2n.78 13.44 256.79 332 .3G "" !'/0 "" 1699. 9 2 $13,792.n $7,451.31 13388 $1.3311.03 nio $2.1 1 7 1 2 ""' nio "" "'' "" nil $ 7 .628.29 $4 211.11 I'll $2.&45.45 $4 70 U 11.60 18UO uo t t .OO 149.00 0.00 0 .60 13. 1 0 0.00 0 .00 6.60 uo s .oo 136 00 11$.00 4 .00 111.00 101.00 25.00% 22.52% 4.&3% 11.48 1138.35 "'' _.......,. --..... TOUI _.1 1,412.8$ 1Pif.DO 72:3.83 41tM 82$.113 ,-012.11 $ $72 .31 4,471.0;1 6.541.1)0 S,741.13 4 S99.14 HU7 181.11 313 29 nil "" $ 1,337 17 $10,<07 .63 nil $ 1 075.81 nil n/a nil ""' nil nl a 1 24.11 $1,0Q5..60 nlo 165.()1 .... 132_&4 I'll 9 .<0 "" 22.97 264.30 1 00.00 15MO 37t.OO% 7 6.48% nil 454.13

PAGE 27

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES TABLE H Z System Total Effectiveness Measures >99 DoiiUind-Rosponse Vehicle Clltegory Total Total Exel. DRP Incl. DRP Total 19

PAGE 28

SERVICE SUP!'\. Y VehldoMiaiPetCopb SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pa.._,T. Pet Capito PNttnQtr Trips Por Revenue Mile QUALITY OF SERVICE Avor>go S-(fl.h!JR.ti.J Avtrge Age ol Fleet {M yoart) N\lmber ollnciclenta Rovenuo Service lntemJplions MiiM Becw.tn (000) Revenue Millet Between lt'lltrt\lptions (000) AVA I.ABILITV R---Pet-llile(OOO) 20 TABLE 11-1 (contiaued) System Total Etfediveness Measures >99 Dtmaod-Rcspome Vdlkk category _.,.. Ead.DRP Ind. ORP Elu:LDRP r.a.DRP 2,Z, 2.58 0 .5& uo 0 .30 0 .12 1).21 0 .23 0 .21 0.26 0 .31 3 4 6 2 $4 :ue 4 47 1 4 .73 13.90 14.21 14.32 2 .93 nle 2 .17 2.24 14.00 nlo 20 00 42. 00 265.00 nla 181.00 493. 00 02. 12 nla 96.85 N .10 3 .75 nle 10.68 5.60 nil .... nla nla T""""" El
PAGE 29

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES TABLE 11 (99 Demand-Response Vehicle Category Exd.ORP Incl. DRP Total T<>UI Mean 21

PAGE 30

EFFICIEN CY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operating e._ PtrCapia . Opeqtlng Exp, Per Peak {000) C)pef1l!ng Per Pa'"ngt< Tl\> Operating Per Patse11ger Mio Exj>enoo Per Mile Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Mlil'lteMnice Per Maintenai'IC4 Expense P er Operat:ing Exp. OPERATING RATIOS F ttebox Recovery Loe.l Rovtnue Per Operat in g E'xpeose Operating Revonuo Ptr Openting ex,.... VEHICLE llflliZATION Vehlde MIIN Per Peak Vehkie (000) Vehlde Hourt Per Peak Vehicle (000) Revenue Mile$ Pe1 VehiCle Milt Revenue Miles Per T o tal Vel\leies (000) Revenue Hours Per Total Vehicles (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenut Hours Pet Employee (000) P"$$tnget TW1 Per Emplc>yee (000) UTILJZAllON Vehicle Mllet hr GaliOn FARE Averagt Faro 22 TABLE 11-3 System T ota l Etndeaey Measures >99 Dema n d ResponSle Vehide C a tegory Milwaukee Dollao M laml Total Total FxeJ. DRP $923 $10.18 $ A Z $33.67 $74.96 $ 106.35 $9.70 . $1.73 $2.32 $5.25 $1 .57 $2.51 . $15 .80 $39.11 1 61.$3 nla $0.20 nla 8 .05% 12.01% 1 $ .83% 2 51% 4A6% 37.60% nla 100.00% 15.88% nJ M% 27.77 37.77 35.82 2.31 2 .21 2.13 0 .77 0 .79 0 .92 11.84 25.79 26.38 1.1 8 1 .88 U nfl 1.10 0.88 nla 1 .58 0 .73 nla 7.61 10. 18 $1.$4 30.68 $2.41 Browud Incl. DRP T .... . .-. I $7.36 $80.67 $68.15 Sll;7 I' suo $1.42 ,.70 $ 2 9.02 $32.60 :' ; "'' nla nil 12.3"" 7.15% 107.63% nil z.s % nla 12.32 37.t7 U3 1.91 o.ea o.to 34.73 12.90 a.u UT nla nil nla nla n! nil $2.32 $1.08

PAGE 31

EFFICIENCY MEASURES TABLE U-3 (eontlnued) System Total Efficiency Measures >99 Demand-ll
PAGE 32

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFIC4ENCY Elcpt ... Pet CotliJa Ope(a(lng EMp. Per Peak Vehicle (000) Ptt ; ()pefaling f)pense Per Mile ex.,.... Per RfYtnuo. . Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour Maintenance Expense Per R.evtnuet Mile MalnttnaBCe Expense Per Openllng Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Ftrtbox Local Pet Oporallng Expo.nae ap.,,.Ung RfYOnuo Per Opo(aijng e,_. VEHla.E UTI L IZAT I ON Vehidt M ilea Per Peak Vehicle (000} V eflide Hour& Per Peak Veh i cle (000) Mit$ Ptr Vehidt Mile Revenue M'IIH Per Total {000) Revenue Hout1 Per Total Vehldt.t (000) LABOR PRODUCTI V ITY Rhtnu. Houra Pot Employee (000) Pamnget Trips Employee (000) ENERGY IJTIUZATION Vellrde Mijes Pet Gtllon FARE Ave r8$8Ftre 24 TABLE (co ntinued ) System Tota l Efficleacy Meaures >99 Veh icle Category .......... Orlando Exci.ORP lnel DRP Total $0.6t $J3 .J!!I $149.$8 $124 .26 S$8.18 $14 .76 $l4.91 $10.29 $2.80 $1.14 $$.24 $44.66 $S3.71 $22.42 $0.30 $0.36 nil 5.66% 9.71% nia "' 20. 83% 1.31% nta ,. nla nla 55.31% 67.1141% 34.54 38.79 &1.10 3.84 250 3.A7 0 .83 0 .88 0.87 22 .90 27.10 42.33 2 .89 1 89 2.94 1.16 1 .52 87.48 3 51 3.52 139.94 12.03 8-03 nil nra $4.79 $0.11 Hmaborough PHrGtoup Total -n $J.U 1. 4i $ 70.2 9 I SIH! .J1U7 $1.51 $1.89 _,., sw. $34.811 $:36.71 $0.39 . nla 12.ft% 0.31% IO.e:i% nfa nla nlo nla 44.71 35.83 2.30 2.28 0.14 7.11 20 53 0.38 nil 1M5 nta 22.11 nil J 9.57 $0.0

PAGE 33

>99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY 11-1 Service Area Population (000) Figure 11 Revenue Miles (000) Performance Indicators Rgure 11--3 Vehicle Mile$ (000) Figure 11-2 Paosenge< Trips 1000) Figu1e h-5 Total Opotating Expense (000) 25

PAGE 34

26 >99 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Perfonnanc:e lndkato rs fltwo n 7 Tote! Emplo'f'MI

PAGE 35

>99 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY FiguT811-13 Revenue Miles Between lnclden1 t ErtteUveness Measures Average Age of Fleet tyems) Flgurelf -14 Revenue M ite s Bttwoen Inte r ruptions

PAGE 36

2 8 >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY 0-tlng e._ .. Pw Copho f"tgure 18 Efficiency M easures Rguroll-17 OtMrdng Expen" hr R6venue Mile M eintenance Expens e Per Revenu e Milt o.to Rourt 1118 f*lboJC RICOVtrY Redo

PAGE 37

... "" Dt110Jt PorftoncS """" T.:ofl'llt O.lln ...... .,,..,. .. Mt'Widn >99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Fig ure 11 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehide Flgu,.ll Passenger Trips Per Employoo f ..,., ....... ,.,.,, .. -J,.. 0 40.000 80.000 120.000 1&0.000 Effic:leney Meas-ures ....... ...... ...... ..... ,_ ., ..._,OfWOtl MhiiiiJt.O Figure 11-21 Revenue Hours Per EmploY" .. ..... .:lo '...J. ,.,.,.... Md'MI .. ..JJ.o 0 28.000 so.ooo 78.000 100,000 Figure 11-23 Average Fare 29

PAGE 38

30

PAGE 39

IU. 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY County ofVolusia dbo VOTRAN Pinellos Suncoastlransit Authority Pasco Cow1ty Public Transportation Spooe Coost Area Transit Indian River County Council on Aging) Inc Akron-Metro Regional Transit Autb.o.rity Thlnsit Audtority of River City (Loujsville) Fort Worth Transp<>rtation Authority Ride-On Montgomery County Government (Rockville) Monlacbusett Regional Transit Authority (Fitchburg) Mass Transit Department>-City o f El Paso City ofThcson 31

PAGE 40

PJU'OAIIANCE .. DICATOfiS S.NtceAIN Pe-p I 'ht(OOQ) -A161s;..(oquara.-) p .,..,. Trips (000) Patttn;tr MiH ( 000 ) Vahlclo M ... ( 000) Mllet (000) VMiclo HO (000) Rovtonuo Houra (000) Routo Miltt TOIAII Oper1 U og ExpeMe (000} T otll M tinleNnce Expense (000) T OIAII Clplal Expense (000) T ot:al LOCII (000 ) .,._,F--(000} TotiiE,.,MS MMI!tnfnct f.lnployeet Admlnlatrltive Employees Vehicles Available tor Maximum Service Vthlde:l Optmed In Maximum Service Spare Ratio To111 GatiOna Con.tumed (000) TABLE 111-1 Sys1cm Tobl Performaac:e IDdkaton 50-99 O.man d R .. ponsc Vebicle Ca tegory A .... l..oWWIO Exd. DIU' Ind. Df


PAGE 41

PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS TABLE ill-1 (>nllaued) System Total Performance Indicators 50-99 Veh icle C'ategory 33

PAGE 42

PRFORMANCE INDICA TORS -Aieo pq,ulitlon Service Area Slle (squafe milts} p .... (0001 Pauenger Milos (000) Vel>ldo M ... (000) Revenue Miles (000} Vehldo Houol (000) Rownue Houra (000) R-MIIoo, Total Oj>e!etlng e._.. 10001 Maintenance ExpeBM (000} Total Ctpltll (000} T o1>1 Local Rtl(tnue (000) Operating Revenue (000) Passenger Fare Re\'enue (000) Total Employeet r ._-.. 0pe1.,;,g ... Maintenance Employets AdminbtrA'Iive EmptoyeN VellieleJ Avallablt for S$1Vi oe Veh6cles Opefatlt(lln s.tvlcA SPJreRaUo Total Galona (000) 34 TABLE 111-1 (continued) System Total Prrlormaoc e Jndk atof1 50 Dema nd-Respo nse Vehldt category FHchburg EIPno Tota l Exd.DRP lnd.DRP .. "' 7s83..o2 ,;,. 338. 26 247 .40 247.60 585.80 238.80 c""2&:2.34 4,803.17 2,154.93 2,651.32 9a0.99 2 .iln8f 980. 99 1,6$7.92 1,911 67 82 39 82. 39 105.63 114.99 n! n/a .{ "' $2.195.15 $<1,840.76 $5,132..70 $224.71 $1,020 .79 nla nla nia nla nla nla nil nla nla n/a $349.32 1203 78 $239.<15 38:40 121.70 n/a 31.90 96.50 nla 5 .80 18.60 nla 0.70 8 60 nla 82 .00 sz.oo 87.00 . oo 84. 00 22.39% .40.91% 28.13% 1 .. 1.38 469 20 .,. Pasco Excl. ORP lnd.ORP "'f,;iOui 101.18 761.00 761.00 12t.Oi UUI 1 002.$1 1,184.28 ft'' 8*7.02' .";. 638.77 672.00 .. .... I 31.74 40.63 ""' $1,16 6,11 $1,07. 26 .. .. $2,0M.4S 1495.82 l i ... $06.44 nla $44.79 -$11.11 :14.90 nla 34 .90 0.00 o.qg 38.00 72.00 24.00 H.OO 6U3% 24.U% nil

PAGE 43

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLE Ill I (>otiuurd) Syste m Total Performanee Jodicators 50-99 Dtmaoci-:Response Vellkle caugor y J S

PAGE 44

36 EfFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPI'I. Y SERVICE CONSUMPTION Tripi Capita TtlP$ Per Revenu& Mile P1SM!'19et Ptr Revent.tt Hour Q UAliTY Of' SRV1CE AVOI&ge S-(RMJP. t<) Average AQe of Fleet {In years) Number oflnddontt Revenue Sef'llfce Interruptions Revenue Mile. BetWMn lnciiSente (000) Revenue Miles Between lntemJptions (000) AVAILABi liTY Revenue Mllet Pt1 Flou(e Milt (000) IU-2 System Tot a l Efftctivtntss Measures 50-99 Demand-Response Vehide Category Akron Loulavllle Exct DRP Ind. DRP Excl. DRP Inti. ORP 1.63 0 .26 3.65 13.85 3 .70 3.00 483.00 245 11 1.$2 nla 0 76 0.28 3 97 14.25 4 70 nJa nla nJa nJa nla 0 07 ("; 0 37 6.29 I 14.30 5.73 9.00 1 42.00 t4.9;l 0.74 0 .14 \ .89 13.72 1 75 "'" .,. nla n la nla FOftWorth Excl. DRP Incl. ORP 10.09 2 92 ia.oo 1<40.00 )3.Qe 8A2 nla 0.09 1.98 21.04 3 57 nla nla nJa nla

PAGE 45

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES TABLE m-z (
PAGE 46

EFFECTrvENESS MEASURES SERVICE SUPPLY v hlde r.tileo Per Ceplla SERVICE CONSUMPTION Pa._rT!iP.f Pe
PAGE 47

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES TABLE lll-Z (
PAGE 48

EFFI C IENCY M EASUReS COST EFFICIEN CY Operating Per Capita . " Operating Exp. Pel Peak Vehiele (000) Opttating Op6rating ecpense Per Pauenger Milt ()p&tatlf'!O Expense PerRtwnu. Mit ' ' Operating Expens.e Per Revenu e HOUt Maintenance ExpenM Per Rewnue f,llle Maintenanc.e Expense Per Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farebo.x Recow.ry local Revenue hr Operating EJI'I)e:nt.e Opeoratlng Per Opeteting ExpeflM VEHICLE UTILlZATION Vehicle M ... Pel PBk Vehlde (000) Vehicle Hours Pef PNk Vehicle (000) Rovenue Milel Per Ve hlde Mile Revo006 Mile& P e r Total Vel'lil:les (000) Revenue Kours Per Ta.al Vehldes (000) lABOR PROOUCTlVITY Revenue Hours Per Efl'll)6oyee (000} Pa$$0*' Trip& Per Employee (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vel'tlcJe Miles Per Gdon FARE Av&tege Fate 4 0 TABLEIII-3 System Total Effielency Mea,ures 50-99 Demand-Response Vehicle Cat egory """'" Lou l avllle Excl. DRP Incl. DRP Exel.DRP fncl DRP $4, 80 $7 .91 $0.80 '$$.1& __g_j" . $70 81 $45. 36 $68 .04 $48.96 $12.79 $10. 46 $2.85 $2.43 $0 .88 $1.13 $2.91 SUI9 ,_ $46.68 $41 48 $65.18 $23.14 nit $0.95 21.33% niB 20 .95% niB nla "'' 26.33% 10.99% niB nl. nla nla niB niB nla nit 23.99 16.75 17.22 44.38 1 .62 1 13 1 .20 2.80 0 .88 0 .9\1 O.S7 G.65 12 .90 10. 39 5.17 23.93 0.93 0.1'3 0 38 1.74 1 29 nla 0.91 nla 4 .70 nla 4 .83 niB 4 .00 nla 5 .00 nla nla nla $3. 24 $1.3S Fort Worth Exel. DRP lnel DRP $8.01 _,$148 .31 $50.64 $30:4 ? . ,.$ 14 .94 $3.34 $1.42 . J1.41 $50.58 $29.57 nl. 18.61% niB 8.32% 10. 29% nla nra ry,a niB 37.38 2.95 1.77 0 98 0.98 31.03 3t.$7 2 .08 1.50 0.96 niB 1.58 niB 4. t2 nla $2 53 $1.54

PAGE 49

EFFICIENCY MEASURES TABLEJU-3 (
PAGE 50

EFFICIENCY MEASURES COST EFFICIENCY Operoting P.er C.plta Operating Exp. Per Peak Vehicle (000) > Operoting ex..,.. Por P"ongor Operating Expense Per Panenger Mile M ile Operatir.g ExpeMe Per Revtnue Hour MalrUen-_nce f>!r -Maintsnance Expense Pet' Operating Exp OPERATING RATIOS Fattbo>! Local Revenue Per Operating Operttlng RevenuQ Pet Opetatlng ExpenM VEHIClE unLJZATION Vehlde U IIN Per Peak Vet"llcle (000) VohiCIO Hours Per Peak Vehicle (000) Roenue Milo:& Pet Vel'tide Mile Revenue Mile$ Per Total Vehk:IM (000) Revenue Houn Per TOCa l Vehlc'et (000) LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Employee (000) Trips Per Employee (000) ENERGY vnLIZA TION Vthlele Mitet: Plf GaiOn FARE Average FaJe 42 TABLE IH-3 (continued) System T ota l Effidenc.y M easures Demand-R,.ponse Vebicle Category Fitchburg El P aso Pas> TExc:l DRP Incl. ORP Exel. DRP $14.56 $8.3o .. I:-.;' $8A2 $32. 76 $110 .02 $00.20 $88.96 $3. 75 $20: 4< I"-' 11a.js $0.48 $2.25 SUI< $ 1.&5 12.24 $2.117 1''.: 135.19 S.5.83 w.e. $62.14 10.23 $0.60 nl I $8,40 10.24 % 21.09'4 n/a 1 3.05% 15.91% 4.21% 4.67% 2.70% n /a nta nla 29.116% n/a nla nla 2.81% 14.64 48 .96 37.16 26.64 0.93 2.91 2 15 1.61 1.00 0.76 0 60 0 .84 11.96 27 .22 23.31 14.18 0.76 1.70 1.40 0.64 1 .62 0.87 nla 0.81 15.26 1.95 nta 3 61 6.94 . o nit U7 so.eo $0.86 10. 85 $0.31 lnc:l. DRP SUI . $32.71 flUB $U3 $2 .62 $48.68 nta nta z.t1 % n/a nil 1S 72 0.8>1 0.8>1 8.33 nll nla nta $0.3 7

PAGE 51

EfFICIENCY MEASURES TABLE ffi-3 (continued) System Total Efficiency MtasurtS 50.99 iremiUidRe.sponse Vehicle category Exd.DRP lncl DRP Total Exel. DRP Jnci.DRP 43

PAGE 52

44 50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 111 1 Service Area Population {000) Figure lft.-4 R$venttt M Ut$ (000) Per formane:e Rgure 111 Vehlclo Mlles 10001 F;gt.r e llf-2 Pas-r Trips (0001 Figure 111 Total Oporatlng Expense (0001 ...

PAGE 53

50-99 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure 111-6 Passenger Fete Revenue (0001 Figure 111-8 Vehicles Available for Maximum Servic. Performaoce lodkators FtgUre 111-7 TotaJ Employees Rgure 111-9 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 45

PAGE 54

4 6 50-99 DEMANDR.ESPONSE VEHICLE CATEG ORY fig .. olll VoHde M ilos .... Copito Flgu
PAGE 55

50-99 DEMAND RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Eftlcleaey Measures Fl$tJr e 111-17 Operedng Expense Per Revenu. Mi le Fig ure 111-18 M aloten ance E x p ense Po r Revonuo M ilo Flwuro 111-18 f r ebox AIOOvtfy RlltfO t%5 0 0 47

PAGE 56

41 50 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Rguro -20 Vehicle Miles,._ I'Mk Vohldo 10.000 F;gwelll-22 PoSMnger Trips Per ER\Piov trractcncy Measuru ...... 21 Rewnuo Holn ,._ Emc>loYoo

PAGE 57

IV. DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Okaloosa County Cc>ordinated 'transportation. Jnc. Sarasota County Area Transit Palm Beach County Agency Bay County C ounci l on Aging-Bay Coordinated. Transportat ion (Panama City) Jacksonvill e Transpo_rtation Authority Peninsula funspot1ation District Commission (Harnpton) City of Appleton (Valley Transit) Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority Central Contra Coota Transit Authority ( C oncord) Charlotte Department of Transportation Nashville Metropoliran Transit Authority Greater Richmond Transit Company 49

PAGE 58

I'ERJ'OAIL\NCE INDICATOAS --Popo-(OCIO) -.....,Size (squate .-) Pauongor Trips (000) Pusen;or Min (000) Vehicle ,..... ( 000) Revenue Mile (000) Vehicle ....,,. (OCIO) Hours (000) Route Milos Tot111 Opera11ng E:xpenM (000} T obll Maintenance Ellpenae (000) T'"' Expense (000) T ... l Local Re-(000) Ooororillg R...,.,... (000) Passenger Fte ReveiiiM (000) T ata1 Etrpl)"ee& T rtMpOttltion OperatiQg Ernptoyeu Mlintenlnce Ml!llnlslrlllve Employe .. VehiCles Available ror Maxi!TM'n Vel'lldet Opered in M.Pimum Stttk SPJre R&1fo Total Oaloos Consumed (000) so TABL" IV-I Sytttm TotJI Performute llldkaton 20.49 Deruod-R"Jll .. Vdlide Cat-.ory --01<11--EllcL DRP lnd.DRP Elld. DRP InCl. DIU' :100.$9 300.118 1fU4 1fiM 118.00 118 .1X) 200.00 200.00 67.91 80.07 121.01 uuo 403.20 "22.63 1,117.14 1,120.11 705.41 724.84 80ZM IOU4 257 .04 276.47 730.01 712.10 41.42 42.94 ..... 17.02 19.99 21.50 51.12 81.20 nla nla .,. "'' $582 .06 $844.0$ $1,022 ... S t,02L11 $96.68 nla $ 178.10 nlo 140.01 $40.0. $234.51 n/a nla nla $722 .10 .,. nJe nJa $ 722.80 nJa $111..62 $125.46 ....... $14t.N 22.60 nla 41.10 nlo 21 .40 nla 3tAO nJa 1 ,20 nil 0 .90 nJa 0.00 nil 1.80 nJa 28.00 62.00 46.00 46.00 21.00 46.00 u.oo 41.00 33.33% 34.78% 0.00% 0 .00% 98-90 132.27 70.11 ""' -TOCOI 160.78 suo 119.16 4S0.2A 871.60 494.50 41.76 31.41 nla $905.79 $10.41 $1),00 nla nJa $182.94 0.911 0.00 0 .00 o.so .. a.oo 39.00 23.08% nla

PAGE 59

TABLE IVl (continued) Sy$ttm Total Pnformaoc:e Indicators 20.49 Demand-Response Veh l
PAGE 60

IIIOICATO!Ia --..... -(000) --Size (squ.,. milosl Pa,..ngorTfipo(OOO) Pantngor Mile< ( 000) (000) RtV6nue (000) H01111 (000) Re't'enue Hours (000) Total OperJtlng EXpen.t,O {000) Tolol............,. Elq>enoe (000) Total Capial Expe:BSe (000} Tolal LO
PAGE 61

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES TABLEIVl System Total Effectiveness Measures l0-49 Demand-Response Vehicle Category EX(I. DRP Incl. DRP Exci.DRP lncL DRP 53

PAGE 62

EFFC1M!NSS M EASUIIES SERI/1CE SUI'PL Y Vehicle Min Pet Ctpll SERVI CE CONSUMPTK>N Pa-T,_.. Pt< COplta PasM:ngef T .. Ptf RIYtnU6 Milt Pa...., Per Rwtflut Hour QUAliTY OF SERVICE ...... -(IUIJR.H.) A-"00 of F1N1 (in YNR) N..m. of lncicMntl Rew-n110 SetviOII lnttlfl,.iptlon Revenue Mllel Becwoen lncldentt (000) R e venue Mllea Betwoen Interruptions (000) AVAILABILITY M ilt:t Ptt (000} TABI. E IVl (coaliued) S)'1tem Totl 2trtivmtS1 Masuns O.maod -R ospouc ........ p---City T ... l Total TOiol Ul 4.17 o.22 M 4 1.01 0.21 0.13 0 .20 U4 2.11 a u 11#.1 1'-07 1 0 .71 4.01 nla S .1t nil nil o .oo nil nla 7 4 .00 nio nil nil n/a nla 7.21 nil nil ni l c..,...chltttl Concord Tolal Total 5.13 us 0 .73 0 .22 0.17 0 14 3 .18 2.33 18.81 11 .76 2S.OQ 10 00 211.00 38. 00 &<.or 71.78 6.66 18 .80 nia nil

PAGE 63

EFFEcnYENESS MEASURES TABLE JV-2 (continued) System Total Effectiveness Measures 20-49 Demand-Response Vebltle Category Total Mean 55

PAGE 64

56 EFACIENCY MEASURES COST EFFlCIENCY per C!!?lta ,, Ope-radng Exp. Per Peak VeNcle (000) OjlOralirlg .. per Operating Expen&e Pet' Pas1enger Mile Operu;!'li .Exs>enoe RAMinue Mil! Operating E'.q>en$8 Pef Revenue Hour EXPtnH Pet Rtvtnue Maintenance ExpenM Pet Operating Exp. OPERATING RATIOS Farobox Reccwery Loet,l P6r ClpetaUng 9Peraling Re...enue Per Exptn&e VEHtct.E UTiliZAnON Milet Per Pull Vehicle (000) Vehicle Hours Pe:t Pt3. Vehicte (000) Revenue Miles Per VehiCle Milt Revenue Mies Per TO!al VehiCles {000) Revenue Hoora Per Total Vehldea (000) lABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue Hours Per (000) Trips Pet Emplo)'$0 (000) ENERGY UTILIZATION Vehicle Miles Per GaliOn FAAE TABLEIV System Total Efnc:itney Mequres 2:0-49 Vt-ldtle Category Hampton Excl.DRP ExcL ORP Incl. DRP $1.114 $27.72 $10 .05 $1.:44 $2.28 $29.12 $0.38 16.61% 19. 16% nla nla 33.59 1.97 0 .38 9 .1 8 0.71 0 .88 2 56 7 .28 $1.93 $2.81 $18.35 $14 .05 $2.00 $3.05 $39.28 nla n/a 14.88% nla n/a 15.76 0 .9 3 0.36 4 ,46 0 .35 nl a niB 5 .41 "!! ........ $22.72 $1.17' '.. $0 91 '$1A9 > $20.00 17. 42% 113.17% 70.81% 70.18'11 17.13 1.28 0.81 16. 22 1.14 1.22 2.99 11.32 $5.11 $22.28 $0..1 f1M $20.02 nla 17.53 1.24 0 .11 16.93 1. t 1 nil nla nil $5.11 Appleton Total $8.01 $23. 23 $7.80 $2.11 $ 1.83 $28.84 $11. 02 20.20% nla . nla 17. 22 1 .07 0 .74 t 0.30 0.65 3<.90 132.40 nla $ 1 .54

PAGE 65

EJ'l'ICIENCY MEASURES TABLE IV-3 ( conti n ued) System T otal EfJidency Measures :W-49 1nmand-Response Vebide Category 51

PAGE 66

S 8 EFFICIENCY MEASURES COS T EFFIClENCY OpevUie Total JackaonvUle Total Richmond Taeal Peer Group Moan $3.88 . $'2.52 $49 .21 $1.88 $'26.08 $0.84 33.09% "-' $45.99 $12.14 $1 .51 $'1,115 $30.03 $69 .81 $16.49 $1.88 $2.40 $:le. 60 $0.39. 1 6 18% "' nla nla 34. 6 7 2 .24 0.84 19. 18 1.28 1.16 2 .57 10.99 .,. 16.99'1 nia "" 36,84 2 .30 0 82 23 30 0 .95 1.92 7 14 $2. 18 $77.60 >: $ 1.31 $22.$& nla -' 8.87% ""' ""' 70.31 3.71 0 .88 36.41 UT ""' nil nl a $61 .64 $16: 3f'!" .. $ 1 .51 -A $31 .8$ . 12.1 8% ._nlal nla '.;nl 32.38 2 .15 o .eo 24.1 1 1.80 f .09 2 26 1.28 33.17 1 .85 Q.78 18.78 1.18 5 52 17.86 .1 0 60

PAGE 67

20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY RgweiV SeMceAieo 10001 Figure IV-4 Revenue Mile a (OOOJ Pcrformanc:e Indicators Figure Vehicle Miles (000) RgureiV 2 -..._ Trip siOOO) 'Fig..,.IV 5 Toto! Operatk>g 10001

PAGE 68

60 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Perrorma n u I n dica t ors Aov .. rv.a V.t'lletts Avlil._. fOf' M txi.mum Swvlce 10 Rgu .. rv1 TotoiEftlllloy.n Rguro rv. g Vehicles Opet-ettd In Mlldmum s.vice

PAGE 69

20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY f9JreiV Vehicle MJes Per Capita Rgure IV13 Revenu e M let Between Incidents 300,000 Effectiveness Measures Figure IV-12 A..,age Age of Flett (yoarsl Figure IV 1 Passenger Trips Per Revenue Milo Figure IV Revenue Mlles Between Interruptions 6 1

PAGE 70

20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Efficiency Mnnres F"-oiV16 RguroiV OWadng Pw Oporolf"9 Pe< ,__,Trip "oure IV -17 Optrltlng Pe r Revenu e Mle Figure IV 18 .__ Me lntenallC'e E )Q)tnse Per Rtwnu. Mil .. rv-19 FMebox Rtcoverv Ra tio ..,.

PAGE 71

.... 20-49 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure IV Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehicle Figure IV-22 Passenger Trips Per Employee Effitienty Meas.,... Flguro IV-21 Revenue Hours PM Employee Figure IV-23 Average Fare 63

PAGE 72

64

PAGE 73

V. 1 -19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICL E C.cm Kentucky C ity of Jackson Thu>Sit System Chapel Hill Tmnsi t 65

PAGE 74

. -PARl!WANCE INDICATORS T_.,. Sttvice M1 Sh:e (I
PAGE 75

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLE V-1 (con tinued) System Total Performaoce lndkators 119 Demand-Response Vehicle Cat.gory 67

PAGE 76

!o!ies (000) Revenue Miles (000) Vthicle HOOfS (000) Revenue Hour& (000) Rout.Mtle:a Total Operating expense (000) Total Maintananoe &pinM (000) T ota1 Capital Expense (000) Operating Rev.nue (000) Fwe Revenue {000) TranoponatiOII Opotating Emptoyooo EMC*>)'6es Admlnlt(ratlve Vehicles Available for MaXinWm Servie$ Vehides ()pented in Maximum Servq Spare Ratio Tot&t Gallons 68 TABLE V 1 (conllnued) System Total Performance Jndiators 1-19 Demand-Rnponse Vehicle Category 235.13 234.88 323.89 23.17 21.12 ,_ 20. 35 25 .18 $29 . 8 7.80 14.90 uo 13.20 o.eo 0.90 uo 0 80 9.00 t.OO 342.03 .. . 20.59 23.48 $821 83 $0.00 $51.25 $8< .11 19.60 19.69 13.50 1 .33 8 .00 )1.11

PAGE 77

Efi'ECTIVENESS MEASURES Total TABLEV-2 System Total Effectiveness Measu.res 1 -19 D
PAGE 78

EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SERV I CESUP91.Y Vehicle Capita SERV ICE CONSUMPTION Paq.enger Trips Per Capite Pauen98 r Trip& Per Revenue Mile PUMnget Trip& Pee Hout QUAUTY OF SERVICE f-wtoge $t>eod (R M IR.H ) Average AQe of Fleet ( i n ye a rs) Number of lrM:Idents SOMce Interruptions R evenue Miles BMw&en lneidenls (000) R evenue MiN Between Interruption s (000) AVAILABIUTY Rtvt:nue MIIM Per Rotllt Mie (000) 70 TABLE VZ (conllnued) Sy.Um Total EfCective.a.ess Measures 1 Demand-RespoD.Se Vebi 12.2l 12. 21 I lAS 14.01 1.04 2 .14 3 .00 3.37 a ,oo nfl 2.00 ' ""' 39.00 nfa :u.oo nfl ..... .. nfa 1 39.74 nfa .... nta 8 .22 nfl rJa nfa nta nfl Galnnvill Knoxvl llt Lith Roc k Total T otal Total :; .. ;, 1 f3 ... k 1.55 0.41 !1:: Q.12 0.28 0.12 0.10 U l : -:< . u2 13.83 1 8.33 4 .10 5.17 2.85 tl:oti . l 'lli . 1 .00 ... 00 9.00 10.00 11.7]1 21l ... 67.32 1.119 30 .81) 22.93 nta "' nfl

PAGE 79

EFFECllVENESS MEASURES TABLE V-2 (
PAGE 80

EFFlCtENCY MEASURES Manatee Total COST EFFICIENCY ()pe.rating Expen M ss.n Ope r ati n g Expense Per Peak Veh i cle (000) $ 7S.U Ope rating Expense Per Trip Ope rating Expense P er P auetl98r Mil e $1.49 Operating Expense Pet Re'llenue M ile $$.16 Ope ratin g Expense Pet Revenue Hour $4UI7 Maintenance Per Revenue Milt $0.!1 Mafntena noe Expense Per Operating Expec'\Sa 2 4 .80% OPERATING RAnOS F atebox Recovery -Local Rovenuo Per Opor ating Expento ""' Rt.,.nue Per Expe..na.e 28..34% VEHIClE UTIUZATION V e l'lide M ilea Per Peak Vehlde (000) 2 7.44 Ve hicle Hours Per Peak VehOe (000) 1 .13 Revenue Mllea Per Vehicle M ile U7 Revenue Mif8s Per Tota l Veh icll (000) 19. 84 Re\lenue Houra ,., Tota l Vehldes (000) 1.3 6 LABOR PRODUCTIVITY Revenue H o u rs Per Empkry$8 ( 000) 1. 04 Passenge r T rips Per Emp lo yee (000) 3.21 ENERGY untiZATK> N VehiCle Miel Pet Gallon 7.15 F AR E AvGta ge Fare $0.94 72 TABLE V-3 Systm Tollll Effitlenc:y Meas u .-.. 1 -19 De ma n d-Res p o n se V ebide Category St. Lucie Arilngton Totll Exd. DRP I ncl. DRP sus .. $-t.Zl $53 .$4 $91.02 $60. 71 s u s $ 4 20 $13.2 4 < $1.16 $2. 1 3 $1.96 $ 2.67 -$!8.78 $36 .33 $32 .54 sg.oe $0.22 tile 2.09% 8 .43% nla 2 2 .26% 6.t4 % 6.82% 46.29% 3 2.Q3% nla 2 2 .26% & 1 4 % nle 24.t7 37.56 38.29 1.63 2 .79 2.7 4 0 .81 0. 92 0 92 12.0 5 23.81 2 8 06 0 .13 1.72 1.83 0.94 1.08 nit 3 .96 2.76 nta 7.12 9 27 nla $ 2,08 $0.88 $0. U Lexington Sava n nah Grttnvlllo T otal T ota l Tota l ., -" .. t3'7! $57.73 $57.1 0 $38.62 ... sie.1s $1.13 $2. 22 $0.79 Sl.f!;! $23. 92 $25.70 $ 21.01 $0.2 1 '$0.33 $0.13 12. 78% 1 8 07% 7 7 1 % 24.& 1 % 505% 2.1!% nl a nla n / a ""! !l(a n/8 35.56 2?.&1 25.68 2. 2.25 1. 9 5 1 .00 0.99 26 15 1 7.04 1.78 1.3 2 1 .02 1.64 1 .22 2 ,87 2 45 4.52 S. 12 .28 4.92 $2.48 $0.96 $0.12

PAGE 81

EFFICIENCY MEASURES EXci.ORP TABLE V-3 (con tinued) System Total Effic.kmty Measures 1 DeJJillnd-Response Veblde Category Incl. DRP Excl DRP Incl. DRP Total Total Total 73

PAGE 82

EFFICEHCY IIEASURES COST EFFIC IENCY ()po
PAGE 83

1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure V-1 -...... lion (000) Figure V-4 Revenue Mles {000) Performan.ee Jndicaton Figure V-3 Vehicle Mftes 1000) f9wo V 2 p.._ Tripe (000) AIIUfOV-$ Toto! OpOfatlog .,..,.. 1000) 75

PAGE 84

76 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Figure V-6 Passenger Fare R evenue C000) Figure V-8 Vehicles for Maxill'Kim Service Ptrformantelndicator.s Figure V Total Employees Agure V-9 Vehidea Operat e d in Maximum Service

PAGE 85

1-19 DEMAND RE S PONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY RQunV VebldeW.SPwC ...... Rgure V Revenue Mikts Between Incident. Elfet:ttveness Measurl Fill.,.. V Average Age of Fleet (years) RQPwllovenue-Flguro V 14 Revenue MUot 8 1tweon Int erruptions n

PAGE 86

7 8 1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Elticlenq Measures Flgwe V Opwtdng bpente Per Revenu. Mia. Agu
PAGE 87

1-19 DEMAND-RESPONSE VEHICLE CATEGORY Flgwo V-20 Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehickt Figure V-22 Passenger Trips Per Employee Efficleney Mearures Figure V-21 Revenue Hours Per EmployM FiguJ e V -23 AVefa9C Fare 79

PAGE 88

80

PAGE 89

VI. SUMMARY ln. summary, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a perfon:naoce evaluation of Florida transit systems under contract with the Office ofPublic Transportation Operations, Department ofTranspofiation, State of Florida. The performance evaluation includes a fixed-route mod analysis (1984-1996), a lixed-routc peer review analysis (1996 data), a demand-response trend analysis (1984-1996), and dcmaod-response peer review analysis (1996 data). This document (Part IV) is the demand-response peer review analysl while scporate documents (Parts I, and Ill) report the results of lhe other analyses. Peer review analysl.s is a common method of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems and is essentially a compmison of a system's perfonnanee with the performance of similar systems or "peers" around the COUJ.Jtry. This document actuaUy includes four separate demand response peer reviews as a result of the various transit properties operating throughout Florida. Eacb review provides rab1es of perfonnanoe i.ndi<:itors and measures as well graphics for selected indicators and measures. Comments and questions about this report can be directed to the of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of florida, 605 SuwallJiee Mall Station 26, Tallahassee. Florida, 32399-0450, Telepbone: (850) 414-4500. 81

PAGE 90

PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS APPENDIX A LIST OF D EFINITIONS Coup Jy/Scake Area Population For 199 I aod prior years. coun1y is used to approximate lhe service area population for each of the Florida transit systertu and is liken fiom the Florida Statistical Abstrocr for each year. The onl y cxceplion is S m yrna Tnmit System (STS), f or whicpcnile3, which arc predon1inantly comprised o f service a11d labor cos.s. may be expected to have increased somewhat raster than in nation even i f the amount of service provided were not increased PMucoasrTrips AMual number of passenger board.ings on the transit vehicles. A trip is counted each Lime passcn.gcr boards a transit v e hicle. Thus, if a passenger has to tnmfer bctwn buses lO reach a destination, he/she i s counted u making two passenger trips Paasnccr Mitts Number ohnnua l passenger trips multiplied by the system' s avetate lrip length fm mUes). This number provides a measure oftbe tota l n umber of pas$(.n&ff miles of traMpOrtation service c:onsum ed. ychjdc M!Jg .. Total distanc e uaveled annually b y reven ue Kt"Yice including both reve n ue miles and deadhud milt:s. Rcycnuc Mites Number of annual miles of vehicle operatio n wtlile In active service (available to pic:k up revenue passenaers). This number is small e r than vchidc miles bocause ofdlC exclusion of deadhead mites such as vehicle miles from the ganagc to the stan of service, vehicle miles from I he end or service to che garage, driver training, and O lh cr miscellaneous miles that are not oonsidel'bd 10 be in dirccc revenue service. Vehicle Tota l hou rs of operation by revenue servi ce vehic les in c l u ding h ours consumed in passenger service ftnd dctldhead travel Bcvenut Houg Total hours of operation by rcvcnuo service vehicl es in active revenu e service. Route Milts Numb o f dircc:tional route miles as reported in Scclion IS data; d efined as the mileage that service operates in each direction over routes lr.aveled by p u blic cr:an.sporttllion vehicles in revenue service.

PAGE 91

Total Operating F-xpense -Reported total spending on operations, including admjnisttation, maintenance and operation of service vehicles.. Tots! OpcratUig Expemre 0984 S) p Total operating expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of dotennining dte real change in spen. ding for operating expenses. Total Maintenance 5nxn se-Sum of all expenses categorized as maintenance expenses; a subset oftotal opera t ing expense. Tohll Maffifeoance Expense (1984 SlTotal maintenance expenses deflated to 1984 dollars for purposes of detemlining the real change tn spending for maintenance purpOSC$. Total Capital ExpenseDollar amount of spending for capital projects and Tpfal Local RevenueR All revenues originating at the local level (excluding state and federal assistance}. Operating Rennue.-lncludos passenger fares, specJal traosit school bus sen.icc revenues. fu:i.gbt tariffs.. charter service auxiliary tmn.sportation revenues, subsidy from other sectors of and non-lransportation revenues Pasgnee r Fare Revenue .. Revenue generated annuall y from passenger fares. Total Rmn l oyees .. Total number of payroll employees of the fransit agency. It is useful t o notethat lhe increasing tendency to contract out for services may result in some significant differe.nces in thjs measure between othenvise simllar properties. Jt is imp011ant to un.cb:'s.tnnd which servioes are contracted before drawing conclusions based on employee lo,,els. All employees classified as eapHal were excluded from this report . Transporbtjon Oeernti n g Employee$ pAll employees classified as operating empJoyccs: vehicle drivers, supervisory personnel, direct personnel. Maintenance Employees-All emp loyee.<> clruJsi.ficd as maintenance employees who are d irectl y or indirectly responsible for vehicle maintenance. AdminiS-trative EmpJoyees pAll persoMel clas:si:tied as administrative iu nature. This report includes all gencraladministration, ticketing/fare collection, and sysrem security employees as classified by FTA in Form 404 \'tbicles Ayajlab l e tor Max:jmum SeryjceNumber of vehicles owned by the trctnsit authority that are available for use in bus service. Vehjclc.o; Operated in Maximum Seniq-The Jargcstn.umber ofYehicJes required for providing service during peak hours (typically tbe rush period) Spare Ratio VebicJes operated in maximum sen'ice subtracted from vehicles ava.Uable for maximum scrvioo divided by vehicl es operated in maximum service Thi.s measure is an indicalOr of the number of spate vehicles available for service. A spare ratio of approximately 20 percent is considered a .ppropriate in the industry. However. this varies depending on the size a n d age of fleet as well a:s the condition of equipment. 83

PAGE 92

Total Gallons ConsumedTotal gallons of fuel c.onsumcd by the vehicle fleet Total Enerey Kilowatt hours of propulsion power QOnsumcd by a transit system (rail and automated guideway). Averaee Aa of FleetTraditionally, a standard transit coach is considered to have a useful life of 12 years. However,longer service lives are not uncommon. The vehicl e age and the reliability record of the equipment, the number of miles and hours on the equipment. the sophistieation and features (i.e . wheelchair lifts, electronic destination sig,ns, etc ). and operatjng environment (weather. roadway grades, and pas.sc:nger abuse) all affect the maintena n ce needs and depreciation of the bus fleel Numbe-r ofJnddtnts-T()(a) number ()(unforesee n oceucrcniX'$ in casualty (injury/fatality), collision or property damage in excess of$1)000. For an incident to be reponable, it must involve a transil vehicle or occur on transit property. Revenue Serviq Interruptions A revenue service in t enuption during a given reporting period caused by failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle or for othe r rtasons not included as mechanical failures. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vebk-Je Miles Per Capifa Total number of annual vehicle miles divided by the service areas population. This can be characterized as the number of miles of service provided for each man. woman. and child in the servi ce area and is a measure of the extensiveness of service provided in the service area Passenger Trjps Ptr Capita A vcnage number of transit boardings per person per year This numbtr is larger in areas where public transportation i.s emphasized and in areas where there are more transit dependents, and i s a measure of the extent to which the public utilizes transit in a given service area. Passeneer Trips Per Rennue MileThe ratio of passenger trips to revenuemiles of service; a key indicator of service effectiveness thai is influenced by the levels of demand and the supp l y of service provided. Passeneer Trips Per Reycnue Hour -The ratio ofpasseng.er trips to revenue hours of operation; r eports on the effectiveness oftb.e service since hours arc a better representation of the resources consumed i n providing service. Averae-e Spec;d-Average speed of vehicles in operation (including to and from lhe gamge) cal culated by dividing total vehicle mites by total vehicle hours. Rennue Miles Between IncidentsNumber of revenue miles divided by the number of incidents; reports the average interval, in miles, between incidents. Revenue Miles Between lnterrl!plioot of revenue miles divided by revenue service interruptions; an indicator of the average frequency of delays because of a p roble m with the equipment. Reye.nue Mlles Per Route MileNumber of revenue miles divided by the number of directional route miles of sen ice. 84

PAGE 93

EFFJCmNCY MEASURES Opetating Expen.qe Per CapUa .. Awtual operating budget divided by the county/service ru:ea populatioD; a measure of the resource commitment to transit by the community. Operati"' Expense Per Peak Vehicle-Total operating expense per vehicle operated in maximwn service (peak vehicle); provides a measure ofrhe resources required _per vehicle to have-a coach in operation for a year. Qperating Expeasc Per Passene_er Trfp .. Operating expenditures divided by the total aMual ridership; a measure oftbe efficiency of transporting riders; one of the key iodicato_rs o( comparative performance of trdJls.it properties since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demands for the service. Operating Exge:,qse Per Passenaer Mile -Reflection o f operating expense divided by the number of passenger miles; t8kes into account the impact of trip length on performance since some operators provid e lengthy trips while others provide shon. trips Operating R!pen"e Per Revenue Mile-Operating expense divided by the annual revenue miles of service; a measure of the efficiency with 'ivhicb scrvjce is delivered and is another key comparative indicator. Onerating Expense Per Rennue HourOperating expense divided by revenue hours of operation; a key comparative measur e wh.ich differs from. operating e xpense per vehicle mile in that lhe vehicle speed is factored oul Th.is is often i.mportaat vehicle speed i s strongly influenced by local traffic conditions. Maintenance Expense Per Rennue Mile Maintenance cost divided by the revenue miles. Maintenance Expense Per Operating Expense calculated by dividing maintenance expense by operatlng expense; expressed as a pel:CCI)t of total operating expense. Fare box RecoveryRatio of passenger tare revenues to total operating expenses; an )ndicato r of tlle share of revenues provided by the passengers. I...ocal Reycnge Per Operatine; Rati. o of total local commitment with respect to total operating expense Operating Revanue Per Operatine Expense -Operating ratio calculated by dividing operating revenue by total operating expense. Vehicle Mil(!!i Per Peak Vehicle Vehicle miles d.ivided by the numbe.r of peak vehicles. It is an indicator of bow intensively the equipment is used and is influenced by tlle bus travel speeds as well as by the levels of service in off-peak time periods. A more unifonn demand f<>r service over the day would result in a higher number. Vehicle. H ours Per Peak Veblcle Substitutes vehicle holJJ'$ for vehicle miJes and agai n reflects how intensively equipment is utilized. Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile-Reflcels how much of the t otal vehicle operation is in passenger service Higher ratios are favorable, but garage locution. training need.-,, and o ther considerations may influence the ratio. 8S

PAGE 94

Revenue Mile Per 1'otal Vehiclesiota! revenue miles of service that are provided by each vehicle available for maximum service.. &venue Houts Pu Total VehiclesIndicates total revenue hours of service provided by eaeh vehicle available for maximum service. Revenue Hout$ Per Emoloyce-Reflects overall labor productivity. Passeneer Trips Per Empk!)eeAnother measure of overaJI labor productivity. Vehicle Miles Per Galron .. Vehicle miles of service divided by total gallons consumed and is a measure of energy utilizatjon. yebicle Miles Per Kllowau-llour Vehicle miles of service divided by tota) kilowatt-hours consumed and is another measure of energy utilizatjon. Ayeraee Fare-Passenger fare revenues: divided by the total number of passenger trips.

PAGE 95

APPENDIXB REVIEW OF DATA SOURCES SOORCJlS)'O R 1996 DATA Atluall995 National Transit Datab1lse (formerly Seetion IS) Iaports1 Data Item Source Suv.icc Area Population Form 001 Se:vice Area Size Fonn 001 Po.,cnger TriP" Form 406 Passenger Miles Fonn406 Vehicle !\
PAGE 96

NO'tES: 88 )lata Item Vehicles Available for Maximum Service Vehic l es Operated in Maximum Total Gallons Total Energy Consumed (kW hours of propu lsion A vcragc Age of Fleet' Number <>f Inciden ts' of Revenue Service Interruptions' 1 All statistics an: for directly-operated demand-response service unless otherwise noted. Sourt Fonn 406 Form406 Form402 Fom:t 402 Fonn408 Fonn 405 Form402 20pernling expense excludes: all reconciling items including interest ex.pcnse,lcascs aod rentals, and depreciation. 'Local revenue includes all revenue except federal and state revenue. Operating revenue includes transportation revenues. non-transportation revenues:. and subsidy from ()thee sectors of operati()ns. Revenues are reported as a transit system total Md therefore-may include purchased an
PAGE 97

Jrn nsft System Metro-Dad e T ranslt Age n cy Ekowafd County fk.l$$ Trans i t D ivision Lynx Transit Hillsborough Area Regional Transll Coun ty ofVolxs i a ella VOTRAN PeM"$or Mr. Michael carro ll Tr a n sportation Manager Mr. Don R. lusk, Tlllnsit D irector Mr. James P. Llosenfelt. Tr a n s i t P1annet Mr. Robert Jacobson Transportation S uperv isor M$. Ruth LOvejoy, EXecutive Oiredor Ms. Lee Mccamsrer, Fl$cal Olrector Mr. Jsy A. Goodw ill, E xe cutive D irecfor "Bu d" Cure. Oirodor M$. Ellz$bdh N Coulllette E>ceclllive Olreccor M$. St\arQn Burnette Assistant Director (305) (954) 357 8301 (407) 841 (813 ) 62 3 -6835 (904) 75 6 -7496 (613) 530-91121 (613) 847-8031 (407) 635 1 5 (561) 569.Q700 (904) 633-9 165 (941) 951-5850 ( 9 04) 769'!466 89

PAGE 98

Transtt Sxsttm Addrus Pfctetgra & Contact PJmoarsl f!IO.Ilo JacMon ville TransPQI1ation Authority P O Drawer 0" M r Michael 8laylock,. D ir ector of Mass Transit (90<) 63().3181 100 N. Myrtle Avenue Jacksonville FL 32203 Manatee County Area Transit tt0826thAvenue, Ea&t M r. Carl Gaites, Transit Section Manager (941) 747-8821 B radenton, F L 3.4208 M r. Peter Gajdjio, Chief PlannWlg Engineet" St. Lucio County Council on Aging Inc. 1$05 Orange Avenue Ms. Patricia A. Sutlea, Exeeullve Olrec:cor Ft. Pierce, F L 34950 Ms. Lori Tomlinson, Admlnisttallon Manager Tallahassee Transit 555 Awloyald Offlo Mr John L OQetor (90<) 891 6200 Tallahasseo. FL 32304 Mr Willi
PAGE 99

APPENDIXD CONTACT LISTING FOR NONFLORIDA PEE R T RANSIT SYSTEMS transi t SVat e m ... Olreetors & Contact Person(s) Phon e Milwaukee Co u nty Paratr all&it System 907 NoM 1 0th Street Mr stephen N K amuiru, Director Transportati o n D iv (41 4) 278-0096 MJMJUk.ee, wa 53233 Mr. SteYen N Nigh, Transportation Planner 0 3ll as Are a Ra p id T ransi t 1401 Pacific Avenue M r R o ger S nobl e, PresidentiExecutive D i rector (214) 749-3049 Dola$, TX 7$202 M r Micha e l 8 L evit an, M anag of Bu sinNs Allal ys i s lidewstet T ransportalion Olltrict Commls.s6on 1500 Monticelro Avenue Mr. L A Kimball Exec utive Dil'cct or (757) 640-6210 Nodo lk. VA 23S01 Mr.larry Mdor O irectorofScheduinQ Sl.lburban Mobiiy Auth ority fo r Regional 660 Woodwa-rd Avenue MI. Richard Kaufman, Genera l Manage r (313) 223-2106 Tran sp ortatio n Sult e950 M r Gary B ogus law&ki, Aocountin g S u pervisor Detroit. Ml .48226 P"'rce Transit 3701 96" sueet sw Mr. Don S Monroe, Ex ecutive Director (206) 58H0t0 P.O. 8<< 99070 Ms. Kat h y Sul llv ant. Acooooti'lg Manager Tacoma. WA 98499 Portland Trf.Cou nty Metropoliian 40t2S.E.1 7 thAvenue Mr. T o m Wal sll, General Manager (503) 238-4831 Transp ort at io n District of Oregon Po-d, OR 97202 Ms. Cdf)(fy Runzler Acco unt a nt Ill Akron MWO Region a l Transit Autho rity 416 Ken moro eoulovard Mt, Robert K. Pfaff. Gen eral Manager (330) 762-7267 Akron, OH 4430 1 Mr Dea n J. Harris.. Fitta nciaJ Admlni9-lratot T rans.it Au tl'iOI'i\y of River City 1000 Wast Broadwa y M t J. Bany BaHn, C i ty Managt-1 (602) 79 1-4204 T u cson AZ 3572&-75 210 Mt. M ari o M. Ramirez, Admin Ass i stant-Trans portation 91

PAGE 100

tranttt snttm Addrn DirJStm & Conttct Ptnqqtl l!bsull .,..ull Transportation ,.00 __ .. Ut.-S.T--.C ..... (8()\) 722<837 Hamp4on. VA 238&1 Ms. Hien e Hc>atl$. a.ectcw o1 Rnenot Cily ol-(Valey TIOnli) 801 'MiiMM AvtftUI MI. Cllaftes L Katnp (414) 832-6100 -WI54tiS Ms. s.McnMinager Co

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 C01-00193
035
(OCoLC) 39938935
040
FHM
049
FHmm
2 110
Florida. Office of Public Transportation Operations.
0 245
1996 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems ; part IV : demand-response peer review analysis, 1996
260
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1998
650
Local transit--Florida--Evaluation
Bus lines--Florida--Management
Bus lines--Florida--Evaluation
710
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.193