USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1992 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1992 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems performance reporting investigation : final report
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Office of Public Transportation Operations
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"June 1994."

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 - C01-00239
usfldc handle - c1.239
System ID:
SFS0032329:00001


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 nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1994 flu|||| ||||||eng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00239
040
FHM
1 0 245
1992 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems :
b performance reporting investigation : final report /
c prepared for the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida by Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1994.
500
"June 1994."
650
Local transit
z Florida
x Evaluation.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Florida.
Office of Public Transportation Operations.
049
FHmm
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.239



PAGE 1

1992 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Performance Reporting Investigation Prepared for The Office of Public Tr.msportation Operations Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Final Report June 1994

PAGE 2

II

PAGE 3

1992 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Performance Reporting Investigation TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE. List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreword ......................... . .......................... Introduction .................................................... F d' tntngs ................... . ................... ..... . ....... Metro-Dade Transit Agency : .................................. lV l 3 5 6 Broward County Transit Division ..... ....... : . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . Jacksonville Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority ...................... . . . 14 . : Lynx Orlando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Palm Beach Comity Transportation A u thority . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Taltran City of Tallahassee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Regional Transit System Gainesville ......... : .... .... . . . . . 24 East Volusia Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . Escambia County Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Lee County Transit ................................ ...... ..... 30 Sarasota County Area Transit .................... . . . . . . . . . . . Lakeland Area Mass Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Manatee County Area .... ....... ........... ............ ,.,, . . ,. . 36 Smyrna Transit System ............................... : : . . . 39 Pasco Area Transportation Serv ice ........... . ................ :. 41 Key West Department of Transportation ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 43 . . Space Coast Area Traillii.t ........ .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A ........ ............. ................................ A-I iii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Metro-Dade Transit Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Broward Cotmty Transit Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Jacksonville Transportation Authority ............. ............ . . 11 4 Hillsborough Area Regional Traosit 13 5 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Au t hority, Notice Published Pursuant to Florida Statute 341.071(3).. . . . . . . . . 15 6 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, 1992 Annual Report Published Advertising Insert 16 7 Lynx -O rlando . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 8 Palm .Beach County Tran sportati o n Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9 Tal tran City of T allahassee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 I 0 Regional T ransit System Gainesvi lle .................... . : . . 25 II Eas t Volusia Transportation Author i ty .... . .............. . . ..... .... 27 12 Escambia County Transit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 13 Lee County Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 14 Sarasota County Area T ransit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 15 Lakeland Area Mass Transit District 35 1 6 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Fixed Route Motorbus Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 17 Manatee Co unty Area Trans i t Data for Demand-Response Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 18 Manatee County Area Transit Data for System Total Service (Motorb u s and Demand-Response) . . . . . 38 IV

PAGE 5

LI S T O F TABLES TABLE PAGE 19 Smyrna Tra n sit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 20 Pasco Area Transportation Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2 1 K ey West Departmen t of Transportation .... ... .................... . 44 .. . -. . 22 Space Coast Area T ransit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 A-1 Performance Review Indica t ors and Measures ... ..... ... ....... .. ... A-1

PAGE 6

vi

PAGE 7

Foreword Under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida the Center for Urban Transpodation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida's fixed -r oute transit systems based on data from federally-requit:ed 15 reports, which are submitted to the Federa l Transit Administration (FT fl} for each fiscal year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. Section 15 repo rts are the best single source of data for reviewipg transit system performance because the data are standardized, undergo extensive review, and are the resull of a substantial data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some Section 15 data are use d by PTA and by states and localities f(>r calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extremely important to transit agencies. According to Florida Stat ute 341.071(3), each public transit provider i n Florida must publish a numper of performance and productivity measures in its respective local area newspapers each year. For tlus particular task 'of the Performan ce Evaluation Study, CUTR collected these newspaper articles and/or other published materials for fiscal year 1992 from each transit agency. The published data were compared with data from the agenGillS' individual Section I 5 reports to determine if ait.y differences existed between the data reported in these two sources CUTR would like to thank FDOT and each of the ind ividual transit systems for their cooperation and assistance in the preparation of this report. Center for Urban Transportatio n Research University of South Florida 1'elephone: (813) 974-3120 Project Director: Slel-'tn E Polzln Project Manager: Joel R. Rey Staff Support: Victoria A .. Florida Department of Transportation Office of Public Transportation Operations Public Transit Office Mail Station 26 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 488-7774 1

PAGE 8

Introduction Rapid growth in Florida has resulted in increased attention to public transit as a potential solution to the ever-increasing transportation problems in the state. Along with the increased emphas is on public transit comes the necessity to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems. Florida legislation requires the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Florida's ttansit systems to develop and report performance measures. More specifically, Florida Statute 341.071(3) states: "Each public transit provider shall publish in the local newspaper of its area the productivity and performance measures established for the year and a report which provides quantitative data relative to the attainment of established productivity and performance measures." It should be noted that the statute does not specify the source from which the data shou ld be collected. In addition to this statute, FDOT issued a document detailing its administration and management of the State Public Transit Block Grant Program. Effective December 4, 1992, the document included an attachment that outlined FOOT's additional requirements for the reporting of transit performance measures. One of the requirements specified the use of Section 15 reported data for the published productivity and performance measures. Also, it was mandated that the systems report data for the . current fil;Cal year just completed as well as for the prior year, thus resulting in the publication of two years' worth of data in the newspaper. Finally, a table indicating those specific measures which must be included in the published advertisements was also provided; this table as well as a copy of the Block Grant Program document can be found in Appendix A. The primary purposes of this report were to verify that the transit systems complied with the legislation and to compare the published performance measures with those reported in the systems' Section 15 reports. The articles from the transit systems, as well as any other published materials for fiscal year 1992, were collected by CUTR. The published information was compared to the data from the individual agencies' 1992 Section 15 reports. The effort found that 19 of the 20 public transit providers in Florida did publish an advertisement in local newspapers detailing performance measures for 1992. The only transit system that did not publish an advertisement was Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, which did not need to comply with this directive since it is not a block grant recipient. Most of the systems that published an advertisement in local newspapers provided data for at least two fiscal years (1991 and 1992). Three systems, including Palm Beach County Transportation Authority, East Volusia Transportation Authority, and Pasco Area Transporta tion Service, only published data for the 1992 fiscal year. Publication dates for all the advertisements ranged from 2

PAGE 9

late February 1993 to July 1993, with most of the transit systems publishing in the month of JWle. . On the follow ing Tables 1 thiough 22 present the performance data that each transit agency published in its resj,ective newspaper, as well as the Section 15 data. For each indicator, the column labeled "Published" notes the data as it appeared in the newspaper advertisement. A "DNP" (signil)'ing "did no.t publish") was used in the cases where a system did not publish data for an indicator by FDOT's Block: Grant Program docum .enl The "Section 15" column lists the figures for the saine indicators as calculated directly from the . validated FY 1992 Section 15. report s. The last column in each table indicates the difference between the published data and the Section 15 data for each indicator. Included with the table for each transit system is a brief discussion of any differences in the data, and the pessible sources of those differences. It should be noted tliat the Section 15 data were adjusted to include the same modes that were contained in the published data for comparative uniformity. For some of the systems, different modes were used to calculate each of the indicators or measures, so it was necessary to utilize the same modes when the comparable information was extxacted from the SeCtion ts reports. All comparisons were made relative to the validated Section 15 data, which were assumed to be correct. CUTR did not investigate the differences beyond what could be deduced from the given data. It is possible that reasonable exp l anat ions for differences in data could have been identified by meeting with agency staff. However, this was beyond the purpose of the effort. In a few cases the sysiems were for Clarification purposes. . 3

PAGE 10

Findings This report was completed by CUTR under contract with the Office of Pub lic Transportation Operation, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, as a part of the performance evaluation of Florida's fixed-route transit systems According to FOOT's Public Transit Block Grant Program document, systems are required to publish six p erformance indicators, five effectiveness measures, and eight efficiency measures. The specific indica to rs and measures are shown underlined in Table A-1 of Appendix A. FOOT also requires that each system report the days and hours that its service is available ; it was determine d that all systems met this re quir ement in the ad verti sements I t was also f o und that 16 of the 19 reviewed systems published data for all19 of the required indicators and measures The three sys tems that did not report all of the required data and the figures that were ex cluded are as follows: Pinell a s Suncoast Transit Authority revenue hours per employee, passenger trips per employee; L YNX{Odando) vehicles operated in maximum service; Regional Transi t System (Gainesville)all six performance indicators, as well as revenue miles between incidents. Based on the comparative analyses completed for this s tudy, it was shown that several systems deviated from Section 15 data for the same measures. For example, while other data would match the Section 15 report exactly, measures such as the average age of the fleet, revenue miles per total vehicles, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee would be somewhat different. There were a number of errors and inconsi stencies in the published data that seemed to be common to several transit systems: 4 report ing the incorrect measure: for example a few systems reported revenue miles as route miles; including some combination of local, state, and federal subsidies in the calculation of operating revenue; roundin g differences;

PAGE 11

using 1993 instead of 1992 as a base year for calculating the average fleet age; uti l izing different service iu:ea poptiiation measures; utilizing different ntimbers of FTEs; different numbers of totaf vehicles; inconsistency of modes included across all indicators and measures (as well as mixing modes in th e calculation of effectiveness and efficiency measures). A few of the gystems stated that the origin of the published data was a source other than the Section 15 report, such as Palm Beach County Transportation Authority, which used data from its 1992 Florida Transit Management; Inc., Report of Operations Overall however, the transit systems did use the Section 15 reports as a primary source in reporting performance indicators in the newspaper for the general public To ensure the trans i t system's credib i lity and a better understanding of the system's performance by transit users and other interested citizens, cons i stency i n the reported data across advertisementS should be encouraged Such consistency may be achieved through use of validated Section 15 data and standardized definitions of indicators and measures when publishing information for the general public. 5

PAGE 12

Metro-Dade Transit Agency Table I shows the data published in the newspaper by the Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MDTA), as well as the coinciding data from tbe i r I 992 Section I 5 report. Unless otherwise noted in the table, the data presented are system totals. MDTA provides directly-operated motorbus (Metrobus), heavy rail (Metrorail), and automated guideway (Metromover). The system contracts for purchased motorbus and demand-response service. It should be noted that MDTA also published data for FY 1991 along with the FY 1992 measures. However, the focus of this report is on the data from FY 1992. I t is evident that very few of the published measures match the Section 15 data exactly. Yet many of them are only different by relatively small amounts. For example, operating revenue was published as $57,0 I 4, 762. How ever according to the most updated Section 15 data, the total operating revenue was $56,144,817, a difference of $869,945. Also, approximately one million more trips were reported in the newspaper advertisement than in the Section I 5 report. Other differences in the data occurred in vehic l e miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita. These differences appear to be due to, among o ther factors, the use of a population measure 'ot her than the service area population of 1,735 ,000 indic ated i n the Section IS report. In addition, a value of 22,698 revenue miles b e tween incidents was reported in the newspaper (system total excluding purchased motorbus), while, according to Section I 5 data for the same modes, the figure s hou ld have been 20,780 revenue miles between incidents; this results in a difference of approximately I ,900 miles. Also, revenue miles per 'vehicle was different by about 1 600 miles. It is possible that the larger revenue mile figure that was published (33,623,005 ) was the cause of the se differences Finally, there are some more marked differences in the data, as well. As no!ed previously the published value for revenue miles was more than six million miles greater than the number of system total revenue miles from the Section 15 data. In addition, the route miles figure (which excludes demand-response data) was reported in the newspaper at almost 5 I fewer miles. Another large discrepancy is the I 0 I vehicle difference between the published number of vehicles operated in maximum service and the number fro m the Section 15 report. The potential causes of these differences could not be determined 6

PAGE 13

. . Revenue Miles Route Miles 1 Total Revenue Miles Fare' Table 1 Metro-Dade T ra nsit Agency . ... $2.40 35.74% 29,187 635 32,817 $0.75 excludes demand-response data excludes purchased motorbus and.demand-response $2.19 $6.40 35. 1 8% 27,560 630 $0.75 3 exc ludes purchased motorbus excludes purchased motorlius, metrorail, metromover, and demand-resp
PAGE 14

Broward County Transit Division Table 2 shows the data for the Broward County Transit Division, which reported FY 1991 and FY 1992 data for directly-operated motorbus service in its newspaper advertisement. TI1e first difference between the data Broward published for FY 1992 and the data in their 1992 Section IS report involves the population measure Broward used a population estimate of 1,294,090, which is from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida and represents the population of Broward County. The service area population reported in the system's FY 1 992 Section 15 report was 1,337,000. Thi s difference bad an effect on severa l measures, including vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita. It is evident that each of these measures were slightly overstated in the advertisement. Most of the data Broward reported in the newspaper does seem to originate from its Section 15 report, though there were some misealculations. For example, in figuring route miles, they failed to include directional route miles on controlled access right of-way. Thus, instead of reporting 620.30 route !piles, they indicated 607. Also, the published operating revenue figure only included pas:!tnger fare revenues and special transit fares. I n addition to these fare r cvenues, operating revenue should have included the auxiliary transportation revenues and certain non transportation found in the Section 15 report. Finally, when calculating revenue miles per total vehicles, the iota:i number of vehicles in the fleet (221) was used in s tead of the number of vehicles available for maximum service (189). This led to an of this indicator. Updates to the data that occurred after publication also contributed to the identified differences. Total operating expense, which Broward reported as $38 743,256 in the newspaper, wa s changed in the Section 15 report to $36,152,737 as of December 1993. The numbers shown in Table 2 for the four operating expense rat ios (operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per revenue mile, operating expense per capita, and operating revenue per operating expense) and the average fare are correct given Broward's figure for operating expense. Also i n December of 1993, the number of incidents was updated from 772 to 695 This affected the number of revenue miles between incidents which changed from II ,306 to 12,560. The average age of the vehicle fleet, as detennined from Section 15 data, was 6.42 years. However, Broward reported an average age of 7.05 years in the newspaper. It is not clear how that figure was computed. Also, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were both underreported. It is possible that this resulted from using a different number of employee full time equivalents (FTEs) than was reported in the Section 15 data. Broward County 8

PAGE 15

reported 559.9FTEs in its 199 2 Section 15 report; from the published data, it appears as though Broward used 664.0 FTEs in those comp u tations. Table 2 Broward County Transit Division Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Revenue . . Revenue Miles Between Incidents Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls Revenue Revenue Miles T otal Vehicles Fare 607.00 620 .30 $1.94 $4.44 $4.14 25. 61% 948 1 ; 120 35,670 $0.48 -13.30 9

PAGE 16

Jacksonville Transportation Authority Transportation Authority published data for both FY 1991 and FY 1992; however, only data from its directly-operated motorbus service was included. The published FY 1992 data, along with the data from Jacksonville's FY 1992 Section 15 report, are shown in Table 3. Except for a few cases, the published data are taken exactly from the Section 15 report. One difference is in operating revenue: Jackson vill e published a figure of$5,009,163, but the Section 15 report did not show a breakdown of the revenue between the directly-operated serv ices of motorbus and automated guideway. Therefore while passenger fare revenues can be broken down between motorbus and automated guideway o nl y a system total fo r operating revenue ($5,389 ,920) can be determined from the Section 15 data. As a result, it is expected that th e difference between the two figures represents the operating revenue for the automated guideway mode. Also evident!l.l Table 3 is that revenue miles per t otal vehicles was reported in the newspaper as 41,862. A figure of 151 vehicles was used in this calculation, and not the 160 vehicles that was reported in Section IS as available for maximum service. If 160 vehicles were used, the number of revenue miles per total vehicles would be 39,507, approximately matching the Section )5 figure (39,510). For one measure, it was not clear whether the data carne from the Section IS report Jacksonville published a figure of 129 ,003 for revenue miles between incidents. However, according to the Section IS data the value for that same measure should have been 74, 370. Since the number of revenue miles matched the Section IS data, a different number of incidents must have been used in the calculation than was published in the newspaper. The number of passenger trips per employee published in the newspaper was very close to the figure that was calculated d irectly from Section 15 data The difference between them is only 25 trips. It is not clear what caused this difference, especially since the number o f passenger trips and the number of revenue hours per employee both matched Section IS data exactly (indicating use of the correct number of FTEs). Several other measures varied only by an insignificant amount. For example, the average age differed by one hundredth of a year, the operating revenue per operating expense was different by one percentage point, and the average fare was overstated by one cent. These differences probably resulted from round in g differences. 1 0

PAGE 17

Route Miles Total Revenue Average Fare Table 3 Jacksonville Transportation Autbority Mile .. 13.82 7.17 $0.47 $0.46 ..Q.01 25 $0.01 11

PAGE 18

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit . Most of the data published in the newspaper advertisement by Hillsborough Area Regiona l T rans it (HART) came from its FY 1992 Sectio n 15 report. Table 4 shows the published data,,as well as the values for the same indicators taken directly from the Section 1 5 report. The newspaper advertisement also contained data for FY 1991. HART's published figure for operating expense was $21, 288,662. This amount was larger than the $20 964 ,2 20 shown for the Section 15 data since it included interest expense and lease and rental expenses (which are not included w hen calculating total operating expense from Section 1 5 data for purposes of the Performance Evaluation St udy). This diffe rence affected operati ng expense per cap ita ope r at ing expense per passenger trip and operating e x pense per revenue mile, which were all slightly overstated in th e n e wspaper advertiseme nt. Ve hic le miles per capita seem to have been understated in the pub lis h ed data. S ince passenger trips per capira matched the da t a from the Section 15 report (as does passenger trips), it is probable that !he pop u lation indicator used was the same as that in the Section.! 5 data. Possibly, a slightly different figure for vehicle miles than the one from t he most recent Section IS report was used in this calculatio n. The average age of the fleet was reported in the n ews paper to b e 7 .3 years. However, according to the data in the Section 15 report, the average age should have been 7 : 93 years. It is unclear bow HART arrived a t the published figure of7.3 years. Similarly, the differ en ce in the revenue miles per total vehicles is also unaccounted for, especially since the revenue mile figures were identical. It is expected that the published measure was calculated using a different number of vehicles availab l e for maximum service than tltat reported in the Section 15 data. In the advertisem ent operating revenue per operating expense was reported as 20 percent. However, given the figures HART published for both operating reven ue and operating e xpense, this ratio should have been 23.55 percent. As noted above, the published operating expense wa s overreported; therefore, Section 15 data indicated a value of 23.92 percent for this measure. Finally both revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were underreported in the published figures. It appears that a different number of FTEs, other than what was reported in the Section 15 report, was used in these computations In HART's 1992 Section 15 report 335.7 total FTE s were noted According to the published values for these two measures, HAR T bad a total of 402 FTEs. 12

PAGE 19

Tabl e 4 Hillsboro ugh Area Regio n al Transi t .. . . ' -0.63 Revenue 20. 00% 23. 92% -3.92% Revenue M i les Total Vehicles 31,145 30,940 205 9 4 9 -121 20,706 -2 694 Far e $0.51 $ 0.51 13

PAGE 20

Pine ll as S u ncoast Transit Authority The 1992 data for Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 presents the data from the advertisement published in accordance with Florida Statute 341.071(3), although two required efficiency measures, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee, were not published. In addition, Table 6 reflects data from an annual report that PSTA published separately as an advertising insert in the newspaper. Unless otherwise noted, PSTA reported system total data (for both 1991 and 1992) which included directly-operated motorbus and directly operated and purchased d e mand -res ponse service One difference ev i dent in Ta ble 5 is in the calculation of operating revenue. It is apparent that PSTA used Section J 5 data in figuring this revenue; however, local subsidy revenue, as well as state and federal subsidies, were also included in the total. In this case, strictly-defined operating revenue, as determined from the Section 15 report, was $4 413,747 Thi s discrepancy also affected operating revenue per operating expense, which decreased from I 04 percent to approximatelfl 9.4 percent. The average age of the fleet was also reported differently, as shown in Table 5. In the newspaper, the-. systero total average age was noted as 9.07 years Us ing form408 in the Section 15 report for the three modes, the average age was calculated JIS 8 .01 years. It is not apparent how the fleet age of 9.07 years wa s determined Both revenue miles between incidents and revenue miles between roadcalls also differed This is due to the fact that these measures were calculated using the system total number of revenue miles, as compiled from the 1992 Section 15 report, along with the number of i ncidents and roadcalls for directly-operated service only The Section 15 column of Table 5 reports the number of revenue miles between incidents and rev enue miles between roadcalls for all directly operated service (using revenue miles for directly-operated motorbus and directly-operated demand response service). Similarly, operating expense per passenger trip was published in the newspaper as $2 39 (see Table 5). This figure was determined by dividing the number of paSsenger trips for directly operated service into the system total operating expense. However, when this measure was calculated using the operating expense for directly-operated service, the result was still rounded to $2.39 ($2.388) . 14

PAGE 21

Table 5 Pinellas Suncoast T rans i t Auth ority Notice Publ ished P ursuant to Florida S tatut e 341.071(3) Revenue Miles Route Mi les2 Total Revenue Revenue To t al Vehicles .. 1 $3.52 $3.52 104 00% 19 41% DNP DNP 2 4 ,0 4 5 $0.43 $0.43 1 includes data for a ll direct l y-operat e d service (motorbus a n d demand-response) 2 Includes data fo r motorbus onl y . 1.06 183 .. 84.59% n/a nta Table 6 compares the Section .15 data with data that were in an ao n ual report tliat PSTA published as an advertising inserl. Interesting l y, most of this data appears to have originated fro m a source other thao PST A's 1992 Section 15 report. 15

PAGE 22

For exam ple, passenge r trips (rid e rship) was reported as 8, 116,038, whi l e Sec t ion 15 passeng e r trips (for direct l y operated service) was shown as 9,505 ,074. This difference may be due to another data source, or to a d i fferent method of calculating trips. Also, operating expense and operating revenue were report e d as equal (at $23,018 320) in the annual report. This is not the case according to the Section 1 5 report. The other substantial differences shown in Table 6 are in revenue miles and number of employees, which differ by 426,272 miles and nearly 35 employees, respectively. More important, however, is the fact that PST A's publis hed data in t he two advertisements do not match each other. Differe n t value s were published for passenger trips, revenue m il es, ope rating expen s e and operating revenue. It is surpdsi n g that a syst e m would c h oose t o publish conflicting data, especially given the confusion t hat will sure l y result among i n terested county r esidents. Table 6 Pine llas Suncoast Transit A uthority .... 1992 Annual Report Publis h e d A d v ertisin g Insert IND I CATOR Rev enu e Mil es Total Revenue $18,604 5 7 3 470 4 35.1 34.9 Transit Coaches 1 46 149 -3 DART Vans 37 38 -1 3 3 inc l u d es data for a ll directly-operated service (motorbus and demand-response) 16

PAGE 23

LYNX Orlando Table 7 shows the 1992 published data and corresponding Section IS data for LYNX in Orlando. However, one of the required indicators, vehicles operated in maximum service, was not published. LYNX reported on directly-operated moto rbus purchased demand-response service and purchased vanpool service (unless otherwise noted in the table). The differences in the data are few, and are comparable to the differences been found for other transit systems. Like PSTA it appears that LYNX added local, state, and federal su bsid ies t o arrive at a figure of $17,2 57,7 62 for operating revenue. However, according to data from the 1992 Secti<)n IS report, total operating revenue ($6,014,082) plus local revenue and state and federal funding is equal to $17,368,S80. This different total for operating revenue also affected the ratio of operatin g revenue t o operating expense The table shows that LYNX reported this ratio to be I 00 percent in the newspaper advertisement, while it became 34.8S perc e nt using the Section 1 5 total operating revenue. I t is evid e nt 'that a population measure other than the service area population reported i n th e Section 15 data was used in calculating vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expell$e per cap ita. These three measures were all underreported despi te.the fact that the other indicators used in the compu tations, such as passenger trip.s and operating expense, mat ched the data found in the Section I S rep ort. The average age of the vehicle fleet was also found not to equal that calculated from form 408 of the Section 15 rep ort. The n ewspaper advertisement reported an average age of 7. 8 years for the directly-operated motorbus fleet, while the Section I S data for this fle et showed an average age of 7.43 years. It is uncl ear how the average age of 7.8 years was determi ne d . . . . Finally, as with several other transit systems, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee differed slightly. In this case, both were overstated. Reve n ue h ours per employee was published as 1,732, yet according to the number of revenue h ours and FTEs from the Section IS r e port, the figure should have been 1 ,730. Likewise, the newspaper advertisement reported 30,402 passenger trips per employee. However, when the published figure for passenger trips (which corresponds with the Section I S data) was used along with th e n umbe r ofFTEs from the Section 1S report the result was 30,374 passenger trips per em ployee. Therefo re, though the differences are insignificant, it is c once ivable that a di fferent number of emp l oyees was used in computing the published data. .. 17

PAGE 24

Route Miles' Total Reve n ue Revenue Rev e n u e Mile s Tota l Vehi c les' Fare1 Table 7 LYNX-Or l a ndo $1.72 100.00% 46,671 $0 43 Incl u des data to r directly-ope r ated mot orb u s only 18 -'3. 32 3.06 0 37 $ 1 .72 $ 2 .22 34 85% 65. 15% 46,671 2 28 .. $0.43

PAGE 25

Palm Beac h County Tra n s p o rta tio n A u thority The Palm Beach County Trans portation Authority (CoTran) published data for directly-operated motorbus service in it.'! newspaper advertisement. These data, along with the corresponding informa tion from 1992 Section 15 report ; are shown in Table 8. While much of the data that was reported in the paper was taken directly from lhe Section IS some data were from the F lorida Transi t Management, Inc. (FTM) Report of Operations for 199 2. Tbe use of data from the FTM Report of Operations in conjunction wilh Section 15 da!a generally result ed in different fi gures for some indicators and measures than from the sole use of the Secti on 15 report Instead of using the service ll.fea popuiation figure of. 775)3 5, which was reported in th e Section 15 da!a, CoTran used a 1992 Census figure of 896,970 (population for Palm Beach County) . . . This difference affected thr ee measures: vehicle miles per capita, passenger trip s per capita, and operating expense per capita. The higher populati on figure uSed for the publi shed data resUlted in the underreJr>rting of th ese measures, as shown in Tab l e s : Also, lhe table. show s that CoTran published a different number for passenger trips. The published nwnb.er of trips was indeed from the Section 15 r eport. Howev er, in August 1993, after oflhes e data the number of passenger trips reported for Section 15 purposes was updated from 2,533,16 8 to 2,712,8 82 The figure that was report ed in the newspaper for route w as 3,199,190. .Jhi. s nwnber was not found in the 1992 Section 15 report. According to information sent along with the newspaper advertisement, the source for this figure was the F Y 1 992 FTM Report of Operations. I t is r easonable to assume that this number act\Jally represents vehicle miles, since tlie Section IS data reported motorbus vehicle miles as 3,170,8 18, which is relatively clos e to 3,199,190 Neverthet ess, the system's Sec tion 15 report li ste d 434.9 directional route mil es. CoTran also used the published route miles (3,199,190) instead of revenue miles when calculating revenue . miles per total vehicl es. The use of data from the FTM Report of operations also caused variations in the reported a v erage fare, operating expense per passenger trip and operating expense per revenue mil e measures. For th e average fare, farebox revenue from the FTM re port was used in the computation instead of passenger fare revenues from the Section 1 5 repo rt. In addit io n ; instead of using the operatin g expense, passenger trip, and revenue mile figures that were pub lished in 19

PAGE 26

the paper to determine operating expense per passenger trip and operating expense per revenue mile, separate data from the FTM report were used, resulting in u nderr eported figures. Another difference in the data is in the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The system did use form 406 of its Section 15 report to obtain the number: CoTran summed lines 5b and 5d to get 58 vehicles. However, according to line li of the same form, the number of vehicles operated in maximum service was 60. The use of different lines from the Section 15 report also caused passenger trips per employee to have been reported in the newspaper as 16,063 instead of 17 ,202; the wrong l i ne from form 404 was used for the number of employees. The difference found in the table for average age of the vehicle fleet may be due to rounding. CoTran published an average age of 6.10 years, while an average age of 6.08 years was calculated from form 408 of the Section 15 report. A rounding djfference may also have been the cause of the discrepancy shown for operating revenue per operating expense, especially since both the published operating revenue and total operating expense matched that from the Section 15 data. published this ratio as 27 percent, when the given data show it to be 27.26 percent. 20

PAGE 27

Table 8 Palm Bench County Transp ortation Authority Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Revenue Fleet ... . Revenue Between I n cidents Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls Revenue Revenue Miles Fare $2,313,645 $2.40 27.00% $0 .69 $2,313,645 $3. 13 $3.2f 27.26% nla 0 02 $0. 17 21

PAGE 28

Taltran City of Tallahassee Taltran (City of Tallahassee) publi shed data for fiscal years 1991 and 1992 in the newspaper. Table 9 shows the data. the published, along with the correspond ing data compiled from its 1992 Section 15 report. Indi cators were publ ished for directly-operated service, which includes motorbus and demand-response service. Most of the published data matched the Section 15 data. There are, howe ver a few differences. For example, vehicle miles per capita and passenger trips per capita were both underreported in the published data. Since the pas senger trips were repo rted correctly, it is possible that a different population measure was used in calculating these measures (the FY 1992 Section 15 service area population was 129,258): However, operating expense per capita was slightly overreported in the newspaper advertisement, even though the published operating expense matched the Section 15 figure. U ltimately, it is not clear what data were used to determine these three measures. The average Jge of the fleet was also reported differently in the newspap er. However, the difference beTween the published average age and the average age figure calculated using form 408 of the Section 15 report was only two-tenths of a year. It is expected that this var iation resulted due to..rounding . The figures for r evenue hours per employee and pass enger trips per employee in the newspaper advertisement were also different than those calculated with Section 15 data. It is possible that a different number ofFTEs was utilized when computing these measures, given that the ridership and service leve l indicators were identica l in the two sources. Finally, average fare was reported in the newspape r as $0.57. This measure was calculated by dividing passenger fare revenues by the number of passenger trips. Total passenger fare revenue for directly-operated service was found on form 20 I of the Section 15 report. Using thi s number and the total number of passenger trips for directly-operated service, the average fare was found to be $0.26. While it is not clear how the $0.57 average fare was actua lly determined, it is believed that the passenger fare revenue figure used to calculate this measure i ncluded special transit fares such as the contracted servic e agreements Taltran has with Florida State Universi ty and Florida A&M University to provide free fare zones for students. Including this fare revenue in the Section 15 calculation would increase the average fare figure to approximately $0.45, still somewhat below the published average fare. 22

PAGE 29

: .. Revenue Miles Roule Miles Tolal Revenue Fare Tabl e 9 Taltran City of T allahassee Mile 28.40 10.6 $1.59 $3.25 29.00% 29, 025 938 . '28.46 10.4 29.00% $0.26 ..0.06 0.2 -43 $0.31 . 23

PAGE 30

Regional Transi t System Gainl,lsv ille The 1992 data for Gainesville's Regional Trans i t Sys tem are shown in Tab le 10. The system provided data for motorbus and demand -response service (for 1991 and 1992), which are both directly-operated. How eve r, Gainesville failed to publish any of the six requ ir ed performance ind icat ors or th e effective ness measure revenue miles between incidents It i s clear that the Sectio n 15 report was the primary source for th e published information One difference, however, lies in revenue miles between roadca lls. It was reported as 1,284, yet according to Section 15 data the number sho u ld have been I, 718. Since neither reve nue miles nor roadcalls were noted separately in the published advertisement, it is not possible to determine how the figur e of I ,284 revenue miles between roadcalls was ca l cu la ted. Due to an error in Gainesville's preliminary 1992 Section 15 report, operating expense per passenger mile was signifi c antly overreported On form 406, line 16i passenger miles was incorrectl y rc;.p. orted as 766,043. The appropriate figure, which h as since been updated, i s 7,660,043. 1'he incorrect figure was used in the ca lcul ation and, co nse quently, the operating expense per passenger mile was published a s $2.80, when it sho uld have been $0.47 ... I n the ca l cu l ation of operating revenue, Gainesville al s o local reve n ue and state and federal funding. This allowed the figure for operating revenue to be greater than operating expense: thus operating r e v en ue per operating expense was reported as I 06 percent. When the loc al, state, and federal subsidies are excluded from operating revenue as they a r e in the Sectio n 15 calculation, the ratio of ope r ating revenue to operating expense equals 35 87 percent. As see n in many of the other transit systems newspaper advertisements, the publi she d figures for revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were differe nt than the figures that came directly from the Sect i on 15 data. Gain esville seems to have underreported these two measures It i s conceivable that a number of FTEs other than those indicated in the Section 15 report were used in these computations (82.1 syste m total FTEs were reported in the Section I 5 data) Lastly, the average fare as shown in T able 10, is off by a penny This is a negligible difference that most like l y may be d ue to a rounding error . 24

PAGE 31

. Route Miles Total Revenue Revenue Miles Fare Tabfe 10 Regional 'fiansit System GainesY:ille Mile DNP DNP DNP DNP $1.50 106 00% 30 ,32 4 $0.51 $1.50 35 87% $0 52 nta n/a nla nla $2.33 70.13% -74 25

PAGE 32

East Volusia Transportation Authority In Table II, data for East Volusia Transportation Authority (Votran) are shown. The measures that were publi s hed in th e ne wspaper advertisement were compiled from Votran's 1992 Section 15 report Any differe nces in the data shown in the table were either due to certain indicators being upd a ted after publication, o r to the use of Section 15 data other than what is normally used in calculating the given measures. The advertisement prov id ed data on directly-operated motorbus service. However, in total operating expense, Votran included expenditures for purchased m o t orb us. Data for purchased motorbus wer e not included anyw here else in the advertisement. This explains the difference in operating expense of $187,347. Operati n g expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile were all subsequently overstated, but correct g i ven the figure for operatiii'fexpense that was u t ilized Also, operatin.} r evenue w as inflated since, s i milar to other transit systems, Votran included l ocal revenue plus federal and state s ubsidies in the indicator This allowed operating revenue to equal operating expense and, therefor e, the r atio of operating revenue to operating expense was r eporte d as 100 percent, .. As collec ed for the Performance Evaluation Study, however, operating revenue does not include the local federal, and state funding. As a result, operating revenue should h ave equal ed $1,207, 837 and operating revenue per operating expense should h a ve been 31.93 percent. Vehicle miles per capita was published in the newspaper as 8.31. However, afte r the publication date the vehicle mile figure was up dated from 1,651,986 to 1,552,060. Using the latte r numb e r the new result was 7.9 1 vehicle miles per capita. The d iffer ence betwee n the average age of the vehic l e fleet reported in the n ewspaper and that figured from forrn 408 of the Section 15 report is 1.26 years Data directly from the Section 15 report indicated a younger fleet than was portrayed by Votran. It could not be deiermined how the average age of 9.2 0 years was calculated. Finally, the discrepancy in revenue miles per total vehicle s is due to the util ization of data from d ifferent lines on forrn 406 of the Section 1 5 report. In this calculation Votran used the number of vehicles operated in maximum service (34) i nstead of the number of vehicles available for maximum service (37), i.e. "total" vehicles 26

PAGE 33

. . Table 11 East Volusia Transportation Authority Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Revenue Fleet Revenue Between Incidents Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Fare 3,025,300 1,46 3 ,696 ... $0.28 .25 $2:58 31. 93% 1.26 $0.13 68. 07% 27

PAGE 34

Escambia County Transit System Escambia County Transit System (ECfS) reported data for its directly-operated motorbus service and purchased demand-response service separately (for FY 1991 and FY 1992) The 1992 indicators for the fixed-route motorbus service are presented in Table 1 2. The demand-response data was not analyzed, si nce it was not included in the Perfor mance E valuation Study. Accord ing to ECTS, the demand-response data as shown in the Section 15 report is not accurate; ECTS actually accounts for only a small portion of that service. For the advertisement, the system was able to extract its portion of the service from the Section 15 data and therefore, what was published could not be compared to the total demand-response data as it was reported in the Section 15 data. The published data for th e fixed-route motorbus service was gen erally taken from ECfS's 1992 Section 15 report, and the differen ces between the two are minor. For instance, 238 route miles were published in the advertisement, while 237.7 miles are shown in the Section Is report. It is apparent th/t the route miles were rounded up. Also ECTS reported only passenger fare revenues for operating revenue. The system did not add in aux iliary transportation re ven ue s or non-transportation revenues, which are typically included in opera ting revenue. As a result, the ratio of operating revenue per operating expense was understated in the newspaper advertisement. Vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita were all underreported in the published data. It is probable that a population figure other than the one provided in the 1992 Section 15 report was used in these calculations (the Section 15 report showed the service area population to be 200,000). ECTS reported 38,373 revenue miles per total vehicles in the newspaper advert isement. In computing this figure, the number of active vehicles in the fleet (25) from fonn 408 of the Section 15 report was used instead of the vehicles available for maximum service (27) reported on form 406. The latter number is generally used in the calculation. With 27 vehic les there were 35,530 revenue miles per total vehicles. The last difference between the data that was published and the Section 15 data was in revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee Both of these measures were understated when compared to data f rom the Section 15 report. Possibly, a different number of FTEs was used in calculating these two measures (Section 15 data showed 61 FTEs). 28

PAGE 35

Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Revenue Fare Table 12 Escambia County Transit System $2.95 $3.44 18 .37-% 38,373 939 $0.54 0.30 -1.41 2 .45 $2.95 23.43% .06% -141 $0 54 2 9

PAGE 36

Lee County Transit In its newspaper report, Lee County Transit (LCTS) presented data o n directly-operated motorbus service for fiscal years 1991 and 1992. The FY 1992 data that was reported, for most of the measures, were from the system's Section 15 report for the same year. Tab le 13 summarizes the data. As shown in the table, the numbt
PAGE 37

Revenue Miles Route Miles Tota l Revenue Revenue Total Vehi c les Table 13 Lee County 'lransit $698 121 $0.39 $698,121 $0.39 -O.Q5 1.00 -454 $0.12 -2,129.64 0.75 9.87 31

PAGE 38

Sarasota Co u nty Area T r a nsit Sarasota County Area Transit (SCAT) used its Section 15 reports from fiscal years 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 in reporting selected indicators in the newspaper. Table 14 shows the data for FY 1992 since this year is the focus of this report. In its advertisement, SCAT presented information on its directly-operated motorbus service. There are two indicators in the table that were updated after the newspaper advertisement was published First, the figure for passenger miles was changed from 5,604,215 to 5,102,690 in September 1993. Then, in that same month, the service area population was updated from 241,710 to 247,280. The population difference affected vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, a n d operating expense per capita, all of which were underreported in the publi s hed data. The average age of the fleet was stated as 13.74 years in the newspaper: an overestimation of approximately, one and a half years when compared to the age calculated from the Section 15 re port (12 .3cPYears). How SCAT determined the reported average age is not apparent. Also, revenue miles per to.tal vehicles was overstated in the advertisem e nt by almost 2,500 miles. Since the published revenue miles mat ched the Section 15 data, the difference must have re s ulted from the total number of vehicles used in the computation. While the Section 15 data indicated 37 vehicles available for maximum service during FY 1992, it is not clear how many vehicles were used to calculate the advertised measure Finally, the published revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were slightly larger than the figures ca l culated for these measure s directly from the most updated Section 15 data However with revenue hours per employee being different by two hours and passenger trips per employee varying by 31 tr ips, the differences were smaU enough to be inconsequential. 32

PAGE 39

. Table 14 Sar.asota County Area Transit Miles Revenue Miles Revenue Hours Route Miles Total Revenue Veh icles in Maximum Service Total Gallons of Fuel Consumed Revenue Miles Between Incide nts Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls Revenue Revenue Miles Total vefi icles Fare 7 1 ,064 293.80 20 2 75,966 4 .38 1.20 17.71 22.00% 4 .02 $0.42 293.80 20 2 75,966 5 09 1 .20 1 7.71 12.30 116,055 22.00% 28,230 1,182 4 .02 $0.42 . ,.,0, 71 1.44 2,491 2 31 . 33

PAGE 40

Lakeland Area Mass Transit District Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMT) directly operates demand-response and motorbus service, and contracts for purchased vanpool service. In its newspaper report for FY 1992 (which also included measures from FY 1991), LAMT generally presented data on the directly-operated service. However, one measure passenger trips, also included information on vanpool service. The total of939,853 passenger trips, shown in Table 15, was a system total figure comprised of trips for motorbus, demand-response service, and vanpool. Thus, passenger trips per capita was also a system total figure. Two other measures, operating expense per passenger trip and passenger trips per employee were also affected. Operating expense per passenger trip, as reported in the advertisement, was calculated using the system total number of trips along with the expense for only directly-operated service (excluding vanpool data). When this measure was calculated using passenger trips for only directly-operated service (935,329) operating expense p e r passenger trip became $1.97. L ikewise, passenger trips per employJ was computed using syste m total passenge r trips along with FTEs for directly operated service only When the passenger trips per employee was recalcula ted using only trips, th<,l result wa s 20,386 trips The operating revenue was underreported in the newspaper article. LAMT's figure of $421 366 was comprised fares for directly-operated service only. From t he Section 1 5 report, auxiliary transportation revenues (form 201 line II) as well as certain non -transpo rtation revenues (form 201, line 14) were a lso included in operating revenue. Addi ng in these two figures resulted in an operating revenue of $72 1 ,186. Vehicle miles per capita was underreported by only two-tenths of a mile. Most likely, since passenger trips per capita and operating expense per capita matched, the disparity is not the result of using a different population measure. Perhaps a slightly lower number of vehicle miles was used in the calculation. Nonetheless, the difference is insignificant Another negligible variation is in average fare, which di ffe red by one cent. Probably, this difference resulted from rounding. The discrepancy between the reported average age of the vehicle fleet and that calculated from Section 15 data was approximately one year After a reexamination of the Section 15 report, i t i s not clear why a difference exists However, it is possible that LAMT assumed a base year of 1993 with which to calculate the reported average fleet age rather than utilizing 1992, since the data were reported in a newspaper advertiseme n t during that year ( 1 993). 34

PAGE 41

-. Also, the opexating expense per passenger mile was reported in the published data as S I. 71. This amount seemed high and, after further analysis, was found to actually be the figure for operating expense per reven ue mile. The tme operating expense per passenger mile \Vns $0.42. Similarly, the number shown for revenue miles per total vehicles (35,842) was actually the figure . . . ; for revenue miles between incidents From th e 1992 Section 15 report, the number of revenue miles per total vehicles was found to be 41,356. Table lS Lakeland Area Mwss Transit Revenue Route Total Revenue In Maximum Service Revenue M iles Between I ncidents Revenue M ile s Between Roadcalls Mile Fare in cludes vanpool dala 152 $421,366 7.40 $1.71 22.00% $1 839,693 $721,186 8.54 6.39 2,859 $0.42 39.20% $0.45 0 .20 1 .01 99 40. 01 . 35

PAGE 42

Manatee County Area Transit Manatee County Area Transit (MANC) operates fiXed route motorbus and demand-response service directly. Altogether, MANC published data for fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992. The data that was published for FY 1992 has been separated into three tables: Table 16 presents the data for fixed-route motorbus, Table 17 shows the five indicators for demand-response service, and those measures reflecting the system totals are illustrated in Ta ble 18. As evidenced in Table 16, the motorbus data reported in the newspaper advertisement was taken from the Section 15 report. The ooly published measures that differed from the Section 15 data wei:e route miles and the average age of the fleet. ln the newspaper, 150 route miles were reported However, according to form 403 of the Section 15 report, the motorbus service liad 123.7 route miles. The 26 3 mile difference cannot readily be reconciled. Also, it is not clear how the reported average age of the vehicles was determined to be 6.3 years. Nevertheless, the difference between the published average age and the age of 6.44 years from the Section 15 data is negligible. 4 Table 16 also shows the published a ver age fare of $0.42 cents for fixed-route motorbus The resulting figure.Jrom Section 15 data was one penny less lt is anticipated that this difference may have resulted due to rounding. While all the demand-response data in Table 17 match, there is some variation in the measures provided in Table J 8, which shows data for motorbus and demand-response service combined . One difference is in operating revenue, which was published as $689,511. According to Section 15 data operating revenue should have been $665,223. This disparity could not be accounted for and als6 affected the operating revenue per operating expense efficiency measure, which was very slightly underreported (published: 25 percent, Section 15: 25.38 percent). Final ly, in Tabl e 18, vehicl e miles per capita, passenger lfips per cap ita, and operating expense per capita were all very slightly overstated. As has been noted earlier in the report for other transit systems, a different population measure may have been used in these calculations. MANC's service area population, as was noted in the Section 15 report, was 215,000. 36

PAGE 43

Revenue Miles Table 16 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Fixed-Route Motorbus Service Table 17 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Demand-Respon s e Service $2.69 26.30 . . . . 37

PAGE 44

Table 18 Manatee County Area Transit Data for System Total Service (Motorbus and Demand Response) 25.00% 25.38% ..0.38% 38

PAGE 45

Smyrna Transit System The published indicators and corresponding Section 15 data for the Smyrna Transit System (SMTS) are reported in Table 19. SMTS provided information on its directly-operated motorbus system for fiscal years 1991 and 1992. Evaluation of the data (from FY 1992 only) revealed that the published data was compiled from the system's 1992 Section 15 report. While the figure that was reported for route miles (66,723) did come from the Section 15 report, SMTS actualty reported the number of total scheduled vehicle revenue miles. The route miles should have been acquired from form 403 of the Section 15 report and, in this case, the figure was 55 miles. .. .. ,. The operating revenue reported in the newspaper was also based on Section 15 data, although the figure of $182,158 was actually total local revenue ($13,923 of which was operating revenue). Because local revenue was used in place of operating revenue, the operating revenue per operating expepse was 100 percent, according to the published data. However, when the actual operating of $13,923 was used in the the ratio became 7.64 percent .... Vehicle miles .v.er capita underreportcd in the newspaper advertisement by approximately two-tenths of a mile . This difference is insignificant, but may resulted from the use of a . slightly lower figure for vehicle miles than what was reported in the Section 15 data (69,735 vehicle miles were indicated in the Section 15 report). The last differences were in revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee, which were both overreported by negligible amounts. In the newspaper, revenue hours per employee was overstated by a mere four hours and the published passenger trips per employee exceeded the Section 15 measure by only 23 trips. It is possible that these diffecences resulted from the use of a slightly different number of FTEs than was indicated in the Section 15 data. 39

PAGE 46

Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Revenue Fleet Revenue Between Incidents Revenue Miles Between Roadcall s Revenlle Miles Average F are 40 Table 19 Smyrna Transit System $182,158 11.00 $8.00 100.00% 2 7 ,714 $0.61 55.00 nla $182 158 2 4.08 -0 18 1 .30 11.00 $3.2 9 7.64% 92.36% 2 7,714 1.453 4 23

PAGE 47

Pasco Area Transportation Service Pasco Area Transportation Service (PATS) only provides d e mand response service; in 1990 fixed-' route motorbus serviee was discontin ued Table 20 shows the FY 1992 figures that were published in the local newspaper It is clear that the data came from PATS's 1992 Section I S report There is a difference, however in how operating revenue was calculated. Local and federal funding was included in the published figure of$189, 821. Such i nco me is not normally included in operating revenue and in this case; operating revenue should have been reported as $30,318. Due to the difference, operating revenue per operating e x pense was publis hed as 100 percent instead of 15.97 percent. Also, the published average age of the vehicle fleet (2 years) is one year older than it should have been. It is obvious that Section 15 data were used in the calculation: therefore, the discrepancy must lie in the:..method that was used by PATS to determine this measure. Perhaps, as with two previous systfms (LCTS and LAMT), PATS utilized 1993 as a base year when the fleet's average age instead of 1992. Interestingly, PATS published no reportable incidents and thus were unable to calculate revenue miles between incide nts. According to form 405 of the Section 15 report, three incidents occurred. Therefore, revenue miles should have been reported as 34,593. For revenue miles per total vel;ricles, PATS used five vehicl es (vehicles operated in maximum service) in the calculation. Usually, however, the n umber of vehicles available for maximum service is utilized to represent "total" vehicles. With the eight vehicles that were reported in the Section 15 data as available for maximum service, the figure should have been 12,973, rather than 20,756 Finally both revenue hours per employee and passenger trips employee were underreported by small amounts. The reason is clear, however, since PATS used 7.8 FTEs in these computations, yet only 7.4 FTEs were obtained from the Section 15 report. This small dJfference in FTEs accounted for the variation i n these two measures. 4 r

PAGE 48

Table 20 P a sco Area Trans p ortat i o n Service Revenue Miles Route Miles Total Reven u e Incide n ts Revenue M i les Between I n c idents Reve nu e Mil es Between Roadca lls T r i p Revenue Miles 42 28, 607 103 780 n/a $189,8 2 1 0 18 2.00 0 n/a 1 4 ,826 $ 1 .83 1 00.00% 28,607 n / a $30 318 1 .00 3 1 4 ,826 808 n/a 1.00 -3 nla 84.03% 7 783 -42 -198

PAGE 49

Key West Department of Transportation Key West Department of Transportation, formerly known as the .City of Key West PoF( and Transit Authority, compiled the motorbus data that was published in the newspaper advertisement from its FY 1991 and 1992 Section 15 reports Table 2 1 which reflects the FY 1992 data, shows that the published data was rounded to whole numbers. This rounding of the indicators led to slight d i fferences in some of the effectiveness and efficiency measures. For example, operating expense was rounded up to $672,000 from $671,507, and this caused measures such as operating expense per capita and operating expense per revenue mile to be insignificantly overreported. Operating expense per passenger trip was actually underreported by $0.0 I since the number of . passenger trips was also rounded up from 227,586 (Section 15) to 228,000 (published). However, two published measures differed significantly from the Section 15 data. One such measure, revenue miles between roadcalls, was overreported by 4,321 miles Obvious l y, a number of road c alls other than that from the FY 1992 Section I? report was utilized in this calculation (S6f:tion 15 data indicated 65 roadcalls). Also revenue miles per total ve.bicles was understa t ed approximately 4,500 mil es. It is not clear how the published figure for this measure was determined, either. Lastly, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were both overreported by relatively small amounts. In the newspaper, revenue hours per employee was higher than the Section 15 data by 97 h ours, while the number of passenger trips per employee exceeded Secti o n 15 data by 1,493 trips. It i s possible that the number of FTEs used in the calculation of th,e data was different than that found in the Section 15 report (Section 15 data indicated 13 FTEs). 43

PAGE 50

Route Miles Tota l Revenue Revenue Miles Fare 44 Table 21 Key West Department of Transportation $145 000 $ 153, 906 10.44 $2.95 $3 .91 $3.90 22 00% 22.92% 1,031 934 19, 000 17,507 $0. 4 9 $0.49 $8,906 0 .09 .44 $0.01 $0.01 ..0.92% 97 1 ,493

PAGE 51

Space Coast Area Transit Space Coast A.tea Transit (SPCT) operates motorbus and demand-response serv ice directly, and con tracts for and vanpool service. Except where noted in Table 22, Sl'C T reported FY 1992 system total indicators in its new spaper advertisement (the advertisement also included data for FY 1991). One nota ble d ifference in th e published data is in ro ute miles, which were reported as 400 210. It is not clear where this figure originated, but according form 403 of the Section 15 report, the directly-operated motorbus servic e had 452 route miles. It is possible t bat SPCT was reporting vehicle/revenue miles for the demand -resp onse and v anpo o l service as a surrogate for route miles for these two non-fixed route modes. Also, total operating expense was underreported by exactly $3,000. The difference in the operating expe nse affected other measures such as operating expense per capita and operating expense per passenger trip. The effects were very however (01i.e cent in each case). In addition, the fig ure reported for operating revenue included . all local, stat';j\and federal f unding. Total operating re venue, as from th e Section I 5 data, was $2;'964,215. Therefore, given the Section 15 data, operating revenue per o perating expen&-e should have been 69.43 percent, not the 93.3 percent reported i n t he newspaper. Vehicle miles per capita also was slightly underreported. Since the population measure p u blishe d in the advertisement matched the service are a population from th e Section 15 report, it is possible that the number of vehicle miles utilized in the calculation differed by a small amount from the Section 15 data. Add itionally, in th e newspaper the average age of the fleet was reported to be .. . . 3.42 years. Based on the Section 15 data, the system total average age was 3 .18 years. E ven the elimination of the mo torbus fleet from the computation did not reconcile the fig ure Therefore, it could not be d etermi ned what d ata were used in calculating this measure. SPCT reported revenue m.iJes between incidents an d revenu e miles between roadcalls for motorbus service only. Based sole ly on Section 15 data, the number of revenue miles between . . incidents (for directly-operated motorbus) should have equaled 57,170 while rev enue miles between roadcalls should have been 13,340. In the newspaper, however, revenue miles between incidents was published as 33,955, and 15,159 revenue miles between roadcalls were reported. The reason for this disparity was not evid ent. Also, in the advertisement 31, 3 70 re venue miles per total vehicles were reported. According to Section 15 data, the-number should have been 26,970. It could not be determined what modes were included in the calculation. 45

PAGE 52

FinaUy, how revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were calculated was not apparent. Nonetheless, using Section 15 data for directly-operated service (motorbus and d e mand-response) and purchased vanpool, 2,322 revenue hours per employee were calculated, as well as 13, 915 passenger trips per employee. Revenue Miles Route Miles' Total Revenue Miles Revenue Hours per Fare' Table 22 Space Coast Area Transit 1.70 3.42 93. 30% 31,370 $0.61 1.70 3.18 .16 69.43% $0.61 i ncludes motorbus data only 2 includes purchased vanpool data and all directly-operated serv ice 3 includes motorbus and demand-response service data only 46 0.92 0.24 -$0 .01 23 67%

PAGE 53

Appendix A Table A-1 Performance Review Indicators and Measures Service Area Population P$$$$nser Trip! Passenger Miles Vehicle Miles Revenue Miles Vehicle Hours Revenue Hours Route Miles Tota l Operating Expen$e ToiOI Operallng Expense (1984 $) To.t:al Maintenance e
PAGE 54

Approved: Effective: Responsible Topic No.: December 4, 1992 Office: Transit 72 5-0 3 0-0 3 0-c Ben G. Watts, P.E. Secretary PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PURPOSE: . To deta.il the, Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office's administration and management of the State Public Transit Block Grant Program. AUTHORITY: Florida statutes REFERENCES: Chapter ... 341, Florida Statutes; Procedure 725-030-025, Vehicle Inventory Management; Procedure 725 030 -005, Service Development Program; Procedure 725-030-003, Transit corridor Program; Rule Chapter 14.73, Public Transportation. DEFINITIONS: community Transportation Coordinator A transportation entity so designatedby the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, as provided for in Chapter 427 Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 41-2, to serve the transportation disadvantaged. population in a designated service area. Central Office For the purposes of this procedure, the Department of Transportation, Public Transi t Office and/or staff. District Office -For the purposes of this procedure, the Department of Transportation, District public tra.nsporta1;ion office and/or staff. Eligible Transit Capital Cost Any costs that be defined as capital costs by the Federal Transit Administration. ... Eligible Transit Operating Costs The total administrative, management, and operation costs directly incident to the provision of public bus transit services, excluding any depreciation or amortization of capital assets, and costs for A-2

PAGE 55

. . 725-030030 c Page 2 of 9 labor, and fringe benefits. This means that a n y operating expense properly coded expense object classes 503, 504, 505, 506 507, 508, 509, 51 1 512, or 530 in FTA' s Uniform system of Accounts andRecords and Reporting (Section 15) system is an eligible transit ope.rating cost. Front End FundingFunding disbursement method whereby a local grant recipient Incurs eligible expenses to t;hich state block grant funds are first applied and the required local share is applied only after state funds have been draHn . . -. Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) -A.contract between the Department of Transportation and a sponsor of a transportation project, defining a project and the Department's participation (Form 801-01). . . . . . . . . . '' Local Government Comprehensive. P lan-A document found with Chapter 163 F.S. and Rule Chapter 9J-5 of Community Affairs. to be in by the Local Revenue SourcesThe sum of money receivedfrom local government enti t ies to assist in paying transit operation costs, including tax funds, and revenue earned from .fare box receipts, charter ser.vice, contract service, express ser.vice and non transportation activities . . Local Tax Revenue -Local .tax . revenues are thos-e revenues \
PAGE 56

725-030-030-c Page 3 of 9 Section 15 Report -A report submitted to the Federal Transit Admin istration in accordance the uniform system of Accounts and Reports prescribed by Section 15 of the Federal Transit Act. This report is one basis for the allocation of block grant funds and uniform accounts therein are used to validate the lawful use of funds. "Section 9" Provider -A public transit provider eligible to funds from the Federal Transit Administration's Section 9 program for the purpose of providing public transportation in their service area. Section 9 funds may be granted to public agencies in urbanized areas of 50,000 population or more, and so ... designated by the U S Bureau of the Census. Such an agency becomes eligible to receive block grant funds Hhen the annual element of its Transportation Improvement Program contains a block grant project. "Section 18" Provider -An agency receiving funds from the Transit Administration's Section 18 program for the purpose of providing public transportation outsi4e an urbanized 'area. For the purposes of this procedure, the term "Section 18" Provider does not include any Community Transportation Coord.inators. supElant To take the place of, to supersede. To use block grant program funds in place of local tax revenues made available for an.eligible public transit provider for operations in the previous year. such use would result in the b lock grant award to the public transit operator being reduced by the amount of supplanted local funds. Transi' t Corridor Project -A project to r 'Eilieve congestion and improve capacity within. a transportation corridor as defined in the Transit Corridor Program Procedure, 725-030-003. Transit Development Plan -A Transit Deve lopment Plan (TOP) is a locally adopted document, addressing a minimum five year time frame. Preparation of the TOP is the responsibility of the public transit provider, in cooperation with the appropriate Metropolitan Planning organization, It is consistent wi .th the applicable approved local government comprehensive plan with the appropriate comprehensive (long range) transportation plan and supports the Transportation Improvement Program. The TOP includes an assessment of the need for transit services in the local area, identifies the local transit policies, existing services' and proposed service improvements, capital and operating costs of the proposed services, existing and proposed sources of funding and a staged implementation plan. A TOP is updated annually. A-4

PAGE 57

725-030-030-c Page 4' of 9 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) -The result of a and comprehensive planning process which delineates transportati.on improvements recommended for federal and state funding.during the program period. The TIP is submitted to the Department P.er the requirements of Chapter 339 F.S. BACKGROUND: 'Th!E> .block grant . J2rogram enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a stable source for public transit. Funds are to be to t-hose public transit providers eligible to receive funding from the Federal Transit Sections 9 and 18 programs and to Community Transportation Coordinators (see definitions) The Department of Transportation will distribute 85% of the funds to S ection 9 providersand to Sect ion 18 providers are. not Co mmunit y Transportation . Coordina,tors via this procedure. 'l' h e Florida Transportation Commission will distribute 15% of the funds to community Transportation Coordinators according to their procedures. ... The bloc'k grant funds may be used for eligtble capital and operating costs of public transit providers. Funds may also be used .for transit service development and transit corridor projects. Projects shall b e consistent. applicable approved local government comprehensive plans. State participation is limiteg to 50% of the nonfederal share 0f capit a l 9P to 50% of eligible operating costs can be paid with program fun. ds; or an amount equal .to the total revenu'e, excluding : farebox, char ter, and advertising revenue and federal funds, received by the 'provider for operating costs, amount is less. Local "tax revenues made available for operating costs shall. not be supplanted by block grant funds. PROCEDURE: (1) PROJECT .DEVELOPMENT: (a) The Central Office is responsible f o r d istributing tables allocating funds to the DistrictOffices and eligible public transit providers each year. The 'tables will be sent to the District Offices no more than" 4 5 calendar days after the end of the legislative session. (b) District Offices are responsible for programming those funds according to work program instructions. District Offices are also responsible for informing eligible public transit providers of final allocations no more than 30 days after receipt of the allocation tables A-S

PAGE 58

A-6 725-030-030-c Page 5 of 9 from the central Office. The District Office shall also make final distribution of Block Grant funds to operating and/or capital projects in response to the written.requests of the public transit providers. The District Offices are responsible for preparing Joint Participation Agreements (JPA) between the Department and eligibl e providers for the identified operating andfor capital projects. (c) Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) 1. The District Office shall obtain a written request for a JPA from a publi c transit provider prior to the preparation of any JPA. The request from the public.transit provider shall include a statement of intent to use funds within the limits of the law and shall state how funds will be divided between eligible capital and operating expenses, and whether any funds be used in a public transit service development project or transit corridor project. It shall also provide the current status of the public transit provider's Transit Development Plan Update. The request need only contain enough detail to complete a JPA and required exhibits. A copy of the request shall be forwarded to the central Office upon receipt. The Central Office shall analyze the request to substantiate that block grant funds are not expected to 1) exceed the amount local revenue sources >Jill provide to the system, 2) exceed eligible transit operating costs, or 3) supplant local tax revenues made available for operations. The analysis shall be provided to the District Office in writing upon completion. If the analysis reveals that a public transit provider may not be able to expend funds without breaching the limits listed above, the Central Office shall so advise the District Office no more than ten days after the request is received by the Central Office, either in writing or by telephone. The District Office shall contact all such prior to preparation of the JPA to inform the public transit provider. of the finding .and to discuss the means by which the public transit provider intends to use the funds within the limits of the law. ior example, if the. central Office analysis indicates that the request for operating assistance appears to be f.or more . ...

PAGE 59

. . . 725-030030 c Page 6 of 9 funds than there appear to b e e ligible expenses, the public transit provider may .indicate that there are service expansion plans which will generate the necessary eligible expenses . If the department and the provider agree that the total block grant cannot be expended, the provider may agree t o accept a block grant of less than the .... total amount. The funds that exceed such lesser agreed-upon amount shall be redistributed to other eligible providers by formula on a statewide basis, in the subsequent b lock grant allocationr-. The District Office shall prepare, 30 calendar days of a request from an eligible public transit provider, a JPA bet,.een the Department and the public transit provider receiving b lock grant funds. An e xtension to" thi s 30 days may be granted by the Public' Transit Office Ilanager if the analysis of t h e request indicates that the recipient may not be able to use the funds the limits of the law, or cannot be completed because the recipien t failed .to supply the D epartment .its section 15,,_repor.ts and most current budget. JPAs shall be executed as directed i n 'Procedure No. 725-000-005, Public Transportation Joint Agreement. 2 Th e District Office may prepare and execute separate JPAs for operating grantsand for capital grants. Capital grants may be divided int o as many separate project JPAs as necessary and desirable.' block grant funds are t o be used i n eligible service development projects andjor transit corridor projects, the use of t hese funds is governed by the department's !1.ervice .. Development Program procedure, 725-030 -005, andjor the Transit Corridor Program procedure, 725-030-003. ... 3 Front End Funding (see definition) may be .used at the discretion of the District Office, b u t is not recommended 'in cases here the questions raised by the Central Office in its analysis (above) are not t o the satisfaction of the District Office. Any block grant funds distributed to an eligible provider cannot be expended within,: .. the limitations of the block .grant program shall be returned to the department the Year of the allocation. These funds w ill be retained in A-7

PAGE 60

725-030-030-c Page 7 of 9 the district cost center, but the amounts will be included in the subsequent statetvide block grant formula allocation. Authority will then be reissued for the deobligated funds, and the District Office will use these funds to reach 100 percent of the District's full block grant allocation in the fiscal year subsequent to the year the funds were deobligated. 4. Exhibit "C" of the JPA shall include, at a minimum, the language in Procedure No. 725-ooo005, Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement. (2) PROJECT MANAGEMENT A-8 (a) District Offices will visit each. recipient no less than once a year at their place of business. The purpose of the visit will be to monitor the recipient's compliance with program guidelines. The visit will. b e documented in the project file using the checklist founci 'ln Attachment "B" of these procedures. (b) The District Office shall monitor the progress that the public transit provider is making in preparing the Transit Development Plan as required by 341.071(1) F.S. (c) (d) (e) The Distr_ j,c t Off.ice shall approve ar;>y set of performancemeasures established.by recipients includes the measures indicated in Attachment "A" of these procedures. Recipients may publish additional measures, but all recipients shal l be required to publistithe core set of measures i ndicated by the symbol o . Dist,ri.ct.Offices are responsible for collection of the material required to determine eligibility and allocations (Section 15 repprts and updates or revisions, and current adopted budgets submitted by the first working day of !1arch each year according to the terms of Exhibit c of the JPA) and transmittal of the material to the Central Office. District Offices shall process all invoices in accordance with the Invoice Processing Procedure, 350-030-400. For operating costs, the format described in Attachment "C" of these procedures will serve as the necessary documentation for the invoice. Only if the invoice includes travel costs will additional documentation of incurred costs be required. .If travel

PAGE 61

(f) . (g) 725-030-030-c Page 8 of 9 costs are included, documentation as.outlined in Procedure No. 300-000-001, Travel-1 shall be submitted. Invoices for capital expenses shall be supported by documentation of capital expenses as outlined in the JPA. " ' In the event the public transit provider cannot use its entire block: grant allocation i n the limits of the law, the District Office shall deobligate the funds and notify the Central Office of the amount of excess funds . These funds >lill be retained in the district cost. center, but t h e amounts 1;ill be included in the subsequent block grant formula allocation. Authority then b e reissued for the deobligated funds, and the District Office usethese funds to reach 100 percent of the District's full block grant allocation in the fiscal year subsequent to the year the funds deobligated. If an .audit reveals that an eligible provider expended block grant funds on unauthorized use s the provider must repay to the department an amount equal to the funds expended for unauthorized uses the year of the The department shall redistribute such repayments to other eligible-providers in the subsequent allocation per the process described in (f) above. (h) Upon project .closure, the District Office shall have readily a'l(i>ilable, at a minimum: . . 1. a copy of the Section 15 report for the year funds "'ere allocated; 2. thg public transit provider's adopted budget for the year funds_ '"ere allocate_d.; . 3. a copy of the relevant pages of the TIP for the year funds allocated; 4. all Joint Participation Agreements and any amendments for the year funds allocated with the-letter from the recipient requesting funds; 5. a copy of the performance report for the year funds allocated the affidavit of publication or an actual copy of the.newspaper publication; A-9

PAGE 62

A-10 725-030-030-c Page 9 of 9 6. a copy of the Transit Development Plan prepared in the year funds were allocated; 7.. documentation that procurements were approved as required by. the JPA; 8. a copy of each invoice presented for payment. . 9. documentation of the site visit performed by the District Office; 10, documentation that the audit required by the Single Audit Act of 1984 for the year funds >!ere allocated was completed and forwarded to the Office of chief Internal Auditor in the Central Office per Procedure No. 450-021-001, Recipient/Subrecipient Single Audit Procedure; 11. the file ro:ay also contain additional correspondence and information considered by the District Offic e to be important to a cornprehensfve understanding of the project.

PAGE 63

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURES Attachment A Pa<;Je 1 of 3 The 1990 Florida ame n!'led 341.041(3), provides for the bepartmen-t;'s t'ransit responsibilities respect to state'transit measures, as follows: "Develop, publish, and admini'ster state measures concerning system management, performance, productivity, cost distribution and safety or' 'government owned public transit systems and privately 0\med or operated systems financed or in part. ,by state funding. Such measures shall be developed j ,o,intly "ith representatives of affected publicly owned transit systems and in coordination "ith affected privately o"ned systems, full consideration g iven to natiom1ide inqustry norms." For the purpose of performance measure reporting the public transit;..provider i s all "Section 9" t ransit systems and "Section. 18" systems that are not designated as commun ity transportation coordinators pursuant"t'o"chapter 427 Florida Statute. (The Transportation Disadvantaged Commission is responsible for the program respect to Community Transportation Coordinators as per Section 341.052(5), F .S.) . . . Florida Statute 341.071 was also enacted requiring the following: . (2) "Each public' transi t provider shall establish producHvi"ty and performance measures, must be approved by the Department and must be from measures devel'oped pursuant to s, .. .341. 041 (.3).., .. E ac.h provider Shall report annually 'to the Department relative to these rneas'Jre. s ... . In approving these measures, the Department shall give consideration to the goals and objectives of each .. system, the".needs of the local area, and the role for p(lb lic transi t in the local area."; and (3). "Each public transit provider shall publish in the local newspaper of its area the productivity and performance. measures establ;i,,.hed for the year and a report provides quantitative data relative to the attainment of established productivity and performance measures." The establishment of productivity and performance measuresmust be accomplished by July 1 of each year. The Central Office ,.ants to assure that the performance measures reported by the public transit providers in the local newspaper and those used by the Department in its statewide repo.rt are: A-ll

PAGE 64

1. Fo r the same time period, 2. Use the same Section 1 5 report, and; Attachment A Page 2 of 3 3. Use the official population estimates of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida at Gainesville for population. The transit provider's fiscal year (i. e October 1, through September 30) just completed as >Jell as the prior year >Jill as the two year reporting period. The section 15 Repo rts for this period will serve as the data source for the newspaper report. The list of performance measures developed for the Department of Transportation by the University of South Florida in cooperation with the Florida Transit Association and Florida transit systems is attaehed. The central Office has established a core set of perforl(;;ince measures that must be contained in every loca l ne>Jspaper repor t (the symbol o identifies those measures in the list). The provider is required to obtain the Department's approval of the report. The District Office shall approve any report c onforming to these procedures. The transit provider's annual report to the Department, as required in Section 341.071(2), F.S., will be accomplished when the transit property provides both the . ,District and Central Offices with a copy o f the local ne>Jspaper report. A-12

PAGE 65

* Attachment A Page J of J This page left inte'ntionally blank for Page 3 of Attachment A is the Transit Performance form and is not compatible with ttie DOT Infobase. * A-13

PAGE 66

Attachment B RECIPIENT 110NITORING SITE VISIT Review all files pertaining to the recipient. Become familiar with the status of each project, fund balances, audit exceptions, Transit Development Plans etc. Note any problems that have arisen in the past. Coordinate required site visit. This monitoring visit may be coordinated with visits required.under by other Departmental procedures such a s the transit safety program or the triennial conducted by FTA staff. Schedule the visit 'lith the recipient . Try to accommodate local schedules as much as possible, but don't permit excessive delay. CHECKLIST Has 1. W hat is the status of the TOP at the time of the visit? the TOP been adopted by the policy boar d and beenendorsed MPO? by the 2 Are recommendations for service changes in the TOP being adopted? 3. Has FTA, the auditors or.the Office of the Inspector General taken exception to or disallowed any of the recipient's Section 15 data in the past? If so corrective actions have .. been taken? 4 . the RFP or 9ther instructions to auditors retained to perform the audits required by .the Sing l e Audit Act of 1984. Have the auditors been instructed to specifically test and certify that the limitations of the block grant program have been adhered to? . 5. If the of the recipient' s files revealed any problems, discuss each of those problems with the recipient. Make discussion notes as part of the documentation for the site visit. 6. At the end of the visit, ask the recipient if they have any questions about or probl ems 'lith DOT policies and procedures that they need to discuss further. If questions arise that you are unable to immediately, make the commitment to follow up quickly. A-14

PAGE 67

Attachment c INVOICE FORI'IAT ... RECIPIENT LETTERHEAD Addressed to Public Transportation Manager at District Office DATE appropriate with Chapter F.S. the Joint In accordance Participation Agreement and any supplemental Agreements bebreen the. Florida Department of. dated The Agency incurred the indebtedness listed bel01" between and (JPA Date) FOOT Number -----------.. . (Date) F OOT Job Number have incurred costs eligible for reimbursement under the public transi t b lock grant program as . -. Total Expenses Ineligible "Expenses: Total Eligible Expenses: Maximum DOT participation: Total State share of eligible .expenses incurred' to date: .Previously billed: This billing: I certify that the.aforesaid listing i s true and correct, and that all of the costs include d a r e eligible operating for e l:ii;rible public 'bus transit or loca l public .fixed-guideway p rojects, and that :the aforesai d listing doesnot include costs for labor, frlnge'benefits, depreciation or Of capital assets, and that.the amounts b illed do not exceed local revenue, and that public transit block grant funds have not been used to supplant local tax revenues made availabl e for operations in the year immediately preceding this agreement, and that any travel costs included are documented in attachments to this invoice, and that costs included in aforesaid listing were incurred during the. term of the Joint Participation Agreement dated and that where costs attributable to third party contracts or capital expenses have been billed, the Florida Department of Transportation has issued written concurrence as outlined in Sections 12.10 and 15 of the Joint Participation Agreement on A-15

PAGE 68

I certify that the aforesaid listing is true and c 'orrect. Approved District Public Trans. Date __ I certify that the Agency has complied with the provisions of this agreement. By fsf (Agency Head or Auth. Rep.) Title Date Approved as Heeting Terms of Contract District Project Manage r A-16