USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1994 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
1994 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems performance reporting investigation : final report
Portion of title:
Performance evaluation of Florida transit systems
Physical Description:
1 online resource (various pagings). : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Office of Public Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bus lines -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Bus lines -- Management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 2, 2011).
General Note:
"Prepared for the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida."
General Note:
"October 1996."

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:
aleph - 029121243
oclc - 744491541
usfldc doi - C01-00258
usfldc handle - c1.258
System ID:
SFS0032347:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1994 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Performance Reporting Investigation Prepared for The Office of Public Transp o rtation Operations Department of Transportation State of Florida By Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering Univers ity of South Florida Tampa F l orida Final Report October 1996

PAGE 2

jj

PAGE 3

Tables 1994 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Perf ormance Reportlnglnveatlgation Contents 0 v Foreword .......... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I Introdu ctio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. Flndlngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 M e tro -Dade Transit Agency ........ ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Broward County Mass Tra nsit Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Jack so nville Transportation Autho rity . . . . . . . . 11 Hillsborough Area Regional Transi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Pinellas Suncoast Translt Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Lynx ( Or1ando) . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. 20 Palm Bead! County Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Tallahassee Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Regional Transit System (Gainesville ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Volusla County dba VOTRAN . . .... . ... .... ... ....... ..... , . 30 Escambla County Area Transit .... .... .... . . . . . . . . . 33 Lee County Tra nsit ................. ...... ..... . . . . . . . . 37 Sarasota County Area Transit ...... . .... . . . . . . . . . 39 Lakeland Araa Mass Transit D i strict .......... .... . . . . . . . . 41 Manatee County Area Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Smyma T ransit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Pasco County Public T ransportatlon Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Key West Department o f Tra nsportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Spa ce Coast Area Transit (Brevard Cou nty ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 App e ndix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 Ui

PAGE 4

lv

PAGE 5

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Ta bl e 1 1 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 1 5 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 2 2 Table 23 Tables Metro-Da d e Transit Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Broward County Mass Transit Division . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Jacksonville Transportation Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Notice Published Pursuant to Florida Statute 341 071(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Pinellas Sunooast T r ansit Aut hority, 1994-1995 Annual Report -Published Advertising I nsert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Lynx (Orlando) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Palm Beach County Transportation AUthority . . . . . . . . . . 24 Tallahassee Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Regional Transit System (Gainesville) . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Volusla County dba VOTRAN . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. 32 Escambia County Area Transit, Data for Fixed-Rout e Motorbu s Service . . . . 34 Escambia County Area Transit, Data for Demand-Response Service . . . . . 36 lee County Transit . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 38 Sarasota County Area Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 lakeland Area Mass Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Manatee County Area Transit, Data for Fixed-Route Motorbus Service . . . 4 5 Manatee County Area Transit, Data for Demand-Response Service . . . . . 46 Manatee County Area Transit, Data for System T otal Service (Motorbus and Demand-Response) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Smyrna Tran sit System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Pasco County.Public Transportation Service . . . .. . . . . . . . 53 Key West Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 T abl e A-1 Performance Rev iew Indicators and M easures .......... ....... .. ... A-12 v

PAGE 7

Foreword Under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation State of Florida, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida's fixed-route systems based on data from federally required Section 15 reports, which are submitted to the Federa l Transit Administration (FTA) for each fisca l year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. Section 15 reports are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system performance because the data are standardized undergo extensive review and are the resuH of a substantial data collection and reporting process by the transit systems. Some Section 15 data are used by FTA and by states and localities for calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems As a resuH, the data are extremely i mportant to transit agencies. According to Florida Statute 341. 071(3), each public transit provider in Florida must publish a number of performance and productivity measures i n its respective l ocal area newspapers each year. For this particular task of the Performance Evaluation Study CUTR collected these newspaper articles and/or other published materials for fiscal year 1994 from each transit agency The published data were compared with data from the agencies individual Section 15 reports to determine if any differences existed between the data reported i n these two sources, and potential explanations for those differences CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each of the individual transit systems for the i r cooperation and assistance in the p r eparation of thi s report Center for Urban Transportation Researr:h University of South Florida Telephone: (813) 974-3120 Project Managers : Victoria A. Perk Joel R. Rey Project Staff: David Gillett 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

2

PAGE 9

I. Introduction Rapid growth in Florida has resuHed in increased attention to public as a potential solution to the ever-increasing transportation problems in the state. Along wHh the increased emphasis on public transit comes the necessity to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems Florida legislation requires the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) and Florida's transit systems to develop and report performance measures. Specifically, Florida Statute 341.071 (3) states: "Each public transH provider shall publish in the local newspaper of Hs area the productivity and performance measures established for the year and a report which provides quantHative 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 to be published should be collected. In addition to this statute, FOOT 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 fiscal year just completed as well as for the prior year, thus resulting in the publication of two years' worth of data in the newspaper. 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. Finally, Appendix B contains Exhibit "C" ofthe State Block Grant Program that sets forth, among other requirements, the dates by which transit agencies must comply when publishing the performance reports in a local newspaper within its area of operation. 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 1994, were collected by CUTR. The published information was compared to the data from the individual agencies' FY 1994 Section 15 reports. The effort found that 18 of the 20 public transit providers in Florida did publish an advertisement in a local newspaper detailing performance measures for at least FY 1994. Publication dates for all of the advertisements ranged from February 1995 to November 1995, with most of the transit systems publishing in May 1995. The only transit systems that did no t publish an advertisement were Palm Beach County Transportation Authority (Palm Tran) and the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail). Since Tri-Rail is not a block grant recipient, it did not need to comply with this directive. Overall, 19 of the 20 systems were included for review in this report. Tables 1 through 23 present the performance data that each transit agency published in its respective local newspaper, as well as the corresponding Section 15 data For each indicator and measure, the column labeled "Published" notes the data as it appeared in the newspaper advertisement. A ''DNP" (signifying "did not publish") was used in the cases when a system did 3

PAGE 10

not publish data for an indi cator or measure required by the specifications in FOOT's Block Grant Program. The "Section 15" column lists the figures for the same indicators and measures drawn directly from the validated FY 1993 and FY 1994 Section 15 reports. The last column in each table indic ates the difference between the published data and the Section 15 data for each indicator and m easure. Included with the table for each transit system is a brief discussion of any differences in the data and the possible sources of those differe nces. It should be pointed out that the Section 15 data were adjusted, when possible, 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 ea ch of the ind icators or measures, so it was necessary to utilize the same m o des when the comparable informat ion was extracted from the Section 15 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 cou ld be deduced from the given data. It is possible that reasonable explanations for differences in data could have been identified by meeting with agency staff However, th i s was beyond the scope of the effort. Nevertheless, in some cases, it was necessary to contact several of the systems for clarificat ion purposes. 11. Findings According to F OOT's Public Transit Block Grant Program document, systems are requi red to publish six performance indica tors five effectiveness measures. and eight efficiency measures. The specific indicators and measures are shown underlined in Table A of Appendix A. As noted previously, it was found that, of the 19 systems reviewed fo r this study, 18 of them published most if not all of the data for the required indicators and measures. FOOT also mandates that the required performance indicators and measures are report ed for two fiscal years: the most current fiscal year just completed, which for this study is FY 1994, and the previous fiscal year. All but one of the 18 systems that published advertisements complied with this requirement; Pasco County Public Transportation Service only published data for the 1994 fiscal year. Additionally, only one of the systems that published advertisements did not meet FOOT's requirement that each system report the days and hours that its service is available: Sarasota County Area Transit. Based on the compara tive analyses completed for this study, it was shown that several systems deviated from Section 15 data for the same measures For example, wh i le other data would match the Section 15 report exactly, measures such as the average age of the fleet, revenue miles per total vehicles passenger trips per capita. revenue hours per employee, and passenger trips per employee would be somewhat different. There were a number of errors and incons istencies in the published data that seemed to be common to several systems. These include: 4

PAGE 11

reporting the Incorrect indicator: for example, a few systems reported passenger fare .,:: \ ( ... revenue as operating revenue; including some combination of l ocal, state, and federal subsidies in the calculation of operating revenue; rounding differences; using 1995 i nstead of 1994 as a base year for calculating the average fleet age; utilizing different service area population estimates; utilizing different numbers of employee equivalents (FTEs) or using the number of actual employees in place of FTEs; utilizing different numbers of total vehicles or using the number of peak vehicles to represent total active fleet; and Inconsistency of modes included across all indicators and measures (as well as mixing modes in the calculation of effectiveness and efficiency measures). A few of the systems seemed to have published certain data whose origin could not be ascertained and which may have come from a source other than the Section 15 report. Overall, however, the transit systems did use their Section 15 reports as a primary source in reporting performance Indicators and measures In the newspaper advertisement for the interested general public To ensure the transH system s credibility and a better understanding of the system's performance by transH users and other I nterested citizens, consistency in the reported data across advert i sements should be encouraged. Such consistency may be achieved through the use of validated Section 15 data and standardized definHions of performance indicators and measures when pub l ishing information for the general public 5

PAGE 12

Metro-Dade Transit Agency Table 1 presents the data published in the newspaper by the Metro-Dade Transit Agency (MOTA), as well as the corresponding data from its 1994 Section 15 report. Unless otherwise noted in the table the data presented are system totals. It should also be noted that MOTA indicated in its advertisement that its published FY 1994 statistics do not include data for its paratransit broker, COM SIS Corporation. MOTA provides directly-operated motorbus (Metro bus), heavy rail (Metrorail), and automated guideway (Metromover) services. The system also contracts for motorbus and demand-response service. As required MOTA published data for both FY 1993 and FY 1994. This analysis, however, focuses on the FY 1994 data. The advertisement used in the analysis was published in the Miami Herald on March 25, 1995. With regard to the pertonnance indicators p ublished by MOTA, the primary differences occurred in the operating expense and operating revenue figures. As mentioned previously, MOTA indicated that Its paratransit broker's data were not included in the FY 1994 figures. However, the differences evidenced in these two indicators were, in fact, due to the inclusion of these particular data. The portion ($167,136) of the difference in the operating expense figure that could not be attributed to the presence of brokered paratransit data may have resuHed from the reporting of preliminary, unvalidated financial data that subsequently changed. The financial data that was utilized for Section 15 purposes was updated in June 1995, more than two months after publication of the advertisement. The other discrepancy noted among the perfonnance indicators was the negligible difference in the number of revenue miles of service reported It appears that this difference was the result of rounding error, an occurrence that also may have affected the operating revenue per operating expense ratio. This particular measure exhlbned a slight difference of 0 .06 percent. Among the effectiveness measures, the two per-capita ratios-vehicle miles per capita and passenger trips per capita-both evidenced differences between the published and the Section 15 figures. These differences appear to be due to MOTA's use of a population figure other than the service area population of 1,735,000 indicated in its Section 15 report. The operating expense per capita efficiency measure was also affected by this use of a different service area population. Based on the published data, MOTA appears to be utilizing a service area population of 2,020,145 in its FY 1994 per-capita calculations Only one of MOTA's efficiency measures (average fare per passenger trip) did not indica te a difference between published and Section 15-reported values. As would be expected, the aforementioned difference in total operating expense impacted ali three of MOTA's cost efficiency measures: operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile. The per-capita cost ratio experienced the largest difference among the three due to the additional effect of the disparate service area population figure used in the calculation of the published value. The other efficiency measures that indicated differences were revenue miles per total vehicles. revenue hours per employee, and passenger trips per employee 6

PAGE 13

In the calculation of revenue miles per total vehicles for the purpose of publication, it appears that MOTA utilized, in ad di tion t o the slightly different figure for revenue miles, a different number for total fleet vehi cles (1 ,070 vehicles, Instea d of the 1,071 reported In Section 15). Similarty, the two published labor productivity (revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee) seemingly utilized emp l oyee data that did not match any of the full-time equivalents (FTEs) or actua l person count data that was reported for Section 15 purposes. Unfortunately, the source(s) of the erroneous figures used in the calculation of these measures could not be determined. 7

PAGE 14

8 INDICATOR 1?9>1 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Paenge r Trips Revenue MIIN T ota1 Operating Elrpenae Operaling Revenue Vehidet Operated in MaxitNJm serviCe 199 4 EFF E CTIVENESS M EASURES Vetlic:le Miles per C.plla Pasa.enget Trips per Capita A'ffilg& Age of FJeel (Yean.}t Revenue Miles Between Incident$, R evenue Mile& Between Roadcclll$ HFICIIO NC'{ Mf.A.SURE S o-.,...,. pet caooa Operatilg Expense per TriP Opera&lg Expense per ReYenue Mle O peteling per Operating Expense$ Re'l'8flue Miles per Total Vehicle& Revenue Hourt per Tfil>$ per AYfll'898 Fare1 t S93 P f R FORMANCE I ND I CATO R S Rtvonut MiiN Rwoe tMes' Total Opnting Expen&e Revenue Vehieles Operated In MalCimum 5eMee 1 993 EFF ECTIVENESS MEASURE S Vehicle Miles per Capita PaaMtJger Trips per C..pita Age of FJHt (years)1 8etwMn Miles Between Roa Operating Expenae l)tt Revenue Mile Operating Revenue <>pe,.,;ng Expense' R.eYtnut Milt$ pet Tdal VehiCles ReYei'V.Ie Hours per Pass.enger Trips per Employee, AV'ti'IQC! Fare' excludes paratran&a excludes purt:hastd rnolfbus and paratranslt excludes J)Uteha$ec:l Table 1 M e tro.Oade Transit Agency PUBLISHED 82,84$,132 37,297,300 1.562.80 $205,15 1 .162 S$4.6$2;471 880 20.22 41,01 8.50 24,849 ..... $1 0 1.56 $2.48 $5.50 35.18% 34,857 82S 32,671 $0.7$ 92.9$0,566 .S,023,491 1,529.90 $218,603-. 093 S64,.280,43:J 1,212 25.96 47, 57 7.65 22,746 1,583 $112.34 02.38 $4.77 37.43% 47M7 ... 34,446 $0.68 axeludos purehOsed Metrorall. MelrOmo'Ytr 1nd exell.ldes paraftanal and hurnc:an. relaotcl purchased tnOliOfbus SECnON15 &2.&48,132 37..297.3$4 1.682.80 $188,071.636 $64,114,164 8$0 23.55 47.75 .... 24,849 1,580 $114, 1 6 $2.39 $5.31 35. 12% 34,825 8$9 33, 7 1 7 S0.75 92,950.668 45,871,491 u2s .eo $219,-503 ,093 $64.28(1,433 1.19 0 29.15 53.57 7.$$ 22,6$ 1 1.683 $126.51 $2.3& S.C. 79 37.8$% 32,21 3 .. 8 ...... $0.68 DIFFERENC E 0 _,. 0 $7,078,526 $578,307 0 .33 -6.74 0 0 0 4 12.60 so.oo $0.19 0 .06% .. ... -t,048 so 0 152,000 0 so so 22 -3.Ul ..... 0 .. 0 -$14.1 7 so -$0.02 .0.22% 15,234 0 0 so

PAGE 15

Broward County Mass Transit Division The Broward County Mass Transit Division (BCT) directly operated fixed-route motorbus service and contracted for demand-response service and additional fixed-route motorbus service during FY 1994. In ns published newspaper advertisi!ffii3nt, BCT reported FY 1993 and FY 1994 data for Its directly-operated motorbus service only. The advertisement appeared in the April 24, 1995, edition of the Miami Herald. The first discrepancy evident in the FY 1994 data involves BCT's service area population. Although it is not a requ ired indicator, BCT indicated a population estimate of 1,338,936 in a note at the bottom of Its advertisement. According to this note, BCT obtained this population from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). It is not stated in the notation, however, that this figure represents the total population of Broward County, as estimated by BEBR. The service area population reported by BCT in its FY 1994 Section 15 report was 1,337,000. The measured difference between these estimates had a slight effect on several of the per-capita measures that rely on the population variable in their calculations: vehicle miles per capita passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita. As a result of this difference each of these measures was slightly u nderreported in the published advertisement Further investig ation of the data contained in the table shows that, while BCT did utilize Section 15 data to compile Its published advertisement, the system repeated most of the miscalculations that were made in its previous advertisements that were analyzed in the first two performance reporting investigatio ns completed as part of the annual Performance Evaluation of Florida Transit Systems study. For example, in calculating total route miles, BCT again failed to Include directional route miles on controlled access right-of-way. Consequently, Instead of specifying 624.80 route miles as indicated in their Section 15 report they incorrectly reported 611 mi l es. Another repeat miscalculati()n involved operating revenue, which was published as $10,946,951. This figure was underreported since it only inc luded passenger fare revenues and special transit fares. In addition to these fare revenues, BCT's published operating revenue figure should have included the auxiliary transportation funds and non-transportation funds indicated on the Operating Funding form (Form 203) of its Section 15 report. Therefore, while the ratio of operating revenue per operating expense is correct given BCT's published operating revenue figure, the small difference of 2.42 percent when comparing the published measure to that generated from Section 15 data results from the difference in the computation of operating revenue. The final discrepancy evident in BCT's published data involved the efficiency measure, average fare per passenger trip. It was de termined that BCT utilized operating revenue in the numerator of this calculation instead of passenger fare revenue. This r esul ted in a slightly higher average fare value ($0.49) than that which was derived using BCT's Section 15 data ($0.47). 9

PAGE 16

Table 2 Broward County Mass Transit Divisio n INDICATOR 1 994 PER F ORIIIANCE INDICAT ORS ..,....,., Trips ,._MilOs R,OU(It Miles Total Operating Exptnte Operaling Revenue Vetllde s Opere:ted In MJxirnum Selvice EFF E CTIVENE S S M EASUR E S VehiCle Miles per C.pita Pa&Mfl9e' Trtps per Capita Avo,.go AQo of Fleet (years) Re..-enue Utes Between Incidents Revenue Miles Bel\wlen RoadcaftS 199.S E H I C !ENCY MEASU RES Operat!f'l9 Expenae per C&plla Operating Expense per Passenger T'*' Openrting Exl)tftM per Revenue Mile Operating Revenue pet Operating Expense pet Total Vehicles ReYervJe Hours per Employee p...._ Tript ""' Employoe Averaoe Fare 199 3 PF.RF ORMANCE I N01C A1' 0 R S PasMf19H Trips Route Miles Total Opetating Ex$1en$e Opervt!nQ Rsvenue VehiCles Opemed in Mx.imvm SetvQ 1993 EFFECTIVEN ESS MEASU RES Vehicle Mles per C apita Pusenoer T...,_ PtJ AVage Aqe ol Flee1 (years) Revenut Miles Between lnciclenta Revenue Miles Between Roadcall& 1993 E F F IC IENCY MEASURES Operating ExP8f\M per Operating Expense per Pasa.enger Trip Operating Expel\$$ per Revenue Mie Operating Revenue per Expente Revenue Mile& per Total VehieJes Rt"YeMI!t Hours per Empbfee Pauenger Tr\:15 per Average Fare 10 PUBLISHED SECTtON 15 1.3'38,83$ 1,337,000 22,270,764 22.270,764 9.087,1&0 9,087, 180 8 11.00 02A.80 $38,785,342 $38,78$,$42 $10,048,$$ 1 S11,88S.t33 167 1&7 7.38 7.$0 16.63 18.6$ 7 .80 7.60 15.070 15,070 5,289 $.2$ 0 $28 .97 sn.o t $ 1. 74 $1.74 $4.27 $4.27 28.22% 30.64% 46,3$3 48,363 ... .. o 32,$4$ 32,045 ..... $0.47 21 318,113 21,3 1 8,713 8,75$,447 8 ,759.447 611.00 62 5.30 $38,893,.078 138, 883,076 $10,69.5,876 S t 1,576, 701 1 .. 166 7..2:2 7 .35 t6.t8 18A8 ... .... 1 2 ,713 12,713 S.t80 5,180 $28.00 S2ti.S2 $1.73 St.73 $4.21 $4.21 28.99% 31.38% -42,113 ...... .,. 07$ 32.708 32,798 S0. 50 SO All 1,0>6 0 0 13.80 so -$l38,182 0 ...... so so 2.42% 0 0 0 S0.02 0 0 .30 so -$880,825 0 .13 .0.30 0 0 0 40,52 so so .39% 0 0 $0.02

PAGE 17

Jacksonville Transportation Authority Jacksonville Transportation Autho rit y's (JTA) newspaper advertisement that included performance measures for the 1993 and 1994' fiscal years was apparently published in the Florida Times Union on October 27 1995. urrfii"tllliialely, repeated attempts to acquire a copy of this advertisement proved unsuccessful. Fina l ly, however, JTA did forward a copy of most recent published newspaper advertisement, which included data for FY 1993 FY 1994, and FY 1995 for its directly-operated motorbus service This particular advertisement appeared in the Florida Times Union on June 29, 1996 Data for the directly-operated automated guideway and purchased demand-response service were omitted. Table 3 presents data obtained from the published newspaper advertisement for FY 1994 in conjunction with the c;lata from JTA s FY 1994 Section 15 report. It i s evident in Table 3 that the data in the published advertisement were taken directly from JTA's Section 15 report with only a few differences that resul ted mostly from cal culation discrepancies. The first notable difference is in operating revenue, whi ch was underreported by $55,693. It is surm i sed that this discrepancy resu lts from the presence of automated gu i deway transportation and/or non-transportation funds that could not be broken out of the system total figures presented In JTA's Section 15 report form 203. It is easier for JTA to provide a figure that actua ll y i ncludes only directly-operated motorbus data given the system's access to a complete distribution of operating funds by mode. For the measure revenue miles between incidents, JTA published a figure of 126,625 However, according to their Section 15 data, the value for this measure should have been 71,570. Since the number of revenue miles matched the Section 15 data exactly the discrepancy was believed to have resulted from the use of a different number of incidents in the calculation of this measure. Further analysis of the Section 15 incident data included on JTA s form 405 revealed that JTA utilized only collision incidents (52 total) in its calculation, rather than the figure for total incidents (92 total), which Includes both collision and non-collision occurrences. Both the passenger trips per employee and revenue hours per emp l oyee measures also indicated differences (1 678 trips and 85 hours, respectively) between the published values and those in JTA's Section 15 report. Closer examination of the system's Section 15 data determined that JTA used Its actual number of full-time employees (423) instead of the total number of FTEs (457. 7) when calcu l ating these measu r es, therefore expla i ning the differences in these measures. Fina lly, two other measures varied by insignificant amounts. Specifically, the average age of fleet measure indicated a difference of0.04 years, a variance presumably the result of rounding. In addHion, the operat i ng revenue per operating expense ratio exhibited a difference of 0 09 percent. This latte r variance can be attributed to the discrepancy I n the operat i ng revenue totals that was discussed previously. 11

PAGE 18

Tab l e 3 Jacksonville Transportation Authority INDICATOR PERfORMANCE IND ICATORS Miles Ro...te Mile$ Total Opet11ing Eltpense Vel'lielo:$ Opmtecl in Ma.xitnum Setvict 1S94 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Miles Pauenge r Trip& per Capita A....,.QO ,._ of F!Mt (yNt$} Revenue Miles Between lnc::iclenb Reve nue Miles Between Roedcal& t994 HFICirNCY ME.ASUR[S Oooming E>cpen .. .., c .... Expense per Pauenge r Trip Operating Expense pe r Reverwe Mile Reveooe per Operaling ExpenM Reenue Mllet I* Tota l Vehldes Revenue HtQ'l per Empbfee P......, Trips pe r A't81'8Qe Fate 1993 PCRF ORMANCE Pu8ef98r Tril5 Revenue Miles RouteMie s T otlll Opmeitlg Expense Opet811ng Revenue V ehicles in Maximi.ITI SeMce 1993 crrECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle t.11es per Capita Pasa.enger Trips pet C8p lta Avtf1191 AQc or Flett (yers ) Revenue Milt$ Between lncicfentt. R.ev
PAGE 19

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit The data obtained from Hillsborough Area Regional Transit's (HART) published newspaper advert i sement as well as the comparative i ri t ifftnlliioii taken directly from the system's Section 15 reports are presented in Table 4. As required, the advertisement contained data for both the 1993 and 1994 fiscal years. Mhough HART directly operated or purchased fixed-route motorbus, automated guideway, and demand-response service in FY 1994, it was determined that the system's published data were for the motorbus mode only. The newspaper advertisement was published on May 13, 1g95, and appeared in the Tampa Tribune. Despite the large number of evident discrepancies, HART's advertisement was, for the most part, developed using Section 15 data. The most notable difference occurred for total operating expense. HART published a figure of $26,274,037 for this performance indicator, an amount $3,296,442 larger than the Section 15 value of $22,977,595 This difference occurred for three reasons: first, HART utilized preliminary, unvalidated data for the published indicator (the operating expense data was updated about the time the advertisement was published); second, HART included operating expenses for all three of its modes rather than just for the directly operated motorbus mode (as it did for all other indicatorsfmeasures); and lasUy, HART included interest expense and lease and rental expenses in this figure (these reconciling items are not included when calculating total operating expense from Section 15 data for purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study). Interestingly this last reason was a repeat calculation error by HART that was also identified i n the two previous performance reporting investigations As would be expected, the discrepancy in this particular indicator also impacted the following efficiency measures: operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per revenue mile, and operating revenue per operating expense. From the data illustrated in the table, it is evident that HART's figure for vehicle miles per capita was understated in the advert i sement. Since the passenger trips per capita measure corresponded to that deriVed from Section 15 data (as did passenger trips) analysis of this measure focused on the numerator, vehicle trips rather than on the assumed population figure used in the calculation. Ultimately, it was determined that HART mistakenly used its revenue mile figure for this calculation instead of the appropriate value for vehicle miles. This was the same reason for the discrepancy in this measure in HART's last advertisement. The average age of HART's fleet was reported in the advertisement to be 9.75 years. However, according to the data in the FY 1994 Section 15 report the average age of the fleet should have been 9.71 years Analysis of the vehicle inventory data found that HART calculated the average age based on its "total" fleet, that is, all vehicles in its fleet including emergency contingency vehicles. For Performance Evaluation Study purposes, a system's average fleet age is calculated for only the "active" vehicles within the fleet (i.e all vehicles excluding emergency contingency vehicles). Therefore, HART's emergency contingency fleet of five 1983 Flxible motorbuses was the reason for the relatively negligible difference of 0.04 years between the published and the Section 15-deriVed average fleet ages. 13

PAGE 20

Similarly, the reason for the variance in the revenue miles per total vehicles efficiency measure was also related to the use of a different vehicles" definition. In the Performance Evaluation Study, the vehicles" alluded to in this ratio has always referred to the total n umber of vehicles available for maximum service (as reported by systems on Form 406 of the Section 15 report). For HART, this number equalled 167 vehicles in FY 1994. However to calculate published value for this measure, HART elected to use the number of vehicles in its fleet (174) from its Revenue Vehicle Inventory form (Form 408), which, as mentioned previously, often includes vehicles t hat are not necessarily availab le for maximum service. This is what resulted in the 1,337 -mile difference between the two measures. Finally, the measures for revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were both overreported in the published advertisement. It appears that a different value for '1otal employees," other than the number of FTEs reported in the Section 15 report, was used in these computations. In HARTs FY 1994 Section 15 report. 441.2 total FTEs were noted (as well as 438.0 actual persons). According to the published values for these two measures HART utilized a denominator of 431.0 employees in the calculation of these measures, a fig ure that does not match either the reported FTEs or HARTs actual person count. As a result, the reasons for the differences in the employee productivity measures could not be determined from the available data. 14

PAGE 21

Table 4, Hillsborough Regl9nal Transit INDICATOR r'ERFORIIIANCE IIYOICATORS Pa$$enger Trips Rewnue Mihn Route Miles Total Operating Expense Operating Revenue Vehltles Operated in Maximum SeNICe 1!19.1; EFFECT IVENESS f'IIEASURES Vetllele Mlle8 per CapJ.a Passenger Tripe per Capita Aver-898 Age of Flett (Year&) RA.V$11U8 Mlu l nticfents R.ee'lue Miles Between Roadcslls 1 9 94 EfFICIENCY M E A SU RES OperaUlg Expense per Capita Opcrttting Expense per Passenger Ttlp Operating Expense per Rewnue Mile Operating ReYenue per Operatlll(l Elq)cn:&a Reawe Miles per Total ReYerwe Hotn per Emp)oyee PMUI'I901 Trips pet Average F ate 1:'193 f'ERFORMArJCE I NDICATORS Passenger Trip& R.eYenue Miles RoUtt Miles T01a1 Operating EXpense Operating Revaooe VehiCles Operated In Maxmum Service 1993 E F FEC TIVE N ESS f'IIEASURES Vehicle Miles per Capia Passef'lger TripG pet Capita AYerage Age of Fleet (years) Revenue Miles Between Incident& ReV9nut Mles ROJdcalls 1993 CFF I CI ENCV I\IEASURES Operating Expense per C..pita Expense per PaasengEW Trip Operating Elq>ense per ReveNJe Mile Ra...enue per Operating &tpens. ReYGrwo Mile$ per Totti Vehicles Revenue Hour$ per Pauenger per EmplOyee Average Fare PUBLISHED 9,896,649 6,550,745 1,4!7. 5 0 ss.&4o,sn 137 8.&6 11.tr7 9.75 23,823 1,873 S3UO $2.65 $4,73 21.00".4 31 ,901 958 22.oe2 S0.61 9.427,128 5,28') ,670 1,45 7 .50 $21.963,395 $4,898,824 m 6.31 1 1.30 9.05 2 1 .055 2,9)1 $ 2$.3 3 .. $4.17 22.0 3% 29,7S8 1118 $0A7 SECTION 115 9,89$.649 5 ,550,745 1,-457.60 $5, $40,6Q2 10'7 7 61 11.87 9.71 23,823 1 ,87 3 $27.5 5 $2.32 $4,14 2H5% 03.238 934 22. 431 $0.51 9,427,128 5,263 ,670 1,457 .60 $20, 682,320 $4,8 98 ,824 1SS 7.15 1 1.30 a n 21,055 2.931 w n $2. 1 9 $3.9) 2S.7t% 32,898 ... 22 ,689 00.47 DIFFeRENCE 0 0 0 $3 ,296,442 $0 0 .95 0 0.04 0 0 SS.95 $0.33 $0.59 -3.56% 1.3,3:7 22 531 so 0 0 0 $ 1,301, 075 $0 0 .84 0 0.28 0 0 $U16 $() ,14 $0.24 -1.7t% -3,160 -65 -1,740 $0 15

PAGE 22

Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Pinellas SuncoastTransit Authority's (PSTA) FY 1994 data are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 presents the data f ro m the advertisement published in accordance with Florida Statute 341 .07 1(3); Table 6 includes data from an annual report distributed as an advertising insert that PSTA published separately from its Section 15 data. The published advertisement appeared in the St. Petersburg Times on September 10, 1995. Once again, PSTA used a notational method in its advertisement for differentiating between which modes were used in the calculation of each indicator and measure that caused confusion when attempting to decipher the published data for comparison to Section 15 results. An asterisk was utilized to indicate which indicators and/or measures were "system total" in nature, i.e., including data for PST A s directly-operated motorbus, directly-operated demand-response (DART), and purchased demand-response services However it was not specifoed which modes were included in those figures that did not r eceive an asterisk. As a result it was assumed that, for those figures not indica t in g an aster isk, PSTA reported data for directly-operated modes only As such, it is evident from Table 5 that almost every one of the published indicators an d measures were different from the corresponding values derived from PST A's Section 15 data. 1/Vhile i t would appear that PSTA did not utilize its Section 15 data to generate its advertisement, there are enough similarities throughout the data to indicate otherwise. Instead, it is conjectured that revisions may have been made to various Section 15 data for one or more of the modes based on the final results of FTA's validation process. This would explain the relatively late publication date of PST A's advertisement (the system's previous advertisement was published in March) If this was in deed the case, however, these revisions were not forwarded to CUTR during the validation process for the Performance Evaluation Study s trend analysis report. Among the performance in d icat ors only route miles and vehicles operated in maximum service indicated no discrepancies. Passenger trips and revenue miles both evidenced small differences; however, as discussed previously, it is assumed that these variations resulted from data revisions since no other reasons for them could be identified. The published figure for system total operating expense also differed somewhat from PST A's Section 15 report. It was determined that the $184,664 difference was the result of the inclusion of $13,566 for lease and rental expenses {as mentioned previously, reconciling items are not included in the calculation of total operating expense) and $171 098 for a final payment to a purchased transportation service contract that expired the previous fiScal year. Due to this disparity, all three of PST A's cost efficiency measures (operating expense per capita operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile) also exhibited slight variances The differences evident for the per-trip and per-mile cost efficiency ratios were further exacerbated by the aforementioned differences in those two indica tors, as well. The most significant disparity evident in the performance ind i cators is the considerable difference in operating revenue. In analyzing PSTA's FY 1994 Section 15 data, it is apparent that the 16

PAGE 23

system utilized this data to compute the published operating revenue figure; however, local subsidy, as well as state and federal also included In the total. In this case, strictly-defined operating revenue for PST A's modes, as determined from the Section 15 report, should have been $4 973,271. This discrepancy (along with the difference in total operat ing expense), in tum, affected the operating revenue per operating expense measure, which also differed significantly: 104.00 percent (published) versus 20.00 percent (Section 15). The apparent changes in PST A's basi c operating statistics (i.e., passenger trips, vehicle miles, and revenue miles) also impacted most of the system's effectiveness measures. Vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, revenue miles between incidents, and revenue miles between roadcalls all evidenced differences between published and Section 15 values due to disparate operating data. It was even determined that the number of incidents and roadcalls used in two of the published effectiveness measures were also different from the corresponding values re ported in PSTA's Section 15 report since the revenue mile discrepancy did not completely account for the overall differences in these measures. The difference between the average age of the fleet reported in the advertisement and that calculated using Section 15 vehicle inventory data was 1.15 years. Similar to HART, PSTA calculated average age for its 'total" fleet (all vehicles in fleet including emergency contingency vehicles), instead of calculating it for only the "act ive" fleet vehicles (excluding emergency contingency vehicles). This methodological change was responsible for 0 15 years of the difference In average fleet age. The remaining 1.00 year of difference probably was the result of PST A using 1995 as a base year to calculate its publis hed average age figure since 1995was the year during which the advertisement was published Utilizing 1995 instead of 1994 as a base year would result in an older fleet by this indicated difference. Efficiency measures affected by the various changes in PSTA's operating statistics included revenue miles per total vehicles, revenue hours per employee, passenger trips per employee, and average fare per passenger trip. The differences in the two employee pro ductivity measures were also influenced by PST A's use of actual person counts (464 0) in its calculations instead of the utilization of FTEs (434.3). Finally, while the published average fare only varied from the Section 15 value by $0.01, it was determined that PSTA inc lude d purchased demand-response passenger trips in the denominator of this ratio, even though It did not appear that the numerator (fare revenue) contained purchased DART data and thi s particular measure did not have an asterisk to indicate that i t should have been a system total calculation 17

PAGE 24

Table 5 Pinellas Suncont Transit Authority Notice Published Pursuant to Florida Statute 341 .07 1 (3) ,_.,.TOR !994 PfRFQRMANCF INDICATORS Revenue Miles RouteTotal Operating ExponM1 Operatii"'Q Revenue ()sleraled., Mlxi1vn Setvlce 1911-.4 F,1[J..S'JR(S v.ta MIJel; per .._ .... per"'' e.....n Re\lenue Miles Between Rolldcall 1994 rFFI CIENCY FI1EASIJRES Operating E:q>ens.e per Capic.a' Elq:lenae per P.UIInQir Trip' Opet'lltlng Expense per Mill' 0-... 0-lino& ..... Aewnue Mles per Tctal \lehlcAn' Rlwn.le Hcua ,._UI1981 Tr11& per l1.,.. """"*' F.e 1')'11 INDICATORS P .. aenger Tripi' Ali'ftl'lue Miles' Route Miles Total Operating &pente' 0--\WIIc:ln Operated i1 Mui'num EH[CTIVn
PAGE 25

Table 6 presents data from an annual report published by PSTA as an advertising i nsert. While similar in overall format this insert two previous annual report inserts in that less system total data were provided. The previous inserts Included informa tion on PST A's ridership, revenue miles of service, total operating expense, operating revenue, employees, and vehicle fleet size. The most recent insert only presented trend data for PST A's ridership and federal operating assistance, and FY 1995 data on PSTA's total operaling expense and operating revenue. It was assumed that the FY 1995 data was preliminary in nature since the insert appeared in the newspaper prior to PST A's submittal of its FY 1995 Seclion 15 report to FTA for validation. The two items of information shown in the table below were the only data included in the insert specifically for the 1994 fiscal year. AHhough the published federal operating assistance figure exactly matched the corresponding Section 15 data, the reported passenger trip value may have originated from a source other than PSTA's FY 1994 Section 15 report due to the evident discrepancy in this performance indicator. Interestingly, similar to the case for the FY 1993 data that PSTA reported in its last advertisement and annual report insert, the passenger trip figure included In the current insert did not match the value published by PSTA in its actual performance measure advertisement Once again, it is surprising to find that PSTA has chosen to continue to publish seemingly disparate data, especially given the confusion that this practice can ultimately cause among Interested county residents. Table 6 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority 1994-1995 Annual Report Published Advertising Insert INDICATOR 1994 P E RFOiH/IANCE INDICATORS Paasenger Ttfps Operating A$$i$1ai'ICO PUBUSHI!D 7,950 ,075 $3,040 .000 SECTtON1S 8,2?2 503 $3,040,000 DIFFERENCE .-322,428 .., 19

PAGE 26

LYNX (Orlando) Table 7 presents the data from th e FY 1994 published newspaper advertisement and corresponding Section 1 5 data for LYNX in Orlando Unless otherwise noted in the table, LYNX reported system tota l figures fo r i ts directly-operated motorbus, purchased demand-response and purchased van pool services. Based on the paucity of discrepancies present among the FY 1994 indicators and measures, it was sunnised that LYNX s data were strictly Section 1 5-based. LYNX's newspaper advertisement appeared in the April 29, 1995 issue of the Orlando Sentinel. The only discrepancy evident among the perfonnance indicators w as the $15,975,038 difference between the published figure for operating revenue and that which was derived from L YNX's Section 15 data. Like PSTA it was apparent that LYNX added local state and federal subsidies to its actual operating revenue to arrive at a figure of $27,787 ,639. According to FY 1994 Section 15 data, operating revenue should have equalled $11, 812 601. The discrepancy in this indicator also impacted the efficiency measure, operating revenue per operating expense LYNX published this ratio as 100 percent in its advertisement while the value derived using the Section 15-based operating revenue figure was calcu l ated to be 42.51 percent. LYNX's published average age for its veh i cle fleet was also found to differ somewhat from the average age value generated using the system s veh i cle inventory in fonnation (Fonn 408) in its Section 15 report The advertisement reported an average age of 6 50 years for the directly operated motorbus fleet, while the Section 15 data for th i s measure ind icated a sl ightly higher average age of 6.65 years. It could not be detennined how the published average age of 6.50 years was calculated; therefo re, no explanation could be identified for the difference As with some of the previous transit systems, LYNX's two employee product i vity efficiency measures (reve nue hours per employee and passe nger trips per employee) exhibited differe nces between the published and Section 15 -derive d data. In LYNX's case, both measures were understated. Analysis of the published passenger trips per employee ratio found that LYNX utilized its actual person count (525 0) in its calculation instead of total FTEs (439 5). However, the discrepancy in the revenue ho urs per emp l oyee ratio could not be deciphered as easily If LYNX used act ual person count in the calculation of its publ i shed revenue hours per emp l oyee ratio then the revenue hour figure used in the calculation was different than that reported for Section 15 purposes (802,200 versus 7 16,039 respectively) Conversely, if the revenue hour figu r es wer e the same (which would be expected since the other published operating statistics, passenger trips and reven ue miles were iden tica l to t he Section 15 data), then that would mean LYNX used a complete l y different number of employees (468 6) than either actual person count or FTEs. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the revenue hours statistic is not among the perfonnance i ndicators required for publication i t was not possible to pinpoint the exact reason for the discrepancy in the r evenue hours per employee ratio Finally, negligible differences were evident in the passenger trips per capita and average fa r e measures. It was concluded that these small variances were t he result of rounding differences 20

PAGE 27

INDICATOR 199.: P.ERFOKIMNC INDICATORS Trips Revenue Mtes Route Total Opera:l!n!J E)(pense Opert!ing Rtvenloll8 V.hicle& Opemgd In MaxCoom Scwice' 199.; EFFECTIVT:NESS M EASURES VetlleloMZesperc.pita Passenger Tt1:1s per Capila Average AQe of F leet (years)' Revenue folies ae.wEI8fl inckfenU 1 R evenue "'es Beffleen Roacleats1 EFFICIENCY M E ASURES O petafir!g ecpense per Capla Opefating &pense pes P8$$el'lge r Tflp Operati'lg ExP9n&e per Mile Opera&ng Asvenue per Expense Re'lenue Miles per Total Vehleles' Revtnue Hours por Etnployee PJssenger Tfl>s per Empb/H Average Fare \'J<)l PF.R.f0RI.1ANCE INDICATORS Passenger Tr l,ps Revt n ueMiles Route MiltS t Total Operating Expense Vehide$ Opera!Od' In Ma.xinV.Im ServiCe 1!133 EFFECTIVEN"ESS UlEASUR!!S Milt< .., Capfla Passengez Trips per Capla Average AQe Of Fleet (years)' Mile$ Between ltlddents' Revenu e Miles Between RoBdcal:ls' 1!t'J 3 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Operating per Pas-senger Trip Operatif'l!il ElqlenM per Mile Operating Raven ue per OJ)erating'Ex:pon$0 Revenue Milts per Total Vehicles' Revenue Hou r s per Empl.(l'}H Passe.,. TriPS per Employee Avetage Fara1 1 r.clodea da.\a for motorbus only Tabl e 7 LYNX (Orlando) 12,.458,471 11,776 ,441 653 .0 $27,187 ,6l9 $27 787,$39 13M 11.10 10.!0 6.50 25,12:4 5 ,478 $23.39 $2.36 100.00% 43, 621 1,528 23,730 $0.52 11,142, 317 s ns,s3s 609.00 $2 1 ,90:.909 $21,902.938 113 9 .00 9 .60 8 .40 28,691 5,798 $18.$2 $ 1.87 $2 .5 0 100.00% 4<,030 1,513 25,87 .. $0.48 SECTION (5 12. 45$,471 1 1,776,441 $27 787,631 $11 812,60 1 136.0 1 1 .10 10.49 6.65 25,12.4 5.478 $23..3.\'1 $2.23 $2.36 .C2.S1% 43 ,621 1.629 28,347 $0.51 11,142,317 9,086 630 $0$.00 $21 ,802.9S9 $7, 107 322 113 9 0 $ 8 .58 7.87 30,239 6,109 $18 .82 $1.97 $2 41 32.A5% 46.75$ 29,337 $0.4$ DIFFERENCE 0 0 0 $0 $15. 975,038 0 0 0.01 -0.15 0 0 so $0 $0 57.<19% 0 -4,977 $0.01 0 -311,29$ 0 $0 $14,79$,617 0 ..0.05 0.02 0.5S -1,$48 -313 $0 $0 $0.09 61.56% -2.125 \6 ,66) $0 21

PAGE 28

Palm Beach County Transportation Authority The Palm Beach County Transportation Authority (Palm Tran) did not publish a newspaper advertisement in ac:c:ordance with Florida Statute 341.071 (3) for Hs FY 1994 indicators and mea sures. Instead, Palm Tran staff indicated that the system planned to include both the requir ed FY 1994 information and Hs FY 1995 data in an advertisement that would be published at a later date. Palm Tran, however, did forward its data works heet upon which t he advertisement was supposed to be based, which included its calculations for all of the required FY 1994 data This, then, is the data that is included in Table 8 in the "published" column; it represents Palm Tran's motorbus service. The published FY 1993 data in the table were obta ined from Palm Tran's p revio us published advertiseme nt, which was analyzed in the last performance reporting investigation. Unlike Palm Tran's previous advertisements which utilized certain data from the Florida TransH Management Inc Report of Operations, it is clear from the provided worksheet that the statistics Palm Tran plans to eventually publish for FY 1994 were obtained directly from Section 15 data The only notable difference involved the service area population figure utilized in the per-capita measures. Palm Tran used a 1994 MPO population estimate of 937,190 in Its worksheet (perhaps an estimate oftotal county population), even though the service area population figure in its FY 1994 Section 15 report totalled 869,633. This difference affected three measures: vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capHa, and operating expense per capita. The higher population from the worksheet data resulted in the underreporting of these particular measures. Of the six performance indicators, only the operating revenue figure indica ted any difference between Palm Tran's worksheet value and that In its Section 15 report. The discrepancy of $138 was found to be due to Palm Tran including passenger fare revenue for its demand-response mode in Hs reported operating revenue total. This fare revenue was retained by the purchased provider of this service and should not have been included, especially since the data were supposed to reflect Palm Tran's directly-operated motorbus mode only. As a result of the difference in this indicator the operating revenue per operating expense ratio also exhibited a minor variance between the worksheet and Section 15-derived values Besides the per-capita measures discussed p reviously, the only other effectiveness measure that indicated any variance between the worksheet and Section 15 figures was average age of fleet. The majority of the difference shown in Table 8 for this measure was the result of Palm Tran calculating average age for i ts '1otal" fleet (all vehicles in fleet including emergency contingency vehicles), instead of calculating H for only the "active" vehicles wHhin its fleet (e xcl u ding emergency contingency vehicles and other inactive vehicles). Based on the vehicle inventory information in Palm Tran's Section 15 report, the average age for the '1otal" fleet equalled 7.94 years. Since Palm Tran indicated an average age of 8.00 years in its worksheet, it is anticipated that the remaining difference of 0.06 years was due to rounding. 22

PAGE 29

Interestingly, despite the worksheet data matching the Section 15 data exactly for total operating expense, passenger trips, and revenue efficiency measures based on these particular Indicators (operating expense per passenger trip and operating expense per revenue mile) Indicated somewhat significant differences. The analysis of these two measures determined that, in both cases, Palm Tran utilized an altered operating expense figure (referred to as "net operating expense" in the worksheet) in its calculat i ons. Basically, Pal m Tran subtracted ijs operating revenue from its total operating expense (thereby resulting in a "nef' operating expense) prior to dividing by eHher passenger trips or revenue miles, In effect by removing operating revenue, Palm Tran was calculating the subsidized cost per trip and per mile for serv ice Fina lly, the remaining variances evident in Palm Tran's worksheet data included revenue hours per employee passenger trips per employee, and average fare per passenger trip. The differences evident in the two employee productivity measures were impacted by Palm Tran's use of actual person counts (179.0) in its ca lcu lations in stead of FTEs (158 5) The difference noted in average fare was the result of Palm Tran including $242 949 of special transit fares in the passenger fare revenue po rt ion of the calculation. 23

PAGE 30

Table 8 Palm Beach County Transportation Authority INDICATOR W9.: P(RFORMANCE INDICATORS Rtvtnl't Mile$ ........... Total Operating Expen&e 0.,.,...,. .......... Vehldes Opetatect 6'1 Maximum Service 15"94 EHI:CTIVENESS MEASURES VeNcle Mll8a per Capita Pau.enger Trip& per Capita Aver&ge AQe of Fitet (YeaB} Rwenut Miles Oot.ertn lnci:lonts Re\ottlue Mills Betwetn EFFICIENCY MEASURES 0--per capita Ew'PtMO per Passenget Expense per Mit Operalfng Revenue per Operating Expense R tvenut Milas per Total Vehicles Revenue Hour$ per Employee PU:senger TriPS pe.r Emi)IO')'.e Avtnge F 1,93 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Passenoer Trips Revenue Mile& ..... To&al Opef'8t!ng Expena.e 0--Vehldes Operated ., MaXmum Service 1 993 Ef-FECTIVENESS MEASURES Velllde Miles pet Ca9itl Trtps per Age of Fieet {YN"S) Rewnue MIM Between lf'ICicMnts Rev.nue Miltt Be1ween Roa
PAGE 31

Tallahassee Transit Tallahassee Transit (TALTRAN) provided data for both FY 1993 and FY 1994, as required, in its newspaper advertisement that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat on October 16, 1995. In Table 9, TALTRAN's published data is presented, along with corresponding data compiled from the system's FY 1994 Section 15 report. In a note at the bottom of its advertisement, TAL TRAN indicated that the published data was for its "basic system only." As was the case in the last performance reporting investigation this terminology was found to refer solely to TAL TRAN's directly-operated motorbus service. In the last investigation, TALTRAN's published FY 1993 data reflected 16 discrepancies among the 19 total indicators and measures when compared to Section 15 data In its most current advertisement, TAL TRAN not only did a much better job In reporting the necessary FY 1994 data (only seven variances were evident), the system also elected to report revised FY 1993 figures that were more in line with that fiscal year's Section 15 data. As a result, only one notable difference was evident among the updated FY 1993 data in the advertisement. Analysis of the FY 1994 data found that TAL TRAN's only published performance indicator that differed from its corresponding Section 15-reported value was operating revenue. Similar to the case for Palm Tran, it was determined that the $2,133 difference in this indicator resulted from the inclusion of fare revenue that was retained by TAL TRAN's purchased demand-response service provider (despite the fact that the published data were supposed to reflect TAL TRAN's directly-operated motorbus mode only). As a resuH of the difference in this indicator, the operating revenue per operating expense ratio also indicated a slight variance between the published and Section 15-derived values. In the effectiveness measure category, both average age of fleet and revenue miles between roadcalls exhibited negligible differences when compared to Section 15 data. It was assumed that these insignificant variances were the result of rounding error since no other reason for the differences could be Identified. Similarly, rounding also appeared to be the cause of the $0.01 difference in the operating expense per revenue mile measure, especially since the two published performance indicators used to calculate this ratio matched the Section 15 data exactly. The l argest discrepancy among the cost efficiency measures occurred for the operating expense per capita ratio Since the value published for operating expense coincided precisely with Section 15 data, only the service area population figure used in the ratio's calculation could have caused the variance. However, TAL TRAN's two other per-capita measures (vehicle miles per capita and passenger trips per capita) were identical to their Section 15-based counterparts. Therefore, it is not clear why the discrepancy in this particular measure occurred. It is evident In Table 9 that TAL TRAN's revenue miles per total vehicles measure differed from the corresponding Section 15 ratio by 8,382 miles, a relatively significant amount. The reason 25

PAGE 32

for the variance in this measure was that TAL TRAN used the number of vehicles operated in maximum service (42) to represent "total vehicles" in the calculation. For purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study the '1otal vehicles" portion ofthis ratio should have utilized the total number of vehicles available for maximum service (as reported on Form 406). For TALTRAN, this number equalled 55 veh i cles in FY 1994 Finally, TALTRAN reported an average fare per passenger trip ratio of $0.53 in Hs advertisement. Utilizing Section 15 data, this measure was calculated to be $0.51 by dividing total passenge r fare revenues by total passenger trips for the motorbus mode. S i nce the passenger trip figure was identical for both the published and the Section 15-reported data it can only be assumed that a different fare revenue figure was used in the calcu l ation. However, this could not be verified with the available i nformation. 26

PAGE 33

lHOICATOR 19!f.ll INDICATORS Passenger Trips Revenue Mles Rollte Miles TCW Operoting ExPense OperMil g Revenu e Vet'Dc:tes Operaled in M.ximum se.vaoe 1994 r:FF(CTIVCNESS MEASURES Verifde Miles per Caplla Passenger Trips per Capita A"'r>ge Age Of FTeel (Yfi!IS) Revetllle MileS Between lneident:s Revenue Miles Between Roadcalls 1994 EFfiCI ENCY Mt:ASURES Opera1lng Expense per C8pl1a Opemilg Expense per Pasaenser T'*' Operating Expense pet Revenue Mile Opeta&lg Revenue per Operating Expense Rewlnue Mlos per Total Veh icle:; ReYenue Hotn per Empklvee Passenger Trips per Etnp loyeo Avsrt9t Fare PERFORMANCE IN DICATORS Passenger Tri ps Wes Route Miles Tout ()peratlrQ Expense Operating Revenue Vehicles Opet#IOd in Ma>Omum setviee 1993 EFFECTIVENESS Vehidc Mile$ per Cilpita PatMn91M Trips per C#p)la Average AQe of Fleet (years) RtYen ue Miles Botween lnti:lenu A.ewnue Miles Between Roattca'J6 1993 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Operating Eltpense por c Opefaling Expense per Passenger T rip Operatlns Eiqlocna. per Revenue Mile 09eratlng Revenue per Operating Expente RevenuCJ Mile$ per TCW VetideS Rovom.a& Hour$ pe r mslloyee Pa&.&tl'9$r TriP$ per EmplOyee Average Fare Table 9 Tallahassee 'rransit PUBUSHED 3 62$,002 1,489,300 196,20 t8,04S.304 $1,855, 80 8 42 11.88 23.37 30 3.5,460 2.707 $45.64 $1 71 $4 .05 31,00% 3.5,460 974 28,57t $0.53 3.629,310 1,486 ,826 195.20 $$ 130,200 $1,777,900 42 12.02 27.49 1 1.30 32,300 2,380 uuo $1.68 S3.8G 3 1.00% 35,377 1131 27,620 SOA8 SECTION16 3,628,002 1,489,SOO 195.20 $6,04 3,304 $1, 853,675 42 1 1.88 26.37 8.34 3.5,480 2,708 $45.19 $1.71 $4.06 30.67% 27,076 974 26,57 1 $0. 51 3,629,310 1 ,485,825 19S.20 $5,730,200 $1,777,90() 41 1 2.02 27..49 11.20 32,301 2,381 S4MO $1.56 $3.86 31.03% 30,955 8\'11 27.&20 $0.4 8 DIFFERENCE 0 0 0 $0 $2, 133 .0.04 1 $0,45 $0 -$0.01 0 .33% 8,382 0 $0.02 0 0 .. .. 1 0 0 0.1 so so .Q,03% 4,422 0 "' 27

PAGE 34

Regional Transit System (Gai nesville) For the 1993 fiscal year, Gainesville's Regional System (RTS) did not comply with the perfonnance measure reporting requ ireme nt; therefore, no published advertisement was available for analysis in the last perfonnance reporting investigation. The lack of compliance was primarily due to problems with staffing and, according to RTS, to the seemingly inordinate amount of time it took for the system to receive concurrence from FTA on ns Section 15 data. In order to prevent a reoccurrence of this situation and ensure RTS's compliance wnh Florida Statute 341.071(3), FOOT's Public Transit Office requested that CUTR compile for RTS the necessary indicators and measure s for FY 1993 and FY 1994. CUTR accommodated this request using RTS's Section 15 directly-operated motorbus data for those particular fiscal years This infonnation was ultimately included in a newspape r advertisement that was published in The Gainesville Sun on October 28, 1995. According to the published figures and Section 15 data presented in Table 10, there were only four discrepancies evident in RTS's reported data for FY 1994. Two of these were the result of changes in the data that were provided to RTS prior to their publication. Based on RTS's FY 1994 Section 15 report, total operating expense should have been $3,521,432 and operating reve nue should have been $1,935,203. However, the published figures for these two perfonnance indicators actually matched the FY 1993 values. This repetition of data for these indicators may have occurred when the body of the advertisement was developed and been accidental in nature, especially s ince the subsequent measures utilizing either or both of the indicators were not repeated as well. However, it is also possible that the duplication was done purposefully in order to maintain consistency among all of the perfonnance indicators since passenger trips and revenue miles did not change between FY 1993 and FY 1994 (due toRTS's Passenger Mile Sampling Waiver). Therefore, RTS would not have to answer questions a bout ris ing operating costs additional service or ridership. The remaining two discrepancies in the p ub lishe d data (indicated in the table by "nla") were strictly t he fau lt of CUTR staff. First the number of route miles was mistakenly prov ided to RTS as 266,900 miles. The value for th is i n dicato r should have been 266.90. Apparently, the route mileage figure was somehow inflated by a factor of 1000 before being in cluded in the data spreadsheet that was fina lly provided to RTS. Second, the labor productivity measure, passenger trips per employee, was completely omitted from the data spreadsheet sent to RTS. Unfortunately, nenher of these oversights were caught by CUTR or RTS prior to the final publication of the system's advertisement. 28

PAGE 35

Tab le. 1 0 Regional Tra'niiil (Gaines vi lle) INDICATOR 1$14 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Population Pau.enge r Tr1p s Revenue Milt$ Route Total O perating Expense O perating v.hidel Opera4ed in Maximum SeMele 19"94 EFFEC TIVE NESS MEASURES Vefllele M iles pe r Capi&a Passenger Trips per Average Ago or Fleet (YtJt$) R.evtnue Mit& Bttw9an lneid'ents Revenu e Miles Between Rofdeal$ EFF I CI ENCY MEASUR ES Operating Expense per Capha Opera6ng Expet\Sot pe r Poassongc u Trip o,traling Expense per Revei'IJe Mile Opelatlf'l$l Reveooe per Operalfng etpense Revenue Miles per Tal Vehide$ HOW$ pet Emplo;'ee Pasaenger Trips per Etllllovee Aver"9itff!ll'e PER.FOHMA N CE INDICATORS Pop ulatlon Pasaen fi'e' Trips Revenu e Miles Routo M ile$ Tota l Operating Operaling Rovenuc V
PAGE 36

Volusia County dba VOTRAN Table 11 illus t rates the data for Volusia County dba VOTRAN. It is evident that the i ndicators and measures published in VOTRAN's newspaper advertisement were i ndeed compiled from i ts FY 1994 Section 15 report, as was indi cated in the advertisement's notation for the data s source. This notation also indicated that the reported information was for VOTRAN's d i rectly operated motorbus service only, although it also d i rectly operated as well as purchased demand response service during the 1994 fiscal year. The published advertisement appeared in The News-Journal on May 26, 1995. The first published performance i ndicator that differed from the Section 15 data was route miles The negligible differe n ce of 0.40 miles was probably the result of rounding since VOTRAN published this indicato r as "275," without including any tenths of m i les. Similarly, rounding and the abbrev i ated use of decimal places appeared to be the cause of the 0.03 difference in the passenger trips per capita measure especially since the published passenger trips and populat i on used to calculate this ratio exactly matched the Sect i on 15 data. VOTRAN reported this effectiveness measure as "8 .1" in its advertisement while the Section 15 data resu l ted in a value of 8.13 Two other performance indicators also indicated diffe r ences when compared t o Section 15 data : total operating expense and operating revenue. In the case of operating expense, i t was determined that VOTRAN i ncluded the expendi t ures for Hs purchased demand-response service ($265,875) in the total despite the fact that the published data were noted to include motorbus data only. Meanwhi l e, the publ i shed operating revenue was i n flated due to VOTRAN including federa l state, and loca l subsidies in the figure, just as some of the previously-reviewed transit systems did. As mentioned in these previous cases, operating revenue as collected for the Performance Evaluation Study, does not i nclude these subsidies As a resul t of the discrepancies i n these two indicators, the published measures for operating expense pe r operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per revenue mile, and operating revenue per operating expense all exhibHed varying differences. For average age of fleet, VOTRAN pub l ished a figure of "1 0.9" years The average fleet age calculated using Section 15 veh i cle I nventory data was 9.94 years, thereby r esulting in a difference of 0 96 years It i s believed that this difference would have actually been 1.00 year if not for VOTRAN rounding off the decima l places for published value If the difference was i ndeed one year, then th i s would mean that it was the resul t of VO T RAN us ing 1995 as a base year to calculate its published average age figure-a plausib l e find ing since 1995 was the year during which the advertisement was published. VOTRAN's revenue mi l es per total vehicles measure differed significantly from the corresponding Section 1 5 value, as shown in the table Ana l ysis of this particular measure found that the significant d i fference was due to VOTRAN using the number of veh i cles operated In maximum service (28) to represent "total vehicles" in the calculation. I t has been discussed p r eviously in 30

PAGE 37

this report that the total number of vehicles available for maximum service (as reported on Form 406) should be used to represent the portion of this ratio. According to VOTRAN's Section 15 report, the system had 37 vehicles available for maximum service in FY 1994. It Is interesting to note that this same prob lem was identified in VOTRAN's last two published advertisements. Although the revenue hours per employee measure did not evidence any variance, passenger trips per employee differed from its corresponding Section 15-derived value by seven trips. This negligible difference was attributed to rounding, specifically to the rounding of the number of employee FTEs that was utilized in the calculation VOTRAN's Section 15 employee data indicated a total of 106.7 FTEs. However, the advertisement reported a value of"107" employee equivalents, thereby lead ing to the slightly different result for passenger trips per employee. Apparently, this difference of 0.3 FTEs was too small to affect the revenue hours per employee measure. Finally, VOTRAN reported an average fare per passenger trip ratio of $0.28 in its advertisement. Using Section 15 data to calculate th is measure resuHed in an average fare value of $0.30 for the motorbus mode. Since the number of passenger trips was the same for both the published and the Section 15-reported data, the difference must have been due to the passenger fare revenue figure used in the calculation. VOTRAN directly operated both motorbus and demand response m odes in FY 1994; therefore, i t is expected thatthe total passenger fare revenue figure for directly-operated service reported on Form 203 of its Section 15 report included collected fare revenue for both modes, VOTRAN probably utilized an appropriate fare revenue value that included only its motorbus mode in its published ratio. However, this breakdown was not available In the Section 15 report, thereby causing the Section 15 average fare ratio to be slightly higher. 31

PAGE 38

Table 11 Volusia County dba VOTRAN 1"1"4 PfRr;ORMANCE -:190 .... ....... 0 Pauenger Tttps 3 ,17S,OM 3,113,0i6 0 ReY_.,.Mile$ 1 584,834 1,56.C,834 0 --275.00 275.40 -0. 40 T CUll Clf*atlng Expenae $5,440,187 $5,174,792 1265,87& Ope--$5 440 117 S\.518 ,437 u.e= Vthi:::les Oper81ed 1r1 Malliftlm s.va 28 28 0 1'io9J [HECT!VE:NESS MEf.oS'JAf S Vthii:it Mia per c-. .... .... 0 T ..... 8.10 ... .0.00 A_._oiF .... &o*t) ..... U4 .. .. Min Between lndlllntl 156,4M ...... 0 Revenue Miles Bebween Rolck:li .. $,818 5,816 0 1'J'H EFFICIENCY r,\EAS URES o,...llnQ ex.,... ""' Caolla StU$ $13. 27 so.ee Opet'ttinO EXpense per Pasle"'Ot T"' 1 1.7 1 $1 .83 $0,08 OPttllir'IO EXpense per Mill '""" S3 .3t $(1 1 7 ()pn;lr'IQ Revenue per Oil rir-.; Ellpente 100.00% 2i.:W% 70 11% Mia per Teot VehiQia $$.NO 42,2$7 t3,$1S Holn pW & .... ... 1 ,032 ,...., 0 ........., Ti'td per En"*',_ 29.745 ... ,.,. 1 Fae = $4.30 S0.02 1991 PfRFORMANCE INDICATORS --300, ... 197,298 1t2,7U PUMnoet Trtps 3,.247,410 3,247,410 0 Revenue Mia& 1 91.129 1,49 1,129 0 Route Miles 275.00 215.40 0 ,40 TOOOIO--$4 ,220 108 U t55. ttt $2$4,117 0--$4.220.108 1 1.$43.283 1:2.,171,&23 \1t!h1ciN h Miutituft Sttwb .. .. 0 ........ .... 1.tl8 ..... Pala.nger Trips. per ... ...... .e.te 01 fleet ('fen) .... 8 .85 o., M Miles Between tnci!Mntl 298,226 4,6$6 Miles BetwMn R.ol 057 40.301 ..... Reotenl.le Hc:u1 I* Ernc>IOJ'M 1 1S1 1,131 1 $3,121 33 \7'2 .. All8tii!Jit Fare JO.zt S0.2t .. 32

PAGE 39

Escambia County Area Transit Escambia County Area TransH (ECAT) reported FY 1993 and FY 1994 data for its directly operated motorbus and purchased demand-response services in Its newspaper advertisement. The modal data were presented separately within the advertisement. The indicators and measures for ECAT's fixed-route motorbus service are presented in Table 12; Table 13 illustrates the demand-response data. The advertisement appeared in the Pensacola News Journal on February 23, 1995. It is evident that the published data for the motorbus mode were based on ECA T's FY 1994 Section 15 report. Only one data item seemed .to come from a different source: service area population. 1/Vhile this particular indicator did not appear in ECA T's advertisement and is not required for pub lication it is utilized in the calculation of three of the required measures (vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita). Based on ECAT's published per-capita ratios, It was determined that the system used 270,000 as its population value (perhaps a representing total county population) According to Section 15 data, however, ECAT's service area population should have been 200,000. This d ifference i n population resulted in a significant underreporting of all three per-capita measures. Further, it should be noted that the variance in the vehicle miles per capita measure was also affected by the fact that ECAT mistakenly used revenue miles in the calculation instead of vehicle miles. One of the three reported performance indicators that differed from ECA T's Section 15 data was route mlles. Total route mileage was published as 245 mi les ; the Section 15 figure equalled 244.7 miles. It would appear, then, that ECAT rounded up Hs route mileage for purposes of Hs advertisement. The other two published performance indicators that indicated discrepancies were total operating expense and operating revenue. Analysis of the operating expense indicator found that ECAT included operating costs for its purchased demand-response mode ($229,259) in the total, even though this portion of the advertisement was only supposed to include motorbus data. In the case of operating revenue, as it has done in Its previous two advertisements, ECAT reported its passenger fare revenue instead of its total operating revenue The system did not add in auxiliary transportation revenue or non-transportation revenue, which are both included in operating revenue for purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study. As a resuH of these discrepancies, the published measures for operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per revenue mile, and operating revenue per operating expense also exhibited varying differences. In addition, the operating expense discrepancy further exacerbated the variance evident for the operating expense per capita measure which was also impacted by the population problem discussed previously. The last two differences evident between published and Section 15 data involved the employee productivity measures, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee. It was determined from the data that these differences were due to ECA T's use of actual person counts {68.0) in its calculations instead of total FTEs (60.2}. 33

PAGE 40

Table12 Eseambla County Aru Transit Data for Fixed-Route Motorbus Service 19'!.1 PERFO>W:ANCE INDICA TORS Pet.tenget Milt$ ........... T 0181 Opetttlng &penae 0pefatir11 ()per'md .. Maxirun s.Mce Vehicle ll8es pet C1J*1 ,__ Tq,o ""eapoa AWf'IQe til FJeoet S.:Mtl lrldMntl Mile& Betw...., r:to.dc.IIJ 199 EFFICIENCY To1EASURFS ()pera1ing ExpenM per Cpill per PJ$1t"'"r Trip Expense per Rev.n1111 Mile 0-... Rtenue Miles pet T 0111 VOI'i:ltt Hc:us pet Eu4*t)W Pt&ll'llgell TI'\)S pet EinpAQ:f ... Awnge Fate 199) PERFORMANCE IND ICATORS PaMI'I!ger Tr1:16 Rtvtnue Mile:$ ........... TOiol 0oe.70 uo 1.2.55 -43,-445 27,011 112.83 52 62 ...... 11.38% 34 .. 72 I.G$4 1t.41l 30.$1 1,280,812 1,078,3-48 24S .OO 13,418 ,46$ WU46 2$ Ut ... 11 ,40 n .02s 17,972 $12.65 02-71 Sl.17 ,...,. ...... 1 ,101 18.542 $0 .. 9 SECTION 1.5 1,323,390 m.100 24-4.70 $3,234 602 17&oU74 23 .... U2 12.55 4 3,4&$ Z7,01t 118.17 S2.44 13.24 24 2$% ... m 1, ,., 21. 1SS 30.$1 t.zto,an 1,078,348 244.70 $3,293;800 $136 ,e57 23 Ut .... 1 t ,-40 77.02$ 17,972 11-4.&4 $2.&1 u .os 22.31% ...... 1 ,19C 1t.te-2 ...... 0 0 0.30 ..S113 e72 0 ....... . n 0 0 0 ...... so.ta 00 22 ... aft 0 _,, .!21 .. 0 0 0.30 S t22,185 11 13,111 0 ..... ..... 0 0 0 ..suo 1 0 10 50 .12 -4.11" 0 ... .. ....., so

PAGE 41

It is evident in Table 13 that due to the of certain purchased demand-response data, fewer indicators and measures weie pul:!lfthed for this particular mode. Nevertheless, as with the motorbus mode, the demand-response inform ation came from ECATs FY 1994 Section 15 report. This was especially apparent due to the fact that only five of the published demand response figures differed at all from their corresponding Section 15 values Further, the variance in the service area population estimate noted in the discussion of the motorbus data discrepancies was the reason for three of the demand-response data differences (vehicles miles per capHa, passenger trips per capHa, and operating expense per capita) The other two differences found among the reported demand-response data involved revenue miles and average age of fleet. The revenue miles discrepancy occurred because ECAT published demand-response passenger miles in the p lace of the correct indicator. A reason for the two-year differential between published and Section 15-based average fleet age data, however, could not be readily identified with the available information 35

PAGE 42

Tab l e 13 Eseambla County Area Transi t Data for Deman d R es p onse Service lNOtCATOR 1994 PfRJ:'O RMANCE ltW!CATORS Trips R.eYenue Mles Total Opereting Expense Opentino Revenue Vetllcfes Operated In Maximum SeMce 19!1'-t HFECTIVF.NESS M fASURF.S Vehicle Miies per Capita -TripSpot"AYefa9t AQe of Fleet (yMra) 1 99.S [HICIE:NCY fol(ASURCS Opetating Expense per Cll)ila Open6nQ expense Passenger Ttfp OpetJting etpense per Revenue Mile Opef8ting Revenue per Operatilg Expem.e Average Fare 19n PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Pasa.engef Revenue Mile$ Total 0,.-.g Expenu 0--Vehidea Operated i n Maximum Sefvice t99 l EFFECTIVENESS MEA.SURES Vetllde Mile$ pet PMNf'l9tr Trip$ CaJ)M AYage Aoe of Fleet ()WI'$ ) t99l EFFICIENCY M EASU R ES 0,.<81lng ....... "" "" ... Operating Expen$fi per PasMn9tf Trip 0pertrltif'l9 Expense per Revenue Mile Operating Reven ue pe r Operating Expense Far e 36 PUBUSHED 2&.<418 215,9$4 $228,2$9 $50,$94 0,80 0 .10 10 .00 S0. 85 $8.68 $1.06 21.98% SUt 15,977 122.000 $178,430 $31 ,50$ 5 0 .45 0.00 9 .00 $0.88 S1t, 15 S1.4& 17 .66% SU7 SECTION 15 26,418 218 719 S22t.259 $50, 39-i 1.08 0.13 8 .00 $1.1$ $8 .68 $1.06 2U8% $Ut 16, 035 129 ,401 $178 ,430 $)1,508 $ 0.58 0.07 7 03 $0.79 S 11.1S sua 17.$6% sue: D IFFERENCE 0 -785 so so 0 .0.20 .0. 03 2 -$0 3 so so 0% so 7 ,401 so so 0 0.13 .o.ot 1 ,07 -$0 13 S0.02 so.oa 0% $0. 0 1

PAGE 43

Lee County Transit In FY 1994, Lee County Transit (LeeTran) directly operated fiXed-route motorbus service and contracted for demand-response service as well as for additional motorbus service. Although the newspaper advertisement did not specifically ind icate for which mode(s) the data were reported, it was apparent that LeeTran published information for its directly-operated motorbus mode only (except for a few instances where modal data were mistakenly combined). The published advertisement, which Included data for both FY 1993 and FY 1994, appeared in the News-Press on May 2, 1995. The data for the 1994 fiscal year were, for the most part, taken directly from the system's Section 15 report. The first discrepancy evident in Table 14 is for service area population, an indicator that is not necessary for publication but which LeeTran chose to provide anyway. The population figure re ported in LeeTran's FY 199 4 Section 15 report was 350,809. Interestingly, this value matched the FY 1993 population total published In LeeTran's advertisement, but was 13,892Iess than the published FY 1994 figure. This difference could not be explained. However, since the Section 15 report was complete d prior to the publication ofthe advertisement, it is possible that LeeTran was able to calculate an updated FY 1994 service area population estimate for the purpose of Its advertisement. This difference in population affected LeeTran's three measures (vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita), which were all underreported. Three other variances were noted among the performance Indicators, specifically for passenger trips, route miles, and operating revenue. The difference of 7,385 passenger trips between the published and Section 15-based data resulted from LeeTran's inclusion of ridership information for purchased motorbus mode in the reported total. This discrepancy ultimately impacted three measures that utilize passenger trips In their calculation: passenger trips per capita (which was also affected by the population difference, as discussed previously), operating expense per passenger trip, and passenger trips per employee. The negligible 0.3 mile difference in route miles was attributed to the rounding down of the published figure, which appeared in the advertisement as "3n ." As for the operating revenue variance of $38,972, it was determined that LeeTran mistakenly include d fare revenue that was reta ined by its purchased demand response service provider in the total. This, in tum, produced the discrepancy that occurred in the operating revenue per operating expense ratio Finally, the difference between the average age of the fleet reported in the advertisement and that derived using directly-operated motorbus data from Form 408 of the Section 15 report was found to be 0.69 years. Various computations were made us ing vehicle age data for differe nt modal combinations in an effort to determine potential reason(s) for this variance. However, LeeTran's published average fleet age value of 8.88 years could not be reproduced; therefore, it was not possible to identify why this difference occurred. 37

PAGE 44

PRrORMAt.!CE INDICA TORS --PasMngeJ Trip& RtwnutMie$ Route Miles T ot.sl operamg Exr:lena Ol*tlii'IO Vehlc:tt5 in Maximum StMoe HFfCTIVF.NtSS PJrASUR[S -... _T._.. ... ,_ A-/OfiO d ,_ (yoOense per Capb Ol)ttating EJ;Iense per PUMI'OII' T,. ElrslenM per Rewnue We fte
PAGE 45

Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota County-Area Transit (SCAT) used its Section 15 reports for the 1990-1994 fiscal years to report its required I ndicators and measures In its newspaper advertisement. The data fo r FY 1 993 and FY 1994 are presented in Table 15. I n its advert i sement, which appeared i n the June 9, 1995, edition of the Sarasota HeraldTribune, SCAT presented infonna t ion pertaining to its directly-operated motorbus service (this fact was not specifically noted In SCAT's advertisement). Interestingly, SCAT again published considerably more i nfonnalion in its advertisement than i s requ i red by FOOT. Just as it did in its last advertisement SCAT reported Sarasota County's tota l population (296,002) for FY 1994 instead of the system's service area population (234,433) This population difference of 61,568 affected SCAT s three per-capita measures (vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita), which were all significant l y underreported in the published data. A s i gnificant discrepancy in SCAT's average age of fleet was also noted among the comparative data. The advertisement reported a figure of only 7 06 years for FY 1994, an average age value that was 3.44 years l ess than that derived from the Section 15 data ( 1 0 50 years) While it was not readily apparent how SCAT detennined the publ i shed average age it is possible that the 15 remanufactured vehicles in SCAT's fleet may have played a role i n affecting the calculation for this particular measure Analysis of the efficiency measures d i scovered two additiona l ratios, operating revenue per operating expense and revenue miles per total veh i cles that differed from their corresponding Section 15 figures In the case of the operating revenue per operating expense ratio, the negligible 0 .01 percent difference was most probably the result of rounding error especially since the measure's constituent indicators both matched their Section 15 counterparts exactly. The revenue miles per total vehicles measure indicated a significant difference of 5,927 miles between the pub li shed and Section 15-derived figures. Since published revenue miles were Identi cal to the Section 15 value, the examination of this ratio concentrated on the total number of vehicles used in the computation Section 15 data indicated 42 vehicles available for maximum service during FY 1994 (the indicator that is used to represent "total vehi cles" in this calculat i on) ; however, it was determined that 34 veh i cles were used to calculate the advertised measure. This figure does not match any of the vehicle-re l ated data in SCAT's Section 15 report, so no reason fo r this discrepancy could be identified. 39

PAGE 46

IHOICATOR 199 4 PERFORIMNCE INDICATORS Pop .. tiOn P'aNIJt'iger T Revenue Miles --rca Opai4 R..,._ Yehfdes OpetNcl In Maxim.lm $renoi;;lt 1'1'3-t EH-ECTlV[N[SS M(ASURES Vehicle Mllea per Clplla PasMnQer Trips per C1p1Le A-Age al FIOol C,..rs) Re.enue MIIH Be!VIIIMn Opelatiuo EXpenM per C.PQ Opeillii. E);ptf!M C* Pluenger Ttlp Operating: per Milt RtoYOMit Pit Opetetklg Expenae AeYenue MIIM pet T04al Vthiete$ Revenue HoLn per Empto) .. A'l'll!l'8ge F .. 1991 P[RFOR1AANCE INDICATORS -Pa s.aenge r Tf1l6 Revenue Mi!M -O.Mitd tl MPii'IUft setvb 199) Ern:CTIVENfSS MiiH ,., C.pll Puse ... Trips per Cll)b A .... Age of Fleet (years) Revenue Mic1 BttwMn Revenue Milts 811wMn Roa:aas Opeta&i411 Expen:M II* c.pa Opetallng ExpenM per Pasatf'1911' T6p Operaling &tenM per Rewnue Mile Operatir\g Revti'IUt I* Operating &,ense Rewnue M llea per TOUI1 VehiCleS RtYenue Hourt per T,._ I* Emplojee A_.. fate 40 Table1 5 Sarasota County Area Transit 296 ,002 1,302,060 1 ,0S7,97t m ... ........... S6t3,714 20 40,&91 2,181 $U3 $2.26 23 .60% )1, 117 1,200 21 ,172 S0.42 290.602 1,31 7 8$4 1,056 0 1 8 2e1. .20 $ 2.,896,681 S
PAGE 47

Lakeland Area Mass Transit District 'l: t Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) d i rectly operated mot omus and demand-response service, and contracted for van pool service I n FY 1994 LAMTD indicated in its advertisement that all indicators and measures were compiled using data for a ll three modes, therefore, t he Inform ation presented in Table 16 represen ts sys tem totals The advertisement i ncluded both FY 1993 and FY 1994 data. It should be noted, however, that LAMTD reported operating expense per passenger mile in the advert ise ment in place of the requ i red operating expense per revenue mile ratio The advertisement was published In The Ledger on June 23, 1995 all the evident discrepancies for the FY 1994 data, it was apparent that LAMTD published data that, for the most part, came from ita Section 15 report Among the performance indicators, only total operating expense, operating revenue, and vehicles operated in maximum service differed at all from the Section 15 data The reason for the difference of $3,896 for t otal operating expense was not identified ; it is possible that LAMTD utilized revised data for this ind icator in its advertisement s in ce it was published more than five months after the completion of its preliminary Section 15 report. The operating revenue's variance ( $319 ,094) was more significant t han that evidenced for operating expense and was due to LAMTD reporting its passenger fare revenue instead of its tota l opera t i ng revenue. The system did not add In auxiliary transportat i on revenue or non-transporta t ion revenue, both o f which are included In operating revenue for purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study. The seven-vehicle d iscrepa ncy in the vehicles operated in maximum service indicator was simply due to LAMTD omitting the peak vehicles for its purchased vanpool service from the total. Both per-capita effectiveness measures indicated slight variances, but neither were due to the population portion of their equations The veh ic le miles per capita measure experienced a 0 34 mile discrepancy in the comparison with its corresponding Section 15-derived ratio because LAMTD used t otal revenue miles in the ca lcu lation instead of the correct indicator. The negligible discrepancy i n the passenger trips per capita measure must have resulted from rounding error, especially since the published passenger trip s figure was identical to the Section 15 value. Similar to the case for tota l operating expense the discrepancy eviden t in the average age of fleet measure could not be exp l ained. The published figure is so c l ose to the age generated using LAMTD's Section 15 vehicle inventory data, that it is possible that the 0.05 year difference was caused by rounding error. Likewise, rounding appeared to be the reason for the minimal difference exhibited by the passenger trips per employee efficiency measure. Th e effectiveness measures, revenue miles between incidents and revenue miles between roadcalls, also indicated variances. For both cases, the revenue miles indicator did not Impact the d isc repancies since H exactly matched the Section 15 revenue miles figure. Instead, manipulation of LAMTD's published data found that the system utilized different incident and roadcall totals when calculating the measures For example, LAMTD used a total of 125 41

PAGE 48

roadcalls i n i ts calculation of revenue m i les between roadcalls I nstead of the 155 roadcalls reported I n Sect ion 15. While th i s part i cular difference in data seemed to be due to LAMTD using only roadcalls for mechanical reasons (30 roadcalls for other reasons were not included), a reason for the difference in incident data (7 incidents used for published ratio versus 5 incidents for Section 15) cou l d not be i dentified As a result of t he d i screpancies i n tota l operating expense and operat i ng revenue, thr ee of the published effic i ency measures we r e adversely affected : operating expense per passenger trip, operating expense per passenger mile, and operating revenue per operating expense The variance In total operating expense was so slight that the result ing differences evident in the related cost measures were a l so minima l In fact the operating expe n se per passenger trip measure did not even ind i cate a differe n ce However, the relatively l arge variance evident fo r the operating revenue figure produced a more substantial variance in the operating revenue per operating expense rat i o The last difference evident among the efficiency measu r es occurred for the revenue miles per tota l vehicles ratio The published measure (33, 172) was underreported by 3,791 miles; based on Section 15 data, this ratio should have equalled 36 963 Since the revenue mile figures matched exactly, it was determined that the difference evolved from the measure's denominator: total vehicles. LAMTO used a va lue of 39 total vehicles in its computation, a figure that d i d not match any of the vehicle data provided in its Sect i on 15 report According to the system s Section 15 Form 406 for each mode a total of 35 veh i cles we r e available for maximum serv i ce This is the number that actually should have been used to represent vehicles in this particular measure Unfortunately, no reason could be found for the variance in tota l vehicles 42

PAGE 49

Table 16 Lakeland Area Mass Trans it District INOICATOR 1994 PERFORJMNCE 1 1\:0ICATORS Pa$$0n9or Ttip$ RC\I9nl.le Miles Route Mtes Tolal Operstl niJ Elcpen&e ()oe
PAGE 50

Manatee County Area Transit Manatee County Area Transit (MCA T) directly operated fixed-route motorbus and demand response service during FY 1994. As it did in its last advertisement, MCAT published data for three fiscal years (1992, 1993 and 1994) in a format that presented a "mishmash" of data for the individual modes as well as for certain system totals in an extremely confusing way. In order to facilitate the comparisons and related analysis, the data have been arranged into three tables: Table 17 presents data for the fixed-route motorbus mode, Table 18 includes data for demand response service and Table 19 illustrates those measures reflecting system totals. The newspaper advertisement was published in the Bradenton Herald on June 1 o, 1995 It is evident in Table 17 that the published motorbus data, for the most part, were taken from MCA rs FY 1994 Section 15 report. The only discrepancy noted among the performance I ndicators involved operating revenue, wh ich seemed to be the only published nem (regardless of mode) to come from an altemative source. In MCAT's last advertisement, the only problem evident wnh this indicator was the distribution of operating funding between the modes. In the current advertisement, MCA T's total reported operating revenue of $856,676 (combined for motorbus and demand-response modes) exceeded the FY 1994 total operating revenue of $794,213 obtained from the system's Section 15 report by $62 463. While no explanation for this discrepancy could be identified It manifested itself in the variances evident for both of the operating revenue figures for the two indiv i dual modes. Consequently, it is possible that the system total difference was the result of MCAT utilizing updated information for its advertisement. The discrepancy in the motorbus mode's operating revenue figure uHimately affected the efficiency measure operating revenue per operating expense, which was underreported by 0 96 percent. The other efficiency measures that differed from Section 15-derived data included revenue hours per employee, passenger trips per employee, and average fare per passenger trip. The two employee productivny measures were impacted by MCAT's use of actual person counts (27 .7) in ns calculations instead of FTEs (28.4). The negligible difference of $0 01 shown for the average fare measure was probably t he result of rounding error. However given the discrepancy in operating revenue, it is also possible that a slighUy different (possibly updated) passenger fare revenue figure was used to make the calculation Nevertheless, this possibility could not be substantiated wnh the available data. 44

PAGE 51

Table 17 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Fixe d-Rout e Motorbus Service INDICATOR PUBLISHED SECTION 1 5 DIFFERENCE 1994 PfoH:FORI\IA1-:CE INDICATORS Pasaenger Trips 6$7 53tt 657,518 0 Re\'o,.,e MilK 527 ,0 13 521,013 0 ()pefllting Eiqlenae $1 $21,500 $t,Sl1,SOO $0 Operating ReYenue $3.47,801 $3$4,662 41&,761 Vctides Ope;rMed in Maximum S.M:e 0 1994 EFFIC iENCY M(ASURf.S Operating Expense pot Pauen9et Ttip SU1 $ 2 .3 1 s o Operatilg Expense per Rew!llue Mie $2.80 $2 .fi so Operacing RtYenue per OJl4:ralina 23..00 % 23.96% ..0.98 % ReYonue Hours pet Employee 1,130 1,102 2$ Pas&enger Trips per Employee 23,740 23.154 ... Fare $0 .40 ..... $0.01 1993 PERrORMA NCE Pass.enger TriP$ 825,817 $2!,887 0 Rewlnue Milss 533.693 533,693 0 T ota1 Operaung ElqleMe $ 1,55 6,949 $1,5$6 ,944 $5 Oporating ...,..,.,. $296,17$ $342,414 $46 ,239 VeNcies Oper ated In Mal6n'l.lm Service 0 199 3 HFICIENCY O peratt.g Expens e per Passenger Trip ...... S2.4 i .. Operating Ex:penae per Revenue Mile $2.91 $2. 82: 40.01 Operating ReYeooe per Operating Expense 18.00% 21.99% 2.99% ReYenue Hours per Employee 1,155 1 165 0 Pasaenger Trips per Employee 21, 146 21,145 0 Avetage Fare $0. 41 $0,40 $0.01 45

PAGE 52

Besides the aforementioned p rob le m with operating revenue, there were only two discrepancies evident in MCATs published demand-response data, as shown in Table 18. The first involved the operating reven ue per operating expense measure which was solely affected by the significant variance in the demand-response mode's operating revenue figure. The second discrepancy occurred in the average fare per passenger trip ratio. This measure was overreported by $0.64, p rim ari ly due to MCAT using operating revenue in the numerato r of the calculation instea d of passenger fare revenue. This resuHed in a higher average fare value ($4.07) than that which was derived using MCAT's Section 15 data ($3.43). Tab l e 18 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Demand-Response Service INDICATOR PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Passenger Trip$ Revenue Miles Total Opettti'lo Operating ReV1!nue Vehicle& Operue
PAGE 53

Table 19, which includes data for MCAT's motorbus and demand response services combined, provides further evidence that the system mostly relied on Secti o n 15 data to generate the information for its advertisement. Ana l ysis of the system total indicators and measures discovered only two minor variances among tl:l&.data First, the figure published for average age ofthe vehicle fleet exceeded the value calculated from MCAT's Section 15 report by 0.35 years Acx:ording to Section 15 system total data, the average fleet age should have equalled 5.32 years, but it was reported instead as 5.67 years. Manipulation of the vehicle age data for MCAT's two modes could not replicate the published figure; therefore no reason for the age discrepancy could be identified. Second, and lastly, the reported operating expense per ratio differed from its Section 15 counterpart by $0.01. Since no variances were evident in the other two system total measures (vehicle miles per capita and passenger trips per capita) or in either mode's total operating expense data, it Is believed that this negligible difference resulted from rounding error. Table 19 Manatee County Area Transit Data for System Total Service (Moto r bus and Demand-Response) INDICATOR 19"91 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Garons Diesel Fuel consumed 1934 EfFE CTIVE N ESS fAEASURES Vel-kle Mile$ per C.pil> nips per Capita A""-Ago of Fleet (year<) Rewnue Miles Between lnct:tents Revenue Mftes Bet-Neen Roeode&lls EFFIC I ENCY Operating Expense per Capita Revenue Mile$ per Total Vehicle$ 1993 P ERFORI M NCE I NDICATORS 1$93 EFFECTIV E N ESS 1'1\EASURE$ Vetricl e Miles per Cape&a Pamnger T{(l$ pet capita Average Age ol Fleet (Years) Rovenuc Milos Betwetn lneidents Mile$ Between Roadcalla 1S$3 EFFI CI ENCY M EASURES Operating Expense Pet Capita Revenue Mllea por Total VeNde$ PUBUSHEO 19\,.306 4.84 3A3 5.67 3.368 $12 .08 28 ,658 168.033 4.87 3 33 5 .90 33U05 2 ,912 $ 1 2 03 27,073 SECTION 15 191.3'06 .... 3A3 5.3:1 530,182 3,366 $12.07 28,668 US 3.33 5.$4 333, 905 2.$12 $12.03 Z1.073 DFFERENCE 0 0 0 0.35 0 0 SO.Of 0 0 -<>.06 0 ...... 0 0 $0 0 47

PAGE 54

Smyrna Transit System Under contract to VOTRAN Smyma Transit System (STS) directly operated motorbus service in New Smyma Beach during FY 19g4. The indicators and measures that STS published in its newspaper advertisement are presented in Table 20, along with corresponding Section 15 data STS chose to report information for its motorbus mode for three fiscal years: 1992, 1993, and 1994. However, only the FY 1993 and FY 1 994 data a r e included in the table The advertisement appeared in The Observer (exact date was unavailable) STS elected to publish population figures for the three fiScal years although these data were not requ i red for purposes of the advertisement. Unfortunately the data that were published were representative of the city population of New Smyma Beach instead of STS s service a r ea population. As a result, the reported FY 1994 population (17 989) exceeded the Section 15 value (17,481) by 508 persons. This difference, in tum had an impact on STS's three published per-capita measures : vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita and operat i ng expense per capita. In add i tion to the influence of the populat i on variable, the vehicle m i les per capita measure was also affected by STS s use of an incorrect mileage figure in the calculation Rather than utilize tota l vehicle miles to compute the ratio, STS chose to use "scheduled vehicle revenue m i les" instead. This indicator which is a l so reported in Section 15 on Form 406, is the mileage that a system computes direct l y from its schedules (exclud ing any service interruptions or special additiona l serv i ces); it does not represent total revenue miles actually provided. Unfortunately this particu lar indicator was also the reason for the discrepancies in one of the performance ind i cators and two other effectiveness measures besides the vehic l e miles per capita ratio The performance indicator affected by STS s use of scheduled vehicle revenue mile data was route mileage. Accord i ng to Section 15 i nformation STS's route miles should have equalled 40 0; h o wever STS reported 70,280 miles instead As for the two effectiveness measures both revenue miles between incidents and revenue miles between roadcalls differed from their corresponding Section 15 data because of the use of scheduled rather than actua l revenue miles in the calcu l ation of the ratios. Add i tionally the revenue miles between i ncidents ratio was further Influenced by a variance in the incident data I t was determined that STS s calcu l ation utilized three incidents whereas the Section 15 data indicated that four should have been used No explanation was found for this particular discrepancy. The largest discrepancy evident among the data involved operating revenue, which was published as $174 ,811. Sect i on 15 data showed that this indicator should have equalled $250 ,74g. It appears that since STS s total operating funding exceeded the system's total operating expense of $174 811, STS chose to publish an operating revenue figure Identical to that for total operat ing expense in order to demonstrate 100 percent cost recovery As a resun of t his discrepancy, the pub l ished operating revenue per operating expense ratio a l so differed significantly from that derived using the Section 15 data. 46

PAGE 55

The average age of the motorbus fleet published by STS also exhibited a significant variance in comparison to Section 15 data. The reported average age figure of 2.0 years was 9.67 years less than that calculated using Section 15 vehicle i nventory information. Analysis of the vehicle inventory data did not identity any for this difference, nor could the published average age value be reproduced using Seciicin 1S data. In addition, differences were noted in both employee measures, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee. Based on the published values for these two measures, It was determined that STS used total actual employees (6 0) in its calculations. For purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study, full-time equivalents (4.9 FTEs, as reported in STS's Section 15 report) should have been utilized instead. Finally the figure reported In the newspaper advertisement for average fare per passenger trip was $0.50. Using the Section 15 values for passenger fare revenue and passenger trips for directly-operated motorbus service generated an average fare of $0.48. While It was not clear how the $0 .50 average fare was actually determined, II is possible that the passenger fare revenue figure used to calculate the published measure differed slightly from the Section 15 data. However, it is also possible that the slight $0.02 difference was simply the result of rounding error. 49

PAGE 56

INDJCATOR 1 994 P E R FORMA NC E I NDICA TORS ""'""'""" Pas.senger Revenue Mllels ....,._, Toal Opera11ng Expense Operating Vehic::aH ()petaled: in Maxi'num SorvQ EFFECTIVENESS 111EASURES v.tlide MU.S pet Pa&&enQer Trip& per CapU AQe O f F1eet (YeatS } Revenue Miles Between fnCQen\s 1994 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Ope,.-ting per Cpitt Operating Expenae per Pa&.M:nger Trip Optrating EXpense per Rt\lenue Milt Operating pet Opet11ing EXpense Rt'ttf'!Ue Mill$ per Tota l Vetlidel Revenue Hour& per Emp1oyte TripS pet Ef11>10Yee 1993 PERF ORMAP 2$,727 64,020 70.280. 00 $174.811 $174, 8 1 1 2 3 .90 1 .SO 2.00 23,427 7,028 $9 .72 ..... S2.7S 100. 00% 32,010 .,. 4 ,455 $0.50 17,231 2$,859 &3,373 65,260.00 $1$9,578 $ 1919,578 2 uo 1.50 1.00 &3, 373 6,526 $ 1 1 .58 $7. 72 $3.15 1 00 .00% 31.687 7 1 7 3,694 $0.<49 KCT10H 1 5 17,A81 26, 727 64 020 40,00 $174,811 S250 749 2 4.19 1.53 1 1.67 16,005 6'.-\02 $10.00 .. ... $2.13 143 .44% 32 0 1 0 ... 5,4$4 $0. 48 17.231 2S 859 83 3 7 3 $5 .00 $ 199, 578 $13,331 2 U9 1 50 10.67 83,373 & .337 st1.68 $7. 72 U 1 5 6 .68% 3 1, 887 05$ 6,151 $0.52 OlfFERENCE soa 0 0 rJa so -$7$, 938 0 ..0,2$ -O.Ol .67 7,422 ...... so so 0 -1 52 .... S0.02 0 0 0 65,205 .00 so $ 186, 247 0 0 0 1 0 .87 0 189 so so so 93 .32% 0 -$0,03

PAGE 57

i!:-< . Pasco County Public Transportation Service Table 21 presents the FY 1994 data that were published in Pasco County Public Transportation Service's (PPTS) newspaper advertisement. Contrary to the established requirements, PPTS did not publish FY 1993 figures; the FY 1993 data in the table were taken from PPTS's previous advertisement. PPTS directly operated demand-response service and began contracting for additional demand-response service during the 1994 fiscal year Unfortunately, the advertisement was not clear about which included for each indicator and measure. II was assumed that the reported data were representative of system totals The advertisement appeared in the Pasco Times on November 6, 1995. For the most part, the published data appeared to be based on PPTS's FY 1994 Section 15 data. However, two of the primary perfonnance indicators could not be reconciled with their Section 15 counterparts: passenger trips and revenue miles I n the case of passenger trips the published value (87,740) exceeded the Section 15-based system total (86,028 trips for d i rectly-operated and purchased demand-response service combined) by 1 ,712trips. The only possible explanation for this difference is that PPTS utilized revised ridership data in its advertisement. The noted discrepancy in revenue miles, on the other hand, may have simply been the result of a typographical error (i.e., transposnion of numbers). Section 15 data indicated a revenue mile figure of 360,240; PPTS's reported number was published as 360,420. The discrepancies evident in these two indicators, then, impacted several measures : passenger trips per capita, revenue miles between roadcalls, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile It shou l d be noted that the revenue miles between incidents measure probably would have been affected also ; however, PPTS did not report a value for this ratio due to a lack of reportable i ncidents. This claim, though was not supported by the system's Section 15 report which indicated a total of four incidents. The largest difference evident in the table involved operating revenue, which was published as $776,451. Analysis detennlned that the var i ance in this indicator was due to PPTS including federal, state, and local subsidies in its reported operating revenue figure, which should have been reported as $348,197. It has been discussed previously that operating revenue, as collected for the Pertonnance Evaluation Study, does not include these subsidies. As a result of this inflated operating revenue, the published operating revenue per operating expense measure also differed significantly from its Section 1 5 cohort The final variance noted among the perfonnance indicators i nvo l ved the number of vehicles operated in maximum service. The published value for this indicator (16) fell one vehicle short of the number generated from PPTS s Section 15 report (17). This relatively small discrepancy occurred because PPTS only reported peak vehicles for directly-operated demand-response mode in the advertisement. Since all of PPTS's other perfonnance indicators appeared to be system total figures, the purchased demand-response mode's one peak vehicle should have been included for this particular nem. 51 -

PAGE 58

Similarly, PPTS's vehicle miles per capita measure also experienced a discrepancy due to the exclusion of purchased demand-response data. The reported measure was calculated using vehicle mile data for the directly-operated mode only, resulting in a value of 2.1 0 miles per person. If the purchased service's vehicle mile data had been Inc luded, the ratio would have been correctly reported as 2.24 miles per person Another effectiveness measure that differed from Section 15 data was the published average age of the vehicle fleet. According to Section 15 system total data, the average fleet age should have equalled 3.00 years, but it was reported instead as 5.10 years. Manipulation of age data from PPTS's vehicle inventory forms for the two modes could not replicate the published figure; therefore no reason for the age discrepancy could be identified For the revenue miles per total vehicles measure, the variance between pub lished and Section 15 data was related to the use of a different 1otal vehicles" definition. In the Performance Evaluation Study, the '1otal vehicles" alluded to In this ratio has always referred to the total number of vehicles available for maximum service (as reported by systems on Form 406 of the Section 15 report). For PPTS, this number equa lled 24 vehicles in FY 1994 for both of its modes combined. However to calculate this measure's reported value, PPTS utilized the number of vehicles in its '1otal" fleet (30) from its Revenue Vehicle Inventory form (Form 408) for the directly-operated mode only. This figure, as mentioned p rev iously often includes vehicles that are not necessarily available for maximum service. In addition, both of the employee productivity measures (revenue hours per employee and passenger tri p s per employee) were overreported in the advertisement. It was found that PPTS used its actual person count information (24.3) in the calculation ofthese ratios, rather than total FTEs (23.8). Also contributing to the larger discrepancy evident in the revenue hours per employee measure was PPTS's use of a revenu e hour figure of 32,530. This value for revenue hours far exceeded the system total data reported for Section 15 purposes (21,745 revenue hours), and it did not appear to match any of PPTS's other operating statistics. An explanation for this significant difference in revenue hours could not be identified. Lastly, PPTS reported an average fare per passenger trip ratio of $0.32. Based on Section 15 data for directly-operated demand -response service, an average fare of $0 .13 was calculated. (Purchased demand-response service was not inc l u ded in the calculation of this measure since no fares were collected by the purchased provider.) How the $0.32 average fare was actually determined could not be ascertained from the available data. Therefore, It can only be conjectured that this significant variance was probably the resuH of inconsistent fare revenue data. 52

PAGE 59

Tab le 21 Pasco County Public Tra ns p ortation Service INDICATOR PERFORMA NCE IND ICATORS Passenger TriPs Re....,uo Miles Route Mr.es Total Operalfng Expense Opeming Revenue Vehieles Operated in Mexmum Setviee t) Revenue MHes BelWHn l neidene$ Reverwe M iles Between Roadeall s 199-4 EFFIC IENCY M F.A$Uf'{ E $ OperMing Expen&e per Capita Operalilg Expense per Passenger T!\'1 Operatilg Expense per Re'lenue Mile Operatklg Revenue per Operating ReWnue MJes per Tota l Vehicles Revenue Hour$ per Employee Pas:sen.ger Trip$ per Averaae Fare f993 PERFORU!ANCE INOlCATORS Pa$$enger RoYoM.!t M ilt$ Rou&eMiea T04al Operating expen-. Operating Reveooe Vehioi N Operated in Maxim u m Service 1993 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Veliele MilOS pot Capita Passenger Trrps per C o pill AQe of Fleet (Years} ReYenue Miles Between ReV
PAGE 60

Key West Department of Transportation Key West Department of Transportation (KWDOn operated fixed -route motorbus service throughout Key West and Stock Island during the 1994 fiscal year. As req u ired KWDOT published data for both FY 1993 and FY 1994 in a newspaper advertisement that appeared in The Citizen on April 3, 1995 The published and corresponding Section 15 data for both fiscal years are presented in Table 22. Analysis of the reponed informatio n for FY 1994 showed that the data did indeed come from KWDOT's Section 15 report for that fiscal year. The first discrepancy evident among the published performance indicators involved route miles which was found to have been underreported by 0 60 miles. This slight difference was probably the resuH of rounding since KWDOT published this indicator as "27 ,"without including any tenths of miles. Similarly. r ounding and the abbreviated use of decimal places also affected the passenger trips per capita measure, which differed from the Section value for this ratio by 0.01 With no discrepancies evident for either passenger trips or service area population, KWDOT reported this effectiveness measure as "8 .3" in its advertisement, while the Section 15 figure equalled 8.29. The two financial performance ind icators, total operating expense and operating revenue, also indicated differences when compared wijh the Section 15 data. Tot a l operating expense was reported as $703 393, which turned out to be exactly $1,000 greater than the Section 15 value. It did not appear that KWDOT made any revisions to its data prior to publication, so this relatively small variance may have been the result of a typographical error. Otherwise, no other explanation could be identified. As for operating revenue. it was determined that the $6,928 difference in this ind icator exactly matched the amount of dedicated gasoline tax revenue that KWDOT received during FY 1994. For purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study, all funds dedicated to transit at their source (e.g., property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, tolls etc.) have been include d as part of a system's local subsidy rather than as operating revenues. The differences in these two ind icators, in tum, influenced the variances noted in the following related measures: operating expense per operating expense per revenue mile, and operating revenue per operating expense. The difference between the average age of the fleet reported In the advertisement and that calculated using Section 15 vehicle inventory data was 0 50 years. Similar to some of the systems discussed previously, KWDOT calculated average age for '1otal" fleet (all vehicles in fleet including emergency contingency vehicles), instead of calculating it for only the "active" fleet vehicles (excluding emergency contingency vehicles). This method of computing average age resuHed in a value of 2 90 years (which KWDOT apparently rounded up to "3" years for i ts advertisement); whereas, the more correct average age for the "active" flee t was 2 50 years. In the case of revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee, t hese measures were both overreported somewhat significantly. Manipulation of the data found that KWDOT utilized total actual employees (11.0) instead of total FTEs (13 2) to calculate these ratios. 54

PAGE 61

Tabl e 2 2 Key West Department o f Tra n sportation INO tcATOR 1994 IN DICATORS PasMnQW Trips RewnueMres Route Miles Total Opet'8tt'lg Expense Operaling Reven ue Vehlele$ Opctalled i n Service EFFEC TIVENESS MEASU RES Vehicle Milt$ per Capita Patsanger Tf\)6 per Capila Average Age Cl Fleet (yeata) Revenue Between kl.oi:leru ROVCOU$ Mile& Between Roadcalt$ HFtC !F.NCY folF.A.SURF.S Operating Expense per CaP&a Operating Expenae per Pa&Seflger Trip ()pera:Ung Expense per Revenue Milt Oponlti,.g RC'o'e!We per Expense Revenue M ile$ per Total Vetlidts Roenoe Hours per Employee Passenger nips per Elq)loyee Average Fare 1993 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PaS$Ongtl' Trips RevenueWes ROUl* M ilO$ Total Operjting ElcltMO Operating Revenue Vehldea Operated I n Maximum SeMce 159J. EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles per Capila PA:$Stn!ftl' Trip;& pe r Capita AV$1aQe A98 of Fleet (yea r&) Re..,.nut Ule s BetwMn I ncidents Revenut Mlos Between Roadea iiS 1993 l!HIC!E::NCY M EASURES OpemjniJ ExpeMe per Capita Operalfng Expense per Passenger Trip Operating Expense per Revenue Mle Opersttng Revenue pe r Operatlflg Expense Revtnue MiltS per Tota l Vehielet Revenue Hours per Emptlyee PaS.Sef198t Trips per Empl oyee Average f8te -PUBLISHED : .: 1V1.303 27.0 0 $703 ,393 $17-4.681 6 .00 8.30 3.00 47.828 2,305 $21.68 $2. 6 1 $U8 2 5.00% 1 7,391 1,19 7 24At-1 ..... 238,300 176,400 27.00 $674,30 0 $185.,900 5.50 7.80 2.00 17S, 400 1 1 ,000 $20.75 $2.82 $$.84 2 5.00% 16,(100 1 .046 20,000 $0.!16 SECTto N 16 269,32.9 1$1 ,303 27 60 $702,393 $ 1 61.753 6 0 0 8.29 2.50 .&26 2,305 $21.63 $2.81 $3.67 23.88% 1 7.391 997 20.388 ..... 238,309 175,446 27.50 $$74,209 $ 185,867 SA8 7 .34 1.91 t75,44$ 5,317 $20,77 $2.83 03.84 24.60% 15,950 ... 17,918 ..... DIFFER.I!NCE 0 0 -0.60 $1,000 S6,926 0 0 0 01 0 .50 0 0 $0.0) .. 00.01 1.12% 0 200 4,096 .. .... .0.50 $1 $33 0 0.0<1 .0.04 0 08 .... 5,6$3 40. 02 -$0.01 so o ..... 50 10<1 2.082 .. 55

PAGE 62

Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County) During the 1994 fiscal yea r Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) directly operated motorbus and demand-response service and contracted for demand-response and vanpoo l service In Brevard County. Table 23 illustrates the data that SCAT reported In its newspaper advertisement which included, as required FY 1993 and FY 1994 information. The system s published advertisement appeared in Florida Today News on May 4, 1 995. SCAT r eported system total data for all indicators and measures except where noted Although a few d i screpancies resulted from data revisions that occurred after publication of the advertisement, It was evident that SCAT's FY 1994 Section 15 report was the source for its reported data. One performance indicator that differed from Section 15 data because of updated informat i on was revenue miles. SCAT published a system total of 3,826,167 revenue miles In its advertisement. However, the system's purchased demand-response revenue mileage later changed from 1,278 096 to 1,282,956 miles thereby causing the 4,860 mile difference shown for system total revenue miles This discrepancy is the reason for the variance in the operating expense per revenue mile measure, and is partly to blame for the difference in the revenue miles per tota l vehicles measure Also impacting the revenue miles per total vehicles measure was SCAT's use of a different value for total veh i cles. According to SCAT's updated Section 15 data the number of vehicles available for system total service equalled 162 SCAT's calculat i on. however utilized 160 total vehicles Simi l ar to the case for the revenue mile data, the two-vehicle difference resulted from purchased demand response information being updated after publication of the advertisement. SCAT's preliminary Section 15 data, upon which the advertisement was apparently based, i ndicated 28 vehicles available for purchased demand-response service Sometime after publishing its data, SCAT revised this tota l to 30 vehicles. This revision of p u rchased demand-response veh i cle data was also ev i dent in the vehic l es operated in maximum service indicator. The 16-veh i cle variance shown for thi s item was partly due to SCAT also revising its number of vehicles operated in maximum service for thi s particular mode from 28 to 30 veh i cles The remaining difference of 14 vehicles resulted from SCAT not including the peak vehicles for its directly-operated motorbus service Since SCAT used the same fleet of vehicles to provide its demand-response and motorbus service, some confusion may have resulted as to which vehicles shou l d have been reported in the published figure Another performance indicator exhibiting a variance was operating revenue, which SCAT publ i shed as $5, 554 947. According to Sect i on 15 data, this figure should have equalled $915 463. The s i gnificant discrepancy between these two values occurred due to SCAT includ i ng federal, state, and local subsidies in its operating revenue total. Again i t has been mentioned prev i ously that operating revenue as collected for the Performance Evaluat i on Study, should not include these subsidies. As a result of this difference, the operating revenue per operating expense ratio also demonstrated a significant variance. 56

PAGE 63

Among the effectiveness measures, three of the published ratios d iffered from their corresponding Section 15 measures by varying amounts : vehicle miles per capita average age and revenue miles between inciden t s. The vehicle m ile s per capita measure was underreported by 1.00. This variance resulted from SCArs use of revenue miles instead of vehic le miles t o calculate thi s ratio. The reported average agti"6i SCA ts vehicle fleet exceeded the Section 15derived value by 0.09 years. Manipulation of age data from the system's vehicle Inventory forms for its modes could not replicat e the published figure; therefore, no reason for this relatively small difference could be identified The ratio, revenue miles between incidents, showed the largest discrepancy of the three measures (162,904). It was determined that this significant difference resulted from revisions to SCArs incident data for the two directly-operated modes included in the calculation SCAT used a total of 36 incidents in Its computation of the ratio ; the revised Section 15 data indicated that the two modes only experienced 5 incidents combined Rounding was found to have played a role in the variance of one of the cost efficiency measures. The ratio, operating expense per passenger trip, differed from Its corresponding Section 15 ratio by $0.01. Since the published sys tem totals for pass enger trips and operating expense were Identical to the Section 1 5 data for these indicators, rounding error was found to be the only possible explanation for the negligible difference. The two labor productivity ratios among SCAT's efficiency measures, revenue hours pe r employee and passenger trips per employee were overreported rather significantly in the system's advertisement. From t he pub l ished data, it was determined that SCAT utilized actual person count data (46.9) in Its computations, rather than the 55.3 FTEs that were Indicated In the system's Section 15 report. Further affecting the discrepancy in the revenue hours per emp loyee measure was the fact that SCAT's revenue hour data also experienced revisions after publication of the advertisement, specifically for the directly operated and purchased demand response modes. The final variance noted among the efficiency measures was for the average fare per passenger trip ratio which was pub li shed as $0 54 A notation In SCAT's advertisement indicated that this particular measure included "fixed route on l y ," which was interpreted to mean that only directly motorbus data were utilized in the calculation Therefore Section 15 data for SCAT's motorbus mode were used to calculate an average fare value, the result of which was $0 83 Since no discrepancies were evident in the passenger trip data, the difference must have been caused by the passenger fare revenue figure used in the calcu lation It is believed that the total passenger fare revenue for directly-operated service reported on Form 203 of SCAT's Section 15 report included collected fare revenue for both the motorbus and demand-response modes. SCAT probably utilized an appropriate fare revenue value in its calculation that included only its motorbus mode However this breakdown was not ava il ab l e in the Section 15 report thereby causing the Section 15-based average fare ratio to be much h i gher. 57

PAGE 64

Tabl e 2 3 Spa c e C oast Area Transit (Bre vard Co unty ) INDJCAT OR t994 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Populltion R......,.Mileo ....,.._, Operating EXpense Re\ler'Ml Vehlcias ()peta led il Maxirm.m Service 1994 EHCCTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Uilea pe r Capita Pusenger per Capila Avetege A1Je Of Fleet ('years) Revtnue Miles Between lneiden&: R e ftnue Mles Between Roedeaus' EFFICI E NCY MFASURES o,...q Expense "" c.p11a Operating ExpenM per Trip ExP81\M per Re....,ue Mil8 0penrtl"'9 Revenue pet operamg Expense R....eooe MUM per T o&al Venieles ReYenue H CKn pet' Employee P assenger Trip s per Employee Average F.,.' 199l INDI CATORS ...... tallcft PasNnoet Trips R.evenut MAe$ Routt Mile$ Total Operating Expe n ae Opetatitlg Vttlido$ Os>tr.IO
PAGE 65

. . Appendix A Approved: Effective: Responsible Topic No.: December 4, 1992 Office: Transit 725-030-030-c Ben G. Watts, P.E. Secretary PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PURPOSE: To detail the. Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office's administration and management of the state Public Transit Block Grant Program. AUTHORITY: Section 341.052, 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 1 4.73, 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. centr-al Office For the purposes of this procedure, the : Department of Transportation, Public Transit Office and{or staff. District Office For the purposes of thi s procedure, the Department of Transportation, District public transportation office and{or staff. Eligible Transit Capital Cost -Any costs that would 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-1

PAGE 66

725-030-030-c Page 2 of 9 labor, wages and fringe benefits. This means that any operating expense properly coded to expense object classes 503, 504, 505, 506 507, 508, 509, 511, 512, or 530 in FTA's Uniform system of Accounts and Records and Reporting (Section 15) System is an eligible transit operating cost. Front End Funding Funding disbursement method whereby a local grant recipient incurs eligible expenses to which state block grant funds are first applied and the required local share is applied only after state funds have been drawn down. Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) A contract between the Department of Transportation and a .local sponsor of a transportation project, defining a project and the Department's (Form 801-01). . ..... Local Gove rnment Comprehensive Plan A document found to be in compliance with Chapter 163 F.S. and Ru l e Chapter 9J-5 by the Department of community Affairs. Local Revenue Sources The sum of money received from local government entities to assist in paying transit operation costs, including tax funds, and revenue earned from fare box receipts, charter service, contract service, express service and non transportation activities. A-2 Local Tax Revenue Local .tax revenues are revenues which are made available for operating expenses and are derived from local taxes. whether the taxes are collected by the public ... transit provider directly or not. Specifically those revenues properly coded to revenue. object classes 408 and 409 in the Section 15 Report are local tax revenues. Public Transit The transporting of people by conveyances or systems of conveyances, traveling on land or water, local or regional in nature, and available for use by the public. Public transit systems may be either government owned or privately owned. Public transit specifically includes those forms of transportation commonly known a s "paratransit" characterized by their nonscheduled, non-fixed route nature. Public Transit Provider A public agency providing public transit service, including rail authorities created in chapter 343 Florida Statutes. Public Transit Service Development Project A project to test a new or innovative technique or measure to improve or expand public transit services as defined in the Public Transit Service Development Program Procedure, 725-030-005.

PAGE 67

. . 725-030-030-c Page 3 of 9 section 15 Report A report submitted to the Federal Transit Administration in accordance with 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 the uniform accounts therein are used to validate the lawful use of funds. "Section 911 Provider -A public transit provider eligible to receive 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 when the annual element of its Transportation Improvement Program contains a block grant project. "Section 1811 Provider An agency funds from the Federal Transit Administration's Section 18 program for the purpose of providing public transportation outside an urbanized 'area. For the purposes of this procedure, the term "Section 18" Provider does not include any community Transportation coordinators. Supplant -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 i n the previous year. such use would result in the block grant to the public transit operator being reduced by the amount of supplanted.local funds. Transit corridor Project A project to relieve congestion and improve capacity within a transportation corridor as defined in the Transit Corridor Program Procedure, 725-030-003. Trans'it Development Plan A Transit Development Plan (TOP) i s a locally adopted document, addressi ng a minimum five year time frame. Preparation of the TOP is the responsibility o f the public transit provider, in cooperation with the appropriate Metropolitan Planning organizati on. It is consistent with the applicable approved local government comprehensive p lan and w ith the appropriate comprehensive (long range) transportation plan and supports the Transportation Improvemen t Program. The T O P includes an assessment o f the need for transit services in the local area, identifies the local t ransi t 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-3

PAGE 68

725-030-030-c Page 4 of 9 Transportation ImprovementProgram (TIP) -The result of a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process which delineates transportation improvements recommended for federal and state funding during the program period. The TIP is submitted to the Department per the requirements of Chapter 339 F.S. BACKGROUND: The block grant program was enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a stable source of . funding for public transit. Funds are to be awarded to those public transit providers eligible to receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration's Sections 9 and 18 programs and to community Transportation coordinators (see definitions) The Department of Transportation will distribute 85% of the funds to section 9 providers and to section 18 providers who are not Community Transportation Coordinators via this procedure. The Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission will distribute 15% of the funds to community Transportation Coordinators according to their own procedures. The block grant funds may be used for eligible capital and operating costs of public transit providers. Funds may also be used for transit service development and transit corridor projects. Projects shall be consistent with applicable approved local government comprehensive plans. State participation is limited to 50% of the nonfederal share of capital projects. Up to 50% of eligible operating costs can be paid with program funds, or an amount equal to the total revenue, excluding farebox, charter, and advertising revenue and federal funds, received by the provider for operating costs, whichever amount is less. Local tax revenues made available for operating costs shall not be supplanted by block grant funds. PROCEDURE: A-4 (1) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: (a) The Central Office is responsible for distributing tables allocating funds to the District Offices and eligible public transit providers each year. The tables will be sent to the District Offices no more than 45 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

PAGE 69

:'. :. . : .... ., 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 writtenrequests of the public transit providers. The District Offices are responsible for preparing Joint Participation Agreements (JPA) between the Department and eligible providers for the identified operating and/or capital projects. (c) Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) 1. The District Office shall obtain a written request for a JPA from a public 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 funds ill be divided between eligible capital and operating expenses, and whether any f unds will 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 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 >lriting or by telephone. The District Office shall contact all such providers 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 p rovider intends to use the funds within the limits of the law. For example, if the Central Office analysis indicates that the request for operating assistance appears to be for more A-5

PAGE 70

725-030-030-C Page 6 of 9 funds than there appear to be eligible 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 to 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 block grant allocation. The District Office shall prepare, within 30 calendar days of a request from an eligible public transit provider, a JPA between the Department and the public transit p rovider receiving block grant funds. An extension to this 30 days may be granted by the Public Transit Office 11anager if the analysis of the request indicates that the recipient may not be able to use the funds within the limits of the law, or cannot be completed because the recipient failed to supply the D epartment with its Section 1 5 reports and most current budget. JPAs shall be executed as directed in Procedure No. 725-000-005, Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement. 2. The District Office may prepare and execute separate JPAs for operating grants and for capital grants. capital grants may be divided into as many separate project JPAs as necessary and desirable. block grant funds are to be used in eligible service development projects and/or transit corridor projects, the use of these funds is governed by the department's Service Development Program procedure, 725-030-005, and/or the Transit Corridor Program procedure, 725-030-003. 3. Front End Funding (see defini tion) may be used at the discretion of the District Office, but is not recommended in cases where the questions raised by the central Office in its analysis (above) are not answered t o the satisfaction of the District Office. Any block grant funds distributed to an eligible provider which cannot be expended within the limitations of the block grant program shall be returned to the department within the year of the allocation. These funds will be retained. in

PAGE 71

725-030-030-c Page 7 of 9 the district cost center, but the amounts will b e included in the subsequent statewide 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 d eobligated. 4. Exhibit "C" of the JPA shall include, at a minimum, the language i n Procedure No. 725-000-005, Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement. (2) PROJECT MANAGEMENT (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 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 be documented in the project file using the checklist found'.1n Attachment "B" of these procedures. . The District Office shall monitor the progress that the public transit provider is making in preparing the Transit Developmen t Plan as required by 341.071(1) F.S. The Distr.i<::t Ofl;ice shall approve any set of performancemeasures established.by recipients which includes the measures indicated in Attachment "A" of these procedures. Recipients may publish additional measures, but all recipients shall be required to publish the core set of measures indicated by the symbol o District Offices are responsible for collection of the material required to determine eligibility and allocations (Section 15 reports and updates or revisions, and current adopted budgets submitted by the first working day of March each year according 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 addi tional documentation of incurred costs be required. .If travel A-7

PAGE 72

A-8 725-030-030-c Page 8 of 9 costs are included, documentation as outlined in Procedure No. 300-000-001, Travel, shall be submitted. Invoices for capital expenses shall be supported by documentation of capital expenses as outlined in the JPA. (f) In the event the public transit provider cannot use its entire block grant allocation within 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 will be retained in the district cost center, but the amounts will be included in the subsequent statewide 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. (g) If an.audit reveals that an eligible provider expended block grant funds on unauthorized uses, the provider must repay to the department an amount equal to the f unds expended for unauthorize d uses within the year of the al1ocation. The department shall redistribute such repayments to other eligibleproviders in the allocation per the process described in (f) above. (h) Upon project closure, the District Office shall have readily available, at a minimum: 1. a copy of the Section 15 report for the year funds allocated; 2. the public transit provider's adopted budget for the year funds. were allocated; 3. a copy of the relevant pages of the T I P for the year funds allocated; 4. all Joint Participation Agreements and any amendments for the year funds were allocated together with the letter from the recipient requesting funds; 5. a copy of the performance report for the year funds were allocated with the affidavit of publication or an actual copy of the newspaper publication;

PAGE 73

. . 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 bffice; 10, documentation that the audit required by the Single Audit Act of 1984 for the year funds were allocated was completed and forwarded to the Office of Chief Internal Auditor in the Central Office perProcedure No. 450-021-001, Recipient/Subrecipient Single Audit Procedure; 11. the file may also contain additional . correspondence and information considered by the District Offic e to be important to a comprehensfve understanding of the project A-9

PAGE 74

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURES Attachment l\ Page 1 of 3 The 1990 Florida Legislature amended 341.041(3), which provides for the Department's transit responsibilities with respect to state transit measures, as follows: "Develop, publish, and administer state measures concerning system management, performance, productivity, cost distribution and safety of government owned public transit systems and privately owned or operated systems financed wholly or in part by state funding. Such measures shall be developed jointly with representatives of affected publicly owned transit systems and in coordination with affected privately owned systems, with full consideration given to nationwide industry norms." For the purpose of performance measure reporting the public transit provider is all "Section 9" transit systems and "Section 18" transit systems that are not designated as community transportation coordinators pursuant to chapter 427 Florida Statute. (The Transportation Disadvantaged Commission is responsible for the program with 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 transit provider shall establ-ish productivity and performance measures, 1hich must be approved by the Department and which must be selected. from measures developed pursuant to s. 341.041(3). Each provider shall report annually to the Department relative to these measure.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 public transit in the local area."; and (3) "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." The establishment of productivity and performance measures must be accomplished by July 1 of each year. The Central Office wants 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 report are: A

PAGE 75

.... # r 1. F o r the sam e time period, 2. Use t h e same Section 15 report, and; Attachment A Page 2 of 3 3. U s e the official population estimates o f t h e Bureau o f Economic Business Research of the University of Florida at Gainesville for population. The tra n sit provider's fiscal year (i.e. October 1, through September 30) just completed as well as the prior year will serve as the t w o year reporting period. The Section 15 Reports for this period will serve a s the data source for the newspaper report. The list of performance measures develop e d for the Department of Tra nsportation by the Universi t y of So uth Florida in cooperat ion wit h the F l orida Transit Ass o ciation and F l orida transit systems is attached. The Central Office has establishe d a core set of performance measures that mus t be contained in every local new s p a per report (the symbol o identifies those measures in the list). The provider is required to obtain the Department's appr o v a l of the report. The District Office shall approve any report conforming to these procedures . T h e transit provider' s annual report to the Departm e n t as required in section 341.071(2), F.S., will be accom p lish e d when the transit property provides both the .. Dist rict and central O f f ices with a copy of the local newspaper report A 11

PAGE 76

Table A-1 Attachment A Page 3 of 3 Perfonnance Review I nd i cators and Measures PERF ORMANCE INDICATORS SetVioe Are a Population Trips Passengec-Miles Vehic:ie Miles Revenue Mile$ Vehicle HoUI$ Revenue HOUI$ Route MiSes Total Operating Ext?ense Tota l Ope rating Expense (1984 $) Tota l Maintenanoe Expense Tota l Maintenance Expense ( 1984 $) Tota l Capital Expo..., Tota l Loca l Revenue Operat!?g Revenue Fare Revenues T otal E0'4>1oy ... Ta..._;on Operatillg Mainten a nce Employees VehiCles Available fot Max. Service Veh5eles Ooe!ated rt Max. Service Spare Ratio Tot a l Galons Consumed Kilowatt Hours of Propulsion Power A 12 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Service Suppty VeNcle Miles Per Capillt SeMltles Per Ma;nt E0'4>1oyee Total Vehicles Per Admin. EmplOyee Enorgy Utilization Vehicte Miles P e e Galon Vehtcie Miles Pee Kilowatt Hour Fa,. Average Fare

PAGE 77

Attachment B RECIPIENT 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 visit s required.under by other Departmental procedures such as the transit safety program or the triennial review conducted by FTA staff. Schedule the visit the recipient .. Tr.y to accommodate local schedules as much as possible, but don't permit excessive delay. CHECKLIST 1. What is the status of the TOP at the time the TOP been adopted by the policy board and MPO? of the visit? beenendorsed Has 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 disallo
PAGE 78

. . INVOICE FORMAT RECIPIENT LETTERHEAD Attachment C DATE Addressed to Public Transportation Hanager at _____ District Office In accordance with Chapter F.S., the Joint Participation Agreement and any Supplemental Agreements dated between the F lorida Department of Transportation a n d The Agency incurred the indebtedness listed below between ( JPA Date) and (Date) . FOOT WPI Number -------FOOT Job Number ------------------We have incurred costs eligible for reimbursement under the public transit b lock grant program as follows: Total Expenses Ineligible Expenses: Total Eligible Expenses: Maximum DOT participation: Total state share of eligibl e expenses incurred to date: .Previously billed: This billing: I certify that the aforesaid listing is true and correct, and that all of t h e costs included are eligible operating costs for eligible public bus transit or local publi c fixed-guideway projects, and that the aforesai d listing does not include costs for labor, fringe benefits, depreciation or amortization of capital assets, and that the amounts billed do not exceed local revenue, and that public transit block grant funds have not been used to supplant local tax revenues made available 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 attributabl e 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-14

PAGE 79

I certify that the aforesaid listing is true and correct. Approved Public Trans. Manager Date I certify that the Agency has complied with the provisions of this agreement. By /S/ (Agency Head or Auth. Rep.) Title ------------------------Date Approved as Meeting Terms of Contract District Project Nanager A-15

PAGE 80

A-16

PAGE 81

Appendix B EXHIBIT "C WPI NO JOB NO : April 1995 (For State Block Grant Only) This exhibit forms an integral part of that certain Joint Participation Agreement between the State of Florida Department of Transportation and --------------dated----------------REF: Chapter 341 .052 F.S The Department shall provide b l ock grant funds for eligible capital and operating costs of public bus and local public fiXed gu i deway projects. Elig i bility of thi s Agency to rece ive grant funding is prov id ed in Sec. 341 .052(1) F S. and Section 9 and 18 of the Federal Act, 49 U.S.C. 5307 and 49 U.S.C. 5311, respective l y. Eligible transit capital costs means any cost s that would be defined as capital c o sts by the Federal Transit Administrat i on Eligible transit operat i ng costs are the total administrative, management and operat i on co sts directly incident to the p rovision of pub li c b us transit services, excludi n g any depreciation or amort i zation of capita l assets B lock grant funds shalf not exceed l oca l r evenue du r ing the te rm of this agreement. (Lo cal revenue i s defined as the sum of money received from local governm ent entities t o assist in pay i ng transit operation costs, including tax funds and revenue earned from farebox r eceipts charter service, contract service exp r ess service and non transp o rtat i on acti vit ies.) Block grant funds sha ll not supplant local tax revenues made availab l e for operat i ons in the year immediately p r eceding this agreement. State participation in eligi b le publi c transit operating costs may not e xceed fifty (50) percent of such c o sts o r an amount equa l to the total revenue excluding faretiox, charter, and advertising revenue and federal funds received by the provider for operating costs, wh i chever amount is less The Agency shall require the independent auditor r etained to perform the audit as requi r ed by B-1

PAGE 82

the Single Audit Act of 1984, to spec ifically test and certify that t hese lim itat i ons ( .. .funds shall not exceed local revenue .. .funds shall not be expended for depreciation or amortization of capital assets .. .funds shall not supplant local tax revenues made available for operations in the previous year) of the bloc k grant program as delineated in Chapter 341.052 F.S., have been adhered to. The Agency shall prov id e the Department with two (2) copies of its most current adopted budget together with two (2) cop i es of the Section 15 report at the same time the Section 15 report is submitted to the Federal Transit Administration or by March 1, whichever is earlier. Unless the adopted budget uses a formal consistent with the Section 15 report, the copy provided to the Department w ill indicate how the projections for total local revenue, local tax revenue made available for operations, and depreciation and amortization costs, as they will appear in the Section 15 report can be identified. The Agency shall publish In the l oca l newspaper of ijs area, in the format prescribed by t he Department, the productivity and performance measures established for the year. This report shall be approved by the Department of Transportation p ri o r to its publication. This report shall be submitted to the Department no later than March 15 each year and published either by May 1, or no later than twenty eight (28) calendar days of the Department's written approval of the report. The Agency shall furnish an affidavit of publication to the Department within twenty eight (28) calendar days of publication. The Agency shall submij a Transit Development Plan to the Department by July 1 each year A TOP shall comply the fo llo wing elements at a minimum 1. The TOP shall id entify and list community goals and policies with respect to transportat ion and land use in general and specifically to service. 2 The TOP shall iden t ify and quantify the community's need for transit service using demograp hic, socioeconomic, land use, transpo rta tion and tran sit data as appropriate There shall be an opportunity for the public to express t h e need for transit service improvements, such as b ut not limijed to, Citizens Advisory Committees and wor1
PAGE 83

5. The TOP shall not be in conflict witlrttre approved local government comprehensive plan and the comprehensive { long range} transportation plan. 6. The TOP is to be reviewed, revised as necessary, and adopted annually and submitted to tlhe Department by July 1 of eac h year. The annual review and revision may be limited to refinements and extensions of the five year program. Major updates to be completed every third year, shall include all elements of a TOP as defined herein. Mark the required Safety submittal or provisions for this agreement if applicable. Safety Requirements _ Bus Tnmsit System -In accordance with Florida Statute 341.061, and Rule Chapter 1490, Florida Administratlve Code, tlhe Agency shall submit, and the Department shall have on file, an annua l safety certification that the Agency has adopted and is complying with its adopted System Safety Program Plan pursuant to Rule Chapter 14-go and has performed annual safety insp ect i o ns of all buses operated. __ Fixed Guidewv System(established} In accordance with Florida Statute 341.061, the Agency s hall submit, and the Department shall have on file, annual certification by the Agency or compliance with its System Safety Program Plan, pursuant to Rule Chapter 14-55. __ Axed Guideway System (new} In accordance with Florida Statute 341.061, the Agency shall submit a certification attesting to the adoption of a System Safety Program Plan pursuant to Rule Chapter 14-55. Pr io r to beginning passenger service operati ons the Agency shall submit a certification to the Department that the system is safe fo r passenger service. Other items may be added as required. B-3

PAGE 84

B-4


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 nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029121243
005 20110802183513.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110802s1996 flu o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00258
035
(OCoLC)744491541
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE5633.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
1994 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems
h [electronic resource] :
b performance reporting investigation : final report /
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
3 246
Performance evaluation of Florida transit systems.
260
[Tampa] :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1996]
300
1 online resource (various pagings).
500
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 2, 2011).
5 FTS
"Prepared for the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida."
FTS
"October 1996."
FTS
650
Bus lines
z Florida
x Evaluation.
Bus lines
Florida
Management.
Local transit
Florida
Evaluation.
1 710
Florida.
Office of Public Transportation.
2
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.258
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001963547;
FTS