USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

1993 performance evaluation of Florida transit systems


Material Information

1993 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). : ;
Florida -- Office of Public Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


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


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:
"May 1995."

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 - 029121269
oclc - 744478880
usfldc doi - C01-00261
usfldc handle - c1.261
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029121269
005 20110802182848.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110802s1995 flu o 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00261
HE5633.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
1993 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
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (various pagings).
Title from cover of e-book (viewed Aug. 2, 2011).
"Prepared for the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department of Transportation, State of Florida."
"May 1995."
Bus lines
z Florida
x Evaluation.
Bus lines
Local transit
1 710
Office of Public Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


1993 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Performance Reporting Investigation P r epared for The Office of Public Transportation Operations Department of Transportation State of F l orida By Center for U rban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, Florida Final Report May 1995




Tabl es 1993 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 9F FLORIDA TRANSIT SYSTEMS Performance Report ing Investigation Contents v Forewo rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I I n troduct i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 11. Find i ngs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 MetroD ade Transi t Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Broward Transit D i v i sio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Jacksonville Tra nsportation Autho rit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Hi l ls boro u gh Area Regional Transi t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Pine ll as Suncoast Trans i t A ut ho rit y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 l ynx (Orl a ndo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Palm Bea ch County Transpo rta tion Autho rity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Talla h asse e Tran sit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Regional Tran sit System (Gainesville) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 East Vo l u sia T ra n sit A ut h o ri ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Escambia County Area Tra nsit . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Lee Cou nty Tra n s i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sarasota Cou nty Area Tra n sit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 L akeland A rea Mass Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Manatee Co unty A rea Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 Smyrna Transit Sys tem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pasco County Pub lic Transportation Serv i ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Key West Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Space Coas t A rea Tran sit (B r evard County) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Append i x B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 i i i




Table 1 Tab l e 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Tabl e 11 Table 1 2 Table 13 T a b le 1 4 Tab l e 15 Tab le 1 6 Table 17 Tab l e 18 Tab l e 19 Tab l e 20 Table 21 Table 22 Tab l e A-1 Tabl es Met ro-Da d e T r ansit Agen cy ............... . . . .... . ..... . .... 7 B r oward T ransit D i v i s i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Jacksonville Transporta t ion Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Hi ll sborough Area Regiona l Trans i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 Pinellas Sun coast Transit A uth o r ity, No t ice Pub li shed Pursua nt to Flo r ida Statute 341.07 1 (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 P i ne ll as Sun coast T ransit Authority 1 993 1994 Ann u a l Re port. Publis h ed Advert i sing Insert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Lynx (Orlando) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Palm Beach Cou n ty Transportat i o n A u t h ority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Tallahassee Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Reg i ona l Trans it System (Gainesv i ll e ) ... ....... . ; . . . . . 27 Eas t Volu sia Tra nsit Au t hor i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 E scamb i a Coun t y A re a T r ans i t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Lee Cou n ty Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Saraso t a Co u nty Area Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Lakelan d Area Mass Tra n sit D i strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Manatee Co u nty A r ea Transi t Data for Fixed Rou t e Mot orb u s Serv i ce . . . 4 1 Manatee County Area T ransit. Dat a f o r Demand-Response Serv ice . . . . . 42 Manat e e County Area T rans it Data f o r System Tota l Service (Mo t orbus a n d Deman d Respo n se ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Smyrna Transit Syst e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Pasco Cou n ty Pub li c Transportatio n Service . . . . . . . . . 48 Key West Department of T ransportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Space Coast A rea Tra n sit (Brevard Cou n ty) . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Perfo rm ance Review I n dicato r s and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 2 v




Foreword Under contract with the Office of Public Transportation Operations, Department ofTransportatlon, State of F lori da, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has conducted a performance evaluation of Florida s fixed-route systems based on data from federally req u ired Section 15 reports, which are submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for each fiscal year by systems receiving Section 9 funding. Section 15 reports are the best single source of data for reviewing transit system performance because t he data are standardized, u ndergo extensive rev iew, and are the result of a substantial data collection and reporting p r ocess by the transi t systems. Some Section 15 data are used by FT A and by states and l oca lit ies for calculating formulae for the allocation of funding to transit systems. As a result, the data are extremely important 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 in its respect ive local area newspapers each year. For this particular task of the Performance Evaluation Study CUTR collected these newspaper art i cles and/or other published materials fo r fiscal year 1993 f rom 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 in these two sou rces, and potentia l explanations for those differences CUTR would like to thank FOOT and each of t he Individual t ransit systems for their cooperation and assistance in the preparation of this report. Center for Urban Transporlalion Research University of South Florida Telephone: (813) 974-3120 Project Director: Steven E. Polzin Project Managers: Victoria A. Perk Project Staff: Joel R. Rey Michael R. Banes David Gillett Nilgun Kamp Florida Department of Transporlalion Office of Public Transporlation Operations Public Transit Offtce Mail Station 26 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 488-7774 1




I. Introduction Rap i d growth in F lori da has resulted in increased attent ion to public transit as a potential solution to the ever-increasing transportation problems in the state A long with t he in creased emphasis on public transi t comes the necessity to assess the effect iv eness and efficiency of transit systems Florida legisla tion requires the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) and F lorida's t ran sit syste ms to develop and report performance measures Specif i cally F l or ida Statute 341. 071(3) states: "Each pub l ic transit provider shall publish in the lo cal newspaper of its area the productiv ity and performance me a sures established for the year and a rep ort which provides quan tita tive data relat ive to the attainment o f established productivity and performance measures.' It should be noted that the statute does not specify t he source from which the data to be published should be c oll ected. I n addition to th i s statute, FOOT issued a documen t deta iling its administration and management of t he State Public T ransit Block Grant Program. Effective December 4, 1992 the document included an attachment that outlined FDOrs additional requirements for the reporting of transit performance measures. One of the requi rements specified t h e use of Section 15 reported data for the publ ish e d productiv i ty and performance me asu res Also it was mandated tha t the systems report data f o r the current fiscal yea r just completed as well as for t he prior year thus resulting i n t he publication of two years' worth of dat a in the newspaper. A table i ndicating those specific measures wh ich must be included i n 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 Exhi b i t "C" of the Sta t e B l ock Gran t Program that sets f o rth, among other requirements the dates b y which transit agencies mus t comply when publish i ng the performance report s i n a local news paper within its area of operat ion. The primary purposes of th i s rep ort were to verify that the transit systems complied w i th the l egis la ti o n and to compare the published p erformance measures with those rep orte d i n t he systems Section 15 reports. The articles from the transit systems, as well as any other published materia l s for fisca l year 1 993, were collecte d by CUTR. The published informat io n was compared to the data f r o m the individual agencies 1993 Section 15 reports. The effort fo und that 18 of the 20 public transit providers in Florida did publish an advertisement in loc al newspapers de taili ng p e rformance measures for 1993. Publi c ation dates for all the a dv ertisements ranged from February 1994 t o January 199 5 with most of the transit systems publishing in May 1994. The only transit systems that did not publish a n advertisement were Gainesville's Reg i ona l Transit System and the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tr i -R ail }. Since Tri-Rail is not a block grant r ecipient, ft did not need to comply w i th this d i rective. As a resu l t, 19 of the 20 sys t ems were inclu ded for review in this report Tab l es 1 through 22 present the performance data tha t each transit agency published in its respective l o cal newspaper, as well as the corresponding Section 15 data For each in dicator and measure the column labeled "Published" notes the data as it appeared in the newspaper advertisement. A "DNP" (s i gnifying "did not publish") was used In the cases where a system did 3


not publish data for an in dicato r or measure requi r ed by the specifications in FOOT's Block Grant Program The "Secti on 15" co lumn lists the figures for the same indica tor s and measures drawn directly f rom the validated FY 1993 Section 15 reports. The last column in each table indicates the difference between the publis hed data and the Section 15 data for each i nd icator and measure. Included with the table for each transit system is a brief discussion of any differences in the data, and the possible sources of those differences. I t should be pointed out that the Section 15 data were ad justed when possib le, to in clude the same modes that were contained in the p ub lishe d data for comparative uniformity. For some of the systems different modes were used to calculate each of the ind icators or measures, so it was necessary to utilize the same modes when the comparable information 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 could be deduced from the given data. It i s p ossible that reasonable explanations for differences in data could have been identified by meeting w ith agency staff However this was beyond the scope of the effort. Nevertheless, in some cases, it was necessary to contact several of the systems for clarification purposes. II Findings According to FOOT's Public T rans i t Block Grant Program document systems are r equired to publish s i x performance ind i cators. five effectiveness measures, and eight efficiency measures. T he spec ifi c indic ators and measures are shown underlined in Table A-1 of Appendix A As noted previously i t was found that of the 19 systems reviewed for this study, 18 of them published data for the requ ire d indicators and measures. Gainesville's Regional Transit System (RTS) was the only system that did not comply. It was reported by RTS that it had not yet complied with Florida Statute 341.071(3) because the system had not received the concurrence letter from the Fe deral Transit Administration (FTA) that concludes the validation process for Sect i on 15 data RTS i nd icated that once it receives the concurrence letter, it will comply w ith the directive and publish the appropriate inf ormat ion in a newspaper of local i nterest for consumption by the general public. FOO T also mandates that the required performance indicators and measures are reported for two fiscal years: the most current fiscal year jus t completed, which for this study i s FY 1993 and the previous fiscal year All but two of the 18 systems that published advertisements complied with this requirement ; Palm Beach County Transportation Authority and Pasco County Public Transportation Serv ice both on ly published data for the 1 993 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 Trans it. Based on the comparative analyses completed for this study, it was shown that several systems deviated from Sect i on 15 data for the same measures. Fo r example, while other data would 4


match the Section 15 report exactly measures . as the average age of the fl eet, revenue miles per to tal vehicles passenger trips per capita, revenue h ours per employee, and passenger t r ips per employee would be somewhat different. There were a number of errors and inconsistencies in the publis h ed data that seemed to be common to several systems. These include: reporting the incorrect measure: for example, a few systems reported revenue miles as route miles ; including some combination of local, state, and federal subs id ies in the calculation of operating revenue; roundin g differences: using 1g94 Instead of 1993 as a base year for calculating the ave rage 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 acr6ss all ind icators and measures (as well as mixing modes in the calculation of effectiveness and efficiency measures ) A few of the systems stated that the origin of the published data was a source other than the Section 15 rep ort, such as Palm Beach County Transportation Authority, which used data f rom its 19g3 Florida Transi t Management, Inc., Report of Operations Overall, however, the transit systems did use the i r Section 15 reports as a primary source in reporting perfo rmance indicators in the newspaper advertisement for the in terested general public. To ensure the t ransit system's credibility and a better understanding of the system s performance by transi t users and other interested citizens, consistency In the reported data across a dvertisements should be encouraged. Such consistency may be achieved through the use of validated Section 15 data and standardized definitions of performance indicators and measures when publishing information for the general public. 5


Metro-Dade Transit Agency Table 1 pres ents the data published in the newspaper by the Metro-Dade Transij Agency ( MO TA) as well as the coinciding data f rom their 1993 Section 15 report. Un less otherwise noted in t he table the data presented are system totals. MOTA prov ides directly-operated motorbus (Metrobus), heavy rail (Metrorail) and automated guideway (Metromover) services. The system also contracts for motorbus and demandres ponse service As required, MOTA pub li shed data for FY 1992 along with the FY 1993 measures. The focus of this rep ort however is on the data from FY 1993. The newspaper advertisement used in the analysis was published on March 18 1 994 in the Miami Herald. With re gard to the performance measu res published by MOTA only five of them matched Sect i on 15 data exactly: r oute miles operating revenue revenue miles between roadcalls, revenue hours per emp l oyee and passenger trips per employee However, many of the measures differed by re l atively large amounts. For example, passenger trips was published as 88.829,795, while, according to MOTA's Section 15 data this amount s h oul d have been 92,950 568. This is a measured difference of 4 120 773. In addit io n according to the most updated Section 15 data revenue miles should have been 45 ,871,491, but was published as 4 1,191, 682 ; a difference of 4,679,809 miles. Other differences in the data occurred in vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita and operating expense per capita. These differences appear to be due to, among other factors the use of a popu l ation measure other than the service area population of 1,735,000 ind icated in the Section 15 report. I n add i tion, a value of 22,707 revenue miles between incidents was reported in the newspaper advertisement (system total exclud i ng purchased motorbus), while, accord i ng to Section 15 data for like modes the figure should have been 22,651 revenue miles between incidents; this results i n a difference of 56 miles There were other marked differences in the data, as well. As noted prev ious ly, the published value for revenue miles was more than four million miles less than the number of system total revenue miles from the Section 15 data. Another large d isc repancy is the 201 vehicle difference between the published number of vehicles operated in max imum service and the number from the Section 15 report. The po tent ia l causes of these differences could not be determ in ed. Lastly, when calculating revenue miles per tota l vehicles for the purpose of Section 15 reporting, it appears that MOTA utilized in addition to an incorrect figure for revenue miles a different number for total fleet vehicles. Th e source of the erroneous figures used in the calculation of t h is measure could not be determined. As a result, this led to an overestimate of 9 186 miles for this particular measure. 6


INDICATOR 1993 PERr'ORII!ANCE I ND ICATORS Passenger Trip$ RE-\'enue Miles Rout8 Milo$ 1 TO!a l Oper a tf'l g Operating Revenue Vchele$ OpC:r.lttd i n M&xi'num service 1993 ErFtCTIVENESS MEASUR ES Velide MilK per Capita T rlpG pes capita AV'1J& Age ,80 $176,015,319 SS2.301 $56,7&$ 171 $0 1,160 7() 22.07 -2.95 42.!7 5 .43 7 ,67 0 25,07$ 0 2 .241 0 $ 10 1.45 4$12.85 $2.39 $0.0 1 $S.19 so.os 35.18% 0.42% 26.043 11.05$ ... 0 32.8 t 7 $0.75 .. 7


Broward Transit Division Table 2 presents the data for the Broward Transit Division (BCT), which reported FY 1992 and FY 1993 data for directly-operated motorbus service in its published newspaper advertisement, which appeared in the June 6, 1994, edition of the Miami Herald. In examining the data contained in the table the first notable difference between t h e data BCT published in its advertisement for FY 1993 and the data in its FY 1993 Section 15 report involves the population measure. In its published advertisement, BCT indicated a population estimate of 1,317 512. As noted in the advertisement, BCT obtai ned this population figure from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) located at the University of Florida. This popu lat i on figure represents the popu lat ion of Broward County as estimated by BEBR. The serv ice area population reported in BCT's FY 1993 Section 15 report was 1 ,293,517. This measured difference of 23,995 p ers ons had a sl ight effect on several measures that used the popu lation estimate as the denominator in their calculation. Specifically, these measures i ncluded vehicle miles per capita passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita. As a result of this difference in the estimation of population, eac h of these measures was s li ghtly underreported in t h e published advert i sement. This accounted for the differences in these measures between the Section 15 data and t he data contained in the published advertisement. As was found in the performance reporting inves tigation of the 1992 Perfonnance Evaluation of Florida Transit Systems study mos t of the data reported by BCT in the published advertisement, despite some misca l culations originated f rom its Section 15 report However in examining the data c l ose l y, the same miscalcu la tions were again uncovered. For example, in calculating route miles BCT again failed to include directional route miles on controlled access right-of-way Consequently. ins tea d of spec i fying 625 30 route miles as recounted in their Section 15 report, they incorrectly indicated 611. Also, the operating revenue figure of $10,695 876 appearing in the pub l ished advertisement only included passenger fare revenues and special transit fares. In add i t io n to these fare revenues operating revenue should have incl u ded the auxiliary transportation reve nues and certain non-transportation revenues found in the Section 15 rep ort. Therefore whi le the operating ra t io of operating reven ue per operating expense is correct given BCT s published operating revenue figure, the small difference of 2.39 percent when comparing t hese measures resu lt s from the difference in the computation of operating revenue Furthermore, according to Seclion 15 data. the total number of vehicles in BCT's motorbus fleet is 189 This value was used to arrive at the figure of 46.346 for revenue miles per total vehicles. However when attempting to duplicate the figure contained in the advertisement for this measure (42, 1 13), it seems that BCT did no t apply either the total number of vehicles in their motorbus fleet (189) or the number of vehicles operated in maximum service (166). The source of the figure used i n this calculation could not be determined As a result, this led to an underestimate of 4 233 for thi s particular measure Finally, it was determined that the modest difference of $0.02 in av erage fare was due to rounding. 8



Jacksonville Transportation Authority In its published newspaper advertisement, as required the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) published data for both FY 1992 and FY 1993 only for its directly-o perated motorbus service. The published newspaper advertisement appeared in the Florida Times Union (exact date was unavai l able). Data for the directly-operated automated guideway and purchased demand-response service were omitted. Table 3 presents data obtained from the FY 1993 publishe d newspaper advertisement in conjunction with t he data from th e FY 1 g93 Section 15 rep ort. Except in a few cases, as i ndicated in the table, th e data in the published advert i seme nt were taken directly from JTA 's Section 15 report. As shown in Table 3, the figure for operating revenue was underreported by $463 921. It is be li eved that this discrepancy results from the presence of some automated guideway transp ortat i on and/or non-transportation funds that could not be broken ou1 of the system total figures presented in JTA's Section 15 report form 203 Unfortunately only passenger fare revenue for t he automated guideway mode could be separated from total operating reve nue given the breakdown of the data on the form JTA's access to a complete distribution of operat ing funds by mode allowed them to p rovide a published figure that actually included on l y d ir ectly-operated motorbus data. For t he measure revenue mile s between incidents, it was not evident whether the data came from J TA's Section 15 rep ort or another sou rce. JTA published a figure of 155,154 for revenue miles between incidents However accord ing to their Sect i on 15 data, the value for that same measure shou l d have been 89,266. Since the number of revenue miles matched the Section 15 data exactly, a different number of incidents must have been used in the calculation that was published in the newspaper for this part i cular measure. Also when examining t he measures passenger trips and revenue hours per employee, there were slight differences between the published values and those in JTA's Section 15 report of 7 40 t r ips and 35 hours, respect ive ly After careful examination of JTA's Sect i on 15 report, it was dete r mined t hat JTA used actual num ber of employees (430) instead of the number of FTEs when calculating these measu res, therefore explain i ng the difference in these measures. Finally the difference of 503 for the measure revenue miles per to tal vehicles was generated by JTA's utilization of a combined fleet consisting of the total number of directly-operated motorbus and automated guideway ve hi cles (162) and not the total number of vehicles in its motorbus fleet as spec i fied i n its Section 15 report. Interesti n gly, JTA's advertisement stated that all of the published measures and indicators were derived us i ng data for directly-operated motorbus only. Several other measures varied by meager amo u nts. Spec i fically the measure average age of f leet differed by one-hundredth of a year and the measure vehicle miles per capita diffe red by three-tenths of a po int. These differences were presumably the result of rounding. 10


Table 3 Jacksonville Transportation Authority INDICATOR 1 993 PERFORIIIANCE INDICATORS Passenger Trips Re.-enue Miles RUle Miles T tenue Hours per Pa&$Ct198f' Tr ill$ p l!f' EmplOyee Average Fare 1992 PERFORMANCE IND I CATORS Psss.enQW T rips Re-.enue Mtes Milt:$ Tolal Expel'l$6 Operallng Re'lef'lue Vehicles Oper ated in M;uc:imvm H._,ECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicl e Mles pet capna Trips. r:e r capu Average Age of Faeet {year$} Revenl.'ft fillies Bei\I.'Een I nciden t s Revenl.'ft Miles Roadcalls 1992 EJ'FICICNCY IIIEASURES Operaijn g Expcn54 per Cal)lta Ope ratl:lg Exp ense per Passenger Trip Ope ratilg Expense per M!le Operating Revenve PQr Otlor0'1ing Rf3\ICNJO Miles. l)er T olal Vehicles RC\ICI'IIIO HO!Il'$ per Emptoyee Trips pe r EmpiO') ee A vet age Fare PUBLlSH!D 1,163 C O $20,090 ,294 ss,14!,ne 13S 8 ,49 12.54 6.<15 165,154 ..... $28.18 $2. 09 $3 .08 25.59% 40,225 1 ,053 22,377 $0.46 9 S86,116 8,321,182 1.163 $ 1 9,315.558 $S, 009 163 134 9.29 13 .82 7.17 12$.C03 6 ,00S S27 .85 $2.02 $3. 06 2e.OO% 4 U62 1,02 1 2 2,035 SOA7 lndJJdes data for di$e1fy-operatecS motorbUs and automated gu ideway SECTION 1 $ 9 621,911 8 ,51 8,450 1,163 00 $20,090,294 $.5, 605,697 \ 13S $.79 1 2.54 6A8 69,2 66 6,596 $28.18 $2. 09 $3. 08 27. 90% 40 .728 1,01 8 2t,637 $0.4$ 9,665, 1 1 8 8 ,32 1 162 1.163 $19, 3 15,556 $5 3$9,920 I 1 34 9 .29 13.82 7 18 74,37 0 5 ,001 $27.85 $2.02 53 06 27.0$% \ 39,51 0 1,021 22,01 0 $0.46 DIFFERENCE 0 0 0 $0 0 -<) ,31) 0 .0.01 6S 888 0 .. $0 so 2.31 % 503 3 S 740 so 0 0 0 so ...$360,757 0 0 0 0.01 64 ,833 0 .. so $0 -1 0 5% 2 ,352 0 2S $0.(1.1 11


Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Table 4 shows the data obtained from the published newspaper advertisement as well as the values for the same indicators taken directly fro m the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) system FY 1993 Section 15 report. The newspaper advertisement also contained data for FY 1992 As ind i cated in Table 4, some of the data published in the newspaper advertisement by HART originated f rom its FY 1993 Section 15 report. The published newspaper advertisement i s dated June 2 1994 and appeared in the Tampa Tribune The figure published by HART for operating expense was $21, 963,395. This amount was $1,301 ,0751arger than the $20, 662 320 shown for the Section 15 data. This difference was due to HART's inc lus ion of in teres t expense and lease and rental expenses in this figure (which are not inc luded when calculating total operating expense from Section 15 data for purposes of the Performance Evaluation Study). Again as i n FY 1992, HART elected to publish operat ing expense i n t h is ma nner. This difference affected operating ex pens e per capita, operating expense per passenger trip, and operating expense per revenue mile, which were all slightly inflated i n the published newspaper advertisement, as shown in Table 4. The figure for veh i cle m il es per cap i ta seems to have been understated in the publ i shed data. Since the measure passenger trips per capita corresponds to the data from the Section 15 report (as does passenger trips ) it is feasib l e that the population estimate used was the same as that i n the Sect ion 15 data Thus it is possible that a slightly different figure for vehicle miles than the one f rom the FY 1993 Section 1 5 report was used in the calculation of the measure vehicle miles per capita that appeared in the newspaper advertisement. The average age of the fleet was reported in the newspaper advertisement to be 9.10 years. However, according to the data i n the FY 1993 Section 15 report, the average age of the fleet shou l d have been 8.77 years. It is unclear how HART arrived at the published figure of 9.10 years. Similarly, the reason for the difference in the measure revenue miles per total vehicles is also unclear, especially since the revenue mile figures were ident ica l. It is expected that the measu re published in the newspaper was calculated using a different number of vehicles available for maximum service than that indicated in the Section 15 report. In the newspaper advertisement, operating r evenue per o peratin g expense was reported as 22.00 percent. However given the figures HART published for both operating revenue and operating expense, thi s ra t i o should have been reported as 22.30 percent. This 0.3 difference, it appears may be accoun ted for by rounding. As noted above, the published operating expense was overreported; since Section 15 data indicated a value of 23.71 percent fo r this measure As a result, an accurate comparison of the values for operating revenue per operating expense was not feas i ble due to the overrepresentation of operating expenses in the newspaper advertisemen t. 12


Finally, the measures for revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were underreported in the published advertisement. It appears that a different number of FTEs, other than that reported in the Section 15 report, were used in these computations. In HART's 1993 Section 15 rep ort 415 5 total FTEs were noted: According to the publis hed val ues for t hese two measures, HART utilized a denominator of 450 in the calculation of these measures. As was the case for JTA, it is p oss ib le that the 450 figure represents actual persons at HART instead of FTEs. However, this cannot be conclusively determined from any of the available data, Section 15 or othe!W i se. 13


T a bl e 4 H ills bo r o ug h A re a Regional Transit INDI CATOR 19era:ing E xpel'l$e per PMW'19t' Tfl:> E.xpcn;e per Revenue M ile: Revenue per ExpeMe Mres per Tolal VehiCle$ Revenu e HOurs Empioyee T riP'$ pes Emplo'(ee Average Fare 1'3n f'ERFOHMANC.O INDICATORS Passen9tr Trips Mie& RQUle M ilt$ Operating E x pense R e venue VeT!ioiu Ol)e( ate0 7.93 17 875 1 7 .815 1,949 1 ,949 $25.52 $25 14 ..... $2.52 $l. 7 8 $3.72 2 4 .00% 23.92% 3 1,145 30,938 ... 1,070 20. 706 2 3,401 SO.Sl $0,51 DIFFERENCE 0 0 0 $1,301.075 $0 0 0.84 0 0 .33 0 0 $1.$6 $0.14 $0.24 1.7 1% 3, 160 1.740 $0 0 0 0 $324,<4412 $0 0 0 9 8 0 0.63 0 0 $0,38 $0.04 S0.06 0 0$% 207 2 1 2 ,695 ..


Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority The 1993 data for Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) are shown in Tables 5 and 6. Table 5 presents the data from 111e adveftisei'i\ent published in accordance with F l or i da Statute 341.071(3) and Table 6 shows da t a from an annual report d i str i buted as an advertis ing insert that PSTA publishe d separately from its Section 15 data. The notational m e thod used by PSTA to differentiate between wha t modes were used to deriVe certain figures In its published newspaper advert i sement caused confusion when attempting to decipher the data conta i ned in the advertisement for comparison to Section 15 data. As a result it was assumed that, for the purpose of this report, PSTA rep o rted system total data (for both 1992 and 1993), wh i ch includes direct l yo perated motorbus and direct l y-operated and purchased demand-response service, for all m e as u res unless stipu l a t ed otherwise The pub l ished advertisement appeared in the Sl. Petersburg Times on March 27, 1994 One disparity evi dent i n Tab l e 5 i s t he considerable difference in operating revenue. I n analyz i ng PST A s FY 1993 Section 15 report i t i s apparent that the system utilized this data to c o m p ute the published opera t ing revenue figure; however, lo cal su b si dy, as well as state and f e deral subs i dies, were also i ncluded In the total. In this case strict l y defined o perating revenue for PST A's modes, as dete r mined from t he Section 15 report, s houl d have been $5,117,491. Thi s discrepancy, in turn, affected the operating revenue per o p erating expense measure, which differed s i gnifi c antly: 99. 00 percent (pub l ished) versus 19 59 percent (Section 15). Due to the i nc l usion of variou s government subsidies the ratio that PSTA actually published was total operating funding per total operating expense for all mode s The pub li shed figure for system to t al operating expense also differed from PST A s Sect i on 1 5 report. It was determine d t hat the measured difference of $119 064 exactly matches the amount of fare revenues reta i ned by PST A s contract provider. Ac c ord i n g to Sect i on 15 reporting guide li nes the expenses for purchase d transportation services should include any reta i ned fare revenues Therefore the $119 064 shou l d have been i ncluded i n PST A's system tota l operat ing expense figure The pub li shed figure for revenue miles between Incidents a l so differed from PST A s Sectio n 15 data After a series of computationa l combinations using different moda l totals for incidents and revenue miles it was determined that the pub li shed figure of 39,151 revenue m il es between inc i dents was ca l culated usi ng a comb i nation o f i n ci dents for directly-operated motorbus and demand-response serv i ces while excluding purchased demand-response service. For purpose of strict compara b ility w ith the PST A's advertisement report i ng format, however, the Section 15 column of Tab l e 5 reports the number o f revenue m i les b e tween incidents utili zing data f o r the entire system as was implied by the pub li shed en t r i es. The difference between the average age of the fleet reported i n the advertisement an d that from form 408 of the Section 15 report i s approx i mate l y one year. Wh il e it i s not clearly evident how PSTA calculated the average ag e t o be 8 06 years ins t ead of 7 .03 years it is possib l e that, since 1 5


the advertisement was published in 1994, the system used 1994 as a base year in calculating the reported average age of the fleet. Utilizing 1994 instead of 1 993 as a base year would resun i n an older fleet by the indicated difference. In addition, the slight difference in the measures that utilized operating ex p ense as the numerator differed by slight amounts. It was deduced that this small difference no worse than $0.27, was due to the slightly lower figure published for total operating expense in the newspaper advertisement. 16


Table 5 Pi nellas Suncoast Transit Authority Notice Published Pursuant to Florida Statute 341.071(3) ltfD I CATOR 1S13 INDICATORS Trips Revenoo Mile$ Roult! Mres Tal Opetalil\9 Expense OperaUng Revenue VehiCles In Maximum Setvlee 19-93 HI'EC'!WENI::SS IJ\lASURE S Vehicle Mfles per Capita Passenger Ttlps Capita Average Joile or Ft:eet (years) Re ttnue Miles Between Inciden t s Reven ue Miles Betoo.>een Roao'cail s 19!13 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Expense per Ca,eita Operallng Expense per Pes&enger Trip Operallng Ex_tense per Revenue Mi:e Operating RG\'cnve per Opcmijng Expense Revenue Miles per Total Vehicles R.en:nw Hours 1)01' Ernpk>'Jct per Emlioveo Average Fare 1992 PERr'ORIIIANCE INDICATORS Pidsenger Trips2 Re-lft'l ue 1Wies1 Roul9 Mile; T Ope rati'l g ExpMse Opera.tiog Revenll'G Vohiclts Operated i n Ma:ximum seMoet 1992 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehicle Miles per Trip; per Capi18l AVage AQe of R evcl'ille Miles. BetWeen lnc itteots RIJ\'eooe Mile$ Bet.vee n 1992 Ej:"FIC l[NCY MEASURES Opemtinp Elnse pet Expense per PaosEmgcr T ripl Opeqling p er Revenue Mile' Operaling pe-t Operatl'l g EXpenae Re\'Et'lue Mles pet T <>131 Velicles 2 RG\'enU8 $ ()Or Passenger Trips pet Employee inclJdes data for direc'ltfopera100 motorbus t'lly 8.970,883 7 ,$<18,522 1,703 $25,65S,1S4 182 19. 0 1 2 0 .S3 8.08 39,1S1 2,893 $ 59.52 S2.90 $3.40 99.00% 31,$$9 1 ,032 19,060 $0:50 9 505,074 Q..4 52.52S 1 70 3 i22,7SS,33 1 $.23 ,557 .743 133 18.04 2t.76 8.07 32.203 3 ,204 $52.04 $ 2.39 $3. 62 104 .0 0% 33,96 1 .... 20,22 4 $0.43 1 itle\lde:S d<l for all service (moiOrbu s J;nel S!CTION 15 8,970,883 7,648 ,522 1,703 $2$, 1 20 ,399 $5,117.491 182 19.015 7.03

Tab l e 6 compares the Section 15 da t a with data contained i n an an n ual rep ort published by PSTA a s an advertising i nsert Interest ingly, a s wa s the case i n FY 1992, most of this data appears t o have originated from a sou r ce othe r than PST A s 1993 Secti o n 15 report For example the number of passen g er trips (ridership) was reported in the insert to be 7 950,075 while Sect ion 15 passenger trips (for dir ectly-operated motorbus and demand response service and the contracted vanpool service) was reported as 8 970 883. This d i fference may be due t o the use of another da t a source or to a differen t method of calcu l ating trips A lso, operating expense and opera t ing revenue were reported as e q ual ($26 ,731 500) in the insert. This is not the case according t o the Section 15 report The o the r subst a ntia l d i fferences sh o wn in Tab l e 6 are in revenue miles and number of emp l oyees, w hi ch differed by 1 009 522 miles and 45 FTEs, res p e c t i ve l y More i mportant however, is the fact that PST A s published data in t he two advertising inserts focuse d on i n this and the previous report, again do not correspond to the data contained in the Sec t i o n 1 5 reports o r t o each other. Ins p ect ion o f Tab l e 6 sh ows that d i fferent values were p ublished for each of the measures. It is surprising that any system would cho o se t o pub l ish conf l icting data for a second t ime especially given the confusion that will surely resu l t among interested county res i dents. tNDICATOR Table 6 Pi n ellas Suncoast Tra n s i t A uthori ty 1993-1994 Annu a l ReportPublished Advertising Ins ert PU8USHED SECTION 15 1993 PER F ORMANC E I NDICATORS Passenger Revenue MJes 6 6 3 9,000 7,6<18, 522 Tct.l l Oper., M g EKpltll$8 $2$.731,500 !26, 1 20,399 Operall 'ng Revenu e $26.7 31,500 470 "' T fan$it Coacl'le$ .. "' OART Vans 28 30 1 8 DFFERNCE 1 020 .80& ,009,52:2 $61 1 ,1 0 1 $21,$1-4,009 .. 2


LYNX (Orlando) Table 7 shows the data from the 1993 published newspaper advertisement and corresponding Section 15 data for LYNX in Orlando. LYNX reported on directly-operated motorbus, purchased demand-response service, and purchased vanpool service, unless otherwise noted in the table. The differences between the data are infrequent and they are comparable to the differences that have been found to be common for other transit systems reported o n thus far. The newspaper advertisement appeared in the April 6, 1994 issue of The Orlando Sentinel. Updates to the data that occurred after publication provides partial explanation for the differences in some measures noted in the table. Specifically, revenue miles, which LYNX reported as 8, 775,335 in the newspaper, was changed In the Section 15 report to 9,086,630 in early December 1994. While the updated figure for revenue miles helps explain the different values for operating expense per revenue mile revenue miles between inc i dents and roadcalls, and revenue miles per total vehicles, it is evident in the case of the latter three measures that the updated figure is not the only reason for the significant di fferences Like PSTA, i t appears t ha t LYNX added l ocal state, and federal subsidies to arrive at a figure of $21,902,939 for operating revenue According to data from the 1993 Section 15 report, total operating revenue was $7 107 322. The different tota l for this indica to r also affecte d the ratio of operating revenue to operating expense The table shows that LYNX reported this ratio to be 100 percent In the newspaper advertisement, while it was ca lcu lated as 32.45 percent using t he Section 15 total operating rev enue It is evident tha t a similar population measure was utilized In the calculation of vehicle miles per capita, passenger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita. These measures were either slightly underreporled or slightly overreported It was deduced that these meager differences were the resu lt of rounding differen ces. The average age of t he vehicle fleet was also found not to equal that calculated from form 408 of the Section 15 report. The newspaper advertisement reported an average age of 8.40 years for the directly-operated motorbus f lee t while the Section 15 data for this measure showed an average age of 7.87 years. I t is unclear how the average age of 8.40 years was determ ined. Finally, as with several other transit systems, revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per emplo yee diffe red slightly. In this case both were overstated. Revenue h ours per employee was published as 1 733 yet, according to the number of revenue bours and FTEs from LYNX's Section 15 report the figure should have been 1 ,729 Likewise, the newspaper advertisement reported 29,399 passenger trips per employee. However, when the published figure for passenger trips (which corresponds with the Section 15 data for system total) was used along with the number of FTEs from the Section 15 report, the result was 29,337 passenger t r ips per employee. Therefore, although the differences are negligible, it is apparent that a different number of FTEs was utilized in computing the published data for both of t hese measures. 19


Specifically mani pulat ion o f the published data indicate s that 379 FTE s w ere used i n the denominator of this rat io, while LYNX s Section 15 rep o rt ind i cates a total of 379 8 FTEs. IHDICA TOR 199l IN DICA. TORS P a sMnge-l' Tt ip; 1\ewnu e Mkls Route M ileS Total Ope t al ing Expense R e venue Vetlicte s Oper ated i n Maximum Seryice EfHCTIVENESS W.EASURES Vellele Mile$ per Capla Passenger T rill'$ pe r <:aplta Aot-ol Flett (years) Reven ue 9erwu n Mle s Betwetll Road: ans 199 ) MEA.SURt:S E)Cptn$e per CaPU Operat."t'lg Expe.nse per Passer.ger T ti p Operating Expens.e Revenue Mile Opera6 n p R e ven u e I* Op e rating Exi*!M R evenue M 1 les per Veil des c:er Employee Passen;tt Trips per Ave,age Fate IS'?1 PfRi'ORMANCE INDICATORS Trips Atvenve Mil e s Rovts MileS' Tota l Oper .. Of)Cfatinp Reven ue Venlctes Opera te d i n MaxiiT!l.lm Service 11n HFE.CTIVENESS MEAS U RES Veh i c l e MJes per Cspita Panen98r Tti;>s Ptl' Capii

. .. Palm Beach County Transportation Authority The Palm Beach County Transportation Authority (Co Tran) published FY 1993 data for directly operated motorbus service in its newspaper advertisement; CoTran did not pub l ish, as required, FY 1992 figures. Therefore the published 1992 data in Table 8 were obtained from CoTran's 1991-1992 published advertisement. These data, along with the corresponding informat ion from CoTran s 1993 Section 15 report, are shown in Table 8. While much of the data that was reported in the published advertisement was obtained direct ly from the Section 15 report, some data were from the Florida Transit Management, Inc. (FTM), Report of Operations for 1993. In all cases, data from the FTM Report of Operations utilized in conjunction with the Section 15 data resulted in different figures for some indicators and measures than solely from the use of the Section 15 report. The newspaper advertisement appeared on February 27, 1994, in the Palm Beach Post. I nstead of using the service area population figure of 775,335 indicated in the Section 15 report form 001, CoTran used a 1993 Census figure of 916,370. I t is assumed that this figure represents the entire population for Palm Beach County. This difference affected th ree measures: vehicle miles per capita passenger tr ips per cap ita and operating expense per capita. The higher population figu re used for the published data resu lted In the underreporting of these particular measures, as shown in Tab le 8. The figure published in the newspaper advertisement for route miles was 3,323,1 09. An exactly matching figure could not be located in Co Tran's FY 1993 Section 15 report. According to information sent along with the newspaper advertisement by CoTran the source for this figure was the FY 1993 FTM Report of Operations. I t Is reasonable to assume that this f ig ure actually represents vehicle miles, since the Section 15 data reported motorbus vehicle miles as 3 290 462, which is relatively close to 3,323 109. Nevertheless, the system's Section 15 report l isted 457 1 direct io na l route miles. CoTran also used t he published r oute miles (3,323 109) instead of revenue miles when calculating revenue miles per t ota l vehicles thereby producing a discrepancy i n this measure as well. According to its Section 15 report, Cotran had 76 total vehic les available for service. The use of data from the FTM Report of Operations also caused a variation in average fare For average fare farebox revenue from the FTM report was used in the computation instead of passenger fare revenues from the Section 15 report, thus resulting In the measured difference of $0.12. Most of the data CoT ran reported In the newspaper does seem to originate from its Section 15 rep ort however, there were miscalculations in the measures operating expense per passenger trip and per revenue mile. Utilizing data from CoTran's advertisemen t to recalculate the measures opera ting expense per passen ger trip and operating expense per revenue mi le, the figures that should have been published are $3.36 and $3.24, respectively. The reason(s) for these miscalculations could not be determined. 21


The difference found in Table 8 for average age of the veh i cle fleet may be the outcome of rounding. CoT ran published in its advertisement an average age of 7.00 years, while an average age of 6 63 years was calculated from form 408 of the Section 15 report A rounding difference may also have been the cause of the discrepancy shown for operat ing revenue per operating expense especially since the published operating revenue figure matched the Section 15 data exactly and total operat i ng expense diffe r ed from the Sect i on 15 data by only $1.00 (rounding). Co Tran published this operating ratio as 25 .00 percent, when the Section 15 data show it to actua ll y be 24 .78 per cent. Finally, the publ i shed figures for r evenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee d i ffered from the Sect i on 15 data. I n this case, both were underrepresented. Revenue hours per employee was published as 1 ,090 yet according to the number of revenue hours and FTEs from CoTran's Section 15 report, the figu r e should have been 1,176. Likewise the newspaper advertisement r eported 15,691 passenge r trips per emp l oyee After a series of computational combinations it was discovered that, in ca l culating these measu r es, Co Tran used the figure for ac t ua l numbe r of emp l oyees as the denominator r ather than the number of FTEs as requ i red thereby explain ing the diffe r ences in these measures. 22


Tab l e 8 Pal m Beach County Transportation Authority I:NDICATOR P UBLISHED SECTION 15 DiFFERE NCE 19'13 INOICAlORS Pusenger Trips 2,714,61 5 2,71 4 615 0 Mile$ 2 8 17,0i1 2,817 .021 0 Rou18Mlaa 3,:!23,109 4$7 1 0 nla Total Opernlin; Expense $9,11 8 ,026 S9, 118,027 -$1 Opetating R&\enue $2.259 ,333 S2 2S9,33S so VohicJcs Operated in Maximum Servico 57 57 0 1993 E:FFECTIVENI::SS 1/lCASUR(S VehiCle Mies per capita MS 4.24 -0 .01 Ttrps J)er c ap.".a 2 .96 3 .50 ..... AV&IaQC Of Flee t {Yea!$} 7 00 6 63 0.37 R.ewnue M!leg Between 1 48,264 148,264 0 A.ev-enut M iiGJ> RoadcaB& 3,812 3 ,812 0 1993 EFFICIENCY MEASURES Opetalfng EXpense per Capita $9.95 $ 1 1.78 $ 1 .&1 Opeta!lng Expense per Passenge r Trip $2.54 $3.38 -$0.82 Oper a l!ng EXpense p e r Revenue Mile $2.38 S3.2

Tallahassee Transit Tallahassee Transit (TAL TRAN) published data for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 in a newspaper advertisement that appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat on September 8, 1994 Table 9 shows the data published by TAL TRAN jo intly with the data compiled from their FY 1993 Section 15 report. At the bottom of the publish ed newspaper advertisement, TAL TRAN indicated that the data being reported dep icted the "basic system only." To clarify the meaning of t his tennin ology a phone call was placed to TAL TRAN and it was detennined that "basic system only" refers solely to TAL TRAN's directly-operated motorbus service. Most of the publishe d data did not match the Section 15 data. There were, however, a few measures that matched exactly. For example, route miles average age of fleet, and total operating expense were published exactly as they appeare d in the Section 15 repo rt. However, operating revenue was underreported and operating expense per capita was overreported in the newspaper advertisement. In the case of operating revenue. it appears that the difference of $44,1 00 is due t o TAL TRAN inadvertently omitting non-transportation fun ds when calculating the publ ished value for this indicato r thus accounting for the difference of $44 100. Furthermore with regard to operating expense per capita even though the value published for operating expense matched the Section 15 figu re exactly, it is not cle ar what data were us ed by TALTRAN i n the computation of this measu re. Nonetheless, t h is difference may be due to an incons i stent figure for serv i ce area population. Inte rest ingly the figures for passenger trips and rev enue miles published b y TALTRAN in its newspaper advertisement matched the figures that the system reported in ils prelim inary Section 15 report precise l y However these two measures were updated in a subsequent Section 15 r eport and changed as noted in the "Section 15" column of Table g_ The updated figures for these indicators were not reflected in the newspaper advertisement by TAL TRAN. As a result. the meas ured differences in passenger trips per capita and operating expense per passenger trip and pe r revenue mile are explained by TALTRAN's use of the preliminary, and not the u pdated figu r es for these i ndica tors. The figures for the measures revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee publis hed in the newspape r advertisement were also different than those calculated using FY 1993 Section 15 data. It is evident that the differences in the ridership and service level i ndicators were not the only reasons for these discrepancies It appears that in calculating the publ ished figures for these measures. TAL TRAN used 127 employees as each ratio s denominator instead of the 131.4 FTEs indicated Section 15 report. Fina ll y average fare was reported in the newspap e r as $0.58 According to Section 15 data this measure was calculated to be $0.48 b y dividing tota l passenger fare revenues (including the special transit fares TAL TRAN generated in its contracted serv ice agreements with Florida State University and Florida A&M University to provide free fare zones for students) by total passenger trips. While not evident how the $0.58 average fare was actually detennined, given that the 24


published passenger trip figure is larger than that from the Section 15 report, it can on l y be hypothesized that a significantly larger fare revenue figure from an alternative source was used i n t he ca l cu lati on. INDICATOR 1993 P ERFORMANCE INDICATORS Pfl$senger T rl!; Rcvooue lilies Route Milt$ Total OperaW.g Expens. Revenue Veh icles Operated In Maximum SeMoe EFFECTIV(NESS MEASURES VehiCle Miles per Capj!a Ps$$tl'lget Trips per Capita A\leraga AQC Of F leet (yt#T$) Mil!& Bet.vee n I nCidents R evenue Boh.vecn Roadcall$ 1,3 E F F! Cit::NC'i ElCr:ense per Ca.plta OpenJtlng Expense per Pas sen g&r T tip Operating Expense per Revenue Milo per Opetat:'ng EXpense Mle s p er To!aJ Velicles Hcur s per Passenger T ri il$ per Employee Fate 1 99 2 INDICATORS PassEflger T rip$ Revenue Mi'o; RotAeMIIes Total Expense Operating Reveooe Vehldes Optr<'led i1l M:uMwm S erviCe 1992 EFFE C TIVE NES S r.'IE/IS URES Miles pe r Pa$$Ctlget Trips pet Capita Avefage AQe Of Flee1 (ye a11) Revenue Mi:G$ 801\YeOn. Incidents M iles Between R oadcalls 1992 EFF lCIE.NCY MEAS U RCS Opcnling Expense per Operating E)(pense p e r Pas.sen ger Trip o p eratilg Exp ense per Rcwnue Mile: Opcr :l\bg Revenue pe r Opera1inQ Elcpe1'4C Revcmuc Mtes per T 0!81 Veh icles Revenue Hon per Emp(cyee Passenger Trips J)er Etnploye e Average F ar e ,, .. ' Table'"9 Tallahassee Transit PUBUSHED 3,9 94 ,225 1 ,495,965 195.20 $6,730..200 $1,73).800 42 t 1 .30 30.26 11.20 32.!21 2 397 $44.33 $1.43 $3.83 30.00% 35,618 ... 31,-45 1 $1.1.58 3 ,673,-443 1 ,4$9,415 8 195.20 $ 5 165 700 $ 1 ,847 ,800 41 11.50 28..42 12 3 49_649 $45.89 $U1 $')...48 32.00% 35,328 .,. 2 8 ,925 $0.57 SECTION 1 5 3 ,629,31 0 1 ,485, 82 5 195.20 $5,730,200 $1.777,900 41 12.02 27.49 1 1 .20 32,301 2 38 t $43.40 $1.58 S:U6 31. 03% 30,&55 931 27 ,&20 S0.'18 3 628,887 1 ,.079,458 195 .20 $5.158,7(10 $1.66&.200 41 12.20 28 00 12.3 .C&, 315 1 ,445 $39. 91 $1.42 $3.49 32.36% 30,822 ., 2 8 ,169 $0.45 D IFFERENCE 3G4,i1S 10,140 0 .. 100 1 0.72 2 .76 0 220 1 6 $0.93 -$0 .1 5 -$Q 0 3 4 ,6&3 32 3,831 $0 .10 48,556 10.000 0 $27, 0 0 0 -$2-1 400 0 0.70 0 .36 0 334 1 0 -$0.01 .$0. 0 \ .0.36% 5 506 .,. 766 $0.12 25


Regional Transit System (Gainesville) After contacting Gainesville s Regional Tran sit System (RTS) numerous times to inquire about o btaining a copy of its most recent published newspaper advertisement for inc l us ion in this report RTS indicated that it had not yet received the concurrence letter from the Federal Transit Administration that concludes the validation process for their Section 15 data and, as a result, had not yet complied with the perfonnance measure reporting requirement. Therefore for each measure included under the column labeled "Published," a DNP (did not publish) has been indica ted. In addition, as a direct result of this problem, it was necessary to obtain the data under the column labeled Pu blished" for 199 2 from the 1991-1992 newspaper advertisement pub li shed by RTS since as ind icated above the 1992-1993 advertisement was not available for inclus i on in this report. 26


Table 10 Regional Transit System (Gainesville) INDICATOR 1991 PFRf'ORMANCE INDICATORS P 3$s.ctl9tf' TtiQS Re'Yenue MJes Rou.o.e Milts Total 0pe ra1ir.g Expense Operating RtmlW Vehicles Operaled in MaKimum Sei'W 19'.13 HfF.CTIVl:Nl;SS M(ASURf:S VehiCle Mile; per C$p'ta Pusenger T rips per Average Age of Flte1 (yeftS) Revenue Miles Between Incidents Re-tenue Miles Bel\\-een Roaclcall s 1993 EFFIC I F.NCY Mt:ASUR(S Opetatllg E xpense per Opera&lg Expense per f'a&$.Gflge.r Trip Operaring Expense per R8\'811Ue M l e Revenue per 0 Pttating Expense R.tvettut Miles per Total VMicles REWenue Hour s pGt Pauenge1 Trips per EmP'C)'ee Avape F.ate PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Passenger Trips Revenue Route Miles Total ()flcra:in.g Expei\Se Opera!lng Retenue Vehlele9 Opera:eci in 1992 EFFECTIVENESS PJ\EASURES Vehide Mles P!f Capl!a Pas&.en;er Capla Average PQe cf Fie<'!t Revenue Mlle:s B Oper8til'l9 Expense p er Passenger Mle Revenue per Expense Revenue Miles pet Tota l Vellid.ICJS Hours pet Empl'fee Po:$Wlget Tr4:1s per Emp(oyc::c Avecsge Fare PUBUSHED """ DN P DNP DNP DNP ONP ONP DNP DNP ONP ONP ONP ONP ONP """ ONP DNP ONP ONP DNP DNP ONP ONP ONP DNP 9.30 1-4.40 3 9 ONP 1.28 4 $ 21.1 0 51.50 52:.60 105.00% 30,324 1,250 30.2&9 $0.51 SECTtON 15 2,370,197 1.-109, 584 266.90 S.-3.212,7$3 $1 ,949 30 7.74 ,._ .. 5.10 50 .342 1,$57 $17.4$ $1.3 8 $ 2 2 8 43.78% 32,78 1 1.059 $0.57 2,6SS, 156 1,637.508 2U. 9 ., 9.31 1;.410 3 9 29 773 1 ,718 $21.12 $1.47 $0.47 35.87% 30,324 1 ,32

East Volusia Transportation Authority In Tabl e 11, data for East Volusia Transportation Authority (VOTRAN) are shown. For the mosl part. the measures that were published in the newspaper adve rtisemen t were compiled from VOTRAN s 1993 Section 15 report. In the advertisement, VOTRAN provided data for directly operated motorbus service. The published advertisement appeared in t he Daytona Beach News Journal on April 28, 1994. With regard to the measure total operating expense it appears that VOTRAN included expenditures for purchased demand-response in addition to the expenditures for fixed-route motorbus Data for purchased demand-response were not included in any other measure in t he advertisement. However. using Section 15 data, when the total operating expense for directly operated and demand-response services were added together the resulting summation exceeded the published operating expense figure by $28,630. The origin of the figures used to arrive at the p ub lished op erating expense figure remains unclear. As a result, the published m eas ures for operating expense per capita, operating expense per passenger t rip and operating expense per re venue mile were all subsequently overstated, but correct, given the figure published as total operating expense. Also, operat i ng revenue was inflated since, simila r t o other transit systems VOTRAN apparently inc luded local revenue plus fe deral and state subsidies in the indicator This allowed operating revenue to equal operating expense and, therefo re, the ratio of operating revenue to operating expense was reported as one (1) or 100 percent. As collected for the Perfo r mance Evaluation Study however, operating reven ue does not include the local, federal, and state fund ing. As a res ult operating revenue should have equaled $1 343,283 and operating revenue per operat i ng expense should have been 33.96 percent. Passenger trips per capita was published in the newspaper advertisement as 16. 50 This measure differed from the Sect ion 15-calculated ratio by 0.04 passenger trips. After careful rev iew it was determined that VOTRAN rounded this measu re up to the nearest tenth of a po int. The p ub li she d data for reve nue miles per inc ident differed significantly from the figure calculated using VOTRAN s Section 15 data The difference was a conspicuous 74 556. It appears that given t he fac t that revenue miles matched exactly a different number of incidents was utilized in the calculation of this measure. Contained in a footnote at the bottom ofVOTRAN's published advertise ment is a note that states "FT A requires that an inc ident only be counted if injury occurs or i f property damage exceeds $1, 000. In FY 1g93, only 5 incidents met th is criteria." Indeed when t he measure i s calculated using the number of inc idents as five instead of the four indica ted in VOTRAN's Section 15 report the resulting value is identical to that reported in t he newspaper advertisement. In addition, the measures that used number of employees as the denominator were overreported slightly. The measure revenue hours per employee was overreported by one and passenger 28


trips per employee was overreported by 35 Once again, it is evident that a different number of FTEs were used i n the calculation of the published data given that the figures for total passenger trips matched exactly Accord i ng to FY 1993 Sect i on 15 data VOTRAN i ndicated 96 1 FTEs; however manipu l ation of the published data i nd i cates that VOTRAN utilized a rounded employee fegure of 96 .0 FTEs for the iwo employee productivity me as ures Finally the discrepancy i n revenue miles per total vehicles is due to the utilizat i on of data from d ifferent lines on form 406 of the Section 15 report In this calculation. VOTRAN used the number of vehicles operated in max imum service (34) Instead of the number of vehicles available for maximum service (37), I.e., vehicles This exact reporting mistake was a l so made by VOTRAN In the computat ions fo r the system' s FY 1992 published advertisement. 29


Tab le 11 East Volusia Transportation Authority MOICATOR Pt:_fof;:ORMANCf 1NDICATOA5. Population Pnsenger Trips Revenue Miles ROV!e Mte!l Total 0Ptti'6np Revenue Vehicle' Opera:led W Xi'n;tm Sttvlu 1'3'1) MLASUR(S Vi!hk:le Miies per c... AYtfJSe Age (If Ffeee (Yeats) Revtnue Mle$ Bt'tWeen lfti:IOcnl t Revenue Mle$ Sttwecn J\oldctl'a 1'91 lH-ICil.NCY MEASURES Expense per Capha Operating per P assenger Tf'IJ) E.xpeMe per RevtntA M111 R evenue pe r 0perl111'19 R....enue 1.1111!$ per T ata1 Vt'hldel ttc...'s p PaueQQef trips oet Average Fare 191.11 PERfORMANCE INDICA TORS A rea PopulaliOn P assenger T rip$ Revenue Miles Route Mile$ Total & p ense Revenue Vetllole: & OPEIGIIeO in tr.\Jximt.trn Stf"triit "191 [ff(CTT\'ENtS.S tr.lEASUIUS Mile:s per capa Passenger Trips per CttPQ Age or Reel ('(ears) R e ver.ue Miles SelYrro-een I nci d ent Revenue Miles Be!Ween Ro*'ealll 1'H2 HHCIENCV MEASUR[S Opetali n g EXpetl&e J)er Caplu Operatw'lg El:!*IH pet Pnstl\gtl Trip Expease per Revenut M lt Oper;bg R_..l.'t per OpernnQ 1Mes oer Tout Vlhidts Hours ptt EfnCIIC Pa"er.gcr Trfc:l$ W mc:IO'jtt A\Oerage Fare 30 1 97,218 3.247, 1,491, 1211 275.00 $4, 220 108 $4, 220, \De .. 7 .08 1UO 9.90 29$ 220 5 ,o442 '21.39 S1.30 $l,83 100.00'4 4U57 1 .137 .Ill ..... 19ti,.S 1 8 3,025, 300 1 ,<163,696 ,., Sl,970, 128 $3.970 128 .. 1.31 1$<10 9.20 6 0,987 5,100 S20 .22 ,, S2 ,7t ........ "' 1.154 32.1!6 $0 .21 1t7.2i& 3,247,410 1.4tt.l2$ 275 ,.410 U 955,919 $ 1 .343.28! .. ... HU6 us 372,782 s .-.. 2 1 20 .0$ $1, 22 S 2 .EiS 3U6"1. 40.301 1 136 :13,792 S O N lt$.317 3 025,300 1 -483.696 257 $3,782, 78 1 11, 207.$3 7 .. 7.t1 u ... 80,987 6 100 $19 .27 St,25 S 2 .58 3193% .sst 1 154 32,356 S0. 28 0 0 0 4 0 S2t4 1 87 $2,871U23 0 0 00< 09$ 7 4 ,$51 0 .... .... ....... use 1 1 0 0 0 S187,a47 $2, 782 ,281 0 .... .01 1.28 0 0 S0. 95 .... .... 61.07% ,_ . 0 ... ..


Eseambia County Area Transi t Escambia County Area Transit (ECA T) reported data for its directly-operated motorbus service and purchased demand-response service separate l y As required data wer e pub l ished for FY 1992 and 1993 The 1 993 ind i cators for the fixed rout e motorbus serv i ce are presented in Table 12. Since th e modes were reported separately, the purchased demand-response data were not revi e wed for this a nalys is. The advertise m ent appear ed in th e Pensacola N e w s Journal on Apri l 10 1994. The publish ed data for the fixed route motorb us servic e were gener a ll y taken from ECAT's 1 993 Section 15 r eport and the diffe rences between the two are re l ative l y minor For instance 245.0 rout e mi les were publishe d i n the adv ertisement while 244 70 miles are sho wn in the Section 15 report It is apparent that the route miles were rounded up. Also, ECAT reported passenger f a re revenues for tota l opera ting revenue The system did not a dd in aux ili ary transporta t ion revenues or non tra nsportat ion revenues which are typica ll y included in operating rev enue As a result, the ratio of ope rating revenue per operating expense was unde rs tated in t h e newspaper advertisement. ECAT also mt sreported t h i s measure i n the same fashi o n i n the F Y 1992 advertisement. Vehi cle m iles per ca p ita p asse nger trips per capita, and operating expense per capita were all underreported i n the publi shed data It i s be l ieved t h at a popu l ation figure other tha n the one provided in the 1993 Section 15 report was used in these calcu l ations espe ci ally given that the ridership figures match ed exa ctly Accordin g to the Section 15 rep ort, the serv ice area popu l a t ion was 225 000 Also affec ti ng the difference i n the o perat ing expense per capita measure is the fact that total operating expens e was overrep orte d by $122.665 Unfortunately a reason for this particu lar discrepancy could not be read il y identified In additio n an ot h er difference between the publi she d and Section 1 5 d a ta involved t h e mea s u res rev enue hours per em p l oyee and passenger trips per emp loyee Both of these me asu res were underrepres e nted when compared to data from the Se ctio n 15 report It I s evident f rom a man i pulat i on of the d a ta however, that ECAT used actua l employees (68 0 ) I n the calcu l ations for the published measures as opposed to full time equiva l ents (Secti on 15 data show ed 63.1 FTE s) 31


INDICATO R Pusenger Tnps Revenue M iles Aovt t Miles. Total Oper ating Exi*!H 01)H8ting Revenue Ve1'11C1es O peq:ted i n MUI!nl,ltl\ StNICt !0:."-J HrfCTrVENESS I\1CAS U IU S Vdlicl! Miles. per r pel Ctpb AW!ra9e ol F .... ..... ) Rt\'tnue Mites Be tweeft tncidtntl Rcvnuc Miles Betwee n ROidGIIII HfiCif:.NCY Mt;ASUkES Ope rating EK;en;o COflll Expense per Paaa.enott Trip Operal if\9 Expense per Revenue Mr Revenue pet' OpetJbng Expense M iles pet T otlll Vehlcttt Rnenue Hours per Tl'll:s .. Avet.f 1'9-,.l PERfORMMKE ENOtCA Passenger T ril>$ Route M ileS TOlal EX,Pense Ope r a ting Reven ue Vthiele:s lf'l MaXli'TIUm Sotvlot 19':12 EnECTIVFNfSS MfASUIUS Vehi!:Je Mies per Cill)lla T'l)&, per (;apU Met. Aged flt:ct Rcftnue: Mies BftwHtt IM:ildtniS M.les Aolelc.ll$ 1"1'>'2 UfiCIENCY r;1EASUHES O pera tflg Expen4e pet CJPII Qper3,illg Expense per T,. 0pera1ing )cpen$t I* Revenue M't Opera1ill; Revenue per Oper1UnD" EXptnse Re\lenu. M iles per Tota l ye!lk;ts Re\lenve tb.lfl peJ A ..... 32 Table 12 Eseambia County Arel Transit 1 ,2eel,872 1,078 ,')41 24S .OO $3,, 416,465 $621,84 6 2$ ... ., 11 .40 n .02s 17 ,972 $ tU5 S2.71 SU7 18.20'4 lS,t45 1.101 ,....,, .... 1.'11,100 95t,315 238. 00 $3. 298,8)4 U08, 0$4 2 1 :ua M 93Z 9 690 $12.3Z $2.95 ss ..... 16 37% 38,)7) ... tS.t80 ..... SECTION 1.S 1.280.872 1 ,071.3" 8 244. 7 0 S3,29J,800 $734,957 25 uo 11 .t0 n .02s 1 7.t12 nu.a $2. 6 1 $3.05 22 .31% 35,t45 1.194 19,982 ... .. 1 118,600 959,315 237.70 13,298,834 $ 712.88S 21 ... ... ..... 05,932 t.&to $ 1 6 ,49 S2.95 U .44 23.% 35,5$0 ..... 11. 3-U) .... 0 0 MO S122.Ge5 SHS,tll .. ... .... 0 0 SUO SO. t O $0. 1 2 4 .11% ... 1 ,440 .. 0 0 .30 so S1M, I31 0 I 21 14.17 so .a. on. 2 1A) ., .. ...... ..


Lee County Transit In it s n e w s paper a dverti seme n t L e e County Transit (LeeTran) publi shed da t a on directly operated motor bus serv ice, aHhough the adverti sement did no t specifically Ind i cat e for which m ode (s) the data were reported A s required LeeTran provided data for fiscal years 1992 an d 1993. The publi shed FY 1993 d a ta for a lmost every measure were taken d i rectly from the system 's Section 15 report for the same year, as shown in Tab l e 13. The publis hed advertise ment appeared in the News-Press on M ay 24, 1994 As shown In the table the publishe d number of passenge r trips was 1, 748 494 and the Se c t i on 15 report figu r e was 1,748 g16 ; a differe nce of 422 passe nger trips A reason for this slight v ariation could not be discerned, although i t is pos s i b l e that a differen t source was utilized for the published rid ership figure. Nevertheles s th e difference was so small that it did not affect the ratio operating exp ense per passenger tri p when r ounding was ta k en into co nsideration In addit ion the differences between several values w ere also negligible For instance 377 0 route miles were published in the advert isement. while 377 3 route m il es were I ndicat e d in t he Section 15 report II is apparent that the published figure for route m iles was rounde d down It is also evide n t tha t t he number of FTEs used in ca l culating revenue hours per emp l oyee and passeng er t r ip s per employee for pub lication was slightly different from that Indicated in the Sec tion 15 report. These two m easures were over repo rted by ins i gnificant amounts : o nly one hour for revenu e hours per emp l oyee and 11 trips for p a ssenger trips per emp l oyee Man i pul a tion of the published data determ ined that LeeTran used 67.45 FTEs to ca l culate these measures ; the figure that was used from the Secti on 15 rep ort was 67 50 FTEs. Therefore the di fference can solel y be attributed t o the rounding o f th e measures' denominator va l ues. Last l y the difference between the a verage age of the fleet reported in the adv e rtisement and tha t from form 408 of the Section 1 5 report is exactly one year While it is not clearly evident how LeeTran calculated the aver age age to be 8.42 years Instead of 7.42 years, it is possibl e t ha t, since the advertisem en t was p ublished In 1994, the system us e d 1 994 as a base year i n ca l culatin g t he r eporte d average age of tha flee t. Utilizing 1994 instead of 1993 as a base year would result in an o l de r fleet by exactly one year thu s exp l ain ing the d ifference Int erestingly in FY 1992 the difference betwe e n the pub li shed and the Section 1 5 report average fl eet age wa s exacUy one year as well It i s p oss ible, then that LeeTran utilized the incorrect base year in this calculation once a gain In order to remain consistent with the previously -repo rted fleet age 33


INOtCATOR lHl Pa&.&eng e r T tip; ReveNJe Miles M lcs Total Ell'pente Operating f\ev.nuc Vehi:les Operaled In MaximUm N\ll U fTCTlVE NESS M[ASURfS Vehi:;;le Was per c.pila Pbseti!JI!I T4'1S PH Capo o1 fleet bNtt) Aetl'lut' &filii!S & rween Atvtl'lut MileS BetNHn Rtlldellls E fFitlt:NCY M E A SUR f S Epense pe r Caplw Operallng pe r Pasnngor T rip Ol)etaUng EXpense per Revet\!Jt Mill Operabn; Reve nue pet 01)0fltftO l!)cptnle Revenue Miles pe.. T oeaJ Vehle1ts Hour$ per P&Uef9!" per A .... 1';1')2 PERFORMANCE INDICA TORS Trips ReYenue Mles RQ\.Ite r.111n TOial Opetating Ellpen&o Opetali:'lg Revenue Vehicle$ Opera1ed in M atlmum SetvC>t 1,91 f_f H C IIVfN'[SS M[ASUR[S Vehi:1t Mies p C pJta Average At;,e Cl f .reet (yean) Mites 8tc"Meen lnCildtt-.!S ReYenl.lll! M i les Between 11l1'11 ErriCIENCY MEASURES Ca,:itl Operating Expense PGI P.n1t"9tl Trip Oper ating Et:pense l)er Revenue M ilt Oper athg Revenue per Opc t 11"SS Etpef'd.e Miles l)ef T otal Vehieltf R......-w Hcus pet Emptovet Tlfps pet Eolt*)M 34 Table 13 Lee County Trana l t P U III.ISHD t 7 48,48o4 1, 55 3,220 317 .00 $3 122,8 37 1705,314 2$ 4.16 ._,. .... &4,711 1 1,013 sa. e o sua $2. 0 t 22. 68% 4),14$ 1.307 25.921 so. 1,4 51,CI'tl 1,3.42 ,381 ... $3, t06,Pt .... 0 0 .3 0 so so 0 0 .0. 01 I 0 0 $0 so so 0 0 I II so 0 71,&60 2 so so 0 .. I ..... 4 7 1 S O 1 t $0 $0. 1 2 0 128 .&4 07$ ... so


Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota County Area T r ansit (SCAT) USeD its $ection 1 5 reports from fisca l years 19 89, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 In reporting selected indicators in the newspaper Only data from FY 1993 are shown in Tab le 14 since that i s the focus year of this report. In its advertisem ent SCAT present e d Information pertain ing to It s directly-operated mot orbus servi ce although the advertisament did not spec ific a lly indic:>le for whi ch mode(s) the data were reporte d Intere s tingly SCAT publ i shed considerably mor e i nformation I n new s p ape r advert i sement tha n i s re quired by FOOT tha n a ny of the other systems reviewed in this report The data appeared in the Wedne sday May 18, 1994 edition of the Sarasot a Herald-Tribune. After the newsp aper advertisement was published SCAT updated its service area population fro m 290,602 which actually rep resents Sarasota Cou nty's t otal population, to 230,157 The populat i on difference of 60, 445 a ffect e d veh i cl e mi l es per capita p asse nger trips per capita a nd operating expense pe r capita a ll of wh i ch were underreported in th e pub li shed data The average age of the fleet was stated as 12.50 years in the newspaper an ov ere stimation of approximately 0.9 years when compared to the age calculated from the Section 1 5 data (11.60 years) Unfortunately, it is not read ily apparent h ow SCA T determine d the published average age. The use of 1994 as t he base year for the ca l cula tion would h ave resuHed I n an average age of 12 60 years Similar to the case for service area population, SCAT provided an updated figu r e for the total number of i nci den ts (15) after the adv e rt isement had been published (20 i ncid ents were originally reported in the Sect ion 15 data). This c hange resulted in an Increase in revenue miles between incidents from 52,801 to 70 ,401 miles Therefore, while the figures for this measure are shown t o b e s ignificantly d i fferent in Table 14, the published va l ue was actua lly correct at the t im e of printing Additi ona lly, the measure r evenue mil es per total vehic les was overstated in the advertisement by 887 miles S in ce published revenue miles match the Section 15 data it is apparent that the difference resu l t e d from the total number of vehicles used i n the computation. While the Section 15 data i ndicate d 35 vehicles ava ilable for m aximum serv ice during FY 1993, it was determined t hat 34 vehic l es were used to calculate t he advert ised measure although no r eason for thi s d i s cr epa ncy was found F i na ll y the published revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were slightly smaller tha n the figures calculated for these mea s ures directly from the most updated Section 15 data However, with revenue hours per employ ee being different by only one hour and passeng er trips per e m ployee varying by seven trips, the disparities are small enough to suspect rounding as the cause 35


IHC*:ATOR Popl.ll'ation Passenger Trips Pusenger Milt'S Revenue Miles ROVIeMtes Total 0pera6n; RtvellUe OpeotateiS i"' Sertk:e Vef'lidl Mies pel Ca;ib Pt' AQe ec Fleet (years) Mfes BetNetn lll(it:lenl RevenueM]e s BtmeM RoadCII II 1 'J'JJ HHCI E NCY M EASURfS Ope1eting Expe.n5e per Capnt Opetatf'lg ExpeJtSe per Pa.s tt"'jt r Tnp &pens;e per Revenue M olt per ap.rlt'9 Ell.ptMe Mrres P" Total VthbH Rt\'tJIUt Hour$ pet Pas.s.enger tnps per EITC)fOyM Avttaoe Far-e l'Iitf Opefallr9 &$len58 pet Tfcp Owi P"ii Expense Rwenut Mit ... Mle5 S* TcQI V.hie lltl fteoo'ttlue Hours per Pass-enger Trips per EmpiOyM Avcrapt F are 36 Table 14 Sarasota County Area Transit 2'to,aoz 1,S17,8S4 S,H9,97t 1,056,018 201.20 S2,89M81 $625 182 20 ... ,_.. !12,801 3 ,011 ,9.97 $2.20 .,,. 21. 6 1V. 31,059 1 1 1 7 2 1 0 7 2 .... 2$7,203 1 ,258 568 5,01UV4 1 ,0 .491 S 2. UUS. S603.11S 20 ... 4311 13.74 116, 0$5 2,213 S 9 5S $ 2 , S2.8S 22..01" 30.7"21 1,184 20, 1 7 2 .. ., SECTION 1 5 23(1,157 1,3 1 7 854 5.1HI.979 1 ,05$ 018 29UO $2,896 ,881 $ 625 ,982 20 .... S73 1 1.60 70 401 3 ,017 S.l2 5 9 S2..20 $2.. 1 4 21 61 % 30. 17 2 1 161 21.07t' $0. 4 1 221,465 1.258. 558 5 102,694 1 ,0'4,498 293, 8!) ........ 20 ... $.53 1 2.30 1 1$ .05S 2.213 S1 Z.tl6 S Z. 1 8 S2.1l ....... 21.200 1 1&2 20, 941 $0.42' 0 0 0 0 .00 so so 0 .01 20 ... 1 7 ,800 1 S262 $0 0 .., 1 7 so 59,731 0 10,000 0 0 10 10 0 1 0 2 1 1.44 0 0 -S2 51 .. 10 0 2 4 t1 2 .. so


Lakeland Area Mas s Transit District Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) di rectly operates motorbus and demand-response serv ice, and contracts for v a npoo l service. newspaper advertis ement for FY 1993 (which also included measures from FY 1 992, as r equired), LAMTD Indicated that all indicators and measures were compiled using data for all three modes Therefore, in Table 15 the information is representat i ve of the entire system II should be noted tha t LAMTD reported the measure operat ing expe n se per passenger mile in the advertisement i n p l ace of the required operating elCpense per revenue mile ratio. The newsp ape r advertisement was published In the June 6, 1994, issue of The Ledger Insp ect ion ofT abl e 15 shows that overall, the data reported by LAMTD in its advertisement were taken directly from its Section 15 report However, several measure s did vary by sligh t amounts: veh i cle miles per capita average age of the vehicle fleet operating revenue per operating elCpense and passenger trips per e m ployee In the case of vehicle mil es per cap ita, i t appears that LAMTO used a slightly different figure for vehicle miles from the one in its Section 15 report to calculate the publishe d ratio This Is the most likely scenar io given that the other two per capit a mea sures were nearly identical to their Sect i .on 15 counte r parts The negligibl e diffe renc e of $0.01 for the measur e operating elCpense per cap ita can be attri buted to rounding. A reason for the d i fference in average vehicle fleet age could not be identified Manipu l ating the fleet age data f o r the various modes did not successfully reproduce the published figure of 5 .40 years Also since an average age value of 4.40 was not anrived at either it Is not probable that LAMTD used 1 994 as th e based year In its ca lc u lat ion for the advert isement. Using the veh i cle inventory information on LAMTD 's Section 15 form 408, t he average f l eet age for a ll modes was found to be 5.18 years. As was the case for operat ing expense per capita it was determin e d that the 0 15 percent difference in the measure operating revenue per operating elCpense was due to rounding Similarly, the small d i fference in the measure passenger trips per em p loyee was found to have res ulted f rom the utilization of a different l y rounded number of FTEs in the ratio's denomin ator. I t is evident that LAMTD used 49.85 FTEs i n its ca lcu l a t ion of the published figure while a t o tal of 49.86 FTEs was used to generate the Section 15 value The two most significant differences occurred for the number of vehicles operated i n maximum service and the r a tio revenue miles per total vehi cles The measured difference of five vehicles for vehicles operated in max imum service Is attributable t o LAMTD exclud ing its purchased van pool servi ce s five peak vehicles from the system total when ca lcu l atin g th e published f igu re. As for revenu e miles per total vehic l es, the number publi shed (23,31 4) was underreporte d by a marked 9,99 2 revenue miles According to Section 15 data this figure should have been 33,306 revenue miles Given the tact that the revenue mile figures matched exactly i t I s evident that the difference evolved from the measure s denom i nator: tota l veh i cles. LAMTD used a total fleet size of 50 veh i cles in its computation a figure that i s supported by its Section 15 report form 408 37


(revenue vehicle inve n tory) Acc ordi n g to data from the system s Section 15 report form 406 (transit system service) the n umb er of t otal fleet vehic l es for all m odes is 35 Specif i cally, the di s c r e p ancy occurred for to t a l mot orbus vehicles wh i ch were reported as 21 available for maximum service on form 406 and as 36 active veh icle s i n fleet o n form 408. The reason for th i s difference was not readily evi d ent. 38


Table 15 lakel and Area M ass Transit D i strict INOICATOR 1''l f'ERrORT>lANC PJssenger Trips Revenue Miles Route M l lea T 01&1 Operatino Expense OPalln g Revenue Vehides Oper&1e42 39. 20% 41,35$ 1 482 -SO.<($ 0 0 0 so S .., ... 0 0.22 0 0 50. 0 1 so .1&% ,812 0 .. 0 0 0 $ 0 S2tU120 0 .... 0 .. 0 0 $0 40. 0 1 $1.29 .t7 .20" $,514 0 .. ...... 39


Manatee County Area Transit Manatee County Area Transit (MCAT) directly operates fixed-route motorbus and demand response service. Altogether MCAT published data for fiscal years 1991. 1992, and 1993; however, the layou1 of the advertisement was relatively haphazard and extremely confusing. MCA T's published FY 1993 data included i nd i vidual indicators and measures for both directly operated motorbus and demand-response and, for certain measures. system totals were p rovided without modal breakdowns. In order to provide precise and complete comparisons, the data have been divided i nto three tables: Table 16 presents data for fixed-route motorbus, Table 17 includes data for demand-response service, and Table 18 illustrates those measures reflect ing system totals. The newspaper advertisement was publ i shed in the July 6, 1994, issue of the Bradenton Herald. As shown in Tab l e 16, the motorbus data reported in the newspaper advertisement was taken directly from MCA T's Sect i on 15 report. One published indicator and two published measures differed s l ightly f rom the Section 15 data: directional route m il es, operating expense per revenue mile, and average fare. It is apparent from t he data that the neglig ible variances indicated for these figures can be attributed to rounding. The $5 00 difference between the published operating expense value and the Section 15 figure may also have been due to rounding or may possibly have been a typographical error. Only the published operating revenue figure indicated a significant difference when compared to the Section 15 data. In terest in gly, the variance of $46,239 for motorbus operating revenue is identical to the variance shown for demand-response operating revenue in Tab le 17. This anomaly is due to the fact t hat Section 15 form 203 does no t provide sufficient modal distribution information concerning the line-item fund categories. Apparently, MCAT's figures for special transit fares and non t ransportat i on funds that are included in the system's motorbus operating revenue total also include data for the demand response mode. Since a modal breakdown is not available on form 203 $46 239 of demand-response operati ng revenue was inadvertently included with the motorbus operating revenue This shift in operating revenue, in turn, affected the operating revenue per operating expense rat ios for both modes. The only other discrepancy indicated in Table 17 for the demand-response mode is for average fare. A difference of $0.39 was found that can also be attributed to the problem inv olv in g shifted operating revenues It is evident that the passenger fare revenue figure used by MCAT to calculate its published demand-response average fare value equalled the demand -response mode s operating revenue figure. I f the Section 15 report s operating revenue data could have been properly distributed by mode, the measure for demand-response average fare would have been correctly calculated as $3.66, thereby ma tching the published value. 40


Table 16 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Futed-RO!Jte M otorbus Ser.lice INOJCATOR PUBLISHED SECnoH 15 Hl9l PfRFORI'I\MKE INDICATORS Pa&Senger Trips 625 ,897 625,897 0 Revenue Mi'q; 533,69a 533,693 Route Miles 150.0 t45 .8 4 2 TOlal Ope1atrlg Ellp ense OperaU'Ig Revtnc.:e S298. 175 $342.414 ..$48,230 Vdlide$ O perat!'d IQ Maximum Service 0 19'13 [FFICIFNCY fJIEAS URCS Oooom$ Expense pe Q23.ttt 1320,160 St-241 VenkSes Opets1e(t in MPi'Nm StMct 9 0 ICJ<;Z EJ-FIClloUCY t.tCASURES Operating Expense per Passenger T!lp $2.59 $2.59 .. Operllil'l9 E)CJ)Ome p er Revenue M;e $3,08 $3.08 so 0Pte11ng Re;.enuc per OportUno Expente 1 9 00% 19.80% ..0 ,8% Revenue Mile$ per T otal Vehl cle l 24,502 24.602 Revenue Hours per Emp".oyee 1,2 1 6 1,100 ,. PiluongCf Trips per EmployM 2U.!O 22,889 0 Average Fare $0.A2 $0.4 1 So.01 4 1


Table 17 Manatee County Area Transit Data for Demand-Response S e rvice INDICATOR 1 9'Jo3 PERFOHMANCE INOJCATORS P8:$UI'I9ef Revenue M iles Total Opetal'hg EXpense Opetaling Revenue Vellide& Operated i1 Marioom SeNice 1991 HFICI[NCY MI:ASUR($ Opemin9 E:rpense p$t Passeng$f T rip Expense per Revenue Mile Opera!iog ReverNe pet Opetat!ng Expense Average Fouc 19"'.12 PfRF'ORMANCE ltlOICATORS Panenger T rip$ R e v enue Miles ToUtl Ex.pen$e Operating Revenue VehiCle's: Oper a t ed I n Malt ln-...m ServiCe 19<.12 EFFICitNCY MEASURES Ope1a1ing Elq)eMe Pt1 P8SUI'I9ef T rip 0l'Graling Elrpense per Revenue Mile Orxl..,ting Ope Jting Exper4e Avoge Fare PUBI.ISHEO 1 1 8,126 468,022 $ 1 126.706 $425, 575 18 S9 .70 $2.41 38.00% $3.$$ 114 .895 389,802 $1.0$0 245 S36S,892 IS $9. 1 8 $2.$9 35.00% $3.19 SECTION 15 118,12$ 4U,022 $1, 128, 7 06 $379,338 18 $2.<11 33.87% $3.27 114,695 389,802 $1, 0 50,245 $335,063 15 $'9 .16 $2.$9 a t90% $2.92 DIFF!R1!.NCE. 0 0 so $48.239 0 so so 4 .33% $0 39 0 0 so S30,829 0 so so 3 .1% $0,27 Table 18 which includes data for mo t orbus and demand response service c ombi ned, provides further evidence that MCA T predominantly rel i ed on il s Secti o n 15 da ta t o generat e the figures fo r its advertisement. Only two differences are evident a n d they are b oth rel ative l y insi gnifi c ant. Firs t. MCAT underre p orted ve h icle miles per by 08 miles Since the other two per-capita measures that we r e pub lished passenge r t r i ps per and operating expense per are identical to the comparable Sect ion 15 measures, it is expecte d that a slightly different value for vehicle m i les was used in the calculation rather than a different service area population estimate The variance is also small enough that rounding may have had an affect on the calculation a l though manipulation of the data could not confirm t his poss i bility Second and l ast l y. the figure pub li shed for average age was underreported by 0 4 years. Accord i n g t o Secti o n 15 system total data, this measure shou l d have been 5.94 years, but was reported as 5.90 years i n MCAT's advertisement. I t i s bel ieved thai this inconse q uent i al difference resu l ted from t he rounding of the publ i shed value 4 2


T able 18 Manatee County Aru Transit Data for System Total Service ( Motorbus and Demand-Response) INDICATOR P t RFOR I M NCE INDICATORS Garons Diesel futl Cont umed 1993 ErFf.CTP/ENESS !!E ASURES Vell;cJe ...... por C.pll ....._T ....... "' -(Joooo) Ukt kwNI'I lineljentt Mles BetNMn EHIC!t-:NCY MfASUR(S Operating EXpento por ep ll a Revenue Mile$ l)fr Total Vehicles 1,')2 P'(RfORMANC" INOICATORS E'FfECTI VD

Smyrna Transit System The published indicators and corresponding Section 15 data for the Smyma Transit System (STS) are reported in Table 19. As required, STS provided informati on on its directly-operated motorbus system for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 in the published advertisement. The advertisement appeared in The ObseNer on January 19, 1995. The f igure published in the newspaper advertisement for route miles was 65,260. According to Section 15 data STS's fleet of two motorbuses operate over only 55 directional route miles After close inspection of STS's FY 1993 Section 15 report, was discovered t hat STS inadvertently published the total number of motorbus vehicle miles (65,260) in place of the correct figure for rou1e miles The largest discrepancy evident in the table i nvolves operating revenue which was published as $199,578. According to Section 15 data operating revenue should have equalled $13 331. Unfortunately, the inclusion of other subsidies (STS only receives a federal subsidy of $246 064) result s in a tota l operating funding figure of $259 395 still significantly different than the pu b lished value. It appears that since STS's tota l operating funding exceeded the system's tota l operating expense of $199,578. STS chose to publish an operating revenue figure iden t ica l to that f or total operat i ng expense in order to demonstrate 100 percent cost recovery. As a result of th i s d i screpancy, the published operating revenue per operating expense rat io also differed significantly from that derived using Section 15 data. The average age of the motorbus fleet was published as one year. This published figure for average fleet age differed from the Section 15 report by 9.67 years It was determined that this difference was due to the rep l acement of STS's b us fleet during the 1993 fiscal year. T he vehicles were not received in t ime to be in cluded in the FY 1993 Section 15 report; however, STS did ut iliz e them, as well as a base year of 199 4 when calculating ave rage fleet age for the advertisemen t. Furthermore, other conspicuous differences were found in the measures revenue miles between roadcalls, revenue hours per employee, and passenger trips per employee. The overreporting of revenue miles between roadca lls resuHed from t he use of a different value for total roadcalls since the published revenue mile figure is ident ica l to the Section 15 value. STS's Section 15 data ind icated a tota l of 10 roadcalls in FY 1993. Inte resting ly, STS's published value of 6,526 miles for th is measure suggests that a denominator of 9.7 roadcalls was used in the computation. No reason(s ) for this difference could be i dentified. In the case of the employee productivity measu res it is evident that STS utilized total actual employees rather than full-time equivalents (7.0 employees versus 4.2 F TEs) for the calculations. In STS's computation for t h e revenue hours per employee measure also relied upon vehicle hours instead of revenue hours. Using actual employees in the denominator, this measure should have equalled 57 4 hours. However, thi s value is still significantly different from the figure generated using the appropriate Sect i on 15 data. 44


Fina lly, the fi g ure reported i n the newspaper a dv e rtise ment for averag e fare was $0.49 Thi s mea s u re was ca l culated b y dividing passenger f are revenues by the num ber of passeng e r trip s Tot a l passen ge r fare revenue for direct l y-op e r ated servloa w as f o und on f orm 2 0 1 of the Sectio n I l. t .. ,t, 15 report U si n g this number and th e total number o f p asse nger trips f o r dire ctly-operated motorbus service, the average fare shoul d have been $ 0 52 Whil e it is not clea r how the $0.49 av erage f ar e was ac t ually dete rmined It is b e lieve d tha t the passen ge r fa re revenue figure use d t o c al cula t e this m easure d iffer ed slightly from t h e figure c o nta i ned i n th e Section 15 report 45


INDICATOR 1'19l PFRFORMANC INDICA TORS Popula!ion PaSsenQer Tr ips R....-.ueM ie s Roule Mile$ TO'.at Operating Expense Operslin3 Rever.ue Vehicl6s Operated i-1 Ma)(.iroom Setvice 1'1:13 EffECTI\'ENESS MEASURES Vehicle Mles Passenger T rip s C3!)1U Average Age of F'cc1 Rev enue Miles Between Incidents R evenue Milts B""""n 1g93 [F'FICilNCY l\lloASUHl:.S Oper.,: ing Expell.$6 per Caplla Expense per T ri p Opcr a tf,g Expense per Revenue M i le Ope r a ti'l g Revenue pe r 01)era1iflg E xpen" Reven u e Mle s T<>1M Vehicle$ Revenue Hour s per Enl!IOyee T rips per EmplOyee Fare 19n PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Passenger Revenu e Miles RcVIe M te$ Tolal OperstlnQ Expense Ope r3ting Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 1?'l2 EFfECTIVENESS MEASURES Vehiclt M i les per Capit a Passenger Tri ps per Capita A\erage AQe of F reel (ye ars ) Mile$ In cidents Revenue M ile$ Between Roadca!ls 1'l'31 Er=FtCIE NCY MEASURE$ Operating Elcpense per Capna 0Pff3t ing pet P.sunger Trip Operating Expense pe-r Revenue Mfe Re-.oenue per OperJijng Expense Revenue Miles oer Totat V ehitle s R evenue Hol.ll's pet Pauenger T rips Employee Avetage Fare 46 Table 19 Smyrna Transit System P UBUSHED 1 7 ,231 2$,8S9 83, 373 6 5,26 0.00 $ 1 99,573 $ 1 9 9,5 7 8 2 3.80 1.SO 1 .00 83 ,373 6 528 S l1.56 $7.72 $3.15 IOOJ)O% 31.68 7 117 3 .6V4 $0.49 1 7,084 22,76 7 55,428 $$.723 S 1 82,1S8 $182,1 58 2 3.90 1.3 0 11.00 $$, 428 6,159 $10.66 $8.00 ..... 100,00% 27,114 US7 7.344 $0. 61 SECTION 15 17,2SI 25,859 63,373 55.00 $199.578 $ 1 3.331 2 3.79 1.50 10.67 6U7 3 6,337 $ t1.6! $1.7 2 $1.15 6 .&8% 31.687 &56 6.'57 $0.52 1 7 ,084 22,787 55.42.$ 55 .00 $13, 923 2 4.08 1.33 1 1 ,00 5$.423 6,159 $ 1 0 .66 se.oo $3.21} 7 .64% 27 71 4 1,4SS 7.32 1 $0. 61 DIFFERENCE 0 0 0 65,205,()() so $186.247 0 0.01 0 9.87 0 109 s o s o 93. 32% 0 239 2 ,463 $() .00 0 0 0 nla so $166.,235 0 Q .18 .Q.03 0 0 0 so so so V2.36% 0 23 so


Pasco County Public T ransportation Service Pasco County Public Transportation Service (PPTS) only provides demand-response service ; in 1990, fixed-route motorbus service was tliscontinued. Tab le 20 shows the FY 1993 figures that were published in the local newspaper advertisement ; PPTS did not publish as required FY 1992 figures. It is clear that the data came from PPTS's 1993 Section 15 report. The newspaper advertisement appeared in the Pasco Times on April 19, 1994. The data In Table 20 under the column labeled "Published" for 1992 were obtained from the 1991-1992 advertisement furnished to the public by PPTS. As mentioned, FY 1992 data was not provided by PPTS in the local newspaper advertisement. The la rgest difference evident in the table involves operating revenue. PPTS inc lude d its fede ral subs i dy as part of the operating revenue figure that was published as $255,618 Such funding is not normally included in operating revenue and in this case, operating revenue should have been reported as $37 969. Due to the difference, the operating revenue per operating expense rat io was also affected and was published as 100 percent instead of the 14.8 percent figure t hat resu lts from the use of the correct operating revenue value. Additionally the published average age of the vehicle fleet (three years) is one year older than it should have been. It is obv i ous that Section 15 data were used i n the calculation; therefore the discrepancy must lie in the method that was used by PPTS to detennine this measure. It is believed that, as was the case f o r a number of other systems 1994 ( instead of 1993) was utilized as the base year when the fleet's average age was computed. For t he revenue miles pe r tota l vehicles measure it is evident tha t PPTS used the number of vehicles operated in max imum service (five) in the calculation instead of the number of vehicles available for maximum service, which should be utilized to represent "total" vehicles. With the eight vehicles tha t were reported in the Section 15 data as available for maximum service, the figure should have been 15,171 rather than 24,274. Also, both of the measures revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per employee were overreported in t he advertisement by relat ively small amounts. Manipulation of the data used in these two m easures helped detennine that PPTS ut il ized 8.3 FTEs in ijs computations rather than the 8.5 FTEs that were indic ated in the system's Section 15 report. While this small difference of 0.2 FTEs accounts for the variation in these two measures a source for the revised employee data could not be identified. Finally, PPTS reported in its newspaper advertisement that it had "no reportable accidents." However according to its Section 15 data PPTS reported four inc idents. The reason for not utilizing these four incidents to calculate this part icular measure could not be determined. 47


Table 20 Pasco County Public Transportation Serv ice INDICATOR WJJ, PERF-OFdM. NCE INO ICATORS T rip$ ReveNJe MilO$ M les T otal expense 0peali11$J Revenue Vehicles Operaled i n Maximum Service 1 '193 EHfCTIV(NfSS MEASURES Vehicle Miles per Capila P*$Mti9C' t Trip; per Avtlltg4l Age of Fl eet (years ) Revenu e M r e s lneid"el'll.$ Revenue Aoadcal!s 1993 EFFICIENCY MEASU RES per Ciip il a Operall'ng f)(peflse pe r Passenger Ttip E)cpet'ls.e R e venvt Mile 0pera6ng Reve n v e pe;r Operatilg Expens.e Revenue Miles per Total Vehde& Rev enu e Hours per Pa$&enger Tr\?& per Empvee Average Fare 19'11 f'>fRFORII!ANCE INDIC ATORS Puseng e r T tips Re11enue Miles RQu:t Miles TQI;II Operellr,g Re'\ e n ue Vtthie las in Selviee 1991 EffECTIVENESS MEASURES V eht: l e M'le$ pet C81)118 Paa.sen ger Trips per Capi ta A v erage Age of F:tel (ye.ars} lnc l deflts Revenue Miles Between RQ'\'anue Milt$ 1'.192 t:HIC1 ENCV MtASURES O,eral ing Expoen;e per Opert6ng E:w.pen;e per Pauenge r T r i p Opereling Expense PH Re\-enue M t e Operating Revenue w Expense Re\lenue M iles per T otal ven ides Revenue Hours Pfl E m plOyee Pnsenger T np& :lef Employee Average Fare 48 PVB LI$HED SECTION 1$ 3$.878 3S.818 1 21,370 121.370 "" nra S25S.$18 SZS5, 6 1 8 $255,618 S37,969 s s 0 73 0.7! 0. 1 8 0. 18 3 .00 2.00 " 3-0,343 15,171 1S ,171 $ 1 .31 $ 1 3 1 $7.1 2 S7. 12 52 1 1 $2.11 100. 00% 24,274 15 17t 879 4 .322 221 $ 1 ,06 $ 1.06 156. 575 t 56.57S 2 8,607 28 ,607 103,780 103,780 nla "" $189 .82f $1$9 821 $ 1 89 ,82t $30.318 s s 0 .76 0 .76 0 1 8 0. 1 8 2 .00 1 0 0 0 nra 34,593 14. 826 1 4,$2G $ 1. 2 1 $ 1. 2 1 $6.84 $6.64 $1 .83 $1.83 10()00% 20,150 12,97 3 766 $08 3.668 U&G $1.06 $1.06 D IFFERENCE 0 0 ... so $217,6A9 0 0 0 1 nla 0 .. .. 85.20% 9.103 21 1 0 1 .. 0 0 0 "'' so $159.503 0 0 0 3 llfa 0 .. .. $0 8-4. 0 3% 7 .783 ... .. so


Key West Department of Transportation Key West Department of Transportation (KWDOT), formerly known as the City of Key West Port and Transit Authority, complied the motorbuS data that was published in the newspaper advertisement f rom its FY 1992 and 1993 Section 15 reports. T h e advertisement appeared in The Citizen on March 13, 1994. Table 21, which re f lects the FY 1993 data, shows that, for many of the indicators and measures, the published data were rounded to whole numbers. In part icular, the round ing of certain indicators had a di rect impact on the resu lts of some of the effectiveness and effic i ency measures. For example, total operating expense was rounded up to $674,300 from $674,299, p assenger trips were roun de d from 238,309 to 238,300 and operating revenue was rounded up to $165,900 from $165,867 These relatively insi gnificant changes caused measures such as operating expense per passenger t r ip and operating revenue per ope rat ing expense to be reported somewhat differently than if the rounding had not o ccurred. In addtlion, three other published measures differed significantly from the Section 15 data. The first meas ure revenue miles between roadcalls was overreported by 5,683 miles. It was deter mined that a denominator of 16 roadcalls was ut ilized in this calculation despite the fact that KWDOT's Section 15 report indicated a total of 33 road calls. A source for the 16 roadcalls could not be identified. As for revenue h ours per employee and passenger trips per employee, these m easures were overreported by 102 hours and 2,082 trips, respectively. Manipulation of the data made it evident t hat a different number of FTEs (12) was us ed in the calculation of the published data, instead of the 13 3 FTEs repo rt ed in the Section 15 data. It i s surmised that t h is alternative employment figure actually represe nts total actual employees rather than full-time equ i valents, although the d ata on the Section 15 report form 404 (transit system emp loyee s) did not provide enough information with which to test this supposition. 49


Table 21 Ke y West Department of T ra ns portation INDICATOR PUBLISHED SEC TION 15 19"93 P E RJ.Ofo!IMNCE INU!t:ATOHS Passenger T fi pa 238,300 R evenue Mites 176,400 1 75,446 Route M'les 27. 0 0 27.60 T otal Operatiog Expense -1674.3<10 $674,29'9 Operating Re'w'eflu e $16$,900 $ 1 85,&$7 VehiCles Operated in M aximum SeNiOe 4 1991 EHFC:TIVt:NfSS MfASURf:S Mile$ per Cap i!a ... .... Trips catl il a 7 .30 ,_,. Age of fleeol (years) 2 .00 1 .91 Re'lef'lue Mies Be1Ween ln.eicfenl $ 176.400 1 76.4<1$ Revenue M les Between RoadeJ II$ 11,001) $ ,317 1993 HHCI[NCV' M EASURES 0PCIG1ting CP'U S20.7S s2o.n Opera6n51 Expenw per Pulenger T ti p S2.82 S2.83 Opeta 6 n g Expense R e v enue Mile SU4 $3.84 0Deraling Reven"Ue per 0pel' a l)ng Expense 25.00% 24.60% Revenue Miles per T ota l VellideS 1 $ ,000 1 5 950 Revenu e Hours p e r Employee 1 ,046 944 Trip$ pe r 20,000 17,918 A \'eta ge Fare SO.S$ $0.$6 19'J2 t>t:Rj::OH:M.A.NCfo I NOICA.rORS nger Trips 228 ,000 227 58 8 Revenue Miles 1 72 ,000 172,1 74 Rou:e M:le; 2 7 00 27 .60 Total Operallng Expense $67 2 000 $871,507 Operating Revenue $153,906 VehiCles OS)eraled in Maxlmum Setviee 4 1992 fHECTIVfNCSS M CASUR ( S V ehiCle Miles per Capna 5.50 5 .40 Pa$s.C{lQet T rips pet Capita 7 1 0 7 0 1 Averaoe AQe of F reel (year&) 1 0 00 1 0 44 Reenoe Mtu Betwee n ln::ictent$ 172,000 172 ,174 Revenue Miles Belweetl 8,880 2,64t 1 9')1 EFFICitNCY M E ASURES Ope r at i n g Ptf S21.00 $ 2'0 ,$8 Opetating Expense pt( Passenger ,..., $2.94 12. 95 Expe1'4C pet Revtnvt Mle U.t1 Operating Revenue per Expense 22.92% Re

Space Coast Area Transit (Brevard County} Space Coast Area Transi t (SCAn di rectly operates motorbus and demand-response service and contracts for demand-response and vanpool service. Except where noted in Table 22, SCAT reported FY 1993 system total Indicators In its published newspape r advertisement. As required, the advertisement also includeifdata for FY '992. The advertis emen t appeared in the circular Florida Today News on May 5, 1994. The figure published in the newspaper advertisement for route miles was 418,370 According to Section 15 data the directly-operated motorbus service operates over 477 directional route miles After close i nspect ion of SCAT's FY 1993 Section 15 report, it was discovered that SCAT published moto rbus revenue miles (418,370) in place of the correct figure for route miles. Table 22 shows that t otal operating expense was overreported by $3,812. The difference in the operati n g expense affected t hree measures : operating expense per operating expense per passenger trip, and opera t ing expense per revenue mile. The effects were insignificant, however with no more than a $0.22 difference in the worst case. It was dete rm ined from SCAT's Section 15 data that t his discrepancy equalled the system s operating expense reconciling items ( leases and rentals dep recia t ion) exactly Nevertheless. these costs have been excluded from total operating expense for purposes of perfo rmance evaluation and should not have been included in the published figure. In addition, the publishe d system total operating revenue actually represented total operating funding and included federal and state subsidies, as well as l oca l funding. As indicated in the newspaper advertisement, operating revenue was shown to be $4,205 210. According to Section 15 data this figure should have been published as $779, 167 As a result of this difference, the comparison of the operating revenue per operating expense ratios also p roduced a significant difference: 95 90 percent (published) versus 17.79 p ercen t (Section 15}. The number of vehicles operated in maximum service that was published also differed from t he Section 15-derived value. The difference of 11 vehicles represents the number of directly operated motorbus vehicles that are operated in max imum service. Since the same fleet of vehicles is utilized by SCAT to provide Hs demand-response and motorbus service, some confusion may have resulted as to which vehicles should have been reported in the published figure. Vehicle miles per capita was also s li ghtly underreported. It is be lieved that this variation resulted from the difference between the service area p opulation figures shown In the table. However, it is also possible that slightly different values for vehicle miles were used in the calculations. Unfortunate ly, this could not be verified since an exact figure for the number of vehicle miles used in the calculation of the published measure could not be accurately computed. 51


As noted in Table 22, SCAT publ i shed revenu e miles between inc i de nts and revenue miles between roa dca lls for directly-operated motorbus service only Based solely on Section 15 data the number of revenue miles between i ncidents for directly-operated motorbus should have equaled 139 457 while revenue miles between roadcalls for the same mode should have been 27,891. In the newspaper advertisement, however, these two operating measures were published as 81,959 and 26,354, respectively. It was detennined from the Section 15 data that SCAT actually used directly-operated demand response and motorbus data to compute these rat ios des pite the notation in its advertisement that indicated "bus only." Also published in the advertisement was a value of 29,874 for the measure revenue miles per to tal vehicles. According to Section 15 data, however, this figure should have been 24,966. Manipulation of the data i ndicated that the reason for the discrepancy was that SCAT utilized its published value for vehicles operated in maximum service (117) in the computation of t his ratio instead of the number of vehicles available for maximum service (140), which should be utilized to represent "t ota l vehicles Both labor p r oduct i vity measures revenue hours per employee and passenger trips per emp l oyee, were significantly overreported in SCAT's advertisement. From the published data it was determined that SCAT uti lized 38.3 FTEs in its computations, rather than the 43.6 FTEs that were ind ica ted in t he system s Sect i on 15 report. While a source for the revised employee data could not be identified the variation of 5.3 FTEs was significant enough to produce the differences noted in the ta b le. Finally, a slight difference in average fare was found While a notation i n its advertisement i nd i cates that the measure average fare included "bus and TO only," it appears that SCAT did not rea lly use these modes to calculate the published average fare value. Nevertheless, after several computat ions using SCAT's Section 15 data, an average fare of $0.60 was finally derived. This f igure was derived using data for SCAT's directly-operated demand -response serv i ce only. The use of this data only produced a figure closest to that published in the newspaper advertisement ($0.59). Therefore this figure was used in Table 22 for comparative purposes : however the modes that were in clud ed in the computation of this part icu lar published measure could not be readily i dentified. 52


Tabl e 22 Space Coast Area Transit (Br eva r d County) I'NOI CAT()I'( 1 99 3 INDIC A TORS Popule.tkln Pa.ssenger Revenue Miles Route Mi'.es T Qtoll Opet<1tin g ExpenM Operstiog Revenue Vehicle$ r. Maxir'lwm Service 1 9 93 EfFECTIVENESS MEASURES VehiCle Mle& per Cilll)l!a Passenger T rips per Capi'.a Average Age cr fleet (years) Revenue Miles Between lnel:len.1S 1 Revenue Miles BeM.>een Ro&1calls' 1993 HFICIEtJCV MF.ASURI:S per Operating Expense per T r ip Operating Expense per Rcvei'Kie MT.e Opetaling Revenu e pe1 opetat 7l g ecpens.e Re..renue Miles per T ots! Velllt::e s Revenue Hou1s per Employee P

Appe nd ix A Approved: Effective: Responsible Topic No. : December 4, 1992 Office: Transit 725-030-030c Ben G. P.E. secretary PUBLIC '.t'RANSIT BLOC!\ GRANT PROGRAM PURPO S E : 'ro clstail the rlorida Depart men t of Transportati o n f Jublic 'l'rar1S i -;"-. Office's istration and management of the State Public T1:ansit Bloc) ( Gra11t Prograw;. AUTHORITY: Section 341.052, Florida S t a tutes REFERENCES: Chapter 341, F lorida Statutes ; Procedure 725-030-025, Vehicle Inventory Management; l'rocedure 725 -030-005, Service Deve lopment Program; Procedure 725-0 30 -003, Transit Corridor Program; Rule Chapter 1 4.73, Public Transportation. DEFINITIONS : Community Transportation Coordinate! A transportation entity so designated by the F lorida Transportation Disadvantaged c o mmission, a s provided for i n Chapter 427 Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 41 -2, to s erve the t ransportation d isadvantaged population i n a designated service area. Central O f f ice -For the purposes o f this procedure, the Department of Transportation, Public Transit Office and/or staff. District Offi c e -For the purposes of this . procedure, the Department of Transportation, District public transportation office andfor staff. Eligible Transit Capital Cost Any costs that be defined a s capital cost s by the Federal T ransit Admin istration. Eligibl e Transit Operating Costs -The tota l administrative, manageme nt, and operation costs directl y incident to the provision of public bus transit ser v ices, excluding any depreciation or amortizati on of capital assets, and costs for A-1


Page 2 of labor, 1,1ages and fringe benefits. T h i s means that any 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 Reporti ng (Section 15) system is an eligible transi t operating cost. l-'ront End Fundinq -Funding disbursement method whereby a loca). grant recipient incurs eligible expenses t o which state block grant funds are first applied and the required local share i s applied only aft e r state funds have been drm-m d01m. ol.'n t P eeme t ..... Pl!.' c b t ee +-: Q ... ar on .,gl n \.>. .. -r. o, rae\". e \ n ..... J ... Department c f 'l'rar.sportation .:;nd a :local S:?onsor of a cranspor;;at5 o n project., e: the Depar'{.:-r.6:r\. ::... (Form Local .i.. clocurr.ent to .. compli[.nce :. !i.tb Che.pte 1 ; l S3 on-:. Chaote1 by t .b-:-. Departr; :ent: Local Hevenue Sources T h e of r.-.oney received trom government entities to e.s sist in paying transit operatior1 (;:Ost s 5.ncluding tux funds and revenue earned fror:-1 fare box receipts, charter service, contract service, express service and non activities. :.ocal 'l"ax Revenue LocaJ.. tax revenues are thos e revenues H hicr. rnadf= available for operati n g expenses c.nd are derived fr-orr ::.ocal 'tr,,.:es, \ :heth G l collected by the pu..::>lic transit provider o r not specifically those revenues coded to revenue objeC'c. classes 408 and 409 in Section 15 Report c:!:a local t .a:-: revenues. :Public Transit Th: cransporting o f people by conveyances c,:: systems of conveyatices, traveling en land v;ater local oY: regional in nature, and available for use by the public. Public transit systems may be either government ovmed or privately owned. Public transit specifically includes those forms of transportation commonly kn01m as "paratransi t" characteri:<:ed 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 transi t services as defined i n the Public Transit service Development Program P rocedure, 725-030-005. A-2


... 725-030-0JO-c Page 3 of s Section 1 5 Repor t A report submitted t o the Federal Transi t Administration in accordance ;;ith the uniform system of Accounts and Reports prescribed by s e ction 15 of the Federal Transit Act. This report is one basi s for the allocation of block grant funds and t h e uniform accounts therein are used to validate the lawful use of funds. "Section 9" P rovider A public transit provider eligible to r e ceiv e funds from the Federal 'l'ransit Administration' s section 9 program for the purpose of providing public transportati o n in thei r service area. section 9 funds may be granted t o public c:gencies in urbanized areas of 50,000 population or. more, and so designated by the U.s. o:t-' the Census. Such an agency oecor, \eS eligib l e to r.eceive gram: funds "hen the annual. e:l .C!:mer.t of i t s 'I"ranspo r t?.tion Ir.-.proveynen t Program con tains a grant p t -oj ect. 18'! Provider F.n agency receiving iunds f r o m the federal Transit Administration's Section lS p rogram f o r the purpose o f providing public t .ransportation outside an urbanizeCt area. For the purposes o f this p rocedure the t e r m "Section 18" Ptcvider does not include cfny Comreunit:-{ Transportation Coo r dinators. Supplant To take the place of, to supersede. To use block <;>ran t prosrram funds i n ple.ce o f local tax rev e nues made available foJ : an elig ible public transit pr.ovider for operations in the previous year. such use \ :auld resul t i n the b lock grant to the public transit opera tor being reduced by the amoun t of supplanted local funds. Trar.sit Corridor Project b. project to r elieve congestion a n d improve \ lithi n a transportation corridor as define d i n the Transi t corridor Program Procedu re, 725-0J0-003. Transit Development Plan A Transit Development Plan (TOP) is a locally adopted document, addressing a minim u m five year time frame. Preparation of the TOP is the responsibility o f the publi c transit provider, in cooperation with the appropriate Hetropolit a n Planning Organiza t i o n It is consistent with the applicable approved local government comprehensive plan and with the appropriate comprehensive (long range) tra nsportati o n p lan and supports t h e Transportation Improvement Program. :rhe TOP includes an assessment of t h e need for transit ser v ices in the local area, identifies the local transit pol icies, existing services and proposed service improvements, capital and operating costs of the proposed services, existi ng and proposed sources of funding and a staged implementation p lan. A TOP i s updated annually. A-3


7 2 5 -030 -030 (: ?ag e 4 of 9 Transportation I mprove-ment Program { T IP) -The resu l t o f a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process delineates transportation improvements recommended for federal and state funding during the program period. The TIP is submitted to the Department per the r equirements of Chapter F.S. BACKGROUND: The block grant program \ .. 'as enacted by che Florida Legislature to provide z CU):'Ce: cf. public transit. Funds to bG av:e .rded to thosB p\lblic trar.::it providers elig i b l e t o :."eceive the s SacY.ions <.H1c'1 1<:.: prograniS and to <.:or J.. o.. v .. .. ... .. ;;o w ,. ... ,. -... iR :oro \ iders arc noJ..:: ty I'ransportation Coo;:s Vl?. t!1iS procedure. r Transportation Disadvantcoed '.lil1. 15% of the funds to Community coordir:a:.c.,:--s their o;,.:n procedures. 'fhe blocl< grant funds may b e usee for Eligib l e capital and operating costs of public transit providers. Funds may also bG used for t ransit service developr:.e:n t and transit corridor projects. Projec-:s shall be \ iith applicable approved local governrr:ent comprehensive p lans S tate participation is t o 50' of the n o n federal o f cap ital projects Up ::.c o i ..-:li gibl.s cos-r.::; can b e paici \ :i t h p rogrc:n u 1 h re\enue xclud'na '-" 1 -I C:.. .. (:",-''- ..,c,-1 f\, advertisin0 :revenue and federal fund::. 1 r e.::e i vecl rJy tne p:-ov icier for opel: c-. 't ing costs 1 \ :h ichever is :.ess.. Lo;;a l revenues mad e c.; c ,ilable for o perating costs :;) all not. :::.S: supplanted b y r l.::m-:. :unds. PROCEDURE: (1) PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: A-4 (a) The Central Office i s responsibl e for d istributing tables allocating funds to the District Offices and elig i b l e public transit providers each year. T h e tables

. '. ... 725-030030 c Page 5 of 9 from the Central Office. The District Office shall also make final distribution of Block Grant funds t o operating and/or capital projects in response to the 1-1ritten requests 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) ,Taint Participation Agreement (JPA) 1. The District Office; shall obtain a tlritten request for a JPA from a p ublic transit provider priot t{;, the preparation of any JPA. ThE! request from t!1 e public ttansit pro\'.\.der include a statement of intent to l;;Se funds wit:hin the limits of the i.aH and shall state hoH funds \ ill bo;, divided bet een e ligible cap ital. and operating expenses, and "hether any funds \oill 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 onl y contain enough detail to complete a JPA and required exhibits. A copy of the request shall be for'tlarded to the central Office upon receipt. The Central Office shall analyze t he request to substantiate that blocX grant funds are not e>:pected to 1) exceed the amount local ::-evenue sources Hill 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 District Office in \ .. 'riting upon completion. I the analysis reveals that a public transit provide r may not. be able to expend funds "ithout 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 "riting or by telephone. The Distric t Office shall contact a l l such providers prior to preparation of the JPA to inform the public transit provider of the finding and to discuss the means by ;,;hich the public transit provider intends to use the funds within the limits of the law. !'or example, if the Central Office analysis indicate.s that the request for operating.assistance appears: to be for more A-5


725 -0:30-02. 0 c Pag e :s of 9 f unds than there appear t o b e expenses, the public transit provider may indicate that there are service expansion p lans which Hill g e nerat e the necessary eligible expenses. If the departmen t and the provider agree that the totRl block grant cannot be expended, the prcvidet may agree to accept a b l o c); grant of less than thG t otal arr.ount The f unds that exceed such lesser agreed-upon a mount shall be redistributed to other eiS. g i ble provi ders by formula on a statet ide basis, in the subse :tens "..:.o \:.his 3 0 6ays may be granted by the Public. TTansit Off ice I' 1anager the an?.l y s i s of 'the request indicates that rec i piGijt may not be able 1:0 use the funds the lini ts of the la .. :, o r cannot be completed because the recipi ent failed to supply the 'lith its SBction 1 5 reports and most current budget. JPP. s sha 11 be executed as directe6 i n Procedure No. 725-000-005, Public Transportation Joint Part i c ipation Agreement. .:t :.: :.c'C Cit ics r.:::..y prepare ar:C:. e:xe:cute separate JPAs for operating grants and for capital Ca pital grant s rr.ay be d i v i ded into as project. JPAs as necessary and desirabl& Wi1ere grant funds are t o be i n eligible service d e velopment projects and/C:: corridor p rojects the use of these funds i s governed by the department's Service Devel o pmen t Program procedure, 7 25-030-005, and/or the Transit corridor Program procedure, 725 -030-0 03. Front E n d Fund i ng (see definition) may be used at the discreti on of the District Office, but is not r ecommended in cases the questions raised b y the C entral Office in its analysis (above) are not ans11ered to the satisfaction of the District Office. Any block grant funds distributed to a n e l i g i b l e provider \>hich canno t be expended within the limitati on s of t h e block grant program shall b e returned to the department within the year of the allocation. These funds will be retained i n


( . \ < ( ;-,.} (d) (e) . .: 725-030-030-c Page 7 of S the district cost center, but the amounts will b e included in the subsequent state;;ide b lock grant formula allocation. Authority will then be reissued for the deobligated funds, and the District Office vlill use these funds to reach 100 percent of the District's full block grant allocat ion in the fiscal year subs!aquent t o the year the funds were deobligated 4. Exh ibit "C" of the .J P A shall include, at a min imum, the languag e i n P r ocedure No. 725-000-005, Publ). c Tral1sportation Joint r >ar t icl.p

A-8 725-030-030-c Page B o f 9 costs are included, documentation as outlined in P!"ocedure No. 300-000-0 01, Travel, shall be subm itted. Invoices for capital expenses shall. be supported by d ocumentation of capital expenses as outlined in the JPA. (::') In the event the public t ransit provider cannot use it5 entire b lock grant allocation the limits of the la1 1 the District Office shall deobligate the funds and. notif y the Cent1:al Off ice of the amount of excess funds. These funds v ::iJ.l b t ::-etained i n the district Coo' cente .. 4 + 'ne mOUllir .ill i .. :11...-.:U ilc.o 1'n ti't:. ._.'-' .., 1 l '-' <=.: '- \ "'"" t """ ....,,_. st<;te\lide ::.lock '. : ill -chen be t e isue6 foj_ .. t h(-: the w i l l use thess 0 ( ) G :-lcl .1-:--'"- \.. J.. 1,. ._ ._ J. .1 .,.., o . \ in the fiscal .'ec::: t o .. 'c.:._ . : ._. .. ... y I f audit reveal s tl1 a t atl pro\ ider expen6 e 6 block grant funds on unauthorized uses1 the must repay to the d epartment en amount equal t o ths funds expended for unauthorized uses within the year o f The ciepartbent shall redistribute such repayirtents to ether eligible providers i n the subsequent a llocatior-. per the process described in (f) above. Upon closure, shall reacii:! y e.vailable ct a rninirr. ur. : : 1. copy of the Section report f c:= the yeaY funde :,:ere alloca1:.ed; 2 the public transj.t provider' s a.dop'Ced budget the year funds. ;ere allocated; 3. a copy of the relevant pages o f the TIP for the year funds '"ere allocated; 4. all Joint Participation Agreements and any amendments for the year funds v1ere allocated together <>i t h the letter from the recipient requesting funds; 5. a copy of the performance report for the year funds Here allocated H ith the affidavit of publication or an actual copy of the ne\._rspaper publication;


725-030-030-t. Page 9 of 9 6. a copy of the Transit Development Plan prepared in the year funds allocated; 7 documentation that procurements "ere approved as required by the JPA ; 8. a copy of each invoice presented for payment. 9. documentation of the site visit performed by the D istrict Office; 10. documentation that the audit required by the Single hu

'l'RJ\NSI'l' PERFORMANCE .->:. Page l 'J m t ... u l ."":'... \ .. >... .., i I ""''-" -.) ._. '-,,.o;..: .... ._.. --a .._ '. ,.. = ... . r:aticn\4idc : =ol-; : .he-:_J e rto:::-na.:;c;... r;,<;i.q.s .. n C?. t:f tranj:t. provide:. i s :sectio n :! t rar.sit: .yst.em s U1 1::. l S system". are net. OesiCJnateO. as commu nity coordinators p ... chapter 427 Flor ic' a Statute (The 'I'ran spo!:"tatio r : Disadvant.a9e d Commissio: responsible for the program \ :ith re$pect t o Community rransportc.t ion Coordinators e.s per sectic n r s ) Florida Statute enacted requiring t i & following: (2) Each public transit provider shall establ ish productivity and: perforr.-..ncc measureg, nust be approved b y the . ... r -mo--. o .. . ; c ... c: ; ... ......... .=vo-!le-c r.r-I.IVt> U "'" ..,.J o l.o ,.. ,_. V.'OO.I. olo I .. U.: .... .. "-.I. J l (:l._."'...-.;: developed p\::rsua::t l;.O :::. 341 .041 { ::} Each provider shc..ll annuc::l. l y -:.c 1:he Departn-,er.t relative tc tnE:se neasures. Ir: ing these r..easures 1 the shal:: 9:ive consiclei:ati o n to goal s ano objecti ves: ee.c!-. Eyste:n1 'the needs of t 'r:e loca l are c.. c:n6 the !:'O l e f o-:: publ.:.c transit i n the local area.'' ; and (3) "Each public transi t provider shall publish in the local newspaper of its area the productivity and performance measures established f o r the year and a report which provides quantitative data relative t o the attainment of established productivity and perfornance 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 publ i c transi t providers i n the local ne;spaper and those used by the Department in its state'..,: ide repor1: are: A-10


1. For the same time period, 2. Use the same Section 15 report, and; Attachment 7>. Page 2 of 3 3 Use the official population estimates of the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University o f Florida at Gainesville for population. The transit provider's fiscal year (i.e October 1, through September 30) just completed as 1ell as the prior year will serve as the b1o year reporting period. The section 15 Reports for this period \lill serve az the data source for the newspaper report. 'l'he list of performance r:;easures developed for the Department o Transportation by the University of. South Florida i n cooperation ::ith th8 Florida 'l'ransit .r..ssociati.on and F lorida transit 3 s attached. The Central Office has established a core set of performance measures that romst be contained in every local ne1;spaper report (the symbol o identifies those measures i n the list). The provider is required t o obtain the Department's approval o f the report. The D istrict Office shall approve any report conforming to these procedures. The transit provider's annual report to the Department, as required in Section 341.071(2), F .S., will be accomplished the transit property provides both the .District and Central Offices Hith a copy of the local report. A-11


Table A 1 Attachment A Page 3 of 3 Performance Review I ndicators a nd M easures P!Uf!nger Trip$ Passenger Mi!es Vehlde Miles Revenue Miles VehiCle Hours Revenue Hour'$ Rovte M i tes Total Operating Expense T Olal Opera!Wig Expe nse ( 19110 S ) TOI.II Molnlenonoe Expense TOUI -Expe i\Se (1gao S ) TOUI Capital Ex-TOUI local Revenue Ope r ating Revenue Passenger Fare Revenves Total Employees Transportat ion Operating Employees Maintenance Employees Admii'Y$tratlv e EIT!ployees Venic5e.s A v abble for Mu StMoe Vehicle s Operated m Mix. StMct Total Gallons Cont\.lmed KilOwatt Houts of Propulsion Powtt A 12 EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES SeMc;e Supply Vetlicfe Miles Per Capita C o nsumption Passenaer TriO! Per Ctp!t Passenger Trips Per Revenu e Mile Pusenge r Trips Per Revenue Hour Qualtty of Service Average Speed Average Age of Fleet (in ylfrl) NI,II'Tiber of l ncXIents Tout Roodcolls Revenue Milas Between lnci!2rtlts Revenue Mile$ Betwetn R9fdrctlt lwollobUity Revenue Miles Per Route Milt EFFICIENCY MEASURES Cost Efficiency Opera!ing Em Pet C!c!-a Os>oralin9 Exp. Pe< Polk vOFJ!l!ting Exp Ptr Pattnaer Trip Operating Exp. Per P111enger Mile Owating Exp Per Btytnue Mile Operating Exp Per Revenue H ou r Maintenance Exp. Per Revenue Mile Exp. Per Operat ing Exp Optf"ltlng Rados Fatebox Reoovery LOcal R...,.... P"' Opetoting Exp. OpO!!t!lo -"" Oor. Exe. Vehicle Utiliution Vehicle Miles Per Peak Vehldl V e hicle Hours Per Vehlcre Revenue Miles Per Vehicle Mile Rwen ue M 'les Per TOSti Vthicle! Revenue Hours Per Totti Vehicles Labor Producdvlty Revenue Hours P et ETRiovt! Rev e nue Hours Pet' Ope_r, Employee Revenue Hours Per Maint. EfTII)IO)'ee Revenue Hours Per Admin. VeHde Miles Pe< Moh. Passenger Ttj)s Per E!!'J!!oys! Toc.l VtiOcles Pe< M ... T ota l Vehicles Pet Admtn. Emplo)-ee Energy UtUiution V ehide Miles Per Gell on Vehicle Miles Per Kllowan Hou r Fo ... Av&rage Fare


Attachment B RECIPIENT MONITORING SITE VISIT Review all files pertaining t o t h e recipient. Become familia r with the status o f each project, ;fund balances, audit exceptions, Transit Development Plans etc. Note any p r oblems that hav e arisen in the past. Coordinat e required s i t ,; visi t This r.1o n i toring visit may be coordinated Hith visits required under by othe17 Departmental p:cessi ve delay. Nhat i s t h e status of the TDP a t the t ime of the visit? the 'l'DP been adopted by the policy board and been endorsed MPO? 2. recommendations for service changes in the TOP being adopted? HO< c .. by 3. Has F TJ.., the auditors O!." the Office of the I nspector GeneraJ. taken exception to o r disallm

HlVOIC !'ORHAT R ECIPIENT LETTERHEAD DATE .,------Addresse d to P u blic 'l 'ransportaticn Hanager at appropriate District O ffice In accordance p ... ,.t' r1' l.' on C .o --'-l.. \ .' i t h Chapter F s. the Joint J',r,rreement anc\ any Supplerr. enta l Agreem ents bet.11een ;:. "le F'lor-ida Depart!'.lent of ,., c .. ( !) ... -..-:. ': . "' . : F'DO'f Job Numbe:: date\1 t c "havs ir.curl'"ed costs eligible f c :.; under the::. public transit block grant progr a m as folloHs: To-cal Expenses Expenses: Eligibl e Expenses: l la>:imurr, DOT partic i pation: State share cf eligible billed: f"'"........ ... J l .:. _.;. .? ... :-: the aforesaic: is true and correct an::: t ho\: all cf the costs included ars eJ.igib l e operating: costs .7-:ligible public bus transit or lc-ca::_ public f ixecl-gu i deway projects, and that the aforesaid listing does not include coste for labor, fr' inge benefits, depr eciati on or amor tiaation of capi tal a ssets, and tha t the amounts billed do not exceed local revenue, and that public t ransit b l ock grant funds have not been used to supplant local tax r evenu e s made availab l e for operations i n the year immediately preceding this agreement, and that any trave l costs included are documented in attachments to this invoice, and that costs included in aforesaid listi ng were incurred during the term of the Joint Participation Agr eement dated and tha t where costs attrib u t able to third party contracts or capital expenses have been billed, the F lori d a Departmen t of Transportation has issued written concurrence a s outlined in Sections !2.10 and 15 of the Joint Agreement on A -14


I certify that the aforesaid listing is true a n d correct .l'.pproved District Public Trans. i'1ana ger Date I certify tha t the Agency has complied 1'i t h the provisions of this agreement By /S/ (Agency Head or Auth. Rep.) Tit l e Date A-15


A -16


Appendix B EXHIBIT "C" WPI NO. JOB NO. April1995 CONTRACT NO. -----(For State B loc k Grant Only} Th is exhibit forms an integral part of that certa in Joint Participation Agreement between the State of Florida Department of Transportation and--------------dated----------REF : Chapter 341.052 F.S. The Department shall provide block grant funds for eligible capita l and operating costs of public bus transit and local public fixed guideway projects. Eligib il ity of this Agency to receive grant funding is provided in Sec. 341.052(1) F.S .. and Section 9 and 18 of the Federa l Transit Act, 49 U.S .C. 5307 and 49 U.S.C. 5311 respectively Elig ib le trans i t capital costs means any costs that would be defined as cap it al costs by the Fede r al Trans it Administration. Eligible transit operating costs are the to tal administrative, management and operation costs directly incident to the prov is ion of public bus transit services exclud!pg any depreciat i on or amortization of capita l assets. B lock grant funds shall not exceed l oca l revenue during the term of th is agreement. (Loca l rev enue is defined as the sum of money received from local government entities to assist in payin g t ransit operation costs including tax funds and revenue earned from fare box receipts, charter service, cont ract service express service and non-transportation activities.) Block grant funds shall not supplant local tax revenues made available for operat i ons i n the year immediately preceding this agreement. State partic i pation in eligible public transit opera t ing costs may not exceed fifty (50) percent of such costs or an amount equal to the total revenue, excluding farebox, charter and advertising revenue and federa l funds received by the provider for operatin.g costs whichever amount is less B-1


The Agency shall require the independent retained to perfonn the audit as required by the Sin gl e Audit Act of 1g84, to specifically test and certify that these lim i tations ( .. .funds shall not exceed local revenue ... funds sha ll not be expended for depreciati o n or amortization of capital assets .. .funds shall not supplant l ocal tax revenues made available f o r operations in the prev i ous year) of the block grant program as del ineated in Chapter 341. 052 F.S., have been adhered to The Agency shall prov i de t he Department with two (2) copies of its most current adopted budget together with tw o (2) copi es of the Section 15 report at the same time t he Section 15 report i s submitted to the Federal Transit Admin i strati o n or by March 1. whichever is earlier. Unless the adopted budget uses a fonnat consistent with the Section 15 report, the copy provided to the Department will ind i cate h o w the projections for total local revenue l ocal tax revenue made available for operations and depreciat ion and amortization costs as they w ill appear in the Section 15 report can be ident i fied The Agency shall pub l ish in the l ocal newspaper of its area in the fonnat prescribed by the Department, the productivity and performance measures estab li shed for the yea r This report shall be app r oved by the Department of Transportation prior to i ts publication. Thi s rep ort shall be subm i tted t o the Department no later than M arch 15 each year, and published either by May 1 or no l ater than twenty e i ght (28) calendar days of the Department's written approval of the report. The Agency shall furnish an affidavit of publication t o the Department within twenty e i ght (28) calendar days o f pub li cat ion. The Agency sha ll submit a Transit Development Plan to the Department by July 1 each year. A TDP sha ll comp l y with the follow ing e l ements a t a m inimum 1 The TDP sha ll i d ent i fy and list community goals and policies with respect to transportation and l and use in genera l and specifically to transit service 2 The TDP shall id e ntify and quantify the community's need for transit service using demographic socioeconom i c land use, t ransportation, and transit data as appropriate. There sha ll be an opportunity f o r the public to express the need for transit service improvements, such as but not limited to Advisory Committees and workshops 3 The TDP shall include an analysis of the service current l y provided in the community by public and private transit service p rovi ders in tenns of quality and quantity of service The TDP sha ll present an analysis of any variation between the need identified and the s e rvice prov i ded and present alterna t ive methods of addressing any defic i encies (and t he cos t s an d b enefits of each) The process for se l ecting an alternative fonn implemen t ation shall include an oppo rt unity for public participation. 4. T h e TDP sha ll present a five year pro gram for implementing the alternative sel ected. B-2 The five year program shall in clude: maps indicating areas served and the ty p e and level of service to be provided a monit or ing program t o track performance measures, a fiVe year financia l plan l i sting operating and capital expenses and anticipated revenues by


source, and, a list of projects or seNices for which funding has not been Identified. The las t three years of the program may be presented with less detail then the first two years 5. The TOP shall not be in conflict with the approved local government comprehensive plan and the comprehensive ( lon g range) transportation plan 6. The TO P is to be reviewed, revised as neces sary, and adopted annually and submitted to the Department by July 1 of each year The annual review and revision may be limi ted to refinements and extensions of the fiVe year program. Major updates, to be comple ted every third year, shall inc lude all elements of a TOP as defined herein. Mark the required Safety submittal or provisions for this agreement i f applicable. Safety Requirements __ Bus Transit System-In accordance with Florida Statute 341.061, and Rule Chapter 1490, Florida Administrative Code, the Agency shall submit, and the Department shall have on f ile, an annual safety certification that the Agency has adopted and is complying with its adopted System Safety Program Plan pursuant to Rule Chapter 1 4-90 and has performed annual safety inspections of all buses operated. __ Fixed Guideway System(established) In accordance with Florida Statute 341.061, the Agency shall submit, and the Departmen t shall have on file, annual certification by the Agency or compliance with its System Safety Program Plan, pursuant to Rule Chapter 1 4-55. __ Fixed Guideway Syste m (new) In accordance with Flo rida Statute 341.061, the Agency shall submit a certification attesting t o the adoption of a System Safety Program Plan pursuant to Rule Chapter 14-55. Prior to beginning passenge r seNice operations the Agency shall submit a certification to the Department that the system is safe for passenger service. Other items may be added as required. B-3