Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996

Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996

Material Information

Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xvii, 134 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
People with disabilities -- Transportation -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )
Paratransit services -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )
Older people -- Transportation -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (p. 132-134).
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
General Note:
"May 1991."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Dept. of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

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:
028862257 ( ALEPH )
747508970 ( OCLC )
C01-00207 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.207 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has 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 2200337Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028862257
005 20110822185933.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110822s1991 fluab b s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00207
b F56 no.2 1991
0 245
Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996.
n Technical memorandum no. 2,
p Performance evaluation and attitudinal survey /
prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Dept. of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
xvii, 134 p. :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
"May 1991."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 132-134).
Also issued online.
People with disabilities
x Transportation
z Florida
Paratransit services
Older people
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
Dept. of Transportation.
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.207


FLORIDA FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN 1992-1996 Technical Memorandum No. 2 Performance Evaluation and Attitudinal Survey Prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Department or Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University or South Florida May 1991


PREFACE This is the second of five technical memoranda to be produced by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Department of Transportation. These memoranda, along with a final report, will comprise the Florida Five Year Transportation Disadvantaged Plan that is mandated by Chapter 427.013 (14), Florida Statutes. Technical Memorandum No. 1 provided an introduction and historical perspective to transportation disadvantaged services in Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 2 reports on statewide operating data, on results of an. attitudinal and needs survey, and on an. evaluation of the existing transportation disadvantaged system in Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 3 will present demand forecasts for transportation disadvantaged transportation services over the next five years. Technical Memorandum No. 4 will provide estimates of the cost of meeting the demand and will explore the ability of cwrent funding resources to meet that cost. Technical Memorandum No. 5 will discuss policy issues, goals and objectives, and implementation strategies. The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation AdmiDistration, u nde r the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. ii


FLORIDA FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The technical memorandum that is summarized here provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the available data on transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in the state of Florida. While data availability, quality, and detail are less than optimal (especially for years prior to 1987), the information does provide a strong basis for understanding the performance and trends of Florida TD services. The performance evaluation described in Technical Memorandum No. 2 covers the five-year period from 1985 to 1989 and addresses transportation disadvantaged (TD) services coordinated by the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. The commission is an independent agency serving as the policy development and implementing agency for Florida's TD program. A major responsibility of the commission is to contract with local community transportation coordinators (also referred to as local coordinators or cres) for the delivery of TD services. The number of counties in the coordi.nated system grew from 47 to 63 between 1985 and 1989. By the end of fJScal year 1989 (all years are fJScal years unless otherwise noted), the commission had entered into formal agreements with 48 local coordinators to provide service in the 63 coordinated counties. iii Local coordinators differ by organization type, by how service is provided, and by type of service provided. As shown in Table ES-1, a CfC may be a private non profit or private


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY for-profit organization, a government agency, or a public transit agency In 1989, 33 of the 48 coordinators were private non-profit organizations. Some coordinators operate all of the 'ID transportation service in their counties and are referred to as single-providers. Others contract out all of the service to other operators and are referred to as brokers. Those who do a combination of operating and contracting are referred to as multi-providers. More than half (28) of the coordinators are single-providers. 24 1 3 7 1 1 Private Non-Profit Private ForProlit Govemment Agency Public Transit 2 0 3 33 2 7 Specialized transportation services for transportation disadvantaged persons often are referred to as paratransit or demand responsive services. These services provide origin-to-destination service on demand. The service usually is curb to-curb but can be portal-to-portal for those requiring assistance from their house to the vehicle. Coordinators also have established fixed-route and subscription services in areas where trip needs among 'ID passengers are similar. Paratransit services are provided with a variety of vehicles, including automobiles, taxicabs, vans, and mini-buses. Medicabs, which can transport stretcher-bound persons, usually are available for those with more serious mobility limitations. In addition, the Joint Use School Bus Program has led to the use of school buses for transportation of 'ID persons when the buses are not in use transporting students. ID service is operated in a variety of environments, ranging from densely populated urban areas to remote rural communities. Differences among iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY coordinators also include factors such as years of operational experience and trip-type focus (for example, medical versus non-medical). In short, the m program is composed of many complex and unique coordinators. The diversity found among the various cres and the operators within their networks will invariably lead to significant differences in operating performance. The number of passenger trips reported by the local coordinators increased from 1.6 million in 1985 to 6.2 million in 1989, as shown in Figure ES-1. Most of that increase is a result 6+---------INS 1916 1917 1,.. FIGURE ES-1. trip&, 198S-1989. of increases in the number of counties and coordinators providing data to the m Commission, rather than of actual new trips. To determine the trend for existing networks, operating statistics also were evaluated for those v


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY coordinators (25) that submitted annual operating reports in all five years. From 1985 to 1989 this base of 25 cres experienced an average annual growth in passenger trips of 8.2 percent. Total operating costs increased from $7 million in 1985 to $33.5 million in 1989, as shown in Figure ES-2. Most of the increase, as noted previously is due to increases in reporting. For the 25 base cres, expenditures increased from $6.8 million to $11.3 million, or 13.6 percent per year. $10 $0 1915 lOCI -.. .......--. -1916 /_ ./ a-m lWt: -ere. """'oolilcd a-m-1J.6" 1917 IHI IHP FIGURE ES-2. OperatiDa -u, 198S.1989. 0Annlul/ (or Qlfllua/ized) grt>Wih, IJS used herr, rqm ID an QIIIIIUI/ compounded pen:mlllge chllnge. 17tb role Is different j'rtJm a simple avertl/lt rat, which is derived by dividing the pttUnlllge chllnge tM1' period by the number of yt/JIS in the period. For inltance, a 100 ptteen1 incmue tM1' WI yet11$ is a sUnple avetQg< ofJO pm:ent per year, whertaS an QIIIIUQ/iud incrtiJSe (which includes ccmpounding) of 10 percent per ytlll' will mull in 100 pen:ent in ......,. yun. vi


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of providing service was evaluated using two performance measures: operating cost per passenger trip and operating cost per vehicle mile. These measures were calculated for the coordinated system (i.e. all Cl'Cs) and adjusted for inflation using the national inflation rate as defmed by the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI). As shown in Figure ES-3, operating cost per trip for the coordinated system (all cres) increased from $4.43 to $5.39 an annualized growth rate of 5.0 percent per year.** Adjusted for inflation, real operating cost per passenger trip in 1989 (expressed in 1985 dollars) was $4.68, which is equivalent to an annualized increase of 1.4 percent per year. 1915 1916 1PI7 ,,., FIGURE J!S.). Opentina cott per paueoaer trip, all COCa. "Adjusfjng/orin/lase Cl'Cs, arewluded in these "*"IJJtiom the d4liz problem multillg from new Cl'Cs repotting /3 elimintJltd wilh the use of uniJ costs, 07 trz/Ws. vii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As shown in Figure ES-4, operating cost per vehicle mile increased from $1.04 in 1985 to $1.24 in 1989, or 4.5 percent per year. Operating cost per vehicle mile was $1.08 in 1989 when adjusted for inflation. Based on this inflation-revised value, annualized growth was 0.9 percent per year $1.80 $1.20 + ----...... 1985 1N6 1917 1911 Although the increases in the overall unit costs of providing service have been moderate, there have been significant increases in some specifi c expenditure categories. Figure ES5 shows the percent change in individual cost categories from 1985 to 1989 for the base CI'Cs. The increase in the expenditures on services was nearly three times the next highest increase. This increase reflects the greater use of contracted transportation operators and outside vehicle maintenance vendors by the CI'Cs. Insurance which includes casualty insurance vehicle insurance, viii


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and workmen's compensation, experienced the second highest increase. The decrease in the spending for supplies reflects reduced expense for vehicle parts due to the increase in the use of contracted maintenance, as well as stable fuel prices through the five-year period. S.ufma FIGURE J!S.S. ChaDaa iD colt for hue CTCa, 198S. The changes in the individual expenditure categories were further evaluated to determine how these changes have affected TD trip costs. Table ES-2 shows operating cost per trip for the base cres (i.e., the 25 cres that submitted data in all fiVe years), which is only slightly different from all CI'Cs. Insurance costs per trip increased from $0 .19 in 1985 to $0.34 in 1989, or, discounting for inflation, to $0.30. Thus, the dollar increase in insurance cost per trip is small, adding only $0.15 per trip in current dollars over the fwe year period, or $0.11 per trip in 1985 dollars. ix


Labor $2.22 Fringe .49 Services .21 Supplies 88 Insurance .19 Other .42 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY $2.36 $2. 05 .63 .55 .82 .71 .54 .47 .34 30 .66 .57 From 1985 to 1989, there was a dramatic increase in local funding of TD trips. As shown in Table ES-3 funding provided by local sources increased from 11.8 percent of total operating funds to 36.6 percent. These funds include local government subsidies and operating revenue (e.g., passenger fares and charter revenue). This increase is partially the result of new cres reporting. Among the base cres, funds provided from local sources increased from 12.1 percent of total operating funds to 25.7 percent. Operating funds provided by the federal and state departments of Transportation have not kept pace with growth in the TD program. Although funds received from these sources increased slightly since 1985, the percent of total funds received from both sources dropped from 31.6 percent of total operating funds in 1985 to 7.6 percent in 1989. The TD program's largest contributors of funds are the departments of Health and Human Services (federal) and Health and Rehabilitative Services (state). These sources have increased slightly their share of total funds provided, from 46.2 percent of total operating funds in 1985 to 49.6 percent in 1989. X


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE ES.3. TD Operating Fuods by Source as Reported in AORs, 1985 and 1989. Departmenls ol Transponatlon $2,256,909 31.6'11. $2,323,435 7.6% Depallmenls ol HHS and HRS 3,302,191 46.2% 15.215,962 -49.6% Departmenl ol Education (state) 16e,420 2.3% 141,224 0.5% Department ol Community Affairs 516.235 7.2% 506,331 1.6'11. DepartmeniS ol Labor 41,080 0.6% 250,945 0.8% Other Faderal Programs 22,228 0 .3% 1,000,520 3.3% Local Govemmem 0.2% 7 623, 170 24.8% Includes federal and state In addition to the annual operating reports, 1D funding data are available in the annual budget estimates (ABEs) prepared by various state government departments. The ABEs contain the estimated amounts that these departments expect to spend during the coming year on 1D transportation throughout the state. The estimates do not include projected local spending. In 1989, $50.2 million in federal and state funding was reported in the ABEs, compared with $30.7 million reported in the AORs, which includes $11.2 million in local funds. The primary difference between the ABE and the AOR totals is that the ABE total includes funds spent on 1D transportation provided by operators who are not part of the coordinated system. The AOR data are only for operators who have signed agreements with the local cres. (For more information, see Technical Memorandum No. 1.) xi Other areas of performance that were evaluated include reliability, safety, and resource utilization. Table ES-4 summarizes the trends for the coordinated system. In some areas, such as


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY service reliability, vehicle utilization, and labor productivity, performance trends have been favorable. The trend in 1D service safety, as measured by accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles, was unfavorable, which may account for some of the increase in insurance costs. Reliab llty Safety Vehicle UtWzatlon Labor Produc:tMty Vehicle MUes between Roaclcalls Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle MUes Vehicle Mles per Vehicle Passenger Trips per Employee xii Favorable. Increased from 9,120 to 21, 312, tor a total Increase o1 134 percent. Unlavorable. Increased from 1.68 In 1987 (first year dsta collected) to 2.53 In 1989, for a total Increase ol51 percent. Favorable. Increased from 18.19 1 to 25,4 1 4, for a total Increase ol40 percenl. Favorable. Increased from 3,641 to 4,242 for a total Increase ol17 percent.


CONTENTS Preface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii Executive Summmy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iii List of Figures 0 0 0 0 0 0 xvi I..ist of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Introduction 0 0 ... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PART ONE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Introduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Purpose and Overview or Performance Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits and Limitations of Performance Evaluation Characteristics of Useful Performance Measures Data Provided by the cres 0 0 Data Provided by Florida's Urban Transit Systems Reliability of AOR and Section 15 Data Performance Evaluation Techniques . Performance Evaluation of the TD Program 0 0 0 0 Trends in Operating Statistics Passenger Trips Vehicle Miles Operating Costs Funding . Employment Vehicles ere Networks Trends in Operating Statistics Section 9 Operators Passenger Trips Vehicle Miles Operating Costs Employment Vehicles ... xiii 1 4 4 4 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 18 19 26 28 30 30 32 33 33 34 34


CONTENTS (Cont.) Performance Measures . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile . . . . . . . . . . 36 Accidents per 100,000 Vehicle Miles . . . . . . . 39 Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls . . . . . . . . . 39 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip . . . . . . . . 41 Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile . . . . . . . 44 Vehicle Miles per Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . 46 Passenger Trips per Employee .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . 46 Vehicle Miles per Employee . . . . . . . . . . 49 Variability or Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Preliminary Recommendations for Improving Data Collection and Performance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Summary of Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 55 PART TWOA1TITUDINAL AND NEEDS SURVEY ................. 58 Purpose 8Dd Overview or Attitudinal and Needs Survey . . . . . . . . 58 Study Deslp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Analysis and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Trip Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Service Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Performance Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Summary of Attitudinal and Needs Survey . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . 65 XIV


CONTENTS (ConL) Appendix A Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Community Transportation Coordinators in 1989 . . . . . 67 Annual Operating Report Form . . . . . . . . 69 Operating Statistics for CfCs . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Demand-Responsive Operating Statistics for Section 9 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Performance Measures for crCs . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Demand Responsive Performance Measures for Section 9 Operators . . . . . . . . . 86 Appendix B CUTR's Attitudinal and Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . 88 Survey ltlStrument . . . . . .... ...... ...... . . 89 Frequency of Responses to Attitudinal and Needs Survey . 97 CrossTabulation of Responses to the CUTR Survey . . . 106 List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 XV


Figure 1 Figure 2 FigUre 3 F igure 4 FigureS Figure 6 F igure 7 F igure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Fi gure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 1 6 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 LIST OF FIGURES Factors affecting ere network performance . 6 Indices of perf orman ce for 25 cres. 1985-1989 ......... 20 Cost changes for 25 crcs, 1985 to 1989 . . . . 21 Operating costs by category . . . . . . . . . . 22 Operating cost per passenger trip, all crcs . . . . . . . 24 Cost changes for 1 7 crcs, 1985 to 1989 .......... 26 Operating costs by category for 17 crcs . . . . . . . . . 26 Employees by type, all CfCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Passenger trips per vehicle mile, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . 38 Passenger trips per vehicle mile 1989 . . . . . . . . . . 38 Accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles, 1987-198 9 . . . . . 40 A ccidents per 100,000 vehicle miles, 1989 . . . 40 Vehicle miles between roadc:alls, 1985-1989 . . . . . 42 Vehicle miles between roadcalls, 1989 .......... ... 42 Operating cost per passenger trip, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . 43 Operating cost per passenger trip, 1989 . . . . . . . . 43 Operating cost per vehicle mile, 1985-1989 . . . . . . 45 Operating cost per vehicle mile, 1989 . . . . . . . 45 Vehicle miles per ve hicl e, 1985-1989 .............. .. 47 Vehicle miles per vehicle, 1989 ................ 47 Passenger trips per employee, 1985-1989 . . . . . 48 Passenger trips per emp loyee, 1989 . . . . . . 48 Vehicle miles per employee 1985-1989 ............... 50 Vehicle miles per employee, 1989 . . . . . . . S O Frequency distribution of annuali:red growth rat e in opera ting cost per passe nge r trip . . . . . . . . 51 Frequency distri bution of annualized growth rate in operating cost per vehic le mile . . . . . . S 1 Frequency distribution of variance from 1989 median opera ting cost per passenger trip . . . . . 52 Frequency distribution of variance from 1989 median operating cost per vehicle mile . . . . . . 52 xvi


Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table22 Table 23 UST OF TABLES CfCs by Organization and Network 'J'Ype, 1989 . . . . 2 Counties Covered by MOAs and AORs, 1985-1989 ........ 14 Passenger Trips Reported by CfCs, 1985-1989 . . . . . . 16 Passenger Trips by Type, 1989 .. .. . . . . . . . . .. 17 Vehicle Miles Reported by CfCs, 1985-1989 . . . . . 18 Operating Costs Reported by CI'Cs, 1985-1989 . . . . . 1 9 Average Operating Cost per Trip for 25 CfCs . . . . . . 23 Operating Funding Reported by crcs, 1985-1989 ........ 27 TD Operating Funds by Source as Reported in AORs, 1985 and 1989 . .. .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . 28 Employees Reported by CfCs, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . . 29 Vehicles Reported by CfCs, 1985-1989 ................... 30 Florida Section 9 Operators that provided Demand-Respons i ve Service in 1989 . . . . . . . . . 31 DR Passenger Trips Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 DR Vehicle Miles Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985-1989 ...................... 33 DR Operating Costs Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 DR Operating Costs by Categocy for Section 9 Operators, 1985 and 1989 . . . . . . 34 DR Employees Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985-1989 .......................... 35 DR Vehicles Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . 35 Training Needs . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Trip Denial Frequencies by Trip TYPe . .. . . . . .. . 62 Advantages of Coordinating TD Services . . . . . . 62 Service Improvement Needs . . . . . . . 64 Performance Measures Used . . . . . . 65 xvii


FWRIDA FIVEYEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 2 INTRODUCTION This is the second of five technical memoranda that comprise the Florida Five-Year Transportation Disadvantaged Plan. This report presents the results of a performance evaluation of transportation disadvantaged ('ID) service in Florida for the five-year period from 1985 through 1989. The results of an attitudinal survey, conducted by CUTR to identify 1D issues and needs, also are presented in this report. In Technical Memorandum No. 1, the principal participants and their roles in the delivery of 1D services in Florida were described. These participants include the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, government agencies, planning organizations, local coordinators, transportation operators, and purchasers of service. The TD Commission and the local coordinating boards are the basic: forum for communication and cooperation among the participants. The 1D Commission oversees a coordinated system of many local 1D service providers in the state. At the local level, community transportation coordinators (also referred to as coordinators or CfCs) are responsible for the provision of service. The service area for which a ere is responsible is, at a minimum, an entire county, but can include more than one county. The coordinator can be a transportation operator and actually provide 1D transportation service, or it can form a network of providers by contracting some or all of the TD service to other transportation operators. All agencies and transportation operators that receive federal, state, or local government 1D funds are mandated by Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes to contract with the ere for 1D services. Included in this report is a performance review of the 1D program's ere networks. The evaluation includes a review of current 1D service in Florida, an analysis of performance trends for the five-year period from 1985 through 1989, and a comprehensive comparative evaluation of the coordinators based on 1989 data (all :years are fiscal years unless otherwise noted). The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate the efficiency and 1


effectiveness of the coordinated system, as well as to illustrate the differences among the diverse types of 1D services and operators Coordinators can differ by their organization type, by how much service they directly operate, and by the type of transportation service provided. As shown in Table 1, a ere may be a private non profit or private for-profit organization, a government agency, or a public: transit agency. In 1989, 33 of the 48 coordinators were private non-profit organizations. Some coordinators operate all of the transportation service in their counties (single-provider), while others contract all or some service (brokerage or multi-provider) to other operators. More than half (28) ofthe coordinators are single-providers. A list of 1989 CfCs indicating their operating environment and type of organization and network is provided in Appendix A -Non-Profit ForProtlt Gowmment Agency Public Tranait Agency 1 3 0 7 1 1 6 33 2 7 6 Specialized transportation services for transportation disadvantaged persons often are referred to as paratransit or demand-responsive services. These services provide origin-to destination service on demand. The service usually is curb-to-curb but can be portal-to portal for those requiring assistance from their house to the vehicle. Coordinators also have established fixed route and subscription services in areas where trip needs among 1D passengers are similar. Paratransit services are provided with a variety ofvehicles, including automobiles, taxicabs, vans, and mini-buses. Medicabs, which can transpon stretcher-bound persons, are usually available for those with more serious mobility limitations. In addition, the Joint Use School Bus Program has led to the use of school buses for transportation of 1D persons when the buses are not in use transporting students. Performance of the coordinated system is evaluated in a number of areas, such as service effectiveness and quality, safety, productivity of labor and capital resources, and cost 2


of service. Data used in the perfomuince evaluation were gathered from annual operating reports (AORs) submitted by the coordinators and from Section 15 reports submitted by the state's urban transit operators that provide demand-responsive service for 1D persons. The results of the evaluation are presented in the first part of this report. The attitudinal survey was administered to 1D transportation operators and coordinators, social-service agencies, and other purchasers and planners of 1D transportation services. The purpose of the survey was to identify issues involved with the provision of 1D services and to obtain input from these organizations into the Five-Year Plan. The survey results are included as part of this document because many of the issues and needs expressed by the respondents are direc:tly related to 1D service performance and coordination. 3


PART ONE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION INTJtQDUCTION The results of the perfonnance evaluation of 'I'D transponation services are presented in this part of the report. Prior to the presentation of results, a c:omprehenslve discussion of the data oollection and perfonnance evaluation process is provided. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Performance evaluation is an important c:ontrol function for both publicand private sector organizations. It can be an effective management tool for measuring the progress an organization is making toward specific objectives or for identifying potential problems that oould require management action. This section of the report presents an overview of performance evaluation. It discusses the benefits of c:ollecting and analyzing data, as well as the limitations of performance evaluation, in terms of what information it can and cannot provide to management. The characteristics of useful performance measures also are described. This section then discusses the 'I'D program's process of oollecting and analyzing performance data The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 15 program then is described because a number of Florida's urban transit systems are involved with the 'I'D program as designated cres and/ or as operators of demand-responsive service. Benefits and Limitations or Performance Evaluation One of the more important objectives of any service organization is to achieve a high level of efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of its service. In the private sector, an organi:mtion can measure its success in achieving this objective by looking at profits and at the return on shareho l ders' invested capital. A non-profit service organi:mtion, however, measures success by its progress in satisfying the expectations of management, policy makers, and oonstituents. These expectations can be expressed in a variety of ways, such as the number of people served, the c:ost per person served, or the total grant money received. 4


Recognizing that expectations may not alWays be consistent among managers, policy makers, and constituents, organizations usually go through some process of goal/objective setting and consensus building to fonna!iu the organization's purpose and mission. Performance measures and performance monitoriug procedures are then developed to provide the information to measure the organization's progress in meeting these goals. A performance measure is a statistical representation of bow well the organization is performing and is usually computed from operating statistics that relate service output or utilization to service input or cosl The performance measures that an organization chooses to measure its progress will determine the specific types of data related to operations, service, costs, quality of service, and productivity that the organization must compile and analyu. The process of data collection and analysis is typically formaliud into a performance monitoriDg function. This process offers several benefits to the organization. First, it serves as a tool for communicating the organization's goals and evaluating the impacts of management decisions. After an organization determines its goals, it typically develops a strategy, or plan, to achieve these goals. This strategy will require the establishment of measurable objectives that are consistent with these goals. The organization then develops an internal control or monitoriDg process to allow for periodic review of its progress in meeting these goals and objectives. In a simple example, a public transportation agency may decide that one of its goals should be to provide cost-effective service. To measure its success in achieving this goal, the agency establishes an objective of managing the growth of system operating cost per passenger trip to a level equal to or below the growth in inflation. The agency then develops a plan to achieve this objective, which could include implementation of various cost containment measures, such as self-insurance, use of part-time drivers, or computeriud scheduling. Operating cost per passenger will then be reviewed periodically to determine the success of the cost containment programs and the agency's progress toward achievement of its objective. A second benefit of data collection and evaluation is that it establishes a system of accountability for the organization. For organizations that receive public subsidies, performance monitoring is a vital tool for informing citiuns of the organization's use of public money and its role in the community. 5


Another benefit of data collection aiid e'V3.iuation is that the process provides a basis for the a.! location of public funds. In the case of 1D trust funds, the current rule specifies that trip-related grant funds are to be distributed to eligible applicants based on a comparative ranking using four variables: county size, passenger trips, vehicle miles, and county population. Performance-incentive awards are distributed by the commission using eleven performance criteria. Without appropriate data to objectively allocate these funds, the grant allocation process co uld become excess ively political or be viewed as inequitable. Although there are distinct benefits for the organiution from adopting and following a performance evaluation program, there are limitations in wbat information an eva.!uation of the system can provide to managers, polic:y makers, and the public. In particular, the performance evaluation generally does not distinguish between those aspects of performance that are within control of the organiUition and those aspects that are not. Figure 1 shows the factors that affect performance of the coordinated system at the ere network level. As the figure illustrates, several factors, including management actions, affect performance of the ere network. Many components of these factors, such as an operating environment's population density and land-use pattern, are well beyond the influence of the ere management. In other instances, the impact of management or other PERFORMANCE I Policy Decisions Operating Environment FIGURE 1. Factors affecting ere network performance. 6


actions on performance may lag sigrlificantly the decision-making process. For example, the impacts of recruiting and motivating a quality staff may not be realized in performance data for several months or even years after the actions have been taken. The time lags for response to management initiatives can be quite lengthy, requiring a longer term perspective in reviewing performance. Among other factors beyond the near-term control of ere management are some of the fundamental characteristics of the 1D market. These include the level of ambulatory versus non-ambulatory riders, location of social-service centers and shopping areas, traffic congestion, energy costs, and the level of government subsidies. Controllable factors include fares, hours and levels of service, vehicle cleanliness, operator courtesy, information services, aspects of safety, and a variety of other factors. In most instances, decision-making that ultimately affects performance of the network is made at a number of levels of government and management, and the cause-and-effect relationships are not always clear. Performance evaluation is an effective process for evaluating changes and identifying problem areas. However, it is limited in providing a means of understanding fully the reasons for changes in various performance measures. In many instances, the find i ngs from the evaluation provide only a starting point for understanding the "bows" and "whys" of the performance of an individual ere network. Cbanctedstics of Useful Performance Measures Performance evaluation involves analyzing quantifiable measures that provide an indication of the organiution's progress in achieving specific objectives. The value of the evaluation process depends upon the quality and usefulness of the data collected and the performance measures that are analyzed. There are five basic characteristics of useful performance measures: Applicabilitr -The performance measure must be causally related to the objective. For example, accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles would be a good measure of vehicle safety, but cost per mile would not be. Promptness -Data used in a performance measure must be available in a timely fashion for the performance measure to be useful. Management initiatives, such as cost containment programs, can be periodically altered to improve performance. Management will need to review the results of its actions on a 7


frequent and regular basis in order to make necessary adjustments in its initiatives. Obju;tMtt A performance measure must be objectively based, meaning that it must relate to quantifiable measures that allow for objective, not subjective, analysis. Passengers per vehicle qille is an example of an objective measure. Reliabi!ltyjaccuraey -The performance measures used must be reliable and accurate. A lack of understanding of data definitions, e.g., full-time equivalent employees versus actual number of employees, may result in inaccurate reporting. Econow Collecting certain types of data for the purpose of calculating performance measures should not be a financial burden to the organimtion. Consideration should be given to the cost of collecting data versus its value to management. It is important to consider these characteristics of useful performance measures when developing a performance evaluation program. Preliminary recommendations for improving the performance evaluation process for the m program are provided in a later section of this report. The types of data presently collected, through the annual operating reports and Section 15 reports, are descnbed next. Data Proyided b)' the C'I'Cs The m program in Florida bas established a formalized data collection process. Based on terms set forth in the memorandum of agreement (MOA), each coordinator is required to maintain and report data on the delivery of m service within its network in an annual operating report. The annual reports are the primary source of operational data on them program and are the basis for the operating status report issued annually by them Commission. (A blank 1989 AOR is provided in Appendix A.) The annual report is divided into four sections. The first section contains basic information to identify the system, including system name, address, contact person, and phone number. The second section of the AOR is the operations report, and contains data on all service provided in the CTC network, including purchased transportation service. This data includes: 8


Service provided The types of services include fixed-route, subscription, and demand-responsive. Provider system There are three types of provider systems: brokered, where the ere contracts with operators to provide all service; multi-provider, where the ere provides some s ervice and sub-contracts With one or more other operators to provide other service; and single-provider, where the ere provides all the service. trips Passenger trips are delineated by service type (i.e., fixed-route, subscription, and demand-responsive), wheelchair trips, and trips outside the service area of the coordinator. Number of vehicles, vehicle miles, and roadcal!s The total number of vehicles, system vehicle miles, and roadcalls are reported for the ere network. (In 1985 and 1986, cres also were required to report passenger miles and vehicle hours.) Accidents Accidents are reported for person (involving injury to individuals), vehicle (damage to vehicles only), and person/vehicle (both injury to individuals and damage to vehicles). Employee pronJe The number of regular employees and full-time equivalents are reported for drivers (full-time, part-time, and volunteer), administrative employees, and maintenance employees. Prior to 1987, full-time equivalent employees were not reported. In the third section of the annual report, operating and capital revenues are reported by source. The last section of the AOR contains operating cost data. Costs are summarized in categories corresponding to those outlined in the publication Rum1 Transportation Accounling: A Model Unifonn Accounting System for Rural and Speciali-zed Transportation Providers. The categories of costs include labor, fringe benefits, services, materials and supplies, utilities, insurance, taxes, miscellaneous, interest, depreciation, and contributed services. Data Provided by Florida's Urban Transit SYstems Section 9 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, requires triennial reviews of all urban public transit systems. 1bis act also established the Section 15 program, which created a uniform system of accounting and recordkeeping so that data collection and reporting among all Section 9 funding recipients would follow the same 9


format and data definitions. These reports to be known as Section 15 reports. The data in these reports include passenger trips, number of vehicles, vehicle miles, roadcalls, accidents, employee profiles, and operating costs. There currently are seventeen Section 9 urban transit operators in the state. All of the operators provide fixed-route service for the general population in their service areas, which include individuals who are elderly, disabled, and/or low income. However, the number of elderly, disabled, and low-income passengers carried on fixed-route service is not required in the Section 15 reports. Fourteen of the seventeen urban transit operators also provide demand-responsive service to the transportation disadvantaged. Statistics on demand-responsive operations, including number of passengers, are collected and reported in the Section 15 report. The Section 15 data submitted by the fourteen operators is used to evaluate the performance of their demand-responsive service. Reliability of AQR and Section 15 Data The great diversil)' among coordinators gives rise to inherent differences in operations and data reporting. The commission has made an effort to standardize data reporting and increase the qualil)' and reliabilil)! of the data submitted in the AOR. This has resulted in several format and content changes for the annual report during the past five years. With these modifications and with guidance from commission staff, the qualil)' of the data submitted by the coordinators has greatly improved, particularly since 1987. However, there are problems that remain with reporting consistency and reliabilil)', most notably with the reporting of operating costs. One problem area with this data arises from the use of various cost allocation methods to determine fully-allocated cost of service. A number of coordinators and/or the operators within their networks are multi-service organizations, i.e., an organization that performs several functions in addition to providing transportation service. For example, some councils on aging (CO As) provide transportation service, also act as the designated ere. and also manage various social service programs. The COA employees potentially could be involved in all of these areas. It is common practice for these organizations to separate these functions into different cost centers. Since these cost centers usually share common support services, such as payroll processing, accounting services, and benefit administration, the organization internally allocates costs 10


for these services back to the individual cost based on some method of cost allocation. However, there is currently no standard method for allocating costs, and the methods used can vary greatly among the ere networks. Even among similar organizations (such as the COAs), cost allocation methods can differ from one to the next. In addition to allocated costs, there also are inconsistencies among the coordinators in the reporting of certain costs, such as depreciation, taxes, and capital purchases. The problem with the reporting of these costs is that they are reponed by some coordinators and not by others, or they are included in other cost categories. Operating revenue and funding data provided in the annual repons are generally reliable due to the accountability required by the funding agencies. Data on vehicle miles also is generally reliable since it is relatively simple data to maintain. Employee data has improved, especially after the annual repon was revised to include both full-time equivalents and the actual number of employees. The reliability of service and safety related data (e.g., number of road calls and vehicle accidents) is questionable. Wide swings in the data reponed by some coordinators suggest inconsistencies and/or changes in reporting methods and/or interpretation. Section 15 data are used in this repon to evaluate the performance of Florida's urban transit systems that provide demand-responsive service. All Section 15 data submitted to UMTA are subject to considerable review and validation. H UMTA identifies problems, it requires the reporting agency to correct or otherwise respond to the problems before the final repon is accepted. The Section 15 program is a very formal data reporting process, and the quality of the Section 15 data improves each year as the transit properties become more familiar with collecting and reporting data, and as definitions and procedures become more specific. However, there still remain problems with the quality of the data for some transit systems. As with the coordinators, one continuing problem area is the reporting of fully-allocated costs. Perfonnance Evaluation Tecbp!gues The performance of the coordinated system of ere networks can be evaluated in several areas. These include service effectiveness, service reliability and safety, cost efficiency, service quality, and resource productivity. Performance evaluation uses data 11


descnbing resources expended (dollars, Jabot, and vehicles), service output (vehicle miles), and public consumption (passenger trips). Two widely accepted techniques used in the public transit industry are used in this report to evaluate performance of the 1D program's coordinated system. The first technique, trend analysis, illustrates bow performance is changing over time, and at what rate. The performance measures used in a trend analysis ide ntify the relative change of problem symptoms, not the root cause. For example, a trend analysis may show that operating cost per passenger trip has increased by a certain amount over a five-year period. The measure might not indicate whether the problem is the result of rising fuel prices, higher insurance costs, or an increase in special medical trips that cost more to provide than other trips. Some of the "bows and "whys" raised by one perfonnance measure can be answered by evaluating other measures. In some cases, however, more detailed performance audits are needed to understand why perfonnance is changing. Peer group analysis is the second technique. A public transit operator can use this technique to compare its general performance with the performance of a comparable group of operators of similar size, operating environment, and modal characteristics. Within the commission's coordinated system, there are a large number of cres and an even larger number of individual operators. Among the cres and operators, there is a diversity of operating environments, network types, organization types, and service types. For example, coordinators and operators may be segmented into the following groups: Environment Urbanized Area Rural Area Quanlzatlon lyDe Private Non-Profit Private For-Profit Government Agency Public Transit Agency Service Network Brokerage Single-Provider Multi-Provider Smlc:e lyDe Demand-Responsive Fixed-Route Subscription It is not appropriate to compare individual crCs or operators because of these differences. However, comparing crCs grouped according to the above characteristics is useful because perfonnance differences among the groups should be considered if objectives and performance measures are established for the TD program. For example, ere 12


networks operating in urban areas may have gerl.ei'iilly higher operating costs per mile than those in rural areas. The cost difference is not ne<:e$Sllrlly an indication of greater operating efficiency by rural operators, but rather of expected differences in operating characteristics. In an urbanized area, operators experience higher levels of traffic congestion, which results in lower operating speeds. This means that urban operators have to operate longer hours of service to cover the same number of miles as a rural operator, and longer hours of service result in higher labor costs. Performance evaluation generally involves analysis of two types of information: operating statistics and performance measures. Operating statistics provide an overall view of the size of the operation and indicate whether the operation is changing. The types of operating statistics include passenger trips, vehicle miles, operating costs, funding, employees, and vehicles. Performance measures typically are ratios derived from operating statistics, and can be used to evaluate performance in a numbe r of areas. Examples of performance measures and the categories of performance that they measure include: ferfonnance Ca&e&on Service Effectiveness Safety Service Reliability Cost Efficiency Vehicle Utilizatio n labor Productivity Pedormance Measure Passenger Trips per Vehicle Mile Accidents per 100,000 Miles Vehicle Miles between Roadcalls Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Vehicle Miles per Vehicle Passenger Trips per Employee Vehicle Miles per Employee Some performance measures can be divided into two basic groups: effectiveness meas ures and efficiency measures. Effectiveness measures are derived by dividing consumption-related statistics (e.g., passenger trips) by service output-related statistics (e.g., vehicle miles, revenue hours). An effectiveness measure will indicate what the organization's return, or gain, is for each unit of output. Efficiency measures evaluate the level of resources expended (e.g., operating costs) to achieve a given level of output (e.g., vehicle miles). The distinction between effectiveness and efficiency is important because it is possible to have very efficient service that is not effective or highly effective service that is not efficient. From the operating statistics provided in the AOR, one effectiveness measure (passenger trips per vehicle mile) and two efficiency measures (operating cost per vehicle mile and operating cost per passenger trip) can be evaluated. 13


PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TI:IE T1) JllioGRAM The five-year period from 1985 to 1989 was one of significant growth and transition for the 1D program. In each successive year of the analysis period, more ere networks were formed As shown in Table 2, the number of counties covered under signed MOAs increased from 47 to 63 during the period from 1985 to 1989, while counties covered by annual reports increased from 34 to 62. The differences in the number of AOR submittals and signed MOAs indicates that some coordinators did not submit annual reports. These differences complicate the interpretation of operating statistics for the coordinated system over the five-year period. For example, overall system changes from year to year could be the result of increases in the number of new AOR submittals and/or changes within established ere networks. TABLE 2. Counties Covered by MOAs and AORs, 1985-1989. 47 82 57 83 82 Changes that result from new annual reports submitted are a reflection of ere networks joining the 1D program or new AORs submitted by established ere networks that failed to submit reports in previous years. Data reported by established coordinators that have consistently submitted annual reports provide the most valuable information on changes in demand for TD service, oost levels, and service levels. Because of the reporting differences described above, two variations of trend analysis are used to interpret performance indicator data. Each of these variations is described below. System trend anatysis In this method, trends in operating statistics (passenger trips, vehicle miles, operating costs, and others) are analyzed for all ere networks and Section 9 operators submitting data in any year during the five-year study period. Evaluating trends of the ere networks provides an indication of the size of the state's 1D program and bow it is changing over time. The TD program includes only those ere networks in the 1D Commission's coordinated system and includes only the service that is accounted for in the annual report. (Inclusion in the coordinated system for the purpose of this analysis means that the coordinator has signed a memorandum of agreement) It should be noted 14


that the coordinated system does not represent all of the m service provided in the state. 1D service provided in non-coordinated counties, such as Duval or Leon counties in 1989, is not included in the analysis of the coordinated system. In the analysis of Seaion 9 operators that provide demand-responsive service, UMTA Section 15 data is used. Two important factors should be noted for the Section 9 operators. First, most of these operators are either a ere or part of a ere network, so that data reported by these operators in the Seaion 15 reports are also accounted for in the CI'C's annual operating reports. Second, two Section 9 operators provide service in non-coordinated counties and are not part of a ere network. The data provided by these operators are included in the analysis of Section 9 operators. Network trend aua!J'sis -In this method, trends in operating statistics are analyzed using data from only those coordinators and Section 9 operators that submitted data in all five years of the study period. During the five-year period, 25 ere networks and eight urban transit agencies submitted AOR and Section 15 reports, respectively, in all five years. However, it should be noted that in some of these 25 ere networks, the coordinator changed during the fiveyear period. It also should be noted that of the 25 crcs reporting in all five years, 16 are rural county coordinators. In addition to operating statistics, performance measure trends also are analyzed. Unlike operating statistics, the interpretation of performance measure trends is not complicated by changes in the number of systems reporting because performance measures are ratios calculated from the totals of operating statistics data. These measures are presented in summary for the coordinated system and the Section 9 operators in this section. Operating statistics and performance measures for the individual crcs and Section 9 operators are provided in Appendix A Trends in operating statistics are presented in the next two sections. The first section presents trends for the coordinated system of ere networks using data from the annual reports. Following that section, trend data for the state's Section 9 operators that provide demand-responsive service are presented. As previously discussed, a major portion of this demand-responsive service is accounted for in the annual reports since nearly all of these Section 9 operators are either coordinators or operators within a ere network. Therefore, the demand-responsive service provided by Section 9 operators sbould not be considered as additional service to that accounted for in the annual reports. Trends in Operatln& Statistics -CTC Networks Changes in size, operating characteristics, cost, funding, and physical and human resources of the 1D program are measured using operating statistics. Operating statistics 15


presented in this section include passenger trips, vehicle miles, operating expenses, operating revenue, employees, and vehicles. Statistics are shown for two groups of coordinators: All CI'Cs that submitted AORs. The 25 crCs that submitted AORs in all five years. Passenger Trips. Table 3 shows the number of m passenger trips from 1985 to 1989. Passenger trips for all coordinators submitting data increased from 1,591,095 in 1985 to 6,221,210 in 1989, which is equivalent to an annualized growth rate of 40.6 percent. Most of the increase is attributable to the increase in the m1mber of reporting coordinators, rather than to an increase in the actual number of trips provided. TABLE 3. Passenger Trips Reported by Cl'Cs, 1985-1989. Urbon Runol Total 683,810 927.285 1,591.(186 1163,810 882,747 SU% 783,488 1, 412,312 2.334,713 1,138,788 3,473,4711 1,023,721 1,768,678 20.3% 3,25$.760 1 483.814 4 7S3,574 772.408 1,111US65 1,714,271 6.221.210 1 ,281,027 2,n7,86G 11.11% 61..&'4 For the 25 coordinators that submitted data in all five years, passenger trips increased from 1,546,557 to 2,117,959 during the period, which is an annualized growth rate of 8.2 percent per year. 1bis group experienced a 5.5 percent decrease in passenger trips from 1985 to 1986, but recorded passenger trip increases of 20.3 percent, 7.6 percent, and 11.9 percent for the remaining three years of the period "AnnutJI (or annualized) growth, GS used here, rifen to an mwuJI comptiUIIded perceniBg< cJrant;t. This NUl is dijfmnl from a simple average trite, which is derived by dividing the pei'MIIJige change tMT a period by the IWIPibtt of years in the period. F instance, a 100 percenl incmlse over tm years is a simple IIW!Irlge of 10 petCtllt per yem; whertiM an annutJiized incmJse (whkh incllula compounding) of 10 percent per year will resu/1 In a 100 percent incrolse in SM!n years. 16


Most of the overall growth in p&suligei' ttijSs has been in urban counties. Passenger trips for all urban county coordinators increased at an annualized rate of 61.4 percent, while passenger trips in rural counties increased at an annualized rate of 16.6 percent Among established networks, as represented by the 25 cres that reponed in all five years, the annualized increase in passenger trips has been greater in rural counties: 9.8 percent per year in rural counties versus 6.0 percent in urban counties. The m Commission also collectS data on passenger trips by type of service, fixed-route, subscription, and demand-responsive. In its instructions for completing the annual report, the commission defines the three types of service as follows: Fixed-route Service where the vehicles follow a schedule over a prescribed route. (In the case of TD services, the type of vehicles used are vans, taxicabs, and mini-buses, but not large buses like those used by Section 9 operators in their fiXed-route, fixed-schedule service.) Demand-responsiveService with flexible scheduling and routing to provide door to-door or point-to-point transponation at the user's request This service typically requires 24-hour advanoe reservation. Subscr.i11tion Servioe that is prearranged and recurring to meet the travel needs of riders who sign up for the service in advance. Data on the number of passenger trips by service type in 1989 are shown in Table 4. Fixed-route service made up 25.4 percent of all trips provided. In some counties, this percentage was over 80 percent, while in others no trips were provided on fixed-route. Most of the TD trips in 1989 were demand-responsive trips, accounting for 43.1 percent of all --1.114,493 17.8'J(, 486,415 7.5% 1,S80,908 25.4'1(, DomandRoapon-2.31)8,1158 37 .()'1(, 372,427 8.0'1(, 2,678,585 43.()'1(, -pt!on ,138 10.5% 708,0158 11.4'1(, 1,381,196 21.9'1(, Unknown 434,150 7.()'1(, 186,371 2.7% ,521 0 7% Sourct: 1989 Annual ()periling Ropolll


trips provided. Subscription service trips aecolmted for 21.9 percent of all trips provided. Subscription services ranged from a high of 100 percent in three counties to zero percent in othe r counties. Veblde Miles. Table 5 shows vehicle miles operated in the CI'C networks from 1985 to 1989. The number of vehicle miles is an indicator of service supply and can be affected by the level of subsidization, type of service (I.e., demand-responsive, fixed-route, subscription), scheduling efficiency, and geographic characteristics. From 1985 to 1989, total vehicle miles reported by all cres increased from 6,785,230 to 26,938,585, which is an annualized growth rate of 41.2 percent per year The largest increase was in 1988, when vehicle miles grew 70.4 percent. As noted previously, the increase sbown for "all CI'Cs" is due primarily to increases in the reporting of data rather than to increases in the actual number of miles operated. TABLE 5. Veh.lde Miles Reported by CTCs, 1985-1n9 "''II Total 2,.937,710 3,847,520 2,.937 ,710 3.670,8110 e.eoe,S70 1-. 1-15,512,&48 5.610 202 13,279,o484 18,51.e85 4,038.t 1 1 a, 107,417 8,&ao-,818 7,428.888 9,811,718 11,817,018 218,938,585 .. .,. '''"" 3,013,e&e 1,11Z111l 18.01< ---110.5' 17.11!0 41.2llo For the 25 coordinators submitting data in all five years, vehicle miles increased from 6,608,570 in 1985 to 9,193,373 in 1989, or 8.6 percent per year. Similar to the trend In passenger trips, vehicle miles for this group decreased by 4.0 percent from 1985 to 1986. The growth in vehicle miles in urban and rural counties follows the same pattern as passenger trips. The number of vehicle miles for all urban county crcs increased 60.5 18


percent per year, while the annualizell growth ill fural counties was 17.9 percent. For the 25 CfCs that reported in all five years, rural service grew at a faster rate than urban service. Operating Costs. The cost of providing service i s an important Issue for the 1D Commission. Therefore, more analysis and discussion is devoted to this subject than other operating statistics. Operating costs are shown in Table 6 for all coordinators submitting data and for the 25 CfCs that submitted data in all five years. Urban Rural TOCOI Ru

The level of operating costs is directly iiafluenced by the level of service provided and by changes in the prices of labor, materials, supplies, and other items. Figure 2 plots the indices of passenger trips, vehicle miles, and operating costs (expressed both in current year dollars and in constant 1985 dollars). These indices were calculated using data submitted by the 25 coordinators reporting in all five years. As shown in the figure, vehicle miles and passenger trips follow the same pattern of growth. The index for operating costs, expressed in current dollars, Is higher than those of the other operating statistics, and grows at a slightly higher rate, as indicated by the slope of the line. Discounting for inflation , however, the rate of growth in operating costs is similar to or slightly less than the growth rate in trips and vehicle miles after 1986. Index (1986 100) -8-Vohlclo Milos -&Paaoenger Tril>8 160+------------------lif-Operating Coat + Oper. Coal. 1986 Sa 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 FIGURE 2. Indices of performance for 25 CfCs, 1985. Operating costs were further evaluated through an analysis of changes in the components that make up total costs. Figure 3 shows the percent change in individual expenditure categories from 1985 to 1989 for the 25 that submitted data in all five years. Data for this group were used to show changes in expenditures among established coordinators. As shown in the figure, the increase in the spending for services was significantly greater than other categories, 430 percent, or nearly three times the *Adjusting for infllltion conw:fls CQS1S {rom a numbu of yean /Q a blue year equiVQ/mt value, in this Cll3e, 1985 dollor.r. Using this tedanique, lht rr4l change in CIJSIS over atrtnd period can be shown. '1'M tmn "-1" is used k> refer k> changes In costs lh4l tut due to changes in service "' pmduaivity 1'tllhu than to injlalion-or dejlatiDn. 20


increase of the next highest category, ilistit&iicti. Services consists primarily of contracted transportation and outside maintenance services and, to a lesser degree, outside professional services, such as legal and accounting. 500%.-----------------------------------------430% 400%+-----------------------300%1-----------------------115% 100% 0% -15% Insura nce Labor Fringe Service& Supplies 01her FIGURB 3. Cost changes for 25 CTCs, 1985 to 1989. Insurance expenditures, which include casualty insurance, vehicle insurance, and workmen's compensation, increased 150 percent from 1985 to 1989. Labor expenditures grew 46 percent during the period, while the expenditures on fringe benefits grew 76 percent. One category, supplies, decreased 15 percent during the period. The decrease in the spending for supplies reflects reduced expense for vehicle parts due to the increase in the use of contracted maintenance, as well as stable fuel prices through the five-year period. In addition to evaluating the change in cost categories over time, it is important to determine the percent each category is of total costs so that major cost "drivers" c:an be identified. Figure 4 shows a percentage breakdown of total operating costs by cost category for the years 1985 and 1989. The data used are from the 25 CI'Cs that submitted data in all five years, which comprises 97 percent of all operating costs reported in 1985. Operating costs for 1989 are shown both for the 25 coordinators that submitted data in all five years and for all CTCs submitting dati! in 1989. The data for the 25 coordinators are more indicative of the changes that have occurred in established sYStems. The data for all 21


1985 25 CTCa that submitted data In all five years Servlcta 4.8" Other 0.15,., Fringe 11.2" 111811 25 CTCa that submitted data In all five years lneurance 8.41ft Service 15.31Ji Labor .11Ji Other 12.21ft Frlnp 11.91ft 1989 All CTCa submitting data lnau r ance 6 8'4 8uppllea 1.611 StrvJce 32.1'4 Labor 86.6!i Fringe 7 .8!1. Othor a.t!i FIGURE 4. Operating costs by category. 22


coordinators that submitted data in 1989 sHow the current status of the coordinated system. As shown in the figure, the largest component of operating costs, labor, declined from 50.4 percent of total operating costs in 1985 to 44.1 percent in 1989. For all systems reporting in 1989, labor comprised only 355 percent of total expenses. The decrease in labor costs as a percentage of total operating costs is due primarily to the increase in contracted services. Insurance, which was the second fastest growing expenditure, increased from 4.3 percent of total costs in 1985 to 6.4 percent in, 1989 for the 25 cres reporting in all five years. For all coordinators reporting in insurance costs were 5.6 percent of total costs. Thus, while insurance costs have increased dramatically, they are a small contributor to total costs. The most dramatic change in the composition of operating costs has been in services. Services increased from 4.8 percent of total costs in 1985 to 15.3 percent in 1989 for the 25 coordinators submitting data in all five years. For all coordinators in 1989, services comprised 32.6 percent of total costs. The growth in the share of services as a percentage of total operating costs furt her verifies that ere networks are making greater use of brokered transportation services and/or other outside services, such as vehicle maintenance. Table 7 shows how much each cost categoey contributes to total trip costs. Operating cost per trip for the 25 CTCs are shown for 1985 and 1989; costs for 1989 are expressed in current and 1985 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation). TABLE 7. Average Operating Cost per Trip for 25 CTCs. Lobo< $2.22 $2.36 $2.0S Fringe .<19 .63 .ss Sorvl-.21 .82 .71 Supplee .88 .64 .47 tnouranco .19 .34 .30 Olhor .42 .88 .sr 23


As shown in the table, operatirlg cos! per tflp for the 25 crcs increased from $4.41 to $5.35, which is equivalent to an annualized increase of 4.9 percent per year. Adjusting for inflation, total operating cost per trip in 1989 was $4.65, which is equivalent to an annualized increase of 1.3 percent per year. Labor costs per trip, the largest expense component, increased from $2.22 to $2.36 during the study period. Adjusting for inflation, however, labor cost per trip decreased to $2.05, which could be a reflection of the overall increase in the use of outside services. Insurance costs per trip increased at an annualized rate of 15.7 percent in current dollars and 12.1 percent in 1985 dollars from 1985 to 1989. Nevertheless, the contribution of insurance costs to total operating cost per trip is sman, adding only $0.1 5 per trip in current doll ars over the five-year period, and only $0.11 per trip in 1985 doll ars However, data are not available on what changes in the quality of insurance coverage (e.g., amount of deductibles, limits of coverage, etc.) have occurred during the period. Recogniung that the 25 CfCs submitting data in all five years represent only a portion of the total coordinated system, average system operating cost per trip was also calculated for the coordinated system using the totals of all coordinators submitting data from 1985 through 1989. These trip costs are shown in Figure 5. They also were adjusted for inflation to indicate real cost growth. From 1985 to 1989, system trip costs increased from $4.43 to $5.39. Adjusting for inflation, operating cost per trip in 1989 was $4.68. Operat ing Coat per Trip (Average) $7.00 -r-==-=::...:.:.:_:.:..:::....::..:.:.:..:..::..:.:.. _________ -1985 Sa Inflation $6.00 ______ _ -j $4.00 $3.00-t--$2.00 -t--$1.00-1--$0.00 -'---1886 1888 1887 1888 1888 FIGURES. Operating c:ost per passenger trip, all CTCs. 24


The real growth in operating cost per pas5eriger trip is attributable to a combination of factors. For instance, the rate of growth in the cost of fringe benefits exceeded that of labor. Further, the rate of insurance growth was significant, but it resulted in only a small increase in costs. It is not certain whether the use of brokered transportation service and other outside services has bad any impact on trip costs. A more precise understanding of the changes in operating costs would require additional analysis using more detailed data, and would probably require an extensive performance audit. Although the precediog figures indicate moderate trip cost growth and, in fact, a decrease in trip costs from 1988 to 1989, the figures represent average performance of the coordinated system. Some individual ere networks have experienced significant increases in costs per passenger trip and costs per mile. Further, the increase in brokered transportation and other outside services could result in an understatement of growth in insurance and other types of costs because of the method of accounting for these costs by coordinators. The cost of services that are provided to a coordinator by an outside contractor are reported in total under "services" in the AOR. The individual costs (which include insurance, labor, and other types of costs) incurred by the company providing the outside services are not reported to the coordinator and, consequently, are not itemized in the AOR. Therefore, an evaluation was undertaken of those coordinators that submitted data in all five years and are single-providers the ere provides all transportation service, although it may contract out for maintenance and other services). This analysis provides a clearer depie!;ion of changes in individual costs of providing 1D service; insurance and other costs for contracted transportation service are not buried in service costs. Of the 25 cres that submitted data in all five years, 17 are single-providers. As shown in Figure 6, even among single-providers the spending for services increased more than for other categories, 212 percent for the five-year period (compared to 430 percent for the 25 coordinators). Insurance was the second fastest growing expenditure at 135 percent, which is lower than the percent change in insurance for the 25 cres (150 percent). Figure 7 shows the percent of total costs by cost category for the 17 single-provider coordinators. Services increased from 4.6 percent to 8.8 percent of total costs and insurance 25


costs increased from 5.5 percent of total costS ill 7.8 percent. Comparing Figure 7 to Figure 4, it appears that the degree to which the increase in the cost of services for the 25 CfCs masks the increase in other cost categories (such as insurance) is negligible. lnauranoe Labor Fringe Service& Suppllea Othe r FIGURE 6. Cost changes for 17 CfCs, 1985 to 1989. 1985 Other tUft 1989 FIGURE 7. Operating costs by catesory for 17 CTCs. Fundillg. Table 8 shows operating funds received by the coordinators during the five year period. Amounts shown do not include capital funding. ere networks receive federal, state, and local subsidies and locally generated system revenue. The growth of the m program is closely linked to the level of subsidization, since the majority of passenger trips are sponsored, i.e., paid for by a sponsoring agency rather than by the passenger. Recent 26


legislation created a TD trust fund which, runong uses, will be used to subsidize non sponsored 1D trips. TABLE 8. Operating Fu.Ddlng Reported by CTCs, 1985-1989. $3,<124,548 $6.644,281 $9.328.323 121.268.9311 $23,2611.274 $3.720.601 $4,193,343 $4.-.731 16,ee8,028 17,415.836 17.145,147 $10,837.624 $14,022,054 127,834.957 $30.684.910 l.kbon $3,424,546 $3,765,869 $4,166,779 $4,.&21,405 $4,929.!109 Rural $3,500,9M $3,650,34& $4,1156.647 $SJ)85,17.C $5,55S,G26 Total $8.025.502 17,416.215 $6.322,426 $8.506.$79 $10,483,135 Po

TABLE 9. TD Operating Funds by Silurce iS Reported In AORs, 1985. and 1989. Dtpanmenta of Tranapottation $2,255.909 31.8% $2.323,436 7.Mo Dopa/1rnenla of HHS and HRS 3,302,191 46.3 1s-,2t5,953 oi8.Mo o.p.antMnt ol (*tate) 106,400 2.3100 141,22Jif O.G% Dlparlmenl of Community Atfolro 516,235 7.3 506,331 l.ft Dlpeftmtntt of Labor 41,oeo o,n; 250,945 0.8% ACTION l'rOSI'Im 8,804 0.1% 88,004 0.3% Olher Federal Programs 15,624 0.3 912,518 3,()11 Non.Conlroct: Loool 317.0SS 4.4% 1,729.257 5.8% LDceJ Govemment 12,248 0.3 7,623,170 24.8% Oth-Ger1orll: 510,748 7.3 1.894,1178 8.3 lnoludM t.deral and a:tate Soul

coordinators it was not clear which defiilition of employee was used. The data are more reliable in the final two years of the period, 1988 and 1989, because coordinators were required to report the number of employees in both ways. TABLE 10. Employees Reported by CTCs, 1.985-1989. Urban Runol Tocal 184 253 437 184 231 15 329 311 640 152 241 393 168 llll9 377 ... 1'J(, 1170 303 1 182 221 400 1142 325 1467 180 252 <432 7.211. Ar"..n4ollltl:ecl -The number of total employees for all coordinators submitting data increased from 437 in 1985 to 1,467 in 1989. For the 25 crcs that submitted data in all five years, total employees increased slightly from 415 to 432 during the period. The number of employees in these ere networks declined steadily from 1985 to 1987, before increasing in 1988. Figure 8 shows the distribution of total employees among three classifications (administrators, operators, and maintenance employees) for the years 1985 and 1989 for all Ualnt. 1986 Mlnt. 1989 FIGURE 8. Employees by type, all CTCs. 29


coordinators submitting annual reports in each year. Vehicle operators or drivers accounted for 695 percent of total 1D employees in 1985, but decreased to 665 percent of total employees in 1989. Maintenance employees increased as a percentage of total employees, from 6.4 percent in 1985 to 9.7 percent in 1989. The percentage of administrative employees to total employees bas remained about the SatDe. Vehicles. Table 11 shows the number of vehicles operated in the ere networks. For all coordinators that submitted data, the number of vehicles increased from 373 to 1,060 vehicles. By 1989, the number of in urban counties (709) was more than double the number of vehicles in rural counties (351 ). Among the 25 cres that reponed in all five years, the number of vehicles in rural counties increased at a faster rate than in urban counties. TABLE 11. Vehicles Reported by crcs, 1985-1989. Urbon Rural Total 1t!ll 214 313 1611 201 seo eo 212 312 415 -883 113 228 401 -348 974 113 261 434 8.2'11. 708 361 1060 177 ---45.3% 13.2% 29 .8" The types of vehicles operated in the 1D p rogram vary considerably, from taxis and small vans (with and without wheelchair lifts) to large school buses. Coordinators are no lo nger required to submit an inventory of vehicles with the annual repon. Thus, an analysis . of the current fleet composition or age was not conducted. Trends in Operatin& StatisticsSection 9 Operators In this section of the repon, operating statistics are presented for Florida's urban transit operators that provide demand-responsive service. These systems submit operating 30


data using a report format specified iri Section 1S of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. These systems are often called Section 9 operators because their primary federal fundiog is tied to Section 9 of the UMT Act. As shown in Table 12, there are seventeen Section 9 transi t operators in the state. Fourteen of these provided demand-responsive service to transportation disadvantaged groups in 1989, and eleven of the fourteen submitted Section 15 reports in each year of the five year period from 1985 to 1989. Some of these fourteen actually operated the demand-responsive service while others contracted for some or all of their demand-responsive service with other operators. Of the operators that provided demand responsive service in 1989, two operate in counties where there was not a designated coordinator in 1989. These operators are the Jacksonville Transportation Authority in Duval County and the Tallahassee Transit Authority in Leon County. TABLE U. Demand-Responsive Service Provided by Section 9 OperatorS in 1989 Regional Tranalt Syatem Alachua ., Spece Coeat Area T ranalt Brevard ., ., Browatd CoUOlly Transit DIYialon Browatd ., Metro-Dade T ranaportation Administration Dade ., Jlokeonvl< TrantpOrtatlon Authority Du ., Esoambla CoUIIty Transit -., HIUsl>orough Area Regional Trantlt Autllorlty HIIIBI>orough Leo Trantlt Autllorlty Leo ., Tallalluaot Transit Lion ., Mana10 t County Tranalt -., Td County Tranalt Orango, Oaoaola, and Stmlnolt Pllm Beadl Authority PllmBeadl Pinellas Suncoaat Tranalt Plntltaa ., Lak e land Area Masa Trantlt Dlatrict Polk ., Saruota County Area Tranalt -., Eaal VOiusla Tranalt Authority \lolusla ., Smyrna Transit Syatem Volusla 31


Five of the Section 9 operators were iiie deSignated ere in their respective counties in 1989. They are: Space Coast Area Transit Broward County Transit Division Metro-Dade Transportation Administration Manatee County Trans i t Palm Beach County Transportation Authority With the exception of service in Duval, Leo11, and Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties, the demand-responsive service provided by Section 9 operators is accounted for in the annual reports that are submitted by the local coordinators. Revenue data is included in the Sect ion 15 reports, but not separated by mode. Thus, data on funds received canno t be presented for these operators. However, for the Section 9 operators that are a CTC or are part of a ere network, funding statistics are included in the AOR. Passenger Trips. As shown in Table 13, overall Section 9 demand-responsive passenger trips have increased from 934,200 in 1985 to 1,944,500 in 1989, which is an annualized increase of 20.1 percent per year. Passenger trips for the eleve n systems that reported in all five years increased from 934,200 in 1985 to 1,450, 400 in 1989, for an annualized growth rate of 11. 6 percent. TABLE 13. DR Passenger Trips Reported by Semon 9 Operators, 1985-1989. 1134,200 1 145,200 So,_: UMTA Soctlon 15 Aopooll, 1985-1989 32 1 404,000 12.4'JO AnnuoiiHd -""'"


Vehicle Miles. Table 14 shoWs that the tiverall demand-responsive vehicle miles reported by Section 9 operators increased from 3,748,400 miles in 1985 to 12,581,800 miles in 1989, or 35.4 percent annualized. For the eleven Section 9 carriers wbo reported vehicle miles data for all five years, vehicle miles increased from 3,748,400 to 9,999,900, or 27.8 percent annualized. TABLE 14. DR Vehicle Miles Reported by Sectloa 9 Operaton, 1985-1989. Total ""'-' Chango 3 748.,.00 5,157,900 37.6'1' Sou"": UMTA Soctlon 15 RoporiS 1-1989 8,192,700 20.1'!(, 8,209,800 32.8'!(, 9,999,900 21.6'1' Operating Costs. Table 15 sbows that total demand-responsive operating costs reported in all Section 15 reports increased from $6,563,800 to $18,519,700 during the period, for a 29.6 percent annualized growth rate. For the eleven operators wbo submitted operating cost data in all five years, the overall increase was from $6,563,800 to $15,884,700, or 24.7 percent annually. $9,536.1100 $12.228.000 $13,281,800 $15,884,700 1 9.8% 33 AnMMIIzed --


Table 16lists operating costs bY cost atc@:iry for the eleven Section 9 operators that submitted reports in both 1985 and 1989. Purchased transportation was the second largest component of operating costs in 1985, and the largest component in 1989. From 1985 to 1989, purchased transportation increased 47.6 percent (annualized) and accounted for 52.6 percent of total expenses in 1989, indicating a substantial increase in contracting out demand responsive service by these operators. Insurance increased substantially from 1985 to 1989 while remaining a relatively small component of total operating costs. Insurance costs were $36,033 in 1985 and $151,926 in 1989, an annualized increase of 433 percent. The increase over the period in labor salaries and wages for operators was modest, increasing at an annualized rate of 53 percent per year, from $1,819,705 to $2,233,925. Uhor SaJarin & Wlgea: Opo<-$1.8 19,705 Othor 7ti8,293 11.7110 FrlOGOBo.881,182 13.4% SeMen 481.219 ToO% MaiOrlale & Supple$: Fuol &Lube 423.888 8.5% llrH & Other 383.218 &.8'!1. Ull-1 4 ,7811 02!(, lniUtiiiOO 38.033 0.5'!1. .,..,.,_ TronopoiiOtion 1 ,764,017 28.11'!1. Othor 12,818 0.2'!1. .,.otall dttllr trom the un of line tteme to rounding enor. Sourco: UMTA Section 15 Roporta, 1e.188& 14.111, 5.3% 1.360.983 8.6% 15.4% 1,389 ;009 1,124,775 7.1% 25.cnt. 418.W 2.8% .()A'!Io 485,Q35 3.1'!1. 8.1'!1. 04,732 0.310\ 31.8% 151,928 1.o% 43.3% 8.381.814 !52A 47.8'!1. 324,?gll 125.2'11. Employment. As shown in Table 17, demand-responsive employment for all Section 9 operators that submitted data increased from 148.9 full-time equivalents in 1985 to 166.0 in 1989, an annualized increase of 2.8 percent For the six carriers who reported employment data for all five years, total full-time equivalent employment increased from 1303 in 1985 to 158.9 in 1989, or 5.1 percent annualized. Vehicles. The Section 15 reports include information on the number of vehicles operated in maximum service and the number of vehicles available for maximum service. 34


Vehicles operated in maximum service reflect the operator's peak vehicle requirements, while vehicles available for service include spare vehicles. To be consistent with what coordinators report in the annual report, the number of vehicles available for maximum service are presented in Table 18. TABLE 17. DR Employees Reported by Section 9 Openltors, 1985-1989. 130.3 148.9 14.3% Source: UMTASectlon 15 Repottt, 1985-1969 154.5 3.8% 144.8 -6.3% 158.9 9.7% ---For all Section 9 operators submitting data, the number of vehicles avallable increased from 195 in 1985 to 893 in 1989 or 46.3 percent annualized. For the eleven operators submitting data in all five years, vehicles available increased from 195 in 1985 to 80S in 1989, or 42.5 percent annualized. There was a large increase in vehicles by one of the operators between 1987 and 1988. TABLE 18. DR Vehicles Reported by Section 9 Operators, 1985. 1115 217 11.3% Sou.,.: UMTA Soction 15 Repottt, 1985-1989 250 15.2% 35 805 27.8% ----


Performance Measures In this section, performance measures lit!! presented for the five-year period for the coordinated system as a whole and separately for rural oounty and urban oounty ere networks. In addition, a peer group analysis is presented for all coordinators. For comparison, the coordinators are grouped according to operating environment, provider type, and network type. These groups include: Rural county CI'Cs. Urban oounty CI'Cs. Private non-profit, single-provider crcs. Private for-profit, single-provider eres. Government, single-provider eres. Section 9 operators. Brokered ere networks. Multi-provider ere networks. Single-provider ere networks. Median values of the ere networks are presented for each measure. The median indicates the 50th percentile, which is the value below which half the values in the sample fall. The rationale for using median values rather than averages is that the median eliminates skewing of data caused by a few large coordinators. To analyze the differences among organization types (i.e., non-profit, for-profit, and government agency) only single-provider networks are included Only single providers are analyzed because multi-provider and brokered systems include more than one operator and these operators may be a different type of organization from the ere. Passenger Trips Per Vehlc:le Mile. Figure 9 shows the trend in passenger trips per vehicle mile over the five-year period. This measure is an indicator of service effectiveness, that is, bow much service is oonsumed (as measured by passenger trips) per unit of output (as measured by vehicle miles). This measure is affected by population and land-use density, type of passenger trip demand-responsive, fixed-route, or subscription), scheduling effectiveness, and vehicle type. Increasing values indicate improving performance. 36


Passenger trips pe r vehicle mile for the coordinated system decreased slightly over the period, from 0.23 trips per mile in 1985 to 021 in 1989. Generally this would indicate declining perfol1lll111Ce in the system's service effectiveness. Howeve r, it is quite that this decline is actually related to growth In the program rather than to clu!nges in effectiveness. If service In the early 1D program was mainly group trips and as the program expanded service to Individuals increased, this measure would tend to produce lower values. As an indicator of effectiveness, this performance measure will be more meaningful after the 1D program matures. crcs operating in rural counties also experienoed a decrease in trips per vehicle mile during the period, declin ing from 0.23 in 1985 to 0.19 in 1989. Urban county coordinators, however, experienoed a slight overall increase from 1985 to 1989, but from 1987 to 1989 trips per vehicle mile decreased from 0.26 to 0.24. Urban county coordinators, as a group, achieved higher passenger trips per vehicle mile than the rural county coordinators. This is a reflection of the greater population and land-use densities of urban counties. By coinci dence, the median values of this measure were the same for all CI'Cs and for urban and rural county crcs in 1985 and 1986. Figure 10 shows the 1989 median values of passenger trips per vehicle mile for the v arious coordinator groups and Section 9 operators. Although the figure shows that there is variability among the different CTC organization types, it is not evident from the data how this measure is affected by the type of organization. For example, the median value for the coordinators that are government agencies and single-providers was 027 passenger trips per vehicle mile, which was higher than aD)' other CTC group. Most of the coordinators that are government agencies are located in urban counties, which could explain the re latively high figure. Conversely Section 9 operators, which also operate in urban counties, achieved the lowest median value of passenger trips per vehicle mile. This might be explained by the fact that the Section 9 data used in this analysis Involves only demand-responsive services, which typically provide Individual trips, whereas government agencies provide a mix of demand-responsive, fixed-rou te, and subscription services. The values for the three CTC network types (brokered, multi-provider, and single-provider) range from 020 to 0.23 passengers per vehicle mile which suggests that the type of CTC network bas less influence on service effectivene ss than do other factors, such as operating environment. 37


0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 r--0.16 0.10 0.06 o.oo 1885 --&-All CTCo -1886 -!!-Rural t: --1887 -&-Urban ----1888 1888 FIGURE 9. Passenger trips per vehicle mile, 1985 0.30+-------------------------1 0.20 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.00 e., ._... Utbal'l Rura l Noft"' For Gcw' t 8-.o t ro,. Multi Prout Prom PtO'tlMr Prcwldar FIGURE 10. Pa&Benger trips per vehicle mile, 1989. 38


Accidents Per 100,000 Vehicle Miies. The number of accidents per 100,000 miles is an indicator of system safety. Decreasing values for this measure indicate improving safety performance. Accident rates are affected greatly by the level of traffic congestion and driver ability. Accident data were included in the annual report beginning in 1987, thus the trend analysis is only for the three year period from 1987 to 1989, as shown in Figure 11. For the coordinated system, from 1987 to 1989, the median mtmber of accidents per 100,000 miles declined from 1.4 to 0.9, indicating that safety performance bas improved. As is to be expected, given the higher levels of traffic in urban areas, the rate for urban systems is greater than that for the rural county coordinators. However, the accident rate among urban county cres showed a dramatic decrease from 1987 to 1988, while among rural county cres, the accident rate increased from 1987 to 1989. As shown in Figure 12, the median value for the Section 9 operators, which operate in urban areas, was the highest of the four organization types. The median accident rate among Section 9 operators is much higher than the median value for urban county coordinators. The difference between these groups can be explained, in part, by the fact that the Section 9 operators provide service in denser urban cores. These areas have the highest levels of traffic congestion, which would result In higber accident rates Accident rates among brokered, multi-provider, and single-provider ere networks were relatively close together, suggesting that the type of provider network does not significantly influence this performance measure. Vehicle MUes Between Roadc:alls. Vehicle miles between roadcalls is a measure of service quality, effectiveness of maintenance, and vehicle reliability. Increasing values indicate improving performance. Factors that affect this Indicator include vehicle age, adherence to scheduled maintenance programs, and vehicle operating environment. Trends In this measure are shown in Figure 13. For the coordinated system the median number of vehicle miles between roadcalls increased from 20,066 in 1985 to 23,868 in 1989, indicating improving performance. Between rural and urban systems, there is a divergence of trends. The distance between roadcalls has declined among urban county coordinators, while it has Increased steadily among rural ere networks In general, urban areas are harsher operating environments than rural areas because of more frequent stop-and-go operating conditions. Data on the age of vehicles is not provided in the AOR, so the impact of this factor on the number of 39


3.8 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 1--0.6 0.0 1986 --&-All CTCa ---1988 1iUrban ----"' ---. 1987 1988 1988 FIGURE 11. Accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles, 1987-1989. 3.&...------------------------, 3.o+--------------------------------------------l 2.&+----------------1 2.0 .J------------------1 us+---O.G o.o e.. Urtl&ft Rurel Nof'l For-Prom Protn Gov-'1 o lttolcar Wuttl Pnrvklfl' PtO'\I'kfr FIGURE 12. Accidents per 100,000 vehicle miles, 1989. 40


roadcalls could not be evaluated. The effecilvetle5s ofvehicle maintenance programs also cannot be determined strictly from the data; field visits and performance audits would be required to determine the impact of this factor. Figure 14 shows the median value of this measure for the various groupings of ere networks. As evident in the figure, three groups of ere networks achieved much higher median values than other ere networks. These include rural county coordinators, private non-profit eres, and single-provider CI'Cs. Generally, the same ere networks are included in each of these group variations. For example, most of the rural ere networks are private non-profit, single -p roviders Indeed, as previously shown in Table 1 of this report, 24 of the 28 single-provider CfCs in the coordinated system are private non-profit organizations. Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip. This measure is an indicator of cost efficiency. Ineffective service and inflation will tend to increase the value of this measure while greater or more efficient utilization of service will tend to decrease the value. Values that remain constant with or below the infl ation growth rate are suggestive of favorable performance. As shown in Figure 15, the median operating cost per passenger trip for the coordinated system increased from $4.60 in 1985 to $5.27 in 1989, or 35 percent annualized (not adjusted for inflation). In previous discussions of operating cost per passenger trip, averaae values were presented (see Figure 5). Although the average and median values vary somewhat, the growth rates of these values are similar. Trip costs among rural county ere networks increased from $4.68 in 1985 to $5.03 in 1989, or 1.8 percent annualized (not adjusted for inflation). For urban county ere networks, trip costs increased from $4.60 to $6.06, or 7.1 percent annualized (not adjusted for inflation), although from 1986 to 1989 trip costs actually decreased. From 1988 to 1989, trip costs declined for both urban and rural county groups. As previously noted, there are a number of factors that will cause differences among coordinators in rural and urban areas. Operating speeds tend to be lower in urban areas, and labor rates, benefit packages, and insurance tend to be more expensive Longer hours of service, more demand-responsive service, and other factors also may affect trip costs. Figure 16 shows the median values of this measure for the various ere groups. (In 1989, cost data were not provided by private for-profit, single-providers and that group is 41


Tttou.aanda -b-All CTC8 Rural -e-U r ban 40 -------------------1886 11188 11187 11188 1889 FIGURE 13. Vehicle miles between roadcalle, 1985. Tno uaande 60,-------------------------------------------, All CTCe BoHr.lnv Do,.. Type Net work Typ 30 +-------20 1 0 0 Non For Prom Ptotlt ...... leo t Broiler Multi 8lntle PI'O'I ICIr PrOV ICier FIGURE 14. Vehicle miles between roadcalls, 1!18!1. 42


$10.00 $8.00 $8.00 $7.00 $8.00 $5.00 $4.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 1986 t-G'F(le -"'" 1988 if Rurat--&-.url>an-----------A .... 1987 1988 1989 FIGURE 15. Operating cost per passenger trip, 1985-1989. $10.00-.------------------------, $9.00 .j ____ $7.00 +-------------1 $8.oo+-$6.oo $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 BpMM Uthft Rural For-O.V't a.o .,. ... MuiU 111'1\Jt-1'-rotll Prout ltnwiMr Pror FIGURE 16. Operating cost per passenger trip, 1989. 43


omitted &om Figure 16). In addition to operating environment, the type of ere also may have an impact on trip costs. Government and Section 9 transit operators, which are larger, public-sector organizations, have trip costs that are higher than other groups, while private non-profit, single-providers have lower trip costs. These private non-profit organizations are predominantly councils on aging. associations of retarded citizens, and other social-service organizations. The larger government agencies and Section 9 operators typically h ave higher cost strucrures, particularly for labor, than do smaller private non-profit Of the ere network types, operating cost per passenger trip was slightly lower for brokered and multi-provider networks than for single-provider networks. It is not evident from the data to what degree these cost differences are attributable to cost savings resulting from outside contracting. However, among the principal factors leading to brokered networks is that the coo rdinator cannot provide the service required in its area or that an outside provider can operate the service less expensively. Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Operating cost per vehicle mile is another measure of cost efficiency. As mentioned earlier, values that remain constant with or below the inflation growth rate are suggestive of favorable performance. As shown in Figure 17, the median value of operating cost per vehicle mile for the coordinated system increased over the five-year period from $1.01 to $1.20, which is equivalent to an annualized increase of 4.4 percent per year. Among rural county ere networks, the median values of this measure have remained constant over the five-year period. The median values for urban county ere networks increased from $1.04 to $1.58, which is equivalent to an 11.0 percent annual increase. As previously discussed, the cost differences between rural and urban ere networks are related to the differences in operating environments. Figure 18 shows the median values for the various ere groupings. Again, the data suggest that type is a factor that affects costs. The median value for single provider government agencies was $1.78, almost 50 percent above the median value for all coordinators that submitted data. Operating cost per vehicle mile for the Section 9 operators was $1.57, wh ich is over 30 percent higher than the median value of all coordinators that submitted data. (Again, cost data were not provided in 1989 by private for-profit, single-providers and that group is omitted from Figure 18). Of the three network 44


$2.00 $1.7 6 --.!ir-All CTCo $1.6 0 $1.2 6 $1.0 $0.7 6 $0.60 $0.2 5 0 $0.0 1986 11188 -ilRural -&-Urban ----1987 1988 1988 FIGURE 17. Operating cost per vehicle mile, 1985. $2.00.,.-----------------------, s 1.60 -!--$1.00 $0.76 NIA $0.60 $0.26 $0.00 8.,.1eM Ur-el'l Run.l "on '

types, single-provider and brokered ere networks have similar median operating costs per vehicle mile, while multi-provider networks are blgber. Vehic:le Miles Per Vebic:le. Vehicle miles per vehicle is a measure of resource utilization. This measure can be iDfiuenced by an operator's fleet size (i.e., the number of vehicles among which to disuibute vehicle miles), by the hours of operation, and by operating speeds. An increase in this value indicates greater use of vehicles. N. shown in Figure 19, the median value of vehicle miles per vehicle for the coordinated system increased from 17,451 to 21,250 miles over the five-year period. The net increase from 1985 to 1989 among the urban and rural systems was approximately the same. The median value among rural county eres was slightly higher in 1986, 1987, and 1988 than urban county crcs. Among the various ere groupings, as shown in Figure 20, private for-profit crcs, multi providers, and Section 9 operators had median values that were noticeably above other groups. The data, however, do not suggest why there might be differences among the groups. Passenger Trips Per Employee. This measure is an indicator of labor productivity. Increasing values indicate improving performance. Figure 21 shows the median values of this measure over the five-year period. For the coordinated system, this measure increased from 3,364 passenger uips per emp l oyee in 1985 to 4,685 in 1989, or 8.6 percent annualized. There is very little difference in this measure among urban and rural county coordinators. N. shown in Figure 22, private for-profit CfCs and multi-providers achieved generally higher values in this measure. Of the three types of ere networks, multi-provider and brokered networks achieved higher values than single-provider networks. Although private for-profit crcs and Section 9 operators show higher productivity rates than other provider types, data are generally insufficient to draw conclusions on their comparative productivity levels. Brokered and multi-provider ere networks would be expected to achieve higher values in this measure since some or all of the transportation service In these networks is provided by contacted transportation operators but the number of employees of these operators is not induded in the AOR. 46


Thou aand a 30 25 2 0 15 1 0 6 0 1985 --8-All CTCe -e-Urban ---r 1988 1987 1988 FIGURE 19 Vehicle miles per vehicle, 1985-1989. Thouaande 1989 u CTO Oorv. Ty,.. Htwotk Ty' a.,.telll UrH-1'1 NOll ,or OoY't ho t 8roller Mllltl 8111tl PtoiU Ptolll PtoY idr Prowlftr FIGURE 20. Vehicle miles per vehicle, 1989. 47


Thou eande 8 7 ----8 3 2 1 0 1986 -A----...,. 1988 -G-U.(P!n ---.. --1887 1988 1989 FIGURE 21. Passenger trips per employee, 1985-1989. Thoueanda Non.. For-Profit Profit OOV'I 8.0 t 8ror Wultl" 8kttl Provlofe r ProviCior FIGURE 22. Passenger trips per employee 1989 48


Vehicle Miles Per Employee. Vehicle miies per employee also is a measure of labor productivity. Increasing values indicate improving productivity. As shown in Figure 23, the median value of vehicle miles per employee increased from 16,405 in 1985 to 19,917 in 1989, or 5.0 percent annualized Rural county ere networks achieved higher levels of vehicle miles per employee in later years (from 1987 to 1989) than did the urban county ere networks. As shown in Figure 24, private for-profit CI'Cs, rural CI'Cs, and brokered ere networks achieved higher values than other ere types. YARIABILTIY OF DATA Using a median value is an effective way of indicating performance of a large group, but its limitation is that it does not indicate the variability in performance among the group members. Figures 25 through 28 show the variability among ere networks for two measures, operating cost per passenger trip and operating cost per vehicle mile. In Figures 25 and 26, frequency distn'butions of annualized growth rates for these two measures are shown. The annualized growth rates were calculated fo r the period from 1985 to 1989. Annualized growth rates are shown on the horizontal axis and grouped in ranges from minus twenty percent per year and less, to plus twenty percent per year and greater. The number of coordinators with annualized growth rates falling within the various ranges Is indicated by the height of the bars. In Figure 25, for example, there were five coordinators with zero to five percent per year annualized growth in operating cost per passenger trip. F i gure 26 s hows that there were twelve coordinators with zero to five percent per year annualized growth in operating cost per vehicle mile. The concentration of bars provides an indication of the variance in growth rates among the crcs. As can be seen in Figure 26, the concentration of growth rates in operating cost per vehicle mile is greater than the concentration of growth rates in operating cost per passenger trip (see Figure 25). Figure 26 s hows that 32 CI'Cs experienced growth rates in operating cost per vehi cle mlle between minus ten percent and plus ten percent per year. Figure 25 shows that only 18 coordinators experienced growth rates in operating cost per passenger trip between minus ten percent and plus ten percent per year. Figures 27 and 28 show frequency distributions of the percent variance from the group median for the individual ere networks. The variances are computed for 1989 operating cost. per passenger trip and per vehicle mile. As shown in Figure 27, operating 49


Thouaanda 30 --&-All CTCa -ir-Rural -Ill-Urban 25 --------20 16 10 6 0 1986 L -----7--11188 "--------. 11187 11188 FIGURE 23. Vehh:le miles per employee, 1985-1989. Thoueanda 19811 30,----------------------------------------------, 8te UrUn NOft Po t -Oov't .. o a 8rollllr Wvltl ,,,., ... ,.,0111 Ptotlt ,.,., .... Prewllfr FIGURE 24. Vehicle miles per employee, 1989. so


Number of CTCa e +---4 2 0 !1, to !1, to Ot, to o .. to e .. to 11 .. to .. 1011 ZO'lt FIGURE 25. Frequency distribution of annuali2d growth rate in operating cost per passenger trip. Number of CTCo t-20Yt -11'lt to e6Yt to Olo to o .. to to 1ft to 'lt -2011. -10" -a" a" 10" 2011. FIGURE 26. Frequency distribution of annualiJed growth rate in operating cost per vehicle mile. 51


Number of CTC e -e1ft to ft to -2u, to O'lo to O'lo to 21"1o to 41ft to 81'1o to '1001Jo -wo" -eo" -o" -20" 20" ,.,.. eo" 100" FIGURB 27. Frequency distribution of variance from 1989 median operating cost per passenger trip. Number of CTCa 12,--------------------------------------, 10+------8 .;--------e-1-------2+--N/A -61'1o to ..tlt'. to to O'lo to Oft to 2fto to 41'1o to 81,., to 'Io -1oo -eo -o" -20" 2n 40Y. eo" 100" FIGURB 28. Frequency distribution of variance from 1989 median operating cost per vehicle mile. 52


costs per passenger trip for 20 of the 46 Cf'C networks were within plus or minus twenty percent of the system median. Figure 28 shows that the operating costs per vehicle mile for 20 ere networks also were within plus or minus twenty percent of the system median. Measuring the variability of the data is useful in that it can identify problem ere networks and provide further evidence of success in aclrieving system objectives. Potential problem coordinators are easily identified as those systems with the greatest positive variance from the system median. It also is useful to evaluate performance measures further because a system median sometimes can give a false impression of system performance. In a simple example, assume there are eleven operators: five operators have trip costs of $5.00, one has trip costs of $6.00, and the remaining five are at $7.00 per trip. The median value for the group is the 50th percentile value, which is $6.00 per trip. Assume that in the following year, five operators maintain trip costs at $5.00, the sixth at $6.00, but the remaining five experience trip cost increases to $10.00. In this case, the median value would again be $6.00, even though costs increased by $3.00 per trip for five operators. An analysis of variance would have indicated that the dispersion in trip costs among the operators has increased-to the high side-signaling a potential problem. Thus, the performance review should include a variance review step to indicate whether variances are increasing or decreasing. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING DATA COIJ.FCTION AND PERfORMANCE MONITORING In this section, preliminary recommendations for improving performance evaluation are presented. A formal performance monitoring process and data needs assessment will be provided with Technical Memorandum No. 5. Data collection and performance monitoring is an effective management tool for communicating the organization's goals and evaluating effects of management decisions. It also establishes a system of accountability for the organization and can provide a basis for allocating public funds. The ID Commission presently collects data on service levels, cost, funding, vehicle reliability, safety, and number of employees through the annual operating repon. These repons are summarized in an operating status repon published by the commis$lon. 53


The format and content of the AOR lias iinproved greatly over time. However, there remain some consistency and accuracy problems with the data that presently are collected, particularly with cost data. These problems generally are related to various methods by which organizations determine fully-allocated costs. Other problems may stem from a lack of understanding of the data requirements, inability to collect the required data, or lack of interest in providing the data. One very effective way of improving the data collection and review process is to evaluate data needs relative to specific performance objectives established for the 1D program. These objectives then must be c:learly communicated to the coordinators along with the data requirements needed to evaluate progress. Clear definitions of the types of data required are also essential to improving the data collection effort. The specific types of data requested of the coordinators will depend on the measures used to evaluate established objectives. Some examples of objectives and relevant performance measures are: Objective Increase service availability Provide cost-effective service Increase service effectiveness Increase quality of service Increase productivity Perfonuance Measure Vehicle Miles per Capita Vehicles per Capita Vehic:le Hours per Capita Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour Passenger Trips per Vehic:le Mile Passenger Trips per Vehic:le Hour Passenger Miles per Passenger Trip Vehicle Hours per Passenger Trip Passenger Trips per Employee Vehic:le Miles per Employee Vehicle Hours per Employee Passenger Trips per Vehicle Vehic;le Miles per Vehicle Vehic:le Hours per Vehicle In general, the development of useful performance measures also should consider the information needs of the 1D Commission and 1D program management. Prior to selecting specific measures, the commission should evaluate data needs based on the five characteristics of good performance measures described earlier in this repon (applicability, 54


promptness, objectivity, reliability/aceura.Cy, and economy). Once the commission develops objectives and measures to evaluate progress, a mechanism for providing feedback to the CTCs co ncerning their performance should be established. Feedback to the coordinators should include: Current period performance. Prior year performance. Year-to-date performance. Performance to the coordinated SYStem and comparable coordinators (e.g., urban, rural, broker, multi-provider, government). To summarize the initial recommendations for improving data collection and methods of evaluation, the commission should: l..ink data and performance to established goals and objectives. Communicate effectively the program's goals and objectives and why certain types of data are collected. Evaluate data needs and performance evaluation measures based on the five characteristics of useful measures. Provide clear definitions of data required. Establish a mechanism to provide feedback on performance to the coordinators. Implement a process of problem resolution with the coordinators. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION The performance evaluation was conducted to analyze growth in the TD program and performance in a number of areas. These areas include service effectiveness, safety, reliability, cost efficiency, and productivity. The major of the evaluation are summarized below. The TD program bas grown considerably from 1985 tbrougb 1989. Signed MOAs increased from 47 to 63. Submitted AORS increased from 34 to 62. o Passenger trips in the coordinated SYStem increased four-fold since 1985, from 1,591,095 to 6,221,210, due primarily tn increases in the number of coordinators submitting data. 55


. . : Growth in the use of existmg TD services (as evidenced by the 25 CI'Cs that submitted data in all five years of the study period) has been steady. Passenger trips increased 8.2 percent per year for these coordinators. Vehicle miles increased 8.6 percent per year. Total operating costs (not adjusted for inflation) increased 13.6 percent per year. Among established ere networks, TD program growth has been faster In rural counties. For the 25 coordinators that submitted data in all five years, passenger trips in rural counties increased 9.8 percent per year compared wiib 6.0 percent per year in urban counties. Vehicle miles increased 11.8 percent per year for tbe 16 rural county coordinators that submitted data in all five years and 4.2 percent per year for the nine urban county coordinators that submitted data in all five years. Growth in unit operadng cost has been moderate through the period. Median operating cost per passenger trip and per vehicle mile for all cres submitting data increased 35 and 4.4 percent per year annualized, respectively (not adjusted for inflation). There bas been an lnerease in pu.rcbased transportation and maintenance by crcs. The cost of services increased from 4.8 percent of total expenses in 1985 to 32.6 percent in 1989. Insurance costs have increased significandy but they account for a small percentage or total operating costs. Insurance costs per trip increased from $0.18 in 1985 to $0.35 in 1989, or 18.1 percent per year. Insurance costs accounted for 5.6 percent of total operating costs in 1989. Operating funds from local soun:es, including system revenue, lnereased dramatically during the five-year period. Local funding, as a percent of total funds provided, increased from 11.8 percent in 1985 to 36.6 percent in 1 989. 56


System safety and reliabilitY have improved during the five-year period. Accidents per 100,000 miles decreased from 1.4 in 1985 to 0.9 in 1989. Vehicle miles between roadcalls increased from 20,066 to 23,868, or 4.4 percent per year, during the five-year period. Labor productivity among ere networks Improved from 1985 to 1989. Passenger trips per employee increased 8.6 percent per year during the period. Vehicle miles per employee increased 5.0 percent per year during the period. Sedioa 9 transit operators provide a slgaifialat amoUDI of TD service Ia the slate. There are seventeen Section 9 operators that provide fixed-route service to the general public, including those who are elderly, handicapped, or low income. In 1989, the fourteen Section 9 operators that provide demand-responsive service provided 1,660,800 demand responsive passenger trips. 57


PART 1WO AmTimlNAL AND NEEDS SURVEY PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF AmTIJDINAI. AND NEEDS SURVEY In June 1990, CUTR conducted a survey of 1D transportation operators, coordinators, purchasers, and other groups involved in Florida's coordinated transportation system. The purpose of this survey was to determine the attitudes and perceptions about current 1D services, and the needs and priorities as seen from the different perspectives of providers and users of 1D service. A copy of the survey instrument appears in Appendix B, as do the tabulated results of the entire survey. The main findings of the survey were concentrated in three areas: training and technical assistance, trip data, and coordination. The survey results suggest a large percejved need for training in a variety of areas. Training in 1D Commission policies and procedures, the coordination process, and driver safety were areas cited as most needed or desired. Responses to the trip data questions suggest that those trips least likely to be turned down are medical, congregate dining, sheltered workshops. and adult day care trips. Those most likely to be turned down are after-hour, weekend/holiday, and church-related trips. The results to the questions on coordination suggest barriers to the use of fixed-route services by the transportation disadvantaged. Some of these barriers include service area, nature of disability and the problems involved with arr8l1ging client schedules in conjunction with mass transit schedules. STUDY DESIGN The survey was mailed to organiutions currently involved in 1D transportation services within the state of Florida. The survey itself was pre-addressed with a return address, and return postage was paid. Two rounds of follow-up phone calls were made. A total of 440 surveys were mailed out on J une 20, 1990, and, as of August 31, 145 surveys bad been returned, for a response rate of 33 percent. The data were entered into a Lotus 1-3 spreadsheet and uploaded to the mainframe computer system at the University of South Florida. The frequency analysis of the data was done through the use of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) computer program. 58


Numerous personal and telephone interviews were then conducted to clarify responses or obtain more in-depth iDformation. For evaluation purposes, the survey respondents were grouped into five categories: community transportation coordinators (CfCs), all operators (including CfCs who are also operators), all operators who are not CI'Cs, purchasers, and other. Appendix B detailed tables showing the differences in responses among the various groups. ANALYSIS AND INl'ERPRE'l'ATION This section provides a brief summary and interpretation of the survey results. Detai l ed tabulations of the results are included in Appendix B There were two basic types of survey questions. In one type of question, respondents were asked for their reaction to specific items (e.g., types of training received, types of training needed, types of performance indicators used). For these questions, tables are presented here that show the percentage distribution of responses as well as a weighted average (or mean) for comparison purposes. The numbers in the "mean column refer to the response scale of 1 through 5. The closer the mean is to 1.0, the more strongly the respondents agreed with the statement. A mean of 3.0 suggests the respondents are neutral or indifferent to the statement. In the other type of question, respondents were asked open-ended questions. Each response was coded and a frequency distribution for each question was calculated. A summary of the most frequent responses is provided. Traln!g and Technical Assistance The survey contained two questions regarding training and technical assistance. Respondents were asked about training needs, as well as the types of training they had received in the past two years. The percentage distribution of responses to the question regarding the need for training and technical assistance is shown in Table 19. The results suggest possible training priorities for the commission. On a scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree, a total of 78 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organizations could use additional TD training or technical assistance in the area of TD Commission policies and procedures. The 59


TABLE 19. Training Needs. 18. 41.K 9.7% 2.8 Soorco: CUTR'o -dlnal and NMdo Survoy, June 1990. second largest perceived area of need is in driver safety training, as indicated by 74 percent of the respondents in agreement. There is also a strong desire for technical assistance in MOA preparation, as suggested by the 63 percent of the respondents who agreed or strongly agreed on the need for it. The three areas where training is least needed, according to the respondents, are accounting, legal advice, and purchasing. When asked what training had been received during the past two years, the respondents most frequent answers were 1DC policies and procedures, drug testing, and driver safety. Other areas in which training has been received include program management, defensive driving, and maintenance. 60


When the responses to the questions regarding the need for training are compared with the responses to the question regarding training that has been received, it is interesting to note that of the 12 percent who indicated that they had received training in 1D Commission policies and proc:edures (the most frequent answer), 60 percent agreed or strongly agreed that additional training in 1D Commission policies and procedures was needed. Likewise, of the 10 per cent of the respondents who indicated that they had received driver safety training in the past two years, 75 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that their organizat i o n could use additional training in the area of driver safety. Trln Data The response distribution for the survey's question regarding the frequency of trip denials is shown in Table 20. The responses suggest that the transportation disadvantaged are least like l y to be turned down for medical trips, congregate dining trips, sheltered worlcshop trips, and adult day care trips (as i ndicated by a higher mean value of the responses). The trips most likely to be turned down are those that are after-hours, on weekends/holidays, and church related (as indicated by a lower mean value of the responses). When asked to indicate all of the types of 1D trips that they provide, arrange, or purchase, 98 of the respondents (68 percent) marked medical trips. The second most frequent response was training/ education trips, given by 46 percent of the respondents. Shopping trips was the third most frequent response, with a response rate of 44 percent None of the respondents said that recreational trips were provided, arranged, or purchased. Coordination When asked what factors determine whether or not 1D trips are assigned to fixed route transit service, almost 25 percent of the respondents stated that the nature of the passenger's disability was the determining factor. Twenty percent indicated that service area coverage was a factor. Ten percent cited wheelchair /disabled accessibility. The fourth most frequent response was passenger preference (seven percent). Other factors included the p r oblems of trying to schedule client appointments in conjunction with mass transit and distance from the passenger's door to the bus stop. The response distributions to the survey's question regarding the advantages of coordination are shown in Table 21. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents agreed or 61


Soutco: CUTR'o Altitudlnel end Needs SufWY, 18110. TABLE :U Advantages or Coordinating TO Services. 4. Dlorl Med &dmlnli'IJ'atlw dutlea 18.1% 21U5% 22.7'Jf. Source: CIJTR't Hlitlldlnal end Noodt SuMiy, June 18110. 62 16.4% 16.4%


strongly agreed that improved service availability was an advantage of coordination. Seventy-one percent agreed or strongly agreed that an advantage of coordination is improved service qUality. Sixty-six percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that reduced cost was an advantage to coordination. The respondents were not in agreement on decreased administrative duties being an advantage, 45 percent agreed or strongly agreed that it was, while 33 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. When asked what, if anything, the respondent considers to be impediments to further coordination of 1D transportation services, 32 of the respondents (22 percent) said that funding or a restriction on the use of funds was a major impediment to the provision of coordinated services. The next most frequent response was turf-guarding among the operators. The third most frequent response was "regulations/legislation. Other responses included agency preference for its own system. liability issues and cost, jurisdictional constraints, politics, and favoritism. When asked what needs to be done to improve the coordination of1D trips between service areas, funding again was the most frequent response (7 percent), followed by the need for personal contact/ cooperation between providers. More vehicles in both service areas was the third most common response. Other responses included better communication, a central dispatching system. a centralized location for coordination of providers, and shared meetings with all involved. Seryte Improvements The distribution of responses to the survey's question regarding 1D transportation service Improvements is shown in Table 22. Over 80 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is a need for more vehicles and more drivers to improve 1D transportation services in their area. Other types of changes needed, as suggested by the high level of agreement, are better coordination within the county (70 percent agreement), better scheduling/dispatching (70 percent agreement). and Increased hours of operation (69 percent agreement). The area in which the respondents felt service was leas t in need of improvement was driver courtesy, as indicated by the mean of 2.6. When asked what their capital and operating priorities for spending new funds would be if they were given a 30 percent increase in 1D funds, the respondent's most frequent response (33 percent) was to use the funds for increasing the existing fleet size. The second 63


most frequent response was to increase secy:ice. Using these funds to provide more non sponsored trips was the third most frequent response. Other frequent responses included upgrading vehicles, computers, and more training. TABLE n. Service Improvement Needs. Performance Measum Responses to the survey's question regarding the use of performance measures are summarized in Table 23. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents indicated that they used passenger comments as a performance measure. Eighty-five percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they use total trips as a performance measure. Seventy-six percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they use cost per vehicle mile as a performance measure. 64


TABLE 23. Performance Measures Used. Sowce: CUTR'a Attitudinal and Noedo SUrwy, Juno 1990. SUMMARY OF A'ITITUPINAL AND NEEDS SURVEY The statewide attitudinal and needs swvey allowed the various types of respondents to offer their opinions as to the current state of transportation for the disadvantaged in Florida. In terms of training and technical assistance, 78 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organization could use training in the area of 1D Commission policies and procedures. The three areas where training is least needed, according to the r espondents, are accounting, legal advice, and purchas i ng, where the r espondents tended to be neutral or indifferent (42 percent, 34 percent, and 32 percent respectively). On the subject of service improvements, over 80 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there needs to be more vehicles and more drivers in order to improve 1D transportation services in their area. In addition, almost 90 percent of the respondents indicated that they used passenger comments as a performance measure. The questions on trip data indicate that the transportation disadvantaged are least likely to be turned down for service if they are making medical trips, congregate dining trips, sheltered workshop trips, or adult day care trips (as indicated by the mean of the responses). The trips most likely to be turned down are those that are after-hours, on weekends/hol i days, and church related (as indicated by the mean of the responses). 6S


APPENDIX A Performance Evaluation 66


"Codet ore defined on following -'"'25-CTC:. 67


TABLE A-1. (continued). BBiolcettd M .,. Muttl.fJroykler S = SIOQIH'rcMder ""211-CTC. PNP = Privalo Non-Piol!t U Urllln PFP A c A.ltlll Pr PUblic Tr111111t Agoncy G = Go..emment Agency 68




TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROVIDERS OPERATIONS REPORT Section 11 A. ID# :OP B. Report Date.__; __ __ Period Covered _ I __ __ to _ __ __ C. Report Completed By=-------:-----Telephone '-'---L------0. Service Reported (Mlmber DaJ7y) FIXed Route Subscription Demand Response E.1 Provider System Brokerage E.2 Number of Operators in Provider Network (By Type) F. Passenger Trips Wnhin Service Area 1. ______ 2. ______ s .. ______ Multi-Provider Single Provider FIXed Route Subscription Demand Response Outside SeJVice Area Private Non-Profit Taxicabs Public Transit Private For-Profit Government Other (Explain) 1 _______ 2. ______ s. _______ Total Wheelchair T$5 -------G. Vehicle Data Number of Vehicles Vehicle Miles Total RoadcaUs I. Employee Information ---------Full-Time Drivers --------Part-Tune Drivers Volunteer Drivers Administrative Employees Maintenance Employeas H. Accidents Person Only Vehicle Only Person I Vehicle --Number of Full Time Equivalents Number of Full Time: Equivalents --Number of FuU Time Equivalents __ .,__ Number of FuU Time Equivalents --Number of FuR Tune Equivalents








II i IH I I HUI Hili iii II -HI !Li U HI Hl iR IH lliltlll J "' .. !! !-! !' 11 ; Hi I li ::i g Jtl&Jia&aJJ,Jg l1 r !igl iiA 74


l ,;i l il II ; !Ill! II i t;illlt II ill !i Si ; li I I i Ill 'I 1111 I IIi I I 112 iili II I Ill 51 I I 'II II I! II I i Ill II I I 1!1 i I i l,gz I 75




A ai lt]&IS&e!ll!Jg M 77


... ... ... ., st i!s 78


: R" II = .. 79


i!iiaHiigPi I 1 i t ; -I -I i a u a :;; -i -I i .......... -ct l f!!li!-ilHl' I i ;; -I -' .II' UiU!i!UBB f l I 1 I I 80


;; 1#!0tt:!!Si;; 8B I 1 -:!:!JR -. Ill I I :8$$1:: = t: ... !I f -.i I Ill -!!! ll I I a: v !!-a I 1: UHG!iiHBU f I I HnL!IlliJ j_ .I I lluL!U!!JJ J 81



PAGE 100

A ai 8 F ai fi ri 6 1 f 8 1 i 1 8 8 1 8 s 1 i 8 8 all" a i J i 8 8 I 8! I Al l!gl I ,11 u 1 & i 11 1 H J 1 ri t 11!!! 111 u;,! 111 t JJ 83

PAGE 101

, ,., !! !s !5 A ai f ll 1 I!! f 84

PAGE 102

]r r j!gJ 85

PAGE 103

"' :l := !5;;! _g .. 1i "' =; "' I s 9 S!5! 8 l :3, :1!! !i !qO!; ! !! 86

PAGE 104


PAGE 105

APPENDIX B CUTR's Attitudinal and Needs Survey 88

PAGE 106

Date: To: From: Subject: CENTfR FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH University of South F l orida College of Engineering Tampa, FL 33620 (813) 974 SunCom 574-3120 FAX (813) 9745168 June 20, 1990 T .D Transportation Operators and Coordinators, Social Service Agencies, and other Users, Providers, and Planners of T D Transportation Services T.D. Transportation Survey for the Five ear T.D. Plan The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), at the University of South Florida is preparing a statewide Five-Year Transportation Disadvantaged Plan for Florida's Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. The plan will identify current and future needs of the transportation disadvantaged in Florida. It will set for t h the goals, objectives, and implementation strategies that will guide the state T D program for the next five years. As part of the project, we are undertaking this survey to understand better the diversity of issues and to obtain your input into the plan. Since you are one or the crucial links In getting service to those in need, your help in developing a successful five-year plan is important to us and to the transportation disadvantaged. Due to the variety of organizations involved in T.D. transportation services, some questions will not be applicable to all organizations. When ques:ions are not applicable to your organization, please note "not applicable" (or n/a") in the space provided. All of your responses will be kept confidential. Please feel free to provide comments throughout the questionnaire. In addition to your filling out the questionnaire we would appreciate receiving any literature describing your organization's services and any market demand studies or surveys you have done in the past five years. Your help in developing a long-range plan to serve Florida's transportation disad.vantaged is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the survey, do not hesitate to call Ron Jones or Tim Lambert at (813) 974-3120 (Suncom 574-3120). Please return as soon as possible. To return, re-fold the questionnaire so that the return address shows, and seal with tape. (Postage has already been applied.) Thank you for your help!

PAGE 107

Page 2 Organization Data A. How loog bas your organization been involved in T.D. transportation service? ____ year s B Check all or the rollo..ing that describe your organl>ation: Public Transportation Operator -Private NonProfit Transportation Operator -Private For-Profit Transportation Operator State Social Service Agency Community Transportation Coordinator (or Coordinated Community Transportation Provider) Advol)'(ies) do you serve? -----------------------E. Please ladlalte the namher or employees and volunteers yoa have involved In T.D. transportation services: Fulltime (paid) Part-time (paid) Volunteer Administrative Maintenance Drivers _____ (other) F Have you done ODJ' T.D. market surveys or demand estimates during the pastS years for you.r service area? Yes No If "'YES", please describe ________________________ __ If "NO is one planned within the next year? Yes No lf"YES", please describe'-----------------------

PAGE 108

Page3 Trainin g a nd Technical Assi s t ance 1. Please Indicate the extent to w hich you a gree that your organ ization coul d use add itional T D traJnlng or tecbnicaJ assistance in each o f th e followi n g areas I s tronal;y -ne"tra1 di.sql'fll stron&Jy I (circle the number that beSI describes your answer): -disagn:e nfa a. Driver safety ................ ... .... ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 b. Driver sensitivity .... . .......... .... .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 c Vehicle maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 d Acc o unting . .... ... .... . ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 e. Contracting .... . .... . ...... ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 f Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 g. Ra1e calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 h. Schcdulingfdis p a t ching . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 i. Administtation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 j. Volunteer recruitment . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 k MOA p r e paration .... ........ . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 I. Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 m. Leg al advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 n Insurance p r ocurement 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 o Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 p. I ssuing R.F.P.' s . ............... ... ..... I 2 3 4 5 6 q Co o rdination process . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 r T.D. Commission policies and procedures . . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 s Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 -n/a = not appl i cable 2 What types of T. D t raini n g a n d tec::h.nJcal assistance lf any. ha v e you received during th e past two yeurs? Tyne o f T raining or Provided Bv

PAGE 109

Page 4 Service Improvements 3. Please ind icate the extent to which you agree that the f ollowing are needed to Imp rove T.D rransportation services in your area and/or to he lp reduce operating costs: (Please circle the numbers that best a gree with your answers.) a. Increased days of operation .......... .... b Increased hours of operation ............. e. Shorter reservation time .................. . d. More vehicles .......................... e. More drivers ............ ........ ..... f Incr e ased service area ................ ... g. More volunteers ............... . ...... h. Bette r customer information ............. i. Improved reliability ...................... j Better coordination within count y ... ......... k. Better coordination between countie-s ........ I. Improved driver courtesy .................. m. Better scbedulingjdispatchiog ............. . n. I.ower lares ........... ................. o. More use of fixed-route transit p.Cher ____________________________ __ 4. Please indlcate the eJCitllt to which you agree that you use the following indicators as measures of T.D strvite pe.rf'ormanoe: a. Cost per vehicle mile 0 b Trips per vehicle hour 0 0 c. Passenger comments ...................... d Sponsor feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . c. Staying within budget . . . . . . . . . . f. Total trips ...... ........................ g. Percent of service lhat is coordinated 0 h. Other I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ....... d....... .. ... "311 1 1 disaamt 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 s s 5 5 s 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 (> 6 6 6 6 S. Ir your T.D. funds were increased 30%, wbat would be your capital and operating priorit ie s for spend i ng these new funds?'------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE 110

Page 5 Trip Data 6. How many one-wax T.D. trips dld you provide, arrange, or purchase during calendar year 1989 (or during your most m:ent llscal year)? 6a. What percentage of your T.D. trips are to programs provided by social service agencies (e.g., adult day care, coogregale dining, trsiniag, etc.)? % 6b. How many requests for T.D. trips did you tum down during calendar year 1989 (or dwlng yow most rent llscal year)? Comment. ________________ 6<:. PleaS
PAGE 111

Page 6 Coonlinatjoo 8. Is llxedroute transit ... bus service) operatlns In your area? Yes No If "NO: please go to Question 9 8a. Do you refer T.D. persons to fixtdroute transit service? Yes No If "YES', what pereeutage or'!<>"' cuscomer trips are made on fiXed-route semees? % 8b. What dotermlaes wbetb
PAGE 112

Page 7 Five-Year Plan 13. The T.D. Commission's Five-Year T.D. Plan will include goals. objedives, and implementation strategies to guide the state's T .D. proeram. What would you like to see the five-year plan accomplish? 14 What specific: policies would you recommend be included in tbe T.D. Commission's f'iveye:ar plan? 15. Additional comments and sUflllestlons: Thank you for your lnpot

PAGE 113

OSCSiiZ9 P!lOJj 'udwe.t :11Jf.lt3U3 JO Ol!.lJIO:) PJlOJA JO q:unosa11 UOfiCJ.IOdSUr..l.t U"'!Jfi JOJ JJU>:) sauof UOH "A COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING UO fOUOd SS:>Jppe UlRI:>J lUJ1;) ql!M '<>dol puo p(OJ "'eO(d 3113H 3dV.L CENTER FOR URBANlRA.N'SPORTATION RESEARCH TAMPA. fLO RIDA 33620 5350

PAGE 114

Frequency of Responses to Attitudinal and Needs Survey (145 lolal responses ...... --' -the 440 '"""'" mailed out) Oqanization Data A. How loag bas your orgaDization been 1Dvoi
PAGE 115

Trainln& and Technical Assistance 1. .,.... IDcJic:alr ... _, to 'llllldl,ou ..... that JOGI' orp!zalloa eould ue addJtloul T.D. tnlnlnc or tedlaleal aulstaace ta _.. or die followla& areas (circle the number that belt describes your aaswer): L b. c. d. e. r g. h. i. j. k. I. m D. 0. p. q. r. l.wl 1S 13 12 7 7 6 6 6 s Dri'I'Cr safety 0 on-seasilivity 0 VchicJc maintenance 0 ACXOUDtiDg 0 .. CottlradiDg 0 0 Purcb mag ........................ Rate caJcnlalion .................... SclJednliag/djspatcbiag ........... Adm. lnistration , . . . . Volllllteer recruitment 0 0 0 0 MOA preparation 0 0 0 0 Marketing 0 0 I..ep1 adv.ic::e . . . . . . . ID&Urua: ptOCUJtmeDI . . . . . Data coJiec::cioa . . . . . . . . .. lswjng R.F .P.. 0 Coordinatioa proecss 0 TDC policies ODd procedures . . . . . Other ..... ................. .... N/ A = not applicable N/R no respoDJC Tme of Tpinina or Ayjstance TDC policies ODd procedure& Drug !Wing Driver safety COL training Program manaecmCIIt Maintenance Pas...cenger MJistaate tcdWques CPR $e&itivity II I 30 u lA s 16 11 19 16 10 16 19 18 u 22 17 19 !M 24 ) Scale: 'l.wl 4 2 2 1 1 8 2 3S 35 23 98 l 3 4 s Mea 29 10 s 2 2.1 3S t4 4 2 u 22 14 6 1 2.3 19 36 6 6 :LI 21 17 6 4 :u 19 21 12 3 !1.7 21 16 7 3 2.3 2S 17 s 2 2.3 22 24 9 2 !1.6 12 22 7 3 !I.S 24 21 4 0 !1.1 16 23 1 2 !1.2 17 .. !1.7 16 19 3 6 2.3 a 2S 4 s :u 30 9 s !I.S 29 16 s 4 !1.2 J9 13 1 !1.0 1 0 0 0 1.0 1 strongly IIB'ce 2 IIB'CC 3 neutral 4-disagree S strongly clisagRc Type of Ttainiy or ,wmanc;e First aid UMTAgrants Defe...m. driving Privale conuacting for oemcca Microeompulers and Mlsccllaneous uu-n NoDe Not applicable No re&pODSe N/A N/R 62 17 61 17 ?0 1B 6S 18 61 30 60 19 39 20 60 20 51 21 6S 20 S7 20 6S 20 60 18 60 19 so 16 .. 20 46 19 46 18 0 142

PAGE 116

Service Improvements 3. "-, ....... tile... wllida,... .... tile .... ...., an eeded to lmJWOft T.D. -portatla _.._ "' ,....... ..... ... llelp reducle operallaa eosta: (Please cirdc the I Dwtlbcn that best agrc<> with )'OW IIISWCrs.) 1 2 4 s II M,.n Nfl\ N fR IDCJcasccl days o f opcnlioD 0 .... %7 19 lS 4 2.2 1 7 19 b. IDacascd hours of opcratioa 0 0 43 :J3 16 13 s :1.1 16 19 c. Shorter reservation time ......... .... 33 21 28 17 6 :1.4 1J 22 d. More w:bideo 0 62 36 16 2 0 lA 14 lS ... More clriw:n 0 0 0 ll 31 lS 2 0 1.7 13 19 L IDCJcascd senicc area 0 0 0 "' IJ D 16 8 2.3 18 20 g. More volunteers ................... 26 19 39 10 2 :u "' 29 b. Better CDSIOaiCr iDfonD&tioa .... 36 S4 34 6 1 2.1 lS 19 lmprow:d reliabilily 0 0 0 0 41 :!0 27 14 I 2.2 13 19 J. Better c:oordiDatioo withiD COUDty 42 :12 :14 6 1 2.0 18 22 t Better coordiDatioo betweeD couaties . . 38 29 23 10 4 2.2 "' 21 I. lmprow:d driver courtesy 0 18 :14 43 18 2 2.6 16 24 m Better scheduli.ag/dl&patchiDg .... 38 :15 23 7 1 2.0 1 7 24 D I..ower fares . . . . . . . . . . . 34 22 :15 10 7 2.A 16 21 o. M ore use of filred.route traDSit ..... 3:5 26 28 9 6 1.3 17 24 p. Other 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 .0 0 U3 Pleue ........ Qoe t ... wlalcio ,... --,... 111e mdlcaton ., --or T .D. -me perf.......,.ce : Cost per w:IUdc mile 0 32 40 :n 2 0 1.9 24 26 b. Trips per vebide bout 0 "' :!0 D 9 :1.4 31 29 c. Pasaeaget ..,...meats . . . . . . . . .... :!0 u 0 1 1.7 19 "' d. Spoaso:r feedbaA:k . 24 49 13 3 1 2.0 29 26 ... Stayias, 1'i1biD b\aclgct 0 0 %7 41 :n l 0 2.0 26 28 f. Totallrip6 ........................ :J3 4S u 2 0 Ll 28 :IS g. PerCCD!
PAGE 117

Trip Data 6. How maDJ' OJIC:llllY T.D. trips clld you proflde, IUTIIJI&f, or poudlaM cJarlaa calendar,_.. 1!189 (or duriag ,.our most ...... all8cal ,_..)? Total reported was 7.517.199. (65 reopoDdeots did DOt wwer this que&tioll.) 6a. Wbal pecuatqe or your T.D. trips are to .....,..... pnwldecll>)' -'a! oen1ce ...,des
PAGE 118

Coordination a. Ia llxecl-roale 11'811slt (I.e., rquJar Ilea aenkle) operatl.ag ID )'0111' araa? ..118.. Yes ..3l. No If pletm: go to Quution 9. &a. Do ,..,. refer T .D. penoaa to fhecl.roolle 11'811alt ...me.? ... Yes A No If "YES, what perc:eAtage ot )'Out c:w:ome:r trips arc made Oil fixcd rOWe suvices? 6.4% was the &VUaj!e. (Z7 respondenls dlcl Dot aoswer this question.) lb. Wbat ddenaiDea wbethtr or DOC tbeoe lrlpa are ualptd to fhecl.roolle 11'811alt aeniCIO (..,_, P"ssmae'" preltftiKle, wiJcek:ha!r llllCeSalbWty, oaluft ol diallblllty, aeniCie area cownoae, etc:.)? fl$g Remooses 36 Nature of disabilily 29 Service area coverage 15 Wheelcb.alr /disabled accessibility 10 Passenger prefereottatto ftlch )'OD -that the roUowtuc are e4YaDtaps of coordiDatiDg T.D. 11'811aporlaiiOD Hnioa: (Please circle the il u DWDbers that best 8g1ee with your auawers.) 1 2 3 4 5 Mean N/A a. Reduced cost . . . . . . . . . . . 42 33 13 II 14 2.3 10 b. Improved sem.e quality . . . 42 42 2l 9 4 1.1 II c. Improved servke availabilily .... 46 45 15 4 6 2.0 II d Decreased admirristtative duties . . . . 21 28 25 Ill 18 2.9 15 e. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 0 0 0 1.7 0 N/ A = DOl applicable N/R = DO respoose Seale: 1 = strongly 8g10C 2 = agree 4 dis8g1ee 5 strongly dis8g1ee 3 Dcutral NJR 17 15 Ill 20 142 to. Wbal, 11 All)'llal.ag, clo :rou .,.., ....... to .. lmpecUJ.euta to furtbor eoorciiDatloD of T.D. lr8llaporlall .. eermes? (Responses rcllt
PAGE 119

10. (eoutlaued) C. Responw 2 lDordinalc amOUDI of papetWOrk 1 MOA too broad 1 Jurisdictional coostraints 1 Cootradiclioo in polkies and procedures 32 Fuodlng 6 Uabillty issues, requiremcots, and cost 7 Coot 2 High rates 1 Iol!!!ted 8Joup rates subsidizing iodMdual trip rates 9 Turf guarding 1 Providers afraid of loosUtg fwtdiog and cootrol 4 Lack of providers 1 Large oumber of providers in tbe coUDty 1 Attitude that social service agencies cao do better tbao traosportatioo open.tors fWl ltesrtnr!"' 1 UIIWilliogocss to sene outlying areas for profit moilies 1 Ageucy prefereoce for its own system 1 Spcc:ial oceds of agency clieDts 3 Lack of coopuation 2 Lack of staf[ 2 CoiiiJl"' iDg priorities 2 Polilic:s 1 Favoritism 1 Lack of koowledge of writing cootrads 1 J..cogth of llOUDiy 11 Miscellaaeous 2 Unkoowo 1 Noth.iog 10 Not applicable 47 No response 1L H"" mlldl demnd Is there lor T.D. trips betwoca your OOUillf aad oilier eoomtla? (31 rcspoodents did not ---this question.) .l.i. 8JCal demand ..:&. moderate demand .J6_ vuy little demand _2oodemand 12 Wllat, aeecls to be d011e to bDprooe tilt eoorcl.laatloa of T.D. trips belttM strolff points 1 Smafler vehicles (vans) 2 Fleoibility to cross llOUDiy lines 2 COA won't CI'0$8 county lioes 1 AD "8CDcr wil1iDg to cross coooty lines for mediW appointmcots 10 Funding 3 Fust priority should be in serW:c area due to limlled 1\mds 2 Cooperatioo between coooty sub&dies fwl s 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 3 3 17 6S 102 RCl!!!!!KS Persooal cootact/ooopcratioo between prcmdel"$ Ccotralized localloa for coordination of provide!"$ Elimioat.e desipated prcmdcl"$ County re&trictioos/regulatioas arc barriO!"$ Closed cootrads Cool arraogements Let tbe commission use control to get providers to work !lill! each otber, aot against More awareness of aced Partkular aneatioa should be paid to rural areas of primarily urbanized counties 'I'raiaiDs for system users Policy establisbmeot or 88Jcemeols Ceatral dispatching system Misccllaoeous Uaknown NothiDg Not applkable No respoose

PAGE 120

Five-Year pjan 13. Tilt T.D. C<>mlsloD's FI ... Yur T .D. PlaD wiiiiDclude pis, objectl-, aad laplemelllailoa lllnllclill$to suldo the te>s T.D. JII'08I'IIIIL Wbat would you like to see the live-)Ur plaD. -pllsb? (Respoases reOecting similar issues appear together.) Respopses full 8 Better/fuller social service ageacy 4 coordiDalioD 3 4 To have all providers in a ooUDty coordinated 3 by one oftic:e 3 To ha.., a coordinator for each coWIIy 3 3 Legislalive coordination efforts 2 2 Mandatory joint use of vehicles 2 2 More resulation of coWIIy TD systems 1 1 Support coordinatioa, not consolldalion 1 1 Eliminate designated provider 1 1 Ac:tual coordination 1 1 Develop specific guidelines for coordination 1 iD se.rvice areas 1 1 Workable framcwork/organi"'tion structur e for fadliwing coordination of TD services 1 1 Realistic goals and implementation strategies 15 1 Training local MPO/DOPA stall and 2 coordinating boards iavoJwd in Rule 41 2 andChm 1 Prioridze services 2 1 If don't accomplish elfecti.., coordinatioa, 2 repeal Ch 4'1:1 2 1 More joiDtuse plans wilh Dept. of Education 1 TD field represeatatives on regional basis 2 1 Spare bus pool for Joan or rent to CI'Cs as programs become available 1 Eliminate MOA process 1 1 Uniform billing process 1 1 System for sWewide TD complaints 1 1 Change federal resulations on16(b)(2) to include 1 all coordinaled transpol'lation providers, not just 1 private non-profits 1 Central dispatching 6 Less paperwork/planning "red tape" 1 3 Less restritlions for inter-county travel 1 1 RIJie.ma!ring that would require local publk transit S agendu to become major players of TD semc:es 1 1 Fewer limitations on priority trips 1 2 Training assistaDce 1 1 Safety training 1 1 Driver sensitivity training 1 Make bus tTaining available for all passengus 4 Z1 Make affordable, reliable transportation 4 available daily /more often 4 3 Help public information eii"OI'I 2 Particular attention to rural areas 1 (<0111iaued Oil Dell page) 103 RCWlDStcS More vans and drivers IDc:reascd sctvicc areas Scheduling -ill advance: for all trips needed in a week Belter service to tho6e wbo arc m More fixed route Coaveniem a
PAGE 121

13. (CODllaucd) Ewi Responses Ewi Responses 2 Help educate elected officials 1 Provide traDSportation to anm penoas 2 Allow c:haDge according to local Deed 1 Pwther documontatioD of ueeds 1 JostaD cblld safety seats oo 1D traosport >dlidca 10 children call 1118 Ibis resource 1 MiDiworkshops for care providm 1 Aide& oo buses for seoerely handicapped 1 J>rio,ocr pay il1creascs aud bcae6r. 3 MlscellaDcous 1 Voluot= driver lac:ea.tivcs 1 Uniform reportjDg/accountiJig procedures 52 No rcspoase 14. Wllat speclllc policies WOtll4 you nco-eod be IDdedeciiD the T.D. Commls8ioe'o a_,.... plan? (Responses rellectiog similar issues appear togelhu.) Ewi Responses Ewi JWpocw;s 1 If providers doo't comply, thea DO fuodiog 2 Slidiog fee scale/cliscowll for frequcocy of 1ri.po 1 DOPA$ must show that they ore caroiu,g 2 Re6oe rot e system 10 tho! ooe acy does aot their fuDdiag subsidize the rides of uotber 1 PnMders should be able to receive plaoiog 1 Loweol co&t instead of gcoeral requiremeor. funds 1 Allow aud eacourage local innovation in 1 Easure adequate fMcliog prOYidiDg c;ost=effedive senice 1 Fair dlstributioll of 1D funds 1 MuJti..leYCI reservalioo system 1 Establish program goals aod let iadividual s Establish trip priorities areas meet goals through the use of fUDds 2 Demaad tho! all aew buses purcbased be oo a cliscretiooary basis accessible 1 Sales tax oa gas to support program 2 Responsive transportatioo services 1 A policy for county iavolvemeot in fu._..tiog 1 Scbedule alllri.po ooe lime per week 1D programs 1 Let rider cboooe their OWD provider 1 Eremptioas &om tolls, gas taxes, aad taxes 1 Sincere aod detetmined effort to improve 1D on repairs for 1D operators services 3 More driver 11ainiog 1 Service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 3 Driver sensitivity training 1 PlexibJe.route systems with short reservation 1 Programs to eclncate aad inform the Jegjslaturc requiremeota 4 Allow llexibUity withio counties 1 Requiremeatto iDcrease ridership by a set 2 laaeased coordinatioD/DetWotking ...._ percentage eacb year mass transit systems aad private noa-profit 1 FIXed-route Sy&tCIII$ with pick-up points at agencies housing projects and going to major employmcot 2 FIJ1IIDC&ll in cootract agreements between areas provider aud spoosor agencies 1 Less waiting times 2 Allow sponsoring agencies to be excluded 1 Plan for visually-impaired ....,..ibUity &om the law if they call receive services for 1 Improve TDC's DOPAs aud CI'Cs a lower price from nooCI'C provider 1 Audit requiremeDls to be cootracl ed by TDC 1 Full-time coordinalors at fair co&t 1 Coordinator should have clout aad masdc 1 Clw>ge TDC/Cl'C relatiooship 1 Simplify policies to avoid bureaucracy 1 Doo't bow enough about TDC to comment 1 Future legislatioo must specify leYCI of 2 DeYCiop marketiog plan appropriatioas for 1D recipients 2 More interactioo with providers 1 Feedback mechanism re: CI'Cs being able 2 Statewide fleet insuraaa> to coordinate services that adequately meet 2 A peoetratioo Slln'ey 10 determine le\>el of demaods aud needs, aad minim@ cost dem8Dd, 1D populatioa, aud future planning 1 Uniform reports requirements 1 Allow all1D citizens to use systems around 1 not mcu disabled educate the state and train (eontined on IU!lLt ...ae) 104

PAGE 122

14. (eoatlaaed) f.w R.eJpoases fuQ Rea>PPW 1 U niform eligibi1ily criteria 1 IDdudc planning compoaeat, to update every 1 Require coordination by a specific date li-.c years 1 Scbool clistrict requirement that so IDliDY 1 Let en.. have option to be eeatral regjslry for miles of service be implemeated all providers 1 Po6cics related to ewluatioo of serviuo 1 Hire more drivers or functions of TD eoocept 1 Acldre6s needs of handicapped workers in 1 Different standards for small operators commmity versus large, complex operatort 1 TDC in each eollll!y made up of eo=med 1 Uniform metbodology in capturing llDit eiliuas and social service ageacy reps c:osts and determining loeal needs 1 Specific drug abuse policy and tesliug 1 lDvoJve more disabled persoas procedures 1 A Slate ruraltraasportatioa office 1 Easier billing 1 Computer software support 1 1Dcmued public awareness 1 De-relop speeiJk Jl"'l8l'8DD to case section 18 1 Buc polley oo passeDgM illn ... /medicol need providers into section 9 posture 4 Not applicable 1 Calendar for all due dates ou annual basis 4 Noue 1 Vcblcle mainteoance plaDS 78 No response 15. Adclltloaal COIIUDCills ud suggestioas: (Responses rc&ctiDg similar issues appear together.) fuQ Rcsl10l!.l fuQ 1 Transportatiou needs to be available more 1 often during a 24-bour period and more days per week 1 1 lllvolve loeal coordinators at all levels of decision making 1 1 Problems exist in transportation betwce.n ruralandur*ar1 1 Remember every service area is differeD! 1 Has beeu eousiderable impro-.cment in service, 1 but there still is room for improvement 1 Medicaid patieDtS receive the best scmec 1 available 2 Patients would like to usc an efficient, cost 1 effecth>e system 1 Pubtic transportation system not useful 1 because of time rcstrietious imposed 1 1 PatieDtS are lraasported by families, not 1 TD service 1 Tbis area Deeds public service announecmeats 1 to inform TD of scMec 1 Essentia l to increase c:oordinatioo or services in 1 order to decrease stress for dialysis pop. 1 Transportatioa is so incflieieatlbat it is a 1 barrier to wccessful rebabililation in many eases 2 Frustraliug 1 1 Immediate assistance needed 8 109 105 IWponses Regular meeliug of eommUDity service leaders and providers needed No clear understanding of what we arc to do as a community exis1s Long range plaDS should eousider goals for developmentally disabled Standard software for all pr
PAGE 123

Cross-Tabulation or Responses to the CUTR Survey In June 1990. CUTR conducted a survey of ID transportation operators, coordinators, purchasers, and other groups involved in Florida's coordinated TO transportation system. The respondents were grouped into five categories: (1) commiJility transportation coordinators (CI'Cs), (2) all operators, (3) all operators who were not CI'Cs, (4) purchasers, and (5) other (which contains the responses of advocacy groups, planning agencies, and state and local social service agencies who are not already included in one of the above categories). To determine if those CI'Cs wbo are also operators responded to the questions from the perspective of CI'Cs or of operators, a cross-tabulation of their responses to each of the questions was performed and compared with the responses of all non-ere operators. This appendix contains the results of that breakdown. The tables that follow show a breakdown of the frequencies to allow for a comparison of the responses between respondent groups involved. The responses to each question are summarized in tables that show the weighted averages of each group's responses. Because not all of the respondents answered all parts of the questions, the tables also show the minimum and maximum number of respondents who answered the particular question, as well as the size of the total respondent group. This allows for a more accurate interpretation of the average values Each summary table is followed by four tables listing the frequency of responses for (1) crcs, (2) non-ere operators, (3) all operators (including CI'Cs that are operators), and (4) purchasers. Tables B 1 through B-5 deal with perceived needs for training and technical assistance (Survey Question 1). The first table (Table B 1) is the summary table. I t is followed by the f our tables showing the responses of CI'Cs, all non-ere operators, all operators and all purchasers. This is the same order used for all sets of tables. Tables B-6 through B-10 deal with perceived changes needed to improve TO transportation services. Performance measures used by the respondents are shown in Tables B-11 through B-15. Tables B-16 through B-20 present the frequency with which respondents turn down specific trip types. The final set of tables (Tables B-21 through B-25) present the respondents' perceptions of the advantages to coordination. 106

PAGE 124

TABlE B-1. SUmmary of Responses to Question 1*. "Atue lndloatt the e.x1ent 110 '""'""""" 8Qf'M lhat your CMpnlldon oould UN thl Mdltlonal TO training or ttchnloalllllltlnoe In eaoh of tt. area of All crco-,...mbln In tl.t* .,. weighted &veriQM butd on the fiolo'Mng tcaJe: __ llgly ""'" 2-3M
PAGE 125

TABLE B-2. Responses by Community Transportation Coordinators* to Question 1. --tho -nt to which you agroothal yol. uooTDtrolning "'---llancoln each oftM ateaa : Trolning ...,plo llzt=38 Source: ClJTR'a Altltudlnalond -da Survey, 11180 Nol No """-Applicable R1aponae 108

PAGE 126

TABLE 8-3. Responses by All Non-CTC Operators* to Question 1. "PtHee Indicate the exten1 to Whloh you IQ,.. 1hat your organization oould uee tdcltlonll1D tralnl"G Of tld'lnloal Ullttanot In oecholtlle ..... ,. TYI>O of Training samplellze Soule.: CUTR'a Allttudineland -S.....y, Juno 1990 109

PAGE 127

TABLE 8-4. /IJ Openllonl to Ouesllon 1 k-111o .-"'""'"" 1!011 --)'OW_._----TD lrolnlng cw ----In _, Typo of Trolnlng ..... plollft 57 _, CllTir. AllitLdnll -s.r.ov .-1980 9 1 2 110

PAGE 128

TABU: 8-0 All Purchuens* to au-tan 1 .,..... thl ...-nt to whloh )OU .-.,_ )10Uf could UM edcllloN:I "''D nlnlng 7 ?,.,,,. In MChof ....: Typo of Trolnlng ---.....,....,..eo : CUTR'o-.al--sw.oy, .Mio 11al Slrvngly Nol No MriGO Appl...,_ Allp!MM 2.1 111

PAGE 129

____ ..,.... In to MdiiOe number of Somplollzo 38 numl>
PAGE 130

........ ludl oele tt. ....... to"'*" )IOU_.,. thai: CihanO" .. n111fed to lr'rlpo.. In Mduoe cotet:-aampee elze38 CUTR'a Altltudllllllnd -Sutwy ....... 11190 113

PAGE 131

TABLE 8-a Responses by M ()peratora* to OtHIItlon 3. __ ... ......... --ln 81r
PAGE 132

TABLE 8-9 Responses by All Opnlors* to Question 3 indicl:lll h edent to Whloh you llCIJf'MI tt.t the cMnoM .,. IIIHd to fmpow TO ftliiipCI!i111dCift ..,._ in 4 1.7 8 10 11 14 5 ....,.. _ 57 Source: CUTR'I Alllllldlnol ond -S..My Ju .. 11180 115

PAGE 133

TASl B-10. Responses by M Purchase!s* to Ouesllon 3 Typo ol Chonut t5 .1mproood ..,.,p,. liz ;II eo 1t Souroo: -uclnol ond -Swwy, .Nne 1900 116 -.aly Not No Appllcoblo .....,._ IS) 0 1 Ruponoo (t-e)

PAGE 134

TABLE B-11. Sunvnary of R88pOIIMS to Ouesllon 4* ._lndlcet81ho oxtont 0> wNch you-that you uao 1M following Ind-. -of TO eorvlco .... Typo of --All era.-All flon.CTC 'numbers In tablo-woighlod ---on 111o fol-g -: 1.....,glyogreo 3 neutral 4 diMgrM 6otrongly dfiiiQ'** *'CTC Communlty Tranaportation Coordlnalor All All I'll... Min/mu number o1 mpondonta reprlllnll the lid that not d ooopondenta-Ill .,... of the quH&ion, and '-fot lnttrpretiw putpatH Sourco: CUTR'a Altitudinal lnd Neodo SuMy. Juno 181l0 117

PAGE 135

oomplo olzo -: CUTR'a -inol and NHclt S..rwy, Juno Ul90 TABLE B-13. Responl88 by AJ Non-CTC Operatons* to QU8111on 4. TIIPO of Indicator 7. 8pao>aor IMdbldt -plo4 8 _, CUTR'a--ond -&.My, Juno t llliO 0 0 118 of Not No -oge Aaaponoo Moon 1

PAGE 136

TABI. B-14. by All Opendcrato Question 4 T!IPO of -umplellze $7 '!!H Sou,..: CUTR'a ldtitudlnll ond &o,....y, June 1990 TABLE B 15. Responses by All Purchasers to Question 4 7 11 2 ...,..,. -eo = CUIR'o----81orvor .-1llll0 119 1 7 2 4 8lronQiy Not No ,t,pploU)II Allport .. 1 19 16

PAGE 137

TABlE B-1& Summary of 10 Ouesllon 60'. ----.. --3'1Mti1 .... --6-CTCOommuntty Ttw1ip011adon CoordiRIIOr ... Min/max numbw of mpondonll fact thlt not Ill ._.,...,.. on-all patla of tl1e ond .. for.......,..... PUIJIOIOI Sou.,.: CUTII'I.oadlucllnol ond -S.-v. Juno 1890 120 22

PAGE 138

TABLE B -17. Responses by Transpottalfon Coordinators to Question 6C. "Pie-lndlcalo how haYO to lum down lha of "'lmplo llu38 SouaJTR'IAitlludlnalancl -Suovoy June UJ90 121

PAGE 139

TABlE B-18. All Non-CTC Operators* to Qua Ilion IIC. --. .... oiTD 1 0 2 9 l 17.8111 0 1 5 8 7 .... -25 So
PAGE 140

TABl 8-19. Responses by AI to Oue&llon 6C. --Hoi No Appllcoblo "'1 '""'P'-eiH=Gl' Sourco: CUTR'a -lnol ond Nooda SuNOV. 1990 123

PAGE 141

TABLE All to Ouasdon 6C ----.. ....,_ Nol No --.-pp!looble AlilpOn .. Chuloh Vipo 5 0 1 0 0 311 15 1.3 61111'1ple llze. eo -= ond-s.-y, Juno 1990 124

PAGE 142

TABLE 8-21. Summary of Responses to Question 9*. -lndlcalolho """""to which you -lhollho -ng.,. """-of -dl n ollng TO,.,__ Type of ...,, All Not>CTC number of Sample38 numbeR In tal* are welg:httd ........,, baled on the following ecale: 1ngly ""'" 2gtM 3=-4disag'" 5 IO'ongly dlaag'" -CTCCommuntty Cocwdlnatot ...,, eo -win/rrw< number ot roopondonta ropreeonta 1ho tact tht no1 ell mpondonta onowerod 811 parte of tho quntion. ond lefor lm.rprotive pu_. Soutco : CUTR"t Altitudinal ond -Surwy, Juno 1980 TABLE B-22. Responses by Community Transpol1allon to Question 9. Type of -..mpte elze -: CUTR'I-nal ond -Survey, Juno 11190 125 Olhor

PAGE 143

TABLE B-23. Responses by All Non-CTC 0p&18101S* to Oues1lon 9. ... Typo of "'lmple IIM SolA-co: CUTR'a -..cllnal end Needs &11\'01', 1890 TABLE B-24. Responses by All Operato
PAGE 144

AOR ARC COA CPI ere CUTR DR Fl' HHS HRS LPO MOA MPO RPC TD TDC UMTA List of Abbreviations AnD1Jal Operating Report Association of Retarded Citizens Council on Aging Consumer Price Index Community Transportation Coordinator Center for Urban Transportation Research Demand Responsive Full Time Equivalent Health and Human Services Health and Rehabilita tive Services Local Planning Organization Memorandum of Agreement Metropolitan Plann ing Organization Regional Planning Council Transportation Disadvantaged Transportation Disadvantaged Commission Urban Mass Transportation Administration 127

PAGE 145

Glossary Accidents the total number of reportable accidents resulting in property damage and/ or personal in j wy. Annual Operating Repon an annual repon prepared by the community transportation c:oordinator detailing its designated area operating statistic:s for the most rec:ent operating year. Brokered ere Network type of ere network in which all transportation servic:es are contrac:ted out to other operators (the ere ope r ates no servic:e ). Chapter 4l7, FS the Florida statute establishing the Transportation D i sadvantaged Commission and presc:ribing i ts duties and responsibilities. Community Transponatlon Coordinator (CfC) transportatio n entity recommended by an official planning agency t o ensure that coordinated transporta ti o n servic:es are provided to the transportation disadvantaged population in a designated servic:e area. Formerly known as the coordinated oommunity transportation provider. Demand-Responsive Senic:e servic:e with flexible scheduling and routing to provide door-to door or point-to-point transportation at the user's request. This servic:e typic:ally requires 24ho u r advanc:e reservation. Designated Servic:e Area the geographic:al area, consisting of o n e or more c:ounti es, in whic:h the ere is the des i gnated provider. Etrec:tlveuess Measure a performanc:e measure that indic:ates the leve l of consumption per unit of output. Passenge r trips per vehic:Je mile is an example of an effec:tiveness measure. Efficiency Measure a performanc:e measure that evaluates the level of resourc:es expended to achieve a given level of output. An example of an efficiency measure is operating cost per vehide mile. Employees the total number of persons employed in an F".aed-Route Servic:e transit or paratransit servic:e in which the vehic l es follow a schedule over a presc:ribed route. Full Time Equivalent (FI'E) a measure used to determine number of employees based on a 4().hour work week. One FI'E equals 40 work hours per week. Goal broad-scoped conditions tha t define what the organization hopes to achieve. 128

PAGE 146

Memorandum or Agreement a one-year binding standard contract between the Transportation Disadvantaged CQmmission and a ere. This contract and its provis i ons serve as a performance and reporting standard to guide the delivery of services by all agencies or entities that provide transportation disadvantaged services. Metropolitan Plannin& Orpnlzationthe organiqtion respoDSible for transportation planning and programming in urban areas. Also serves as the official plann ing agency referred to in Chapter 427, FS. Multi-Provider CI'C Network type of ere in which the ere operates some transportation services and contracts other service with other operators. Objective specific, measurable conditions that the establishes to achieve its goals. Operating Costs reported total spending on operations, including administration, maintenance, and operations of service vehicles, and excluding capital spending. Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip operating costs divided by the total annual ridership, a measure of the efficiency of transporting riders. One of the key indicators of comparative performance of transit properties since it reflects both the efficiency with which service is delivered and the market demand for the service. Operating Cost Per Vehide Mile operating costs divided by the number of vehicle miles, a measure of the cost efficiency of delivered service. Operatuig Revenue -all revenues and subsidies utilized by the operator in the provision of transportation services. Operatinc Statistics operating data on various characteristics of operations, including passenger trips, vehicle miles, operating costs, revenue, vehicles, employees, accidents, and road calls. Operating Status Report -an annual report issued by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission that compiles all the data submitted in the Annual Operating Reports. Passenger Miles -number of annual passenger trips multiplied by the system's average trip length (in miles). 1bis number provides a measure of the total numbe r of passenger miles of transportation service consumed. Passenger Trips annual numbe r of passenger boardings on the vehicles. A trip is counted each time a passenger boards a vehicle. Thus, if a passenger has to transfer between buses to reach a destination, he or she is counted as making two passenger trips. Passenger Trips Per Employee a performance measure used to evaluate labor productivity. Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Mile a performance measure used to evaluate service effectiveness. 129

PAGE 147

Peer Group Analysis -a common technique used to evaluate the general performance of a single operator relative to the performance of a comparable group of operators of similar size, operating environments, and modal characteristics. PerformiiJICe Measure statistical representation of bow well an activity, task, or function is being performed. Usually computed from operating statistics by relating a measure of service output or utilization to a measure of service input or cost. Roadeall a revenue service interruption caused by failure of some mechanical element or other element. Section IS Report -an annual report required of all Section 9 transit agencies by the federal Urban Mass Transportation Admioistration. Sln&Je-Provider ere Network the network type in which the CI'C operates all of the transportation services. Standard something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example. Subscription Senice -service that is prearranged and recurring to meet the travel needs of riders who sign up for the service in advance. Transportallon Disadvantaged -in Florida, those persons who because of physical or mental disabil i ty, income status, or age or who for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or other life-sustaining activities, or children who are handicapped or high -risk as defined in s.411.202 Transportation Disadvantaged Commission created in 1989 to accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged population. Replaced the Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Transportation Disadvantaged Population persons from the total population meeting the transportation disadvantaged definition guidelines. Transportation Operator -one or more public, private for-profit, or private non-profit entities engaged by the community transportation coordinator to provide service to transportation disadvantaged persons. Trend Analysis a common technique used to analyze the performance of an organization over a period of time. Urbanized Area -an area designated by the Bureau of the Census that contains a central city or cities and surrounding closely settled urban fringe (suburbs), which together have a population of 50,000 or more. 130

PAGE 148

Vehicle Miles total distance trave led anhually by reven u e service vehicles. Vehicle Miles Between Roadcalls a performance measure used to evaluate reliability of service. Vehicle Miles Per Employee a performance measure used to evaluate labo r produ ctivity. Vehicle Miles Per Vehicle a performance measure used to evaluate resource utiliza t ion and rate of vehicle depr ecia ti on. Vehiclesnumber of vehicles owned by the transit agency that are available for use in providing services. 131

PAGE 149

List of References Annual Qperatin& Reports. Submitted by Community Transportation Coordinators (previously Coordinated Community Transportation Providers) to the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (formerly the Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged). 1985 1989. Center for Systems and Program Development, Inc. Guidebook. to "Best Practices in Specializec:i and Human Seryices Tranwortation Coordjnation. Was hington, D.C.: The Join t OOT/DHHS Coordinating Council on Human Services Transportation Coordination, 1989. Caner Goble Associates, Inc. A Propm Analysis for the Council on the Transportat ion n.p.: Carter Goble Associates, 1989. Compex Corporatio n. National Urban Mass Tramportatjon Statistics: 1 986 Section 15 Annual Report. UMT AVA-06-0127-88-1. Alexandria, Virginia. : U.S. Department of Transportation, 1988. Compex Corporation. National Urban Mag; Transportation Statistics: 1987 Section 15 Annual Re.pon. UMTA-VA-06-0127-89-1. Alexandria, Virginia.: U.S. Departmen t of Transportation, 1989. Compex Corporation. National Urban Mas< Transportation Statistics: 1988 Section 15 Annual Repon. UMTA-VA-06-0127-90-1. Alexandria, Virginia.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1989. Ecosometrics, Inc. Study to ldentizy !he Transpnrtation Needs of the Elderly and Disabled jn Kent and Sussex Counties. Bethesda, Maryland: Delaware Transportation Authority and Delaware Department of Transportation, 1990. Ecosometrics, Inc. and the University of Delaware College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy. Study to Perfonn a Survey of !he Tranwortation Needs of the Elderh. Disabled and Economically jn Northern New Castle Count)'. Bethesda, Maryland: Delaware Transportation Authority and Delaware Department of Transportation, 1990. Florida Committee on Aging. Pathways to the Future: The Report of the Florida Committee on AaiDII n.p.: Florida Committee on Aging, January 1985. Florida Committee on Aging. PathwaYs to the Future U: Implementation. n.p.: Florida Committee on Aging, January 1986. Florida Department of Transportation. Public Transportation Goals and Objectives. n.p.: Florida Department of Transportation, 1983. 132

PAGE 150

Florida's Awroach to Coordinated Transportation for the Transportation Tallahassee, Florida: TD Commission. 1988. Hutchinson, Jo Ann. A Case Study: Coordination of Rural Transporwipn in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: TD Commission library, n.d. Hutchinson. JoAnn. Florida's Decade of Experience in Coordinated TraoJ!ortation for the DisadvantaKed Tallahassee, Florida: TD Commission library, 1990. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Statewide Trapsjt Nee!ls Plan Phase I. n.p.: Florida Department of Transportation Bureau of Multi-Modal Systems Planning, 1986. QperatiDII Status Reports. Tallahassee, Florida: Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (previously the Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged). 1985 1989. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. Public Trapsportatjon Coordination for the in Florida. UMTA Report 904-005.00. Tallahassee, Florida: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., January 1981. Schimpeler..COrradino Associates. Florida Statewide Five-Year Transit and Paratransit Deve!Qpment Plan for the Transp
PAGE 151

Toward a Unification of National and State Policy on the Tr;wportation J>art ID. The Florida Perspective, of the Fourth Annual Transportation Conference. 3 December 1974. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1974. Transportation Disadvantaged Commissioo. State of Florida Trnnsportation Djsadyanta&ed Handbook. Tallahassee ,' Florida: TD Commission, 1989. Transportation Accounting ConsOrtium. Sjmplioous Human Sexyice Ttansponation and Small Transjt System A Six State Peapecti.ye. I ansing, Michigan: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983. Transportation Research Center of Indiana University. Handbook for MilJUI&e!1lent Pt:rfonuance Audits. DOT-T-88-21. Bloomington, Indiana: Urban Mass Transportation Administration_ and U.S. Department of Transportation, 1988. 134


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.