Performance of Florida's public transit systems : 1990 summary report

Performance of Florida's public transit systems : 1990 summary report

Material Information

Performance of Florida's public transit systems : 1990 summary report
Florida. Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit--Florida ( lcsh )
Urban transportation--Florida ( lcsh )
letter ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
C01-00431 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.431 ( 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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00431
2 110
Florida. Dept. of Transportation.
0 245
Performance of Florida's public transit systems : 1990 summary report
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1992 September
Local transit--Florida
Urban transportation--Florida
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


PERFORMANCE OF FLORIDA'S PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS 1990 SUMMARY REPORT Prepared for the Florida Department of Tran sportation by Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida September 1992


"Performance of Florida's Public Transit Systems" was prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida. This report summarizes the findings of two technical memoranda prepared as part of the 1990 Performance Evaluation of Florida's Transit Systems. Technical Memorandum #1 is a trend analysis for the years 1984 to 1990 for each Florida transit system and for the state as a whole. The analysis identifies performance trends over seven years. Technical Memorandum #2 is a peer review analysis using 1990 data. Peer review analysis is a common method for comparing a transit system's performance with similar systems around the country. All data were taken from Section 15 reports, which are required of transit systems that receive federal funding. All Section 15 data are subject to validation through manual and automated methods by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Each system is required to respond to problems and inconsistencies identified by FTA during its review. A time lag of approximately one year exists between the end of a reporting year and the availability of validated Section 15 data. From these data, 36 performance measures were calculated, many of whic h are presented in this summary report. For additional information or copies of the technical memoranda, please contact : Florida Department of Transportation Public Transit Office 605 Suwannee Street Mall Station 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Telephone: (904) 488-n74 ------------3




Introduction 7 Overview of T ransit 8 Florida' s Transit Systems 9 Transit Modes in Florida 10 A Snapshot of Florida Systems 11 Factor s Influenc in g Transit 12 Financing Tran s it Operations 13 Trend Analysis (1984-1990) 1 4 Peer Review Analysis (1990) 18 Co n clusions 28 Evaluation Measures 29 Glossary 30 5


6 -----


Rapid growth in Florida has resulted in increased attention to transportation p r oblems. Although the highway syst em will continue to be the backbone of Florida's transportation system many government and business leaders expect public transit to play a large r role in pe r sonal mobility. W ith this increased attention to public transit came the necessity to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transit systems. Florida l egislation requires the Fl01ida Department of Transportation and Florida's transit systems to develop and report on trans i t system performance. FLORIDA STATUTE 341.041 FLORIDA STATUTE 3 41.071 FLORIDA S TATUTE 341.0 5 2 7


8 Nationally, transit ridership has remained virtually the same since 1984. At the same time, U.S. population has increased by nearly six percent. Consequently, the contribution of public transit to increased mobility has declined. In addition, the stabilization of federal assistance for public transit operations has resulted in increased funding by state and local governments and continued cost pressures on transit systems. Recently passed federal transportation legisla tion, however, promises a greater federal role. The state of Florida has experienced an 1 8 percent increase in ridership on its transit systems since 1984. At the same time, the population served by transit systems in Florida has increased 18 percent. Public transit in Florida has faced significant challenges in service delivery as a result of population growth, employment growth, and continued suburbanization. Recent increases in state funding for transit demonstrates that it is considered an integral part of the transportation system. The next decade promises to be filled with both opportunity and challenge as Florida seeks to improve the delivery and availability of transportation services to its citizens.


greater than 200 bus es 50-200 buses 10-49 buses 1 9 bus e s other systems 9


BUS AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY Also known as a peoplem<>Ver. Comistr of one or m<>rt auiOmatically contrOikd vehicles operating over an ext:lusive guideway. Se/fprope/led, rubber-tired vehiclt designed 10 carry /hi or m<>re fXI=gt"S and operated on s treels and higbw

With the exception of Brevard County; all values on this page represent fixed route/fixed schedule and passenger rail service only 11


12 Numerous factors influence transit's performance including those related to system management and staff, local policy decisions, and the operating environment. MANAGEMENT/STAFF skills & experience training leadership morale S6fVice design ServiCQ quel/ty LOCAL POUCY DECISIONS land use urban design parking zoning seiVice levels fare policy OPERATING ENVIRONMENT density land use patterns congestion geography trensit dependency


Funding sources for transit operations have demonstrated the following trends. Federal funding has declined from 20 percent to 12 percent. State funding has increased from 1 percent to 5 percent. Local funding has increased from 4 7 percent to 54 percent. Operating revenue has remained relatively stable at approximately 30 percent of total funding for transit operations. Funding Sources for Transit Operations Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding Operating Revenue 1984 1990 13


14 While operating costs have increased 7 1 perce n t since 1984, new transit systems (rail, automated guideway, and bus systems initiated since 1984) contributed to over onethird of the increase Operating revenue continues to finance approximately 30 percent of operating costs. Operating Cost and Revenue Statewide Total $300,000. 000 $100,000,000 $0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 NewStarts Existing Service -Operating Revenue The amount o f transit service provided (service miles) increas e d 28 percent, from 56.7 million service miles in 1984 to 72.6 million service miles in 1990. Service Miles 75.000,000 50 000.000 25.000,000 0 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 All value s on this p age repre sent fixed route/fixed schedule service on ly


Ridership on Florida's public transit systems has increased 18 percent, from 126.7 million trips in 1984 to 149.3 million trips in 1990. Passeng er Trips 200,000,000 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1 990 The statewide average fare has risen 26 perce nt, from 43 cents in 1984 to 54 cents in 1 990. Avera g e Fare $0 .70 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 15


16 While the cost per passenger trip has increased 45 percent since 1984, its rate of growth has slowed considerably since 1987 reflective of ridership gains. Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip Statewide Total $2.50 .,.,=....,..,., ""'"'"-="' $2.00 $1.50 $ 1.00 $0.50 $0.00 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 The number of service miles between roadcalls has increased 136 percent, from 1,690 in 198 4 to 3,990 in 1990 Service Miles Between Roadcalls 4 ,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1984 1985 198 6 1987 1988 1989 1990 All values on this page represent fixed route;lixed schedule service only


$4.00 $3 .00 $2.00 $1.00 so.oo Operating Cost Per Service Mile Operating cost per service mile has increased .34 percent since 1 984; however, cost per service mile for bus only s etvice has increased only 25 percent, the same rate of increase as inflation. Statewide Total-All Modes $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2 00 $1. 00 $0.00 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1 990 I nflation Bus Only Rail and Automa ted Guideway $1 1984 1 985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1984 1985 1986 1967 1966 196 9 1990 Inflation Rail Inflation Automated Guldeway 17 All valves on t his page represent fixed r oute/fixed schedule seNice Oflly


18 For the peer review analysis, Florida's public transit systems were placed into four peer groups based on operating characteristics. Peers were selected for each group based on similarities in geographic area, population density, number of vehicles, average speed, and vehicle miles of service. Calegorla Flo

. ... ' .. : ... ... . . .': .: : ;. ... : .. .. . . . . ; ... : . . .. : . .. . ... . . . . .. . . . ... Broward County Hillsborough County Jacksonville Orlando Palm Beach County Pinellas County plus seven n on-Florida peers Escambia County Gainesville Lakeland Lee County Sarasota County Tallahassee Volusia County plus ten non -Florida peers Key West Manatee County New Smyrna Pasco County '-: .. : .. . . . . . . . .. : :.. . : : . . . .. . . : . . : . . . .. . . . . : .. ... . . .... : . . plus six non-Florida peers ... . ... ; : . . " . . .. . .. 19


20 Miami's cost per service mile ($5.49) was 15 percent higher than the peer group average of $4.79. Operating Cost Per Service Mile San Antonio Atlanta Portland Dallas Miami Cleveland Pittsburgh Baltimore $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 Miami's cos t per passenger trip ($1.97) was 22 percent higher than the peer group average of $1.62. O p erating Cost Per Passenge r Trip San Anton i o Atlanta Portland Pittsburgh C level and Miam i Dallas $0 $1 $2 $3


Miami's service miles between roadcalls (5,680) were 7 percent above the peer group average of 5,290. San Antonio Cleveland Miami Portland Dallas Baltimore Pittsburgh Atlanta Service Miles Between Roadcalls 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Miami's passenger trips per service mile (2 79) were within 10 percent of the peer group average of 3.03. P asse n ger Trips Per Service Mile Baltimore Atlanta Pittsburgh Cleveland Miami Portland San A n tonio Dallas 0 1 2 3 4 5 21


22 The cost per service mile for five of six Florida systems was below or within 10 percent of the peer group average of $3.16. Operating Cost Per Service Mile Orlando HillsllorOIJ9h Half4)ton Jac:ksorMJie E l Paso Nashville Palml!eacll Memphis Pioolas NOOolk Birmingham Browar d $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 Four of six Florida systems had a cost per passenger trip below or within 10 percent of the peer group average of $1. 78. Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip El Paso Charlotte Nashville Memphis OMndo Hampton Jacksonville Hillslloro119h Pinellas B irmingham NOOolk Broward Palm Beacll $0 $1 $2 $3 S4


Service miles between roadcalls were higher than or within 10 percent of the peer group average of 3,540 for four of six Florida systems. Service Miles Between Roadcalls Orlando Memphis Plllellas Broward Jacksonville Hampton Palm Beach Hillsborough BlriTingham Charlone NashviHe Nortolk EIPaso 0 3.000 6.000 9.000 12.000 15.000 18.000 Passenger trips per service mile for only one of six Florida systems were within 10 percent of the peer group average of 1.93. Passeng e r Trips Per Service Mile 8Paso Charlone Nashville Memphis Broward Hampton Birmingham Nortol k PlneHas Orlando Jaclcsonllille Hillsborough Palm Beach 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 23


24 The cost per service mile for five of seven Florida systems was below or within 10 percent of the peer group average of $2 .51. Lalile Saraso1a Escambla Raleigh $0 $1 $2 $3


Service miles between roadcalls were higher than the peer group a v e r age of 3,810 for three of seven Florida systems. Columbus Asheville Lakeland Lee Savannah Raleigh Escambla Monroe JackSon Baton Rouge Volusla Mobile Amarmo Shreveport Tallahassee Alachua Sarasota 0 Service Miles Between Roadcalls 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Passenger trips per service mile for four of seven Florida systems were higher than or Within 10 percent of the peer group average o f 1.69. Passenger Trips Per Service Mile Savannah Balon Rouge Tallahassee Vol usia M onroe Alachua Asheville Lee JackSon COlumbus Escarrilia AmariR o Mobile Raleigh Sarasota lakeland 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 25


26 The cost per service mile for two of four Florida systems was below or within 10 percent of the peer group average of $2.54. Operating Cost Per Service Mile Tuscaloosa Albany New Smyrna Henderson San Angelo Wilmington Manatee Pasco Lake Charles Key West $0 $1 $2 $3 Two of four Florida systems had a cost per passenger trip below the peer group average of $2.90. Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip Albany Wilmington Tuscaloosa San Angelo Lake Charles Manatee Key West Henderson Pasco New Smyrna $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7


Servi c e miles between roadcalls were higher than the peer group average of 13,410 for only one of three Florida systems. Service Mil e s B etw e e n Roadcalls Tuooaloosa Key West Henderson New Smyrna Albany Wilmington San Angelo Manatee Lake Charles Pasco 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 60,000 Passenger trips per service mile for only one of four F lorida systems were higher than the peer group average of 1.36. Passen g e r Tri p s Per Service Mile A l bany Wilmi ngton . . Lake Char l es T uscaloosa Key West Manatee San Angelo Henderson Pasco New Smyrna 0 1 2 3 4 27


28 Transit performance trends are encouraging in some areas while others continue to need attention. Regarding statewide transit system performance several conclusions can be drawn. Ridership Statewide transit ridership increased six percent from 1989 to 1990. The number of passenger trips on Florida's transit systems has increased 18 percent since 1984 Likewise, county/city populations served by Florida systems also have increased 18 percent over the same period. Service Availability The amount of service provided by Florida's transit systems continues to increase. The number of servi ce miles provided has increased 28 percent since 1984 and five percent since 1989. Service Reliability The service provided by Flonda' s tramit systems is increasingly more reliable. Service miles between roadcalls have increased 136 percent, &om 1,690 miles in 1984 to .3,990 miles in 1990. In addition, nine Florida systems were above or within ten percent of their respect ive peer averages for t his measure Cost Efficiency Cost eflidency measures increased slightly in 1990. Operat ing cost per passenger trip increased from $1.92 in 1989 to $2.00 in 19 90, an increase of only four percent. Prior to this increase operating cost per trip had remained rela tively stable since 1987. Operating cost per service mile has increased 34 percent since 1984. When new start transit service is removed from the calcu l ation, however, the increase is reduced to only 25 percent, the same rate of increase as inflation since 1984. Operating Revenue While total operating revenue has 63 percent since 1984, operating costs have increased 71 percent, resulting in a relativel,, stable revenue to cost ratio of approximately JO percent.


The evaluation measures selected for this report are divided into three major categories: Performance Indicators are key data that indicate overall transit system performance. Operating Costs The sum of all recurring costs that can be associated with the operation and maintenance of a system. Operating costs exclude such fixed costs as depreciation on plant and equipment, interest paid for loans on capital equipment, and property taxe s on capital items and capital costs. Operating R .. enue The sum of regular passenger revenue, charter revenue, and other miscellaneous revenues such as those from advertising or concessions. Operating revenue excludes government subsidies. An increase in operating revenue indicates higher passenger fares or an increase in charter J:eVenue or miscellaneous revenues. Serricc Miles 1he distance in miles that a transit vehicle is operated while it is available for passenger service. An increase in service miles means more transi t service is being provided Passenger Trips A person boarding a transit v ehicle in service. An increase in passenger trips means more trips arc being made on public transit. Effectiveness Measures indicate the extent to which various service related goals are being achieved; doing the right things. Serrice 1\files between RoadcaUs Service miles divided by roadcalls (mechanical failures of vehicles in service that require removing the vehicle from service until repairs are made). Larger numbers indicate the effectiveness of the maintenance program or the replacemen t of older vehicles Passenger Trips per Service l\filc Passenger tr i ps divided b y service miles. Larger numbers indicate more passengers on the vehicles. Efficiency Measures indicate providing the desired result with a minimum of effort, expense or waste, i.e., doing things right. Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Operating cost divided by passenger trips. Larger numbers indicate that passenger trips did not increas e at a rate equal to the gxowth in operating costS. Operating Cost pe.r Service Mile. Operating cost divided by service miles. Larger nwubers indica te that cost increases were attributed to things other than increases in service miles. AO'erage Fare Passenger 1-evenues divided by passenger trips. An increase in average fare indicates higher passenger fares are being charged. 29


Automated Guideway Average Fare Bus Commuter Rail Demand Respons e Operating Costs Operating Reve nue Passenger Trip s Rapid Rail RoadcaU Serrice Miles Van pool 30 AJso known as a peoplentover. Consists of one or more autamatically controlled vehicles operatbtg over an exclusive guideway. Tol41 passenger fartts divided by the tol41 numkr of passettger trips; the calculation includes foil fares and discount fares. Self-propelled, rubber-tired vehicle designed to carry ten or more passengers and operated on streets and highways on a fixed route and fixed s c h edule. Trai11 service which caters to passengers for travel between the central city and suburbs. Transpor14tion system characterized by flexible routing and scheduling of rttlatively small vehicler to provide door-to-door, curb-to-curb, or poi11t-to-point tranrport4tion at the naer's request. Tol4l costs associated with the operation of a transit system. Includes all fomt; o/ passmger /ares and other operating rttve>tues such as school bus service revenues, freight tariffs, charter sr:rvice and non-tranrportatiou revenues wch as revenuer from advertising or concessiOm. Excludes government subsidies. Annual number o/ passenger hoardings on transit vehicles. A trip is counted each time a boards a transit vehicle. Transit service with rail cars/trains that are driven by electric power. Operates on exclusive rights ofway A service i11terruption during the reporting period caused by failure o/ some mr.chani cal clement of the vehicle. Total mt1es traveled by vehicles while in revenue service. Excludes miles to and from the start o/ service, vehicle operator training, and other travel where the vehicle is not avat1able to carry passettgers. Organized ridesharing arrangement in which a numbt>r of people travel together on a regular basis i n a van.


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.