RTA ScoreCard December 2009
|
|
- Kristian Kelley
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Background and Context RTA ScoreCard December 2009 Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009 modernized the transportation systems of the Commonwealth and created the new MassDOT. Section 6 of this law established a MassDOT Office of Performance Measurement and Innovation, and requires the public performance reporting for all transportation operations, including the Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs). The Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs) continue to be independent entities under the new law, under the jurisdiction of MassDOT and its Rail & Transit Division. MassDOT is responsible for statewide transportation planning. This includes support of the RTA operations, managing the efficient programming of all resources, and facilitating regional and state-wide mobility objectives. For the RTAs in Massachusetts, this is the first Performance Report. These reports will be published annually. This document presents data from the most recent FY2008 (FY08). All of the data herein was collected and reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) definitions, protocols and requirements for Reporting Year 2008 (RY08). The state FY08 is identical to the NTD RY08 both include the months of July 2007 through June The RTA services are provided by two transit modes fixed route and demand response. Fixed route service operates on predetermined routes at scheduled times, and generally uses larger vehicles, with most buses able to carry at least 15 passengers. Meanwhile, demand response trips are dispatched on a request basis generally 24 hours in advance of travel passengers still typically share the ride with others, but in smaller vehicles which often have a capacity of 15 people or fewer. Demand response includes paratransit trips. Data sources: The General Court has stated its commitment to public transparency and accountability with the sweeping changes made under Chapter 25 of the Acts of MassDOT incorporated these recent changes into its stated goals: Through a culture of innovation and accountability we will deliver the most efficient transportation services and information possible. Efforts to date include identifying reliable and audited transit data sources. MassDOT now uses the Federal Transit Administration s National Transit Database, or NTD. The NTD has become the performance data standard across the industry and allows over 660 public and private agencies to report with greater data resolution in the areas of operations, capital investment and resource utilization. The NTD is a Federal requirement for each grantee to file, certify and audit its own performance data submissions using a well-defined set of definitions, metrics and service elements that is common to all transit operators. While limitations may arise when using a national standard, the NTD will allow MassDOT and the RTAs to view our operations performance not only amongst ourselves, but with national peers as well. Through regular, measured and honest assessments of our transit operations, we can work together to invest the needed capital and service in our statewide public transportation networks to ensure that Massachusetts is an industry leader in providing public transportation services. This first set of performance data will be used to establish a baseline. Information from subsequent years will be compared and valuable trend assessments can be made to ensure the each RTA is performing optimally within its unique service environment. As the measurements evolve, setting specific goals may be appropriate for the various types of service offered by each RTA. Beginning with FY2011, state funding to each RTA for operating assistance will be based in part on some of the performance measures collected by the NTD in this report. It is important to note that each RTA is a unique collection of customers, communities, service routes, history, market demographics, Board of Directors, physical plant, fleet and topography. While it is natural to compare RTAs against each other, it is often more valuable to view an RTA against itself over a period of time. Additionally, regional
2 and national peer agencies can provide a better proxy of performance measure. MassDOT planning has begun and will continue to expand this peer performance during the year. Overview: The Massachusetts Public Transit Network The RTAs play a significant role in the Massachusetts transportation network (see Table 1). Over 29 million passenger trips were taken in 2008 aboard a fleet of nearly 1,400 vehicles operating over 30 million revenue service miles. If all of the RTAs were a single transit system, it would be the 33rd largest in the United States (see Table 2). The largest RTA, Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA), is the 59 th largest system in the country. The Massachusetts RTAs carry more passengers than systems in the sizeable metropolitan areas of Orlando, Buffalo and Charlotte. Table 1 FY2008 RTA System Operating Summary Measure Fixed route Demand response Total Ridership 27,026,590 2,024,320 29,050,910 Vehicle Miles 17,622,159 13,267,186 30,889,345 Vehicle Hours 1,303, ,159 2,221,116 Operating cost $ 109,439,504 $ 41,488,693 $ 150,928,197 Fleet ,372
3 The RTAs Table 2 FY2008 Transit Ridership within UZA (millions) Rank Metro Region Ridership 28 San Jose, CA Salt Lake City, UT Austin, TX Sacramento, CA Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN Massachusetts RTAs Orlando, FL Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL Virginia Beach, VA Buffalo, NY Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Charlotte, NC-SC Providence, RI-MA Tucson, AZ Hartford, CT 16.3 There are 15 RTAs in Massachusetts. The table below provides a brief description of each RTA s service area. A full map of the service areas is provided in Appendix A. RTA Full Name Service Area BRTA Berkshire Regional Transit Authority 23 communities in western MA, including Pittsfield BAT Brockton Area Transit Authority 9 communities in the Greater Brockton area CATA Cape Ann Transportation Authority 4 communities on the North Shore CCRTA Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority 15 communities on Cape Cod FRTA Franklin Regional Transit Authority 40 rural communities in 4 counties GATRA Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority 26 communities including the South Shore LRTA Lowell Regional Transit Authority 13 communities in the Greater Lowell area VTA Martha s Vineyard Regional Transit Authority 6 communities on the island of Martha s Vineyard MVRTA Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority 15 communities including Lawrence and Haverhill MWRTA MetroWest Regional Transit Authority 11 communities including Framingham and Natick MART Montachusett Regional Transit Authority 21 communities including Fitchburg and Leominster NRTA Nantucket Regional Transit Authority Island of Nantucket PVTA Pioneer Valley Transit Authority 24 communities including Springfield and Amherst SRTA Southeastern Regional Transit Authority 10 communities including Fall River and New Bedford WRTA Worcester Regional Transit Authority 36 communities in the Greater Worcester area
4 Basic Performance Data This section shows measurements of ridership, the amount of transit service supplied, and financial information for each RTA and each mode of service. Unlinked Passenger Trips (UPT) UPT RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA 496,300 55, ,500 BAT 2,680, ,300 2,880,800 CATA 241,000 36, ,600 CCRTA 428, , ,800 FRTA 126,585 55, ,121 GATRA 746, , ,100 LRTA 1,308,500 96,200 1,404,700 VTA 1,031,197 13,739 1,044,936 MVRTA 2,162,200 48,500 2,210,700 MWRTA 497,400 9, ,700 MART 602, , ,600 NRTA 251,008 10, ,053 PVTA 11,741, ,800 12,050,200 SRTA 1,611,000 89,700 1,700,700 WRTA 3,102, ,000 3,362,400 TOTAL 27,026,590 2,024,320 29,050,910 Note: MWRTA fixed-route UPT may actually be less than shown MWRTA has requested that NTD revise the data. Measures: The number of passengers who board agency vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board a vehicle. Passengers making multi-vehicle connections are counted for each segment they travel. Application: Increases in general UPT are positive as it is an indication of increased utilization of the system. Impact: Increases in UPT on fixed route bus services can be generally met with existing service. Increases in UPT on the demand response system generally result in an increase of cost to the agency. Performance: The fixed route bus system carries substantially more passengers than the demand response system.
5 Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) VRM RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA 832, ,700 1,150,700 BAT 1,327, ,700 2,161,800 CATA 320, , ,400 CCRTA 1,040,600 2,711,100 3,751,700 FRTA 281, , ,905 GATRA 1,875,200 1,080,600 2,955,800 LRTA 1,115, ,900 1,565,100 VTA 858,546 76, ,298 MVRTA 1,508, ,100 1,889,500 MWRTA 492,500 40, ,500 MART 825,700 1,345,800 2,171,500 NRTA 192,737 32, ,542 PVTA 4,161,900 3,301,800 7,463,700 SRTA 1,222, ,600 1,722,000 WRTA 1,568,200 1,503,700 3,071,900 TOTAL 17,622,159 13,267,186 30,889,345 Measures: The number of miles that vehicles actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue miles include: Layover / recovery time But exclude: Deadhead Operator training, and Vehicle maintenance testing, as well as School bus and charter services. Application: Increases in general VRM are positive as it is an indication of increased service being delivered to the public. Impact: Increases in miles have operating cost impacts as VRM is directly related to fuel consumption and labor utilization. Performance: The number of miles operated by the demand response system are substantial when compared to the fixed route system.
6 Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) VRH RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA 43,500 38,600 82,100 BAT 118,800 73, ,100 CATA 20,000 10,300 30,300 CCRTA 83, , ,700 FRTA 15,595 30,228 45,823 GATRA 86,700 76, ,900 LRTA 73,500 35, ,400 VTA 57,253 5,214 62,467 MVRTA 122,600 32, ,600 MWRTA 42,000 5,800 47,800 MART 67, , ,200 NRTA 17,009 3,817 20,826 PVTA 325, , ,100 SRTA 95,200 47, ,900 WRTA 136, , ,900 TOTAL 1,303, ,159 2,221,116 Measures: The hours that vehicles actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue hours include: Layover / recovery time But exclude: Deadhead Operator training, and Vehicle maintenance testing, as well as School bus and charter services. Application: Increases in VRH are positive as it is an indication of increased service being delivered to the public. However, traffic congestion and delays that cause bus schedules to be adjusted often increase VRH with little benefit. Impact: Increases in hours have operating cost impacts as VRH is directly related to fuel consumption, engine and tire wear and labor utilization. Performance: The number of hours operated by the demand response system are substantial when compared to the fixed route system.
7 Operating Expenses (OE) RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 4,120,000 $ 1,280,700 $ 5,400,700 BAT $ 9,580,700 $ 3,427,300 $ 13,008,000 CATA $ 1,731,200 $ 769,600 $ 2,500,800 CCRTA $ 4,486,900 $ 6,587,000 $ 11,073,900 FRTA $ 1,561,084 $ 450,226 $ 2,011,310 GATRA $ 6,332,400 $ 4,113,100 $ 10,445,500 LRTA $ 7,069,700 $ 1,499,000 $ 8,568,700 VTA $ 3,069,923 $ 439,405 $ 3,509,328 MVRTA $ 9,850,500 $ 1,365,400 $ 11,215,900 MWRTA $ 2,155,200 $ 2,141,100 $ 4,296,300 MART $ 6,165,500 $ 3,807,500 $ 9,973,000 NRTA $ 1,391,497 $ 201,462 $ 1,592,959 PVTA $ 28,282,600 $ 7,761,300 $ 36,043,900 SRTA $ 9,552,700 $ 2,482,100 $ 12,034,800 WRTA $ 14,089,600 $ 5,163,500 $ 19,253,100 $ TOTAL $ 109,439,504 $ 41,488, ,928,197 Note: FRTA expenses may be allocated incorrectly between fixed-route and demand response accounting policies were subsequently revised. MWRTA demand response expenses appear to be incorrect, and may be revised downward. OE Measures: The expenses associated with the operation of the transit agency, and classified by function or activity, and the goods and services purchased. The basic functions and object classes are defined in Section 5.2 and 6.2 of the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA). These are consumable items with a useful life of less than one year or an acquisition cost of less than $5,000. Application: Increases in operating expenses can be caused by service expansion, inflation, labor rate increases or reduced efficiencies. Impact: Increases in operating expenses will require additional passenger revenues, or subsidy. Performance: The operating expenses required by the demand response system are substantial when compared to the number of passengers.
8 Fare Revenues $ RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 667,578 $ 310,339 $ 977,917 BAT $ 2,258,499 $ 826,946 $ 3,085,445 CATA $ 196,333 $ 32,945 $ 229,278 CCRTA $ 281,458 $ 769,154 $ 1,050,612 FRTA $ 95,176 $ 267,697 $ 362,873 GATRA $ 1,828,410 $ 205,410 $ 2,033,820 LRTA $ 938,400 $ 108,657 $ 1,047,057 VTA $ 1,166,986 $ 13,369 $ 1,180,355 MVRTA $ 1,167,515 $ 133,130 $ 1,300,645 MWRTA $ 488,145 $ 144,056 $ 632,201 MART $ 745,763 $ 513,394 $ 1,259,157 NRTA $ 363,576 $ 8,727 $ 372,303 PVTA $ 4,982,049 $ 491,739 $ 5,473,788 SRTA $ 1,226,109 $ 525,475 $ 1,751,584 WRTA $ 2,243,355 $ 312,337 $ 2,555,692 TOTAL $ 18,649,352 $ 4,663,375 $ 23,312,727 Note: MWRTA demand response revenue may need revision. Measures: All income received directly from passengers, either paid in cash or through pre-paid tickets, passes, etc. Application: Setting appropriate fares balances the need for users to help support the operating costs with the need to keep service affordable. Impact: Increases in fare revenues moderate the need for operating subsidy and support increases in operating expenses. Performance: The fare revenues generated by the fixed route system are substantial when compared to the demand response system.
9 Derived Performance Data From the five categories of basic data listed above, useful calculations can be performed, in order to highlight various aspects of the transit services. Fare Revenues Per Passenger Trip $ / UPT RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 1.35 $ 5.62 $ 1.77 BAT $ 0.84 $ 4.13 $ 1.07 CATA $ 0.81 $ 0.90 $ 0.83 CCRTA $ 0.66 $ 2.08 $ 1.32 FRTA $ 0.75 $ 4.82 $ 1.99 GATRA $ 2.45 $ 1.09 $ 2.17 LRTA $ 0.72 $ 1.13 $ 0.75 VTA $ 1.13 $ 0.97 $ 1.13 MVRTA $ 0.54 $ 2.74 $ 0.59 MWRTA $ 0.98 $ $ 1.25 MART $ 1.24 $ 1.82 $ 1.42 NRTA $ 1.45 $ 0.87 $ 1.43 PVTA $ 0.42 $ 1.59 $ 0.45 SRTA $ 0.76 $ 5.86 $ 1.03 WRTA $ 0.72 $ 1.20 $ 0.76 TOTAL $ 0.69 $ 2.30 $ 0.80 Measures: The average fare revenues per unlinked passenger trip. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: RTAs with substantial paratransit services will generally have higher overall fares per trip, since demand response fares are often higher than for fixed route services. Performance: The RTA average is $0.80 fare per boarding. The lowest fare collected is PVTA at $0.45, and the highest is GATRA at $2.17 per boarding. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. Fare Revenue per Trip $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA Average
10 Operating Expenses per Passenger Trip OE / UPT RTA Fixed Route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 8.30 $ $ 9.79 BAT $ 3.57 $ $ 4.52 CATA $ 7.18 $ $ 9.01 CCRTA $ $ $ FRTA $ $ 8.11 $ GATRA $ 8.49 $ $ LRTA $ 5.40 $ $ 6.10 VTA $ 2.98 $ $ 3.36 MVRTA $ 4.56 $ $ 5.07 MWRTA $ 4.33 $ $ 8.48 MART $ $ $ NRTA $ 5.54 $ $ 6.10 PVTA $ 2.41 $ $ 2.99 SRTA $ 5.93 $ $ 7.08 WRTA $ 4.54 $ $ 5.73 TOTAL $ 4.05 $ $ 5.20 Measures: The average operating expenses per unlinked passenger trip. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: RTAs with substantial paratransit services will perform lower than average, due to lower operating expenses per passenger associated with fixed route services. Performance: The RTA average cost is $5.20 per passenger. The lowest cost is PVTA at $2.99, and the highest is CCRTA at $13.88 per boarding. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. Operating Expense per Trip $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA Average
11 Fare Revenues per Mile $ / VRM RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 0.80 $ 0.97 $ 0.85 BAT $ 1.70 $ 0.99 $ 1.43 CATA $ 0.61 $ 0.18 $ 0.46 CCRTA $ 0.27 $ 0.28 $ 0.28 FRTA $ 0.34 $ 0.52 $ 0.46 GATRA $ 0.98 $ 0.19 $ 0.69 LRTA $ 0.84 $ 0.24 $ 0.67 VTA $ 1.36 $ 0.17 $ 1.26 MVRTA $ 0.77 $ 0.35 $ 0.69 MWRTA $ 0.99 $ 3.60 $ 1.19 MART $ 0.90 $ 0.38 $ 0.58 NRTA $ 1.89 $ 0.27 $ 1.65 PVTA $ 1.20 $ 0.15 $ 0.73 SRTA $ 1.00 $ 1.05 $ 1.02 WRTA $ 1.43 $ 0.21 $ 0.83 TOTAL $ 1.06 $ 0.35 $ 0.75 Measures: The average fare revenue generated per vehicle revenue mile. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: This is generally viewed as a measure of network productivity and of how effectively the transit network is scheduled and designed. Performance: The RTA average revenue per mile is $0.75 per mile. The most productive is NRTA at $1.65, and the least is CCRTA at $0.28 per mile. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. Fare Revenue per Mile $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA Average
12 Operating Expenses per Mile OE / VRM RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ 4.95 $ 4.02 $ 4.69 BAT $ 7.22 $ 4.11 $ 6.02 CATA $ 5.41 $ 4.29 $ 5.01 CCRTA $ 4.31 $ 2.43 $ 2.95 FRTA $ 5.54 $ 0.88 $ 2.54 GATRA $ 3.38 $ 3.81 $ 3.53 LRTA $ 6.34 $ 3.33 $ 5.47 VTA $ 3.58 $ 5.72 $ 3.75 MVRTA $ 6.53 $ 3.58 $ 5.94 MWRTA $ 4.38 $ $ 8.07 MART $ 7.47 $ 2.83 $ 4.59 NRTA $ 7.22 $ 6.14 $ 7.06 PVTA $ 6.80 $ 2.35 $ 4.83 SRTA $ 7.81 $ 4.97 $ 6.99 Measures: The average operating expense per vehicle revenue mile. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: This is one measure of the efficiency of providing service in this case, fixed route costs more per mile because of larger vehicles. Performance: The RTA average cost per mile is $4.89. The lowest is FRTA at $2.54, and the highest is MWRTA at $8.07 per mile. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. WRTA $ 8.98 $ 3.43 $ 6.27 TOTAL $ 6.21 $ 3.13 $ 4.89 Operating Expense per Mile $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA Average MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA
13 Fare Revenues per Hour $ / VRH RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ $ 8.04 $ BAT $ $ $ CATA $ 9.82 $ 3.20 $ 7.57 CCRTA $ 3.37 $ 5.57 $ 4.74 FRTA $ 6.10 $ 8.86 $ 7.92 GATRA $ $ 2.70 $ LRTA $ $ 3.03 $ 9.57 VTA $ $ 2.56 $ MVRTA $ 9.52 $ 4.16 $ 8.41 MWRTA $ $ $ MART $ $ 4.66 $ 7.11 NRTA $ $ 2.29 $ PVTA $ $ 2.56 $ SRTA $ $ $ WRTA $ $ 2.65 $ Measures: The average fare revenue generated per vehicle revenue hour. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: This is generally viewed as a measure of network productivity and of how effectively the transit network is scheduled and designed. Performance: The RTA average revenue per hour is $ The most productive is VTA at $18.90, and the least is CCRTA at $4.74 per hour. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. TOTAL $ $ 5.08 $ Fare Revenue per Hour $20.00 $18.00 $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA Average
14 Operating Expenses per Hour OE / VRH RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA $ $ $ BAT $ $ $ CATA $ $ $ CCRTA $ $ $ FRTA $ $ $ GATRA $ $ $ LRTA $ $ $ VTA $ $ $ MVRTA $ $ $ MWRTA $ $ $ MART $ $ $ NRTA $ $ $ PVTA $ $ $ SRTA $ $ $ WRTA $ $ $ TOTAL $ $ $ Measures: The average operating expense per vehicle revenue hour. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: This is another measure of the efficiency of providing service again fixed route costs more per hour because of larger vehicles. Performance: The RTA average cost per hour is $ The lowest is FRTA at $43.89, and the highest is MWRTA at $89.88 per hour. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. Operating Expense per Hour $ $90.00 $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $- BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA Average MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA
15 Farebox Recovery Ratio $ / OE RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA 16.2% 24.2% 18.1% BAT 23.6% 24.1% 23.7% CATA 11.3% 4.3% 9.2% CCRTA 6.3% 11.7% 9.5% FRTA 6.1% 59.5% 18.0% GATRA 28.9% 5.0% 19.5% LRTA 13.3% 7.2% 12.2% VTA 38.0% 3.0% 33.6% MVRTA 11.9% 9.8% 11.6% MWRTA 22.6% 6.7% 14.7% MART 12.1% 13.5% 12.6% NRTA 26.1% 4.3% 23.4% PVTA 17.6% 6.3% 15.2% SRTA 12.8% 21.2% 14.6% WRTA 15.9% 6.0% 13.3% TOTAL 17.0% 11.2% 15.4% Measures: The percentage of operating expenses that are paid by passenger fares. Application: Performance is generally reviewed against the average for all operators. Impact: This measure combines fare policy with efficiency and ridership. Performance: The RTA average farebox recovery is 15.4%. The lowest is CATA at 9.2%, and the highest is VTA at 33.6%. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA. Farebox Recovery Ratio 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA Average
16 Other Data This section lists information which does not measure performance directly, but which is related to and can affect performance. Included are fleet size, population, ridership per capita, and sources of funding. Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAM) VAM RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA TOTAL Measures: The fleet size available for peak amounts of service. Application: Fleet size is a significant indicator of capital funding needs, since many capital expenses are vehicle-related, including garage and storage facilities. Impact: Fleet size, along with funding for vehicle operators, determines the frequency of service that can be provided at peak times. Performance: Although it carries far fewer passengers, the demand response fleet size is as large as the fixed route fleet. However, the fixed route vehicles are larger and last two to three times as long.
17 Population in Service Area Population RTA Population BRTA 127,500 BAT 221,475 CATA 46,000 CCRTA 268,637 FRTA 110,780 GATRA 98,175 LRTA 320,301 VTA 15,527 MVRTA 306,339 MWRTA 231,198 MART 193,415 NRTA 11,215 PVTA 551,543 SRTA 186,731 WRTA 524,725 Measures: The number of people living in the communities served by each RTA, from the 2000 Census. Application: Since residents who do not use the transit system also benefit from having transit service in the area, these non-users also pay some of the cost through local taxes or fees. Impact: A larger population base provides more potential transit customers, and spreads the local government funding across more people. Performance: PVTA has the largest population at 551,543, while NRTA has the smallest at 11,215. However, Nantucket has a substantial number of visitors, especially in the summer. TOTAL 3,213,561
18 Ridership per Capita UPT/Population RTA Fixed route Demand Response TOTAL: BRTA BAT CATA CCRTA FRTA GATRA LRTA VTA MVRTA MWRTA MART NRTA PVTA SRTA WRTA TOTAL Measures: Unlinked passenger trips divided by the residential population in the service area. Application: This is one measure of the degree of transit utilization in communities. Impact: Higher ridership per capita generally means that the transit service is designed to meet the community transportation needs. Performance: Overall ratio can be increased by students or visitors in the service area, such as with summer resorts. Demand response ratio is affected by the percentage of elderly and disabled in the service area. Notes: Some MWRTA and FRTA data may need revision, see notes in Basic Data sections or in Appendix B for MWRTA and FRTA.
19 Sources of Operating Funds RTA Fare Revenues Local Funds State Funds Federal Funds Other Funds TOTAL: BRTA $977,900 $724,700 $1,939,500 $1,643,100 $115,500 $5,400,700 BAT $3,085,400 $2,111,700 $5,274,100 $2,220,000 $316,700 $13,007,900 CATA $229,300 $370,200 $1,087,200 $404,700 $536,100 $2,627,500 CCRTA $1,050,600 $1,406,400 $3,446,300 $2,122,200 $3,048,400 $11,073,900 FRTA $137,136 $392,921 $780,436 $938,852 $1,993,890 $4,243,235 GATRA $2,033,800 $2,361,600 $2,522,800 $3,234,200 $632,500 $10,784,900 LRTA $1,047,000 $1,712,400 $2,781,900 $2,029,000 $1,279,000 $8,849,300 VTA $1,166,986 $741,002 $1,199,869 $550,000 $152,809 $3,810,666 MVRTA $1,300,600 $1,957,900 $5,566,100 $2,387,800 $472,800 $11,685,200 MWRTA $632,200 $951,900 $2,221,200 $0 $491,000 $4,296,300 MART $1,785,000 $1,543,700 $4,631,000 $1,579,800 $827,200 $10,366,700 NRTA $363,576 $304,129 $438,428 $464,745 $22,081 $1,592,959 PVTA $5,473,800 $6,092,700 $19,581,300 $5,503,200 $869,800 $37,520,800 SRTA $1,751,600 $1,564,100 $4,463,700 $4,031,800 $223,700 $12,034,900 WRTA $2,555,700 $3,327,300 $9,059,000 $4,856,500 $310,800 $20,109,300 TOTAL $23,590,598 $25,562,652 $64,992,833 $31,965,897 $11,292,280 $157,404,260 Note: PVTA states that their State Funds should be revised to $17,289,783. They have requested that NTD make the revision.
20 Appendix A Map of RTA Service Areas MassDOT RMV Transit Division ScoreCard December 2009 Page 0
21 Appendix B Performance Data Listed by Individual RTA Berkshire Regional Transit Authority (BRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 496,300 55, ,500 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 832, ,700 1,150,700 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 43,500 38,600 82,100 Operating Expense (OE) $ 4,120,000 $ 1,280,700 $ 5,400,700 Fare Revenue ($) $ 667,578 $ 310,339 $ 977,917 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $ 1.35 $ 5.62 $ 1.77 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $ 8.30 $ $ 9.79 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $ 0.80 $ 0.97 $ 0.85 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $ 4.95 $ 4.02 $ 4.69 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $ $ 8.04 $ Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $ $ $ Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 16.2% 24.2% 18.1% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 127,500 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $977,900 Local Funds $724,700 State Funds $1,939,500 Federal Funds $1,643,100 Other Funds $115,500 TOTAL: $5,400,700
22 Brockton Area Transit Authority (BAT) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 2,680, ,300 2,880,800 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,327, ,700 2,161,800 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 118,800 73, ,100 Operating Expense (OE) $ 9,580,700 $ 3,427,300 $ 13,008,000 Fare Revenue ($) $ 2,258,499 $ 826,946 $ 3,085,445 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $ 0.84 $ 4.13 $ 1.07 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $ 3.57 $ $ 4.52 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $ 1.70 $ 0.99 $ 1.43 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $ 7.22 $ 4.11 $ 6.02 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $ $ $ Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $ $ $ Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 23.6% 24.1% 23.7% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 221,475 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $3,085,400 Local Funds $2,111,700 State Funds $5,274,100 Federal Funds $2,220,000 Other Funds $316,700 TOTAL: $13,007,900
23 Cape Ann Transportation Authority (CATA) Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 241,000 36, ,600 Basic Data Derived Data Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 320, , ,400 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 20,000 10,300 30,300 Operating Expense (OE) $1,731,200 $769,600 $2,500,800 Fare Revenue ($) $196,333 $32,945 $229,278 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.81 $0.90 $0.83 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $7.18 $21.03 $9.01 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.61 $0.18 $0.46 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $5.41 $4.29 $5.01 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $9.82 $3.20 $7.57 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $86.56 $74.72 $82.53 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 11.3% 4.3% 9.2% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 46,000 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $229,300 Local Funds $370,200 State Funds $1,087,200 Federal Funds $404,700 Other Funds $536,100 TOTAL: $2,627,500
24 Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority (CCRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 428, , ,800 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,040,600 2,711,100 3,751,700 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 83, , ,700 Operating Expense (OE) $4,486,900 $6,587,000 $11,073,900 Fare Revenue ($) $281,458 $769,154 $1,050,612 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.66 $2.08 $1.32 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $10.47 $17.84 $13.88 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.27 $0.28 $0.28 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $4.31 $2.43 $2.95 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $3.37 $5.57 $4.74 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $53.74 $47.66 $49.95 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 6.3% 11.7% 9.5% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 268,637 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,050,600 Local Funds $1,406,400 State Funds $3,446,300 Federal Funds $2,122,200 Other Funds $3,048,400 TOTAL: $11,073,900
25 Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 126,585 55, ,121 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 281, , ,905 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 15,595 30,228 45,823 Operating Expense (OE) $1,561,084 $450,226 $2,011,310 Fare Revenue ($) $95,176 $267,697 $362,873 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.75 $4.82 $1.99 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $12.33 $8.11 $11.04 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.34 $0.52 $0.46 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $5.54 $0.88 $2.54 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $6.10 $8.86 $7.92 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $ $14.89 $43.89 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 6.1% 59.5% 18.0% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 110,780 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $137,136 Local Funds $392,921 State Funds $780,436 Federal Funds $938,852 Other Funds $1,993,890 TOTAL: $4,243,235 Note: FRTA expenses may be allocated incorrectly between fixed-route and demand response accounting policies were subsequently revised.
26 Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Authority (GATRA) Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 746, , ,100 Basic Data Derived Data Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,875,200 1,080,600 2,955,800 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 86,700 76, ,900 Operating Expense (OE) $6,332,400 $4,113,100 $10,445,500 Fare Revenue ($) $1,828,410 $205,410 $2,033,820 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $2.45 $1.09 $2.17 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $8.49 $21.79 $11.17 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.98 $0.19 $0.69 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $3.38 $3.81 $3.53 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $21.09 $2.70 $12.49 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $73.04 $53.98 $64.12 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 28.9% 5.0% 19.5% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 98,175 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $2,033,800 Local Funds $2,361,600 State Funds $2,522,800 Federal Funds $3,234,200 Other Funds $632,500 TOTAL: $10,784,900
27 Lowell Regional Transit Authority (LRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 1,308,500 96,200 1,404,700 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,115, ,900 1,565,100 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 73,500 35, ,400 Operating Expense (OE) $7,069,700 $1,499,000 $8,568,700 Fare Revenue ($) $938,400 $108,657 $1,047,057 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.72 $1.13 $0.75 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $5.40 $15.58 $6.10 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.84 $0.24 $0.67 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $6.34 $3.33 $5.47 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $12.77 $3.03 $9.57 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $96.19 $41.75 $78.32 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 13.3% 7.2% 12.2% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 320,301 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,047,000 Local Funds $1,712,400 State Funds $2,781,900 Federal Funds $2,029,000 Other Funds $1,279,000 TOTAL: $8,849,300
28 Martha's Vineyard Regional Transit Authority (VTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 1,031,197 13,739 1,044,936 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 858,546 76, ,298 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 57,253 5,214 62,467 Operating Expense (OE) $3,069,923 $439,405 $3,509,328 Fare Revenue ($) $1,166,986 $13,369 $1,180,355 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $1.13 $0.97 $1.13 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $2.98 $31.98 $3.36 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $1.36 $0.17 $1.26 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $3.58 $5.72 $3.75 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $20.38 $2.56 $18.90 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $53.62 $84.27 $56.18 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 38.0% 3.0% 33.6% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 15,527 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,166,986 Local Funds $741,002 State Funds $1,199,869 Federal Funds $550,000 Other Funds $152,809 TOTAL: $3,810,666
29 Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (MVRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 2,162,200 48,500 2,210,700 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,508, ,100 1,889,500 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 122,600 32, ,600 Operating Expense (OE) $9,850,500 $1,365,400 $11,215,900 Fare Revenue ($) $1,167,515 $133,130 $1,300,645 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.54 $2.74 $0.59 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $4.56 $28.15 $5.07 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.77 $0.35 $0.69 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $6.53 $3.58 $5.94 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $9.52 $4.16 $8.41 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $80.35 $42.67 $72.55 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 11.9% 9.8% 11.6% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 306,339 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,300,600 Local Funds $1,957,900 State Funds $5,566,100 Federal Funds $2,387,800 Other Funds $472,800 TOTAL: $11,685,200
30 MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWRTA) Basic Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 497,400 9, ,700 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 492,500 40, ,500 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 42,000 5,800 47,800 Operating Expense (OE) $2,155,200 $2,141,100 $4,296,300 Fare Revenue ($) $488,145 $144,056 $632,201 Derived Data Other Data Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.98 $15.49 $1.25 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $4.33 $ $8.48 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.99 $3.60 $1.19 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $4.38 $53.53 $8.07 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $11.62 $24.84 $13.23 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $51.31 $ $89.88 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 22.6% 6.7% 14.7% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Population 231,198 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $632,200 Local Funds $951,900 State Funds $2,221,200 Federal Funds $0 Other Funds $491,000 TOTAL: $4,296,300 Note: MWRTA fixed-route ridership (UPT) may be lower than shown, which would affect other values that are calculated from UPT as well. MWRTA has requested that NTD revise the data. Future reports will reflect this change.
31 Montachusett Regional Transit Authority (MART) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 602, , ,600 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 825,700 1,345,800 2,171,500 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 67, , ,200 Operating Expense (OE) $6,165,500 $3,807,500 $9,973,000 Fare Revenue ($) $745,763 $513,394 $1,259,157 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $1.24 $1.82 $1.42 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $10.24 $13.48 $11.27 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $0.90 $0.38 $0.58 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $7.47 $2.83 $4.59 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $11.13 $4.66 $7.11 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $92.02 $34.55 $56.28 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 12.1% 13.5% 12.6% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 193,415 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,785,000 Local Funds $1,543,700 State Funds $4,631,000 Federal Funds $1,579,800 Other Funds $827,200 TOTAL: $10,366,700
32 Nantucket Regional Transit Authority (NRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 251,008 10, ,053 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 192,737 32, ,542 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 17,009 3,817 20,826 Operating Expense (OE) $1,391,497 $201,462 $1,592,959 Fare Revenue ($) $363,576 $8,727 $372,303 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $1.45 $0.87 $1.43 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $5.54 $20.06 $6.10 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $1.89 $0.27 $1.65 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $7.22 $6.14 $7.06 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $21.38 $2.29 $17.88 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $81.81 $52.78 $76.49 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 26.1% 4.3% 23.4% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 11,215 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $363,576 Local Funds $304,129 State Funds $438,428 Federal Funds $464,745 Other Funds $22,081 TOTAL: $1,592,959
33 Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 11,741, ,800 12,050,200 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 4,161,900 3,301,800 7,463,700 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 325, , ,100 Operating Expense (OE) $28,282,600 $7,761,300 $36,043,900 Fare Revenue ($) $4,982,049 $491,739 $5,473,788 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.42 $1.59 $0.45 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $2.41 $25.13 $2.99 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $1.20 $0.15 $0.73 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $6.80 $2.35 $4.83 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $15.32 $2.56 $10.59 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $86.94 $40.47 $69.70 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 17.6% 6.3% 15.2% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 551,543 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $5,473,800 Local Funds $6,092,700 State Funds $19,581,300 Federal Funds $5,503,200 Other Funds $869,800 TOTAL: $37,520,800 Note: PVTA states that their State Funds should be revised to $17,289,783. They have requested that NTD make the revision.
34 Southeastern Regional Transit Authority (SRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 1,611,000 89,700 1,700,700 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,222, ,600 1,722,000 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 95,200 47, ,900 Operating Expense (OE) $9,552,700 $2,482,100 $12,034,800 Fare Revenue ($) $1,226,109 $525,475 $1,751,584 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.76 $5.86 $1.03 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $5.93 $27.67 $7.08 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $1.00 $1.05 $1.02 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $7.81 $4.97 $6.99 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $12.88 $11.02 $12.26 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $ $52.04 $84.22 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 12.8% 21.2% 14.6% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 186,731 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $1,751,600 Local Funds $1,564,100 State Funds $4,463,700 Federal Funds $4,031,800 Other Funds $223,700 TOTAL: $12,034,900
35 Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) Basic Data Derived Data Fixed Route Demand Response Total Ridership (UPT) 3,102, ,000 3,362,400 Veh Rev Miles (VRM) 1,568,200 1,503,700 3,071,900 Veh Rev Hrs (VRH) 136, , ,900 Operating Expense (OE) $14,089,600 $5,163,500 $19,253,100 Fare Revenue ($) $2,243,355 $312,337 $2,555,692 Fare Revenue per Trip ($/UPT) $0.72 $1.20 $0.76 Op Expense per Trip (OE/UPT) $4.54 $19.86 $5.73 Fare Revenue per Mile ($/VRM) $1.43 $0.21 $0.83 Op Expense per Mile (OE/VRM) $8.98 $3.43 $6.27 Fare Revenue per Hour ($/VRH) $16.50 $2.65 $10.07 Op Expense per Hour (OE/VRH) $ $43.80 $75.83 Fare Recovery Ratio ($/OE) 15.9% 6.0% 13.3% Veh Available for Max Service (VAM) Ridership per Capita Other Data Population 524,725 Sources of Operating Funds Fare Revenues $2,555,700 Local Funds $3,327,300 State Funds $9,059,000 Federal Funds $4,856,500 Other Funds $310,800 TOTAL: $20,109,300
Transit Peer Comparison
Transit Peer Comparison October 2016 Based on data from the National Transit Database, US Department of Transportation and the US Census Peer Transit Communities, FY2014 Community County Population Source:
More informationTransit Performance Report FY (JUNE 30, 2007)
Transit Performance Report FY 2006-2007 (JUNE 30, 2007) J ANUARY 2008 TRANSIT PERFORMANCE REPORT FY 2006 2007 (JUNE 30, 2007) Transit Performance Report I SSUED: JANUARY 2008 The Transit Performance Report
More informationPeer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development
2017 Regional Peer Review Peer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 SNAPSHOT... 5 PEER SELECTION... 6 NOTES/METHODOLOGY...
More informationDate: 11/6/15. Total Passengers
Total San Diego Metropolitan Transit System POLICY 42 PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT Page 1 of 6 OBJECTIVE Develop a Customer-Focused and Competitive System The following measures of productivity and service
More informationAtt. A, AI 46, 11/9/17
Total s San Diego Metropolitan Transit System POLICY 42 PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT Page 1 of 6 Date: 11/8/17 OBJECTIVE Develop a Customer-Focused and Competitive System The following measures of productivity
More informationChapter 3. Burke & Company
Chapter 3 Burke & Company 3. WRTA RIDERSHIP AND RIDERSHIP TRENDS 3.1 Service Overview The Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) provides transit service to over half a million people. The service
More informationBoard of Directors Information Summary
Regional Public Transportation Authority 302 N. First Avenue, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-262-7433, Fax 602-495-0411 Board of Directors Information Summary Agenda Item #6 Date July 11, 2008 Subject
More informationLower Income Journey to Work Market Share From American Community Survey
Lower Income Journey to Work Market Share From American Community Survey 2006-2010 Table 1: Overall National Data Table 2: Car, Truck or Van Table 3: Transit Table 4: Metrics Table 1 Work Trip Market Share:
More informationAPPENDIX B. Arlington Transit Peer Review Technical Memorandum
APPENDIX B Arlington Transit Peer Review Technical Memorandum Arlington County Appendix B December 2010 Table of Contents 1.0 OVERVIEW OF PEER ANALYSIS PROCESS... 2 1.1 National Transit Database...2 1.2
More informationBristol Virginia Transit
Bristol Virginia Transit 1 Transit Overview Bristol Virginia Transit (BVT) is a Federally Funded and certified urban area transit system. BVT began operation in its current form in 1982. In Fiscal Year
More informationAPPENDIX B COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW
APPENDIX B COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW APPENDIX B COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW The following pages are excerpts from a DRAFT-version Fare Analysis report conducted by Nelson\Nygaard
More informationRTD s Performance Management System
RTD s Performance Management System FTA s New Transit Asset Management (TAM) Program Why Set Targets? October 10, 2017 Donna DeMartino Chief Executive Officer (CEO) San Joaquin Regional Transit District
More informationChapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose of the Report This report provides a Strategic Transit Master Plan for public transportation on behalf of the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the Nashville Metropolitan
More informationPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION 1 OUTLINE Current Status and Recent Trends Significant Influences A Critical Assessment Arguments Supporting Public Transport Future Influences Ingredients for Future
More informationA COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS
KRY/WJS/EDL #222377 (PDF: #223479) 1/30/15 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Memorandum Report A COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This memorandum report provides a statistical
More informationMETROBUS SERVICE GUIDELINES
METROBUS SERVICE GUIDELINES In the late 1990's when stabilization of bus service was accomplished between WMATA and the local jurisdictional bus systems, the need for service planning processes and procedures
More informationBerkshire Flyer Working Group. February 13, 2018
Berkshire Flyer Working Group February 13, 2018 1 Agenda Report Content Next Steps 2 Report Outline Introduction and Background- Study goals; Overview Alternatives- Potential routes -description of route
More informationBLACK KNIGHT HPI REPORT
CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW 2 NATIONAL OVERVIEW 3 LARGEST STATES AND METROS 4 FEBRUARY S BIGGEST MOVERS 5 20 LARGEST STATES 6 40 LARGEST METROS 7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OVERVIEW Each month, the Data & Analytics
More informationMarketing and Passenger Demographics
Marketing and Passenger Demographics This chapter presents information obtained from surveys and related sources about regional bus users in Massachusetts. If broad user characteristics in this market
More informationPTN-128 Reporting Manual Data Collection and Performance Reporting
2016 PTN-128 Reporting Manual Data Collection and Performance Reporting Sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation Table of Contents PTN-128 WHAT, WHY AND WHO... 6 What is the PTN-128... 13 Why
More informationCCTA Peer Analysis. June 2014
CCTA Peer Analysis June 2014 What s New in this Peer Analysis Last group of peers was chosen in 2003 CCTA has outgrown that set of peers Used to be near the peer average but now at the top Large increase
More informationSRTA Year End Fixed Route Ridership Analysis: FY 2018
SRTA Year End Fixed Route Ridership Analysis: FY 2018 2018 Contents Introduction... 1 A. Key Terms Used in this Report... 1 Key Findings... 2 A. Ridership... 2 B. Fare Payment... 4 Performance Analysis
More informationSeptember 2014 Prepared by the Department of Finance & Performance Management Sub-Regional Report PERFORMANCE MEASURES
September 2014 Prepared by the Department of Finance & Performance Management 2013 Sub-Regional Report PERFORMANCE MEASURES REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES RTA staff has undertaken the development of a performance
More informationOctober REGIONAL ROUTE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
October 2018 2017 REGIONAL ROUTE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS The Council s mission is to foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region Metropolitan Council Members Alene Tchourumoff
More informationExisting Services, Ridership, and Standards Report. June 2018
Existing Services, Ridership, and Standards Report June 2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Contents Overview of Existing Conditions... 1 Fixed Route Service... 1 Mobility Bus... 34 Market Analysis... 41 Identification/Description
More informationMobile Farebox Repair Program: Setting Standards & Maximizing Regained Revenue
Mobile Farebox Repair Program: Setting Standards & Maximizing Regained Revenue Michael J. Walk, Chief Performance Officer Larry Jackson, Directory of Treasury Maryland Transit Administration March 2012
More informationSUB-REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
SUB-REGIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES 29 REPORT Overall regional performance is a function of five major areas: Service Coverage - monitors both how much service is available to people in the region (in terms
More informationBerkshire Flyer Working Group. January 30, 2018
Berkshire Flyer Working Group January 30, 2018 1 Agenda Report Outline Report Schedule Tourism Market Last-Mile Travel Options Existing Fare Comparison 2 Report Outline Introduction and Background- Study
More informationMONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017
MONTHLY REPORT 2017 SUN SHUTTLE RIDERSHIP ROUTE PASSENGERS: CURRENT YEAR PRIOR YEAR AMOUNT PERCENTAGE BUDGET AMOUNT PERCENTAGE TOTAL PASSENGERS 17,250 20,318 (3,068) -15.1% 18,231 (981) -5.4% CALENDAR
More informationPeer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development
2017 Sub-Regional Peer Review Peer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 NOTES/METHODOLOGY... 6 AGENCIES... 7
More informationPlanning, Engineering & Construction Department September 2017
Planning, Engineering & Construction Department September 2017 More frequent routes (next bus arrival 15 minutes or less) More reliable service 7 day a week service More options for connections METRO s
More informationFixed-Route Operational and Financial Review
Chapter II CHAPTER II Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review Chapter II presents an overview of route operations and financial information for KeyLine Transit. This information will be used to develop
More informationMONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015
MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT SEPTEMBER 215 Table of Contents SEPTEMBER 215 Section Page September Highlights... 3 Strategic Goals Progress Update... 4 Ridership... 6 Revenue... 9 Expenses... 1 System Summary...
More informationDRT Performance Measurement: the U.S. Experience
DRT Performance Measurement: the U.S. Experience FOR ANYBODY GOING ANYWHER IN LA HABRA International Conference on Demand Responsive Transportation Breckenridge, Colorado September 2016 DRT Performance
More informationAccess Across America: Transit 2014
Access Across America: Transit 2014 Final Report CTS 14-11 Prepared by: Andrew Owen David Levinson Accessibility Observatory Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering University of Minnesota
More informationOB-GYN Workload & Potential Shortages: The Coming U.S. Women s Health Crisis
OB-GYN Workload & Potential Shortages: The Coming U.S. Women s Health Crisis JULY 2017 Introduction Obstetricians and Gynecologists (OB-GYNs) are a critical part of the health care provider community.
More informationPERFORMANCE REPORT NOVEMBER 2017
PERFORMANCE REPORT NOVEMBER 2017 Note: New FY2018 Goal/Target/Min or Max incorporated in the Fixed Route and Connection Dashboards. Keith A. Clinkscale Performance Manager INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In June
More informationLos Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.gzz.2000 Tel I Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA metro.net
Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.gzz.2000 Tel I Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 metro.net SUBJECT: NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD) - 9166 REPORTING ACTION: RECEIVE
More informationThe FMR history file contains the following fields, all for 2-bedroom FMRs. It is in EXCEL format for easy use with database or spreadsheet programs.
The FMR history file contains the following fields, all for 2-bedroom FMRs. It is in EXCEL format for easy use with database or spreadsheet programs. GENERAL NOTES 1. There are no Fiscal Year 1984 FMRs
More informationPUBLIC TRANSIT IN KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES
PUBLIC TRANSIT IN KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES #118404v1 Regional Transit Authority June 19, 2006 1 Presentation Overview Existing Public Transit Transit System Peer Comparison Recent Transit
More information1 DEMAND RESPONSE OVERVIEW
1 DEMAND RESPONSE OVERVIEW Forty-nine transit agencies in Ohio operate demand response service, not including demand response services operated as part of the transit service provided in conjunction with
More informationMONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT DECEMBER 2015
MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT DECEMBER 215 Table of Contents DECEMBER 215 Section Page December Highlights... 3 Strategic Goals Progress Update... 4 Ridership... 6 Revenue... 9 Expenses... 1 System Summary...
More informationPERFORMANCE REPORT DECEMBER 2017
PERFORMANCE REPORT DECEMBER 2017 Note: New FY2018 Goal/Target/Min or Max incorporated in the Fixed Route and Connection Dashboards. Keith A. Clinkscale Performance Manager INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Keith
More informationTTI REVIEW OF FARE POLICY: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
TTI REVIEW OF FARE POLICY: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS December 2014 STATUS: TTI REVIEW OF FARE POLICY Goal: Identify and evaluate different options for a revised fare structure, including pricing strategies
More informationREVIEW OF SUN METRO LIFT SERVICES
REVIEW OF SUN METRO LIFT SERVICES Prepared for Review by Linda Cherrington, Research Scientist Suzie Edrington, Associate Research Scientist Zachary Elgart, Associate Transportation Researcher Shuman Tan,
More informationInvestor Update April 22, 2008
JetBlue Airways Investor Relations Lisa Studness (718) 709-2202 ir@jetblue.com Investor Update April 22, 2008 This investor update provides our investor guidance for the second quarter ending June 30,
More informationLocation, Location, Location. 19 th Annual NIC Conference NIC MAP Data & Analysis Service
Location, Location, Location 19 th Annual NIC Conference NIC MAP Data & Analysis Service The Great Occupancy Decline 94% Occupancy Trends Majority Nursing Seniors Housing 93% 92% 91% 92.8% 91.0% 90% 89%
More informationA COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS
KRY/WJS/EDL #222377 v4 (PDF: #223479v2) 4/1/15 APPENDIX D REVISED DRAFT Memorandum Report A COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a statistical
More informationFY Transit Needs Assessment. Ventura County Transportation Commission
FY 18-19 Transit Needs Assessment Ventura County Transportation Commission Contents List of Figures and Appendices.. 2 Appendices... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction What is the Ventura County Transportation
More informationInvestor Update October 23, 2007
JetBlue Airways Investor Relations Lisa Studness Cindy England (718) 709-2202 ir@jetblue.com Investor Update October 23, 2007 This investor update provides our investor guidance for the fourth quarter
More informationATTACHMENT A.7. Transit Division Performance Measurements Report Fiscal Year Fourth Quarter
TTCHMENT.7 Transit Division Performance Measurements Report Fiscal Year 2012-13 Fourth Quarter Introduction The Orange County Transportation uthority (OCT) operates a countywide network of local, community,
More informationInternational migration. Total net migration. Domestic migration
Indicator Direction Comparables a. Net population migration b. Crime rate (city) c. Housing costs d. Cost-of-living index N.A. e. State & local tax intensity f. Performing arts groups g. Air quality index
More informationSt. Johns County Transit Development Plan Update
St. Johns County Transit Development Plan Update 2012-2021 Demographic Information Population 190,000 people in 2010 51% increase from 2000 Employment 64% over age 16 in labor force St. Augustine, Ponte
More informationEstablishes a fare structure for Tacoma Link light rail, to be implemented in September 2014.
RESOLUTION NO. R2013-24 Establish a Fare Structure and Fare Level for Tacoma Link MEETING: DATE: TYPE OF ACTION: STAFF CONTACT: PHONE: Board 09/26/2013 Final Action Ric Ilgenfritz, Executive Director,
More informationInvestor Update July 24, 2007
Investor Update July 24, 2007 JetBlue Airways Investor Relations Lisa Studness Cindy England (718) 709-2202 ir@jetblue.com This investor update provides our investor guidance for the third quarter ending
More informationYOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
YOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Short Range Transit Plan Prepared for the Merced County Association of Governments/YARTS Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. YOSEMITE AREA REGIONAL
More informationPERFORMANCE REPORT DECEMBER Performance Management Office
PERFORMANCE REPORT DECEMBER 2018 Performance Management Office INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Performance Management Office FIXED ROUTE DASHBOARD FY 2019 Safety Max Target Goal Preventable Collisions per 100k
More informationSound Transit Operations June 2016 Service Performance Report. Ridership
Ridership Total Boardings by Mode Mode Jun-15 Jun-16 % YTD-15 YTD-16 % ST Express 1,622,222 1,617,420-0.3% 9,159,934 9,228,211 0.7% Sounder 323,747 361,919 11.8% 1,843,914 2,099,824 13.9% Tacoma Link 75,396
More informationAbout This Report GAUGE INDICATOR. Red. Orange. Green. Gold
ATTACHMENT A About This Report The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) operates a countywide network of local, community, rail connector, and express bus routes serving over 6, bus stops. OCTA
More informationVCTC Transit Ridership and Performance Measures Quarterly Report
VCTC Transit Ridership and Performance Measures Quarterly Report Overview Quarter 2 Fiscal Year 2018-2019 This report provides performance measures for VCTC Intercity Bus Service covering the FY 2018-19
More informationLA Metro Rapid - Considerations in Identifying BRT Corridors. Martha Butler LACMTA, Transportation Planning Manager Los Angeles, California
LA Metro Rapid - Considerations in Identifying BRT Corridors Martha Butler LACMTA, Transportation Planning Manager Los Angeles, California LA Metro Transportation planner/coordinator, designer, builder
More informationMONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2017
& MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2017 SECTION Sun Tran & Sun Van Monthly Operations Report Table of Contents June 2017 PAGE I.System Highlights and Accomplishments 3-10 II.Sun Tran a.ridership 11 b.revenue 12 c.pass
More informationPerformance Measurement:
Regional Transportation Authority Performance Measurement: Peer Reporting Transport Chicago June 7, 2013 1 RTA Performance Measurement Program 2008 RTA Act amendment Purpose: Transparency & accountability
More informationLOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL The Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council (LRGVDC) is a political subdivision of Texas that Texas Transportation Code Chapter 458 authorizes, and therefore
More informationFederal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation December 2004
U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation December 2004 Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation Executive Summary Recent
More informationMONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017
& MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017 SECTION Sun Tran & Sun Van Monthly Operations Report Table of Contents September 2017 PAGE I.System Highlights and Accomplishments 3-10 II.Sun Tran a.ridership 11 b.revenue
More informationSAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES
SAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES Adopted March 13, 2013 Federal Title VI requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were recently updated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and now require
More informationFY Year End Performance Report
Overall Ridership Big Blue Bus carried 18,748,869 passengers in FY2014-2015, a 0.3% reduction from the year prior. This negligible reduction in ridership represents the beginnings of a reversal from a
More informationFare Revenue Report 2016 FARE REVENUE REPORT
FARE REVENUE REPORT Table of Contents Overview 3 Sound Transit Key Operational Milestones 4 Fare Structure 5 ST Express 5 Sounder 5 Link 6 Tacoma Link 7 Farebox Recovery 7 ST Express 7 Sounder 8 Link 8
More informationMaryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office
December 13, 2013 Maryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office Martin O'Malley Govemor Anthony G. Brown Lt. Govemor James T. Smith, Jr. Secretary The Honorable Edward J. Kasemeyer Chair,
More informationHigher Education in America s Metropolitan Areas A Statistical Profile
Higher Education in America s Metropolitan Areas A Statistical Profile MSA Study No.2 Higher Education in America s Metropolitan Areas A Statistical Profile CONTENTS Why Metro Areas? 1 Executive Summary
More informationInvestor Update July 22, 2008
JetBlue Airways Investor Relations Lisa Studness (718) 709-2202 ir@jetblue.com Investor Update July 22, 2008 This investor update provides our investor guidance for the third quarter ending September 30,
More information2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW The Joint Transit Committee and Rapid Transit Public/Private Partnership Steering Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation
More informationGOLDEN CRESCENT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
GOLDEN CRESCENT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission (GCRPC) is a political subdivision of the State of Texas created by the Regional Planning Act of 1965. GCRPC
More informationInvestor Update April 24, 2007
Investor Update April 24, 2007 JetBlue Airways Investor Relations Lisa Studness Cindy England (203) 669-3191 ir@jetblue.com This investor update provides our investor guidance for the second quarter ending
More informationAppendix D: Aggregation Error for New England Metro Areas and for Places
Appendix D: for New England Metro Areas and for Places D-1 Appendix D: s Figure D-1: New England Metro Areas - Summary of Tract s (2000) Metro ID (msapma99) Metro Area Name Census NCDB 1120 Boston, MA-NH
More informationQuarterly Report Transit Bureau, Local Transit Operations. First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015 (July 2014 September 2014) ART & STAR
Quarterly Report Transit Bureau, Local Transit Operations First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015 (July 2014 September 2014) ART & STAR A Arlington Transit ART 1) Introduction The purpose of ART is to provide
More informationMONTHLY REPORT MAY 2017
& MONTHLY REPORT MAY 2017 SECTION Sun Tran & Sun Van Monthly Operations Report Table of Contents May 2017 PAGE I.System Highlights and Accomplishments 3-10 II.Sun Tran a.ridership 11 b.revenue 12 c.pass
More informationAll Door Boarding Title VI Service Fare Analysis. Appendix P.3
All Door Boarding Title VI Service Fare Analysis Appendix P.3 Metro Board Report Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza 3rd Floor Board Room Los Angeles,
More informationSAMTRANS SERVICE PLAN
Agenda Overview Part I: Key Findings Market Assessment Service Evaluation Part II: Service Development Framework Metrics Criteria Part III: Next Steps SAMTRANS SERVICE PLAN Preliminary Analysis and Criteria
More information10TH ANNUAL WOLFE RESEARCH GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE MAY 23, 2017
1 10TH ANNUAL WOLFE RESEARCH GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION CONFERENCE MAY 23, 2017 SAFE HARBOR This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
More informationNATIONAL EXPRESS GROUP PLC AN OVERVIEW
NATIONAL EXPRESS GROUP PLC AN OVERVIEW February 2005 3 A leading international public transport Group Carrying over one billion passengers a year 4 A BRIEF HISTORY 1973 - First National Express coach appeared
More informationLaredo Transit Development Plan
Laredo Transit Development Plan Prepared for: Laredo Urban Transportation Study Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Americas Inc. In association with: NuStats and: GeoStats
More informationScorecard Key Performance Indicators
Scorecard Key Performance Indicators 1 st Quarter 2013 NICE Bus Fixed Route NICE Bus Fixed Route Definitions Scheduled Revenue Hours Full Trip Revenue Hours Lost Runs Missed Revenue Hours Lost Actual Hours
More informationA Public Transportation Review Evaluating Metro s Operational Efficiency, Service Capacity and Fiscal Impact
A Public Transportation Review Evaluating Metro s Operational Efficiency, Service Capacity and Fiscal Impact Minneapolis St. Louis Denver Indianapolis Louisville Austin Cleveland Pittsburgh Columbus Cincinnati
More informationTransport Indicators Report June 2018
Transport Indicators Report June 2018 Board Meeting 21 August 2018 Recommendation That the Board: i. Receives this report. Executive summary 1. The attached Monthly and Quarterly Indicator Reports provide
More informationWashington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Services Utilization Study
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Services Utilization Study Maryland House Bill 300 Table of Contents Page 2 Executive Summary Slide 3 Notes Slide 4 Metro Systemwide Fact Sheet Slide 5 How
More informationBerkshire Flyer Working Group
Berkshire Flyer Working Group September 26, 2017.j~'!1?!~~'2Q! ~~ i:rril & Tra n sit Division Berkshire Flyer Legislation SECTION 137. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation shall convene a working
More informationThe 15-day comment period will run from Thursday, April 4, 2019 to 4pm on Wednesday April 18, 2019.
Proposed Service Standards-Title VI Program Update 2019 April 3, 2019 The Cape Ann Transportation Authority is seeking input on service standards and service policies proposed as part of the Title VI Program
More informationPrior to reviewing the various performances of Red Apple Transit, it is important to point out some key terminology, including:
CHAPTER IV INTRODUCTION Chapter IV presents an overview of operations and financial information for Red Apple Transit. Information on the current system ridership is also presented. This information was
More informationFare Policy Discussion Background and History
Fare Policy Discussion Background and History Transportation Committee Nick Eull Senior Manager of Revenue Operations February 27 th, 2017 2013 Fare Policy Analysis Report Cross-functional group comprised
More informationMAKING PERFORMANCE MEASURES MATTER
www.rtachicago.org 5 TH International Transportation Systems Performance Measurement and Data Conference June 1-2, 2015 Denver, CO MAKING PERFORMANCE MEASURES MATTER Transparency, Accountability, and Advocacy
More informationMajor US City Preparedness For an Oil Crisis Which Cities and Metro Areas are Best Prepared for $4 a Gallon Gas and Beyond?
Major US City Preparedness For an Oil Crisis Which Cities and Metro Areas are Best Prepared for $4 a Gallon Gas and Beyond? March 4, 2008 By Warren Karlenzig President Common Current www.commoncurrent.com
More informationCapital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Monthly Performance Report
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Monthly Performance Report AUGUST 2010 Ridership Report August 23, 2010 Budget to Actual Ridership Budget Target: 2,290,590 Actual: 2,300,796 Ridership Comparison
More informationDRAFT Service Implementation Plan
2017 Service Implementation Plan October 2016 SECTION NAME 2017 Service Implementation Plan October 2016 2017 SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents... I List of Tables... III
More informationSTUDY PROCESS. Study. PHASE I Research. PHASE II Develop & Analyze Options. PHASE III Recommendations. Regional Transit
STUDY PROCESS PHASE I Research PHASE II Develop & Analyze Options PHASE III Recommendations February 2008 - July 2008 July 2008 - September 2008 September 2008 - December 2008 Analyze transit and projected
More informationAnnual Route Report Operating Data. Prepared for: Board of Directors. Final 4/26/2018
Annual Route Report 2017 Operating Data Prepared for: Board of Directors Final 4/26/2018 Upon request, alternative formats of this document will be produced for people with disabilities. Please call 325-6094
More informationBusiness Intelligence Development at Winnipeg Transit
ITS Canada Webinar February 28, 2013 Business Intelligence Development at Winnipeg Transit Bill Menzies Senior Transit Planner, Dillon Consulting Limited Manager of Service Development, Winnipeg Transit
More informationMassachusetts Acute Hospital and Health System Financial Performance Fiscal Year Data through March 31, 2017
Massachusetts Acute ospital and ealth System Financial Performance Fiscal Year Data through March 31, 2017 June 2017 About this Report The Center for ealth Information and Analysis (CIA) reports on the
More informationOzaukee County Transit Development Plan
Ozaukee County Transit Development Plan Record of Public Comments and Recommended Transit Service Plan June 5, 2018 Kevin Muhs Deputy Director #242846 Status of the Transit Development Plan Existing Conditions
More information