Transit Peer Comparison

Similar documents
Sarasota County Area Transit

RTA ScoreCard December 2009

GOLDEN CRESCENT REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Bristol Virginia Transit

APPENDIX B. Arlington Transit Peer Review Technical Memorandum

MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017

Peer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development

Chapter 1 Introduction

Presentation to the Southeast Corridor High-Performance Transit Alternative Study Public Forum. Overview of MTA. presented by

Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza 213.gzz.2000 Tel I Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA metro.net

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

St. Johns County Transit Development Plan Update

* Data for prior months has been updated to reflect error corrections from missing passenger count data

City of Murfreesboro. Transit Service and Management Alternatives

PUBLIC TRANSIT IN KENOSHA, RACINE, AND MILWAUKEE COUNTIES

General Issues Committee Item Transit Operating Budget Ten Year Local Transit Strategy

A COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS

Fixed-Route Operational and Financial Review

APPENDIX B COMMUTER BUS FAREBOX POLICY PEER REVIEW

Performance Measurement:

Att. A, AI 46, 11/9/17

2.0 Miami-Dade Transit System Overview

Date: 11/6/15. Total Passengers

Existing Services, Ridership, and Standards Report. June 2018

STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED

Peer Cities Transit research for the Kansas city metropolitan area. September 30, 2010

Transit Performance Report FY (JUNE 30, 2007)

Overview. Coca- Cola believes recycling should be a rewarding experience. We have partnered with various ci;es and coun;es.

MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 2017

2010 MTA Financial Plan & Proposed LIRR Service Reductions Supplemental Information. MTA Long Island Rail Road

2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS 2004 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW

2009 North Carolina Visitor Profile

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

MONTHLY REPORT MAY 2017

2009 North Carolina Regional Travel Summary

Why we re here: For educational purposes only

2011 North Carolina Visitor Profile

Transit Commission. Tax Supported Programs

Terrace Regional Transit System CITY OF TERRACE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 13, 2017

A COMPARISON OF THE MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN AREA TO ITS PEERS

September 2014 Prepared by the Department of Finance & Performance Management Sub-Regional Report PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Follow-up to Proposed Fare Changes for FY2013

RIDERSHIP TRENDS. October 2017

COMPARATIVE INDICATORS TO OTHER HAMPTON ROADS CITIES. David Bradley

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT SEPTEMBER 2015

Maryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office

Minutes of the Third Meeting THE WASHINGTON COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Federal Railroad Administration Southeast Regional Rail Planning Study

Board Box. February Item # Item Staff Page 1. Key Performance Indicators M. Thompson Financial Report for Dec H.

Valley Transit Strategic Plan

Regional Fare Change Overview. Nick Eull Senior Manager of Revenue Operations Metro Transit

Board of Directors Information Summary

DRT Performance Measurement: the U.S. Experience

Peer Performance Measurement February 2019 Prepared by the Division of Planning & Market Development

MONTHLY OPERATIONS REPORT DECEMBER 2015

Matt Miller, Planning Manager Margaret Heath-Schoep, Paratransit & Special Projects Manager

1 DEMAND RESPONSE OVERVIEW

Rides Mass Transit District. Jackson County Mass Transit District. FY 2020 Program of Projects (POP) Carbondale UZA

Albany Area Metropolitan Planning Organization RTP Project Management Team

October REGIONAL ROUTE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

2012 North Carolina Visitor Profile

MONTHLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017

RIDERSHIP TRENDS. January 2018

STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED

MONTHLY REPORT AUGUST 2017

Ozaukee County Transit Development Plan

2nd Quarter. AEDC is pleased to present the Anchorage Quarterly Economic Indicators Report for the second quarter of 2010.

Transportation Development Plan Janesville Transit System

Establishes a fare structure for Tacoma Link light rail, to be implemented in September 2014.

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA. County Board Agenda Item Meeting of February 22, 2014

January 2019 Monthly Performance Report

December 2018 Monthly Performance Report

About This Report GAUGE INDICATOR. Red. Orange. Green. Gold

METROLIFT RESOURCE NOTEBOOK

New System. New Routes. New Way. May 20, 2014

SAMTRANS TITLE VI STANDARDS AND POLICIES

2011/12 Household Travel Survey Summary Report 2013 Release

PTN-128 Reporting Manual Data Collection and Performance Reporting

Sound Transit Operations January 2014 Service Performance Report. Ridership

Potomac River Commuter Ferry Feasibility Study & RPE Results

METROBUS SERVICE GUIDELINES

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Services Utilization Study

A Public Transportation Review Evaluating Metro s Operational Efficiency, Service Capacity and Fiscal Impact

YRT/VIVA PROPOSED FARE INCREASE

Short Range Transit Plan

Higher Education in America s Metropolitan Areas A Statistical Profile

Pennsylvania Public Transportation Annual Performance Report. Fiscal Year

Mäori Economy in the Waikato Region Summary

Public Meeting. December 19 th, 2018

Mobile Farebox Repair Program: Setting Standards & Maximizing Regained Revenue

Current Operations CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

RIDERSHIP TRENDS. August 2018

Hamilton County, TN. Hotel, Restaurant, and Travel Industries: Economic Profile and Business Trends, Hamilton County (Chattanooga area)

CITY OF ROSEVILLE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN E. PEER REVIEW MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 263

STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED

ATTACHMENT A.7. Transit Division Performance Measurements Report Fiscal Year Fourth Quarter

Table of Contents. Overview Objectives Key Issues Process...1-3

Sound Transit Operations December 2014 Service Performance Report. Ridership

Greater Portland Transit District

Attachment C: 2017/2018 Halifax Transit Year End Performance Report. 2017/2018 Year End Performance Measures Report

Transcription:

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: National Transit Database, 2014 and US Census Service Area Population Ridership Charleston, SC 381,015 543,209 4,919,567 Davidson, TN 668,347 626,681 9,619,309 Forsyth, NC 365,298 199,555 3,443,755 Greenville, SC 482,752 248,173 1,005,010 Guilford, NC 512,119 269,666 4,655,974 Hamilton, TN 351,220 167,674 3,075,268 Henrico, VA 321,294 449,572 9,272,358 Jefferson, AL 660,793 452,091 3,343,699 Mobile, AL 415,123 223,676 1,273,705 Richland, SC 401,566 254,000 1,585,501

Peer Transit Communities, FY2014 15.3 17.3 17.3 18.3 20.6 9.1 4.0 7.4 5.7 6.2 Transit rides taken per capita by residents in service area Source: National Transit Database, 2014 and US Census

Community Operating Revenues, FY2014 Fare Revenues Local Funds State Funds Federal Assistance Other Funds Total Revenues Charleston, SC 17% 38% 0% 33% 13% $19,525,860 Davidson, TN 19% 53% 9% 16% 4% $66,821,596 Forsyth, NC 18% 45% 10% 26% 2% $13,380,582 Greenville, SC 17% 9% 11% 55% 8% $5,942,288 Guilford, NC 15% 48% 7% 28% 2% $23,598,019 Hamilton, TN 24% 26% 14% 19% 17% $18,982,802 Henrico, VA 25% 38% 23% 13% 2% $46,929,510 Jefferson, AL 9% 40% 0% 51% 0% $28,257,636 Mobile, AL 10% 45% 0% 45% 0% $10,659,052 Richland, SC 2% 96% 0% 2% 0% $11,238,336 Source: National Transit Database, 2014

Greenlink Sources of Operating Revenue, 2014 Other Funds, 8% Fare Revenues, 17% Local Funds, 9% Federal Assistance, 55% State Funds, 11% Source: National Transit Database, 2014 and US Census

Transit System Standard Senior Students/ Youth Child Disabled Greater Richmond $1.50 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 Chattanooga Area $1.50 $0.75 $ 0.75 Free $0.75 Winston Salem $1.00 $0.50 Free $0.50 Charleston Area $2.00 Free Central Midlands $1.50 $0.75 The Wave $1.25 $0.60 $0.75 $20 monthly pass $0.75 Free $0.60 Greenville $1.50 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 Greensboro $1.50 $0.75 $0.75 Free $0.75 Birmingham Jefferson County Fare Structures $1.25 $0.60 $0.8 $0.60 Nashville $1.70 $0.85 $1 Free $0.85 Source: websites of individual transit systems

Fare revenue as percentage of overall budget, 2014 24% 25% 17% 19% 18% 17% 15% 9% 10% 2% Source: National Transit Database, 2014 and US Census

Local revenue as percentage of operating budget, 2014 96% 38% 53% 45% 48% 26% 38% 40% 45% 9% Source: National Transit Database, 2014

Local revenue per capita by service area, 2014 $57 $42 $39 $42 $30 $30 $25 $22 $14 $2 Source: National Transit Database, 2014 and US Census

Greenville Transit Authority (GTA) http://www.ridegreenlink.com/ 100 W. McBee Ave 2014 Annual Agency Profile Director of Transportaion: Mr. Mark Rickards Greenville, SC 29601 864-298-2750 General Information Financial Information Urbanized Area Statistics - 2010 Census Service Consumption Database Information Sources of Operating Funds Expended Operating Funding Sources Greenville, SC 4,473,543 Annual Passenger Miles (PMT) NTDID: 40053 Fare Revenues $997,784 16.8% 320 Square Miles 1,005,010 Annual Unlinked Trips (UPT) Reporter Type: Full Reporter Local Funds $544,927 9.2% 400,492 Population Other UZAs Served 3,256 Average Weekday Unlinked Trips 0 Average Sunday Unlinked Trips State Funds Other Funds $637,113 $494,465 10.7% 8.3% 93 Pop. Rank out of 498 UZAs 258 Mauldin-Simpsonville, SC 3,241 Average Saturday Unlinked Trips Federal Assistance Total Operating Funds Expended $3,267,999 $5,942,288 55.0% 100.0% 55.0% 8.3% 16.8% Service Area Statistics Service Supplied Sources of Capital Funds Expended 227 Square Miles 738,382 Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) Fare Revenues $0 0.0% 248,173 Population 53,311 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours (VRH) Local Funds $165,073 11.4% 21 Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) State Funds $196,079 13.6% 32 Vehicles Available for Maximum Service (VAMS) Federal Assistance $1,039,086 72.0% Other Funds $42,774 3.0% Capital Funding Sources Modal Characteristics Total Capital Funds Expended $1,443,012 100.0% Vehicles Operated Modal Overview in Maximum Service Uses of Capital Funds Directly Purchased Revenue Systems and Mode Operated Transportation Vehicles Guideways Demand Response 5 - $225,836 $0 $0 $0 $225,836 Materials and Supplies $1,297,570 21.8% Bus 16 - $374,270 $197,596 $564,948 $80,362 $1,217,176 Purchased Transportation $0 0.0% Total 21 - $600,106 $197,596 $564,948 $80,362 $1,443,012 Other Operating Expenses $208,293 3.5% Total Operating Expenses $5,942,288 100.0% Reconciling OE Cash Expenditures $0 Purchased Transportation (Reported Separately) $0 Operation Characteristics Summary of Operating Expenses (OE) Facilities and Stations Other Total Salary, Wages, Benefits $4,436,425 74.7% Fare RevenueLocal Funds: 11.4%State Funds: 13.6%Federal Assistance: 72.%Other Funds: 3.% Fixed Guideway Directional Vehicles Available for Maximum Vehicles Operated in Maximum Mode Operating Expenses Fare Revenues Uses of Capital Funds Annual Passenger Miles Annual Unlinked Trips Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours Route Miles Service Service Percent Spare Vehicles Years¹ Demand Response $788,386 $31,701 $225,836 72,056 8,939 84,417 6,349 0.0 7 5 28.6% 4.3 Bus $5,153,902 $966,083 $1,217,176 4,401,487 996,071 653,965 46,962 0.0 25 16 36.0% 6.7 Total $5,942,288 $997,784 $1,443,012 4,473,543 1,005,010 738,382 53,311 0.0 32 21 34.4% Performance Measures Service Efficiency Service Effectiveness Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Operating Expenses per Unlinked Trips per Unlinked Trips per Mode Vehicle Revenue Mile Vehicle Revenue Hour Mode Passenger Mile Unlinked Passenger Trip Vehicle Revenue Mile Vehicle Revenue Hour Demand Response $9.34 $124.17 Demand Response $10.94 $88.20 0.1 1.4 Bus $7.88 $109.75 Bus $1.17 $5.17 1.5 21.2 Total $8.05 $111.46 Total $1.33 $5.91 1.4 18.9 72.0% 10.7% 9.2% 11.4% 13.6% Average Fleet Age in 3.0% $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Bus 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Bus OE/VRM $3.59 $3.98 $8.00# $5.08 # $5.82 # 2.00 $4.62 # $7.88 Demand Response $10.00 2005: $15.00 $3.592006: $3.982007: $3.682008: $5.082009: $5.072010: $5.822011: 0.15 $7.232012: $4.622013: $5.42014: $7.88 OE/PMT $0.80 $0.76 $6.00# $0.90 # $1.07 # 1.50 $0.69 # $1.17 $8.00 2005: $.82006: $.762007: $.682008: $.92009: $.782010: $1.072011: $7.232012: $.692013: $.822014: $1.17 UPT/VRM 1.05 1.21 # 1.30 # 1.31 # 1.22 # 1.52 2005: $10.00 1.052006: 1.212007: 1.252008: 1.32009: 1.52010: 1.312011: 1.12012: 0.10 $6.00 1.222013: 1.22014: 1.52 OE/VRM $6.97 $7.41 $4.00# $8.21 # $8.60 # 1.00 $6.97 # $9.34 2005: $6.972006: $7.412007: $6.752008: $8.212009: $4.42010: $8.62011: $6.562012: $6.972013: $7.482014: $9.34 $4.00 OE/PMT $12.56 $8.90 # $11.76 # $10.83 # $6.97 # $10.94 2005: $12.562006: $5.00 $8.92007: $8.672008: $11.762009: $6.292010: $10.832011: 0.05 $2.00 0.50 $6.562012: $6.972013: $7.642014: $10.94 UPT/VRM 0.14 0.14 # 0.11 # 0.11 # 0.13 # 0.11 $2.00 2005:.142006:.142007:.132008:.112009:.112010:.112011:.132012:.132013:.122014:.11 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Notes: ¹Demand Response - Taxi (DT) and non-dedicated fleets do not report fleet age data. Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Bus Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response Operating Expense per Passenger Mile: Demand Response Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Mile: Demand Response

FY2014 Information from ntdprogram.gov Community Transit System County Population Service Area Population Ridership Fare Revenues Local Funds Local dollars Local funds per capita by service area local funds per capita by county population State Funds Federal Assistance Other Funds Total Revenues Charleston, SC CARTA 381,015 543,209 4,919,567 16.50% 37.60% $ 7,341,723.36 $ 13.52 $ 19.27 0.00% 32.70% 13.20% $19,525,860 Davidson, TN Nashville MTA 668,347 626,681 9,619,309 18.60% 53.40% $ 35,682,732.26 $ 56.94 $ 53.39 8.70% 15.50% 3.80% $66,821,596 Forsyth, NC WSTA 365,298 199,555 3,443,755 18.20% 44.60% $ 5,967,739.57 $ 29.91 $ 16.34 10.20% 25.50% 1.50% $13,380,582 Greenville, SC GTA 482,752 248,173 1,005,010 16.80% 9.20% $ 546,690.50 $ 2.20 $ 1.13 10.70% 55.00% 8.30% $5,942,288 Guilford, NC GTA 512,119 269,666 4,655,974 15.20% 47.70% $ 11,256,255.06 $ 41.74 $ 21.98 7.20% 28.30% 1.50% $23,598,019 Hamilton, TN CARTA 351,220 167,674 3,075,268 24.10% 26.20% $ 4,973,494.12 $ 29.66 $ 14.16 14.00% 18.70% 17.00% $18,982,802 Henrico, VA GRTC 321,294 449,572 9,272,358 24.80% 37.70% $ 17,692,425.27 $ 39.35 $ 55.07 23.40% 12.50% 1.60% $46,929,510 Jefferson, AL Birm Jeff Co. Transit 660,793 452,091 3,343,699 8.90% 40.30% $ 11,387,827.31 $ 25.19 $ 17.23 0.00% 50.50% 0.03% $28,257,636 Mobile, AL WTS 415,123 223,676 1,273,705 9.50% 45.20% $ 4,817,891.50 $ 21.54 $ 11.61 0.00% 45.40% 0.00% $10,659,052 Richland, SC The COMET 401,566 254,000 1,585,501 1.70% 95.80% $ 10,766,325.89 $ 42.39 $ 26.81 0.00% 2.40% 0.20% $11,238,336