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 Charlotte Raleigh
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY Use of available resources to deliver public transportation services within a transit service area or city. SERVICE LEVEL PROVIDED Amount of public transportation service provided relative to time, population, service area, household, etc. STATE/LOCAL FUNDING Amount of public funds for transportation services relative to population and/or service provision.
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY CINCINNATI #1 #2 MINNEAPOLIS #3(T) DENVER #3(T) PITTSBURGH #5 CLEVELAND #6 (T) CHARLOTTE #6 (T) ST. LOUIS #8 (T) COLUMBUS #8(T) INDIANAPOLIS #10 LOUISVILLE #11(T) RALEIGH #11(T) AUSTIN
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY fare revenue earned per operating expense When Metro is $0.37 (#1) compared to all 11 peer regions, it is the leader in operational efficiency. fare revenue earned per passenger trip $1.62 (#1) fare revenue earned per vehicle hour $39.72 (#2) operating expense per passenger mile $0.86 (#6)
SERVICE LEVEL PROVIDED CINCINNATI #7 #1 PITTSBURGH #3 DENVER #4 MINNEAPOLIS #5 (T) ST. LOUIS #5 (T) CLEVELAND #5 (T) CHARLOTTE #6 AUSTIN #9 COLUMBUS #10 LOUISVILLE #11 RALEIGH #12 INDIANAPOLIS
SERVICE LEVEL PROVIDED On average, Metro is outperformed by its peer regions in all service level provided comparison measures. Passenger trips per hour 22.0 (#7) Passenger trips per capita (service area) 22.4 (#8) Passenger trips per capita (city) 63.8 (#6) Vehicle hours per capita (service area) 1.0 (#9) Vehicle hours per capita (city) 2.9 (#6) Vehicle miles per capita (Service area) 14.9 (#8) Vehicle miles per capita (city) 42.5 (#6)
STATE/LOCAL FUNDING CINCINNATI #10 #2 AUSTIN #3 COLUMBUS #4 CHARLOTTE #5 CLEVELAND #6(T) ST. LOUIS #6(T) RALEIGH #7(T) LOUISVILLE #7(T) PITTSBURGH #8 DENVER #9 INDIANAPOLIS #11 MINNEAPOLIS
STATE/LOCAL FUNDING Metro receives among the lowest total local and state funds of the peer regions. Local funds per capita (service area) $44.02 (#8) Local & state funds per capita (service area) $45.04 (#10) Local funds per passenger mile $0.38 (#10) Local & state funds per passenger mile $0.39 (#12)
BUS ONLY BENCHMARKS OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY SERVICE LEVEL PROVIDED STATE/LOCAL FUNDING CINCINNATI #1 #1 #5 COLUMBUS #2 1 #2 #1 INDIANAPOLIS #2 1 #5 #4 LOUISVILLE #4 #3 #3 RALEIGH #5 #4 #2 1 tied for position #2
PEER CITY TRENDS SYSTEMS WITH THE GREATEST LEVELS OF SERVICE 1 CLEVELAND DENVER MINNEAPOLIS PITTSBURGH BUS SERVICE + LIGHT RAIL + HEAVY RAIL + INCLINED PLANE 1 National Transit Database (2011)
PEER CITY TRENDS EXPLORING BUS RAPID TRANSIT AUSTIN CLEVELAND DENVER MINNEAPOLIS ALSO EXPLORING: HEAVY RAIL COMMUTER RAIL LIGHT RAIL STREET CAR 1 1 Transit Space Race Projects (2013). Reconnecting America.
PEER CITY TRENDS BRT is promising to revolutionize public transportation In just a few short years, this new mode, considered midway between light rail and traditional bus service, has significantly expanded its presence across the U.S. 1 1 America Rides the Bus. American Public Transportation Association (APTA).
THE BOTTOM LINE Our analysis depicts Metro as an efficient system in a community that is underserved by public transportation. The top transportation service providers provide multiple modes of transportation and are pursuing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
THE BOTTOM LINE Should the community decide to expand public transportation services, Metro s proven efficiency should position it favorably to receive and manage additional funds. Due to Metro s current dependence on fare revenues (more than nearly all the other systems in our study), expanding services may require additional local, state or federal funds.
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 Charlotte Raleigh