Transit Peer Review - mlivemedia.mlive.com › grpress › news_impact › other › Rapid Peer Analysi… · FINAL REPORT Transit Peer Review December 9, 2009 Submitted By: HDR Engineering,

F I N A L R E P O R T

Transit Peer Review

December 9, 2009 Submitted By: HDR Engineering, Inc. 1180 Peachtree Street Suite 2210

Atlanta, GA, 30309

FINAL I DECEMBER 9, 2009

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Peer Group Selection .......................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Grand Rapids, Michigan ...................................................................................... 2

1.1.2 Akron, Ohio ......................................................................................................... 3

1.1.3 Ann Arbor, Michigan ............................................................................................ 4

1.1.4 Dayton, Ohio ....................................................................................................... 5

1.1.5 Flint, Michigan ..................................................................................................... 6

1.1.6 Lansing, Michigan ............................................................................................... 7

1.1.7 Louisville, Kentucky ............................................................................................. 8

1.1.8 Madison, Wisconsin ............................................................................................ 9

1.1.9 Nashville, Tennessee ........................................................................................ 10

1.1.10 Rochester, New York ........................................................................................ 11

1.1.11 Toledo, Ohio ...................................................................................................... 12

1.1.12 Peer Profile Summary ....................................................................................... 13

1.2 System Performance Measures ....................................................................... 14

2 Motor Bus Peer Analysis .................................................................................................. 16

2.1 Overview - Peer Systems Demographic and Operating Statistics ................... 16

2.2 Service Productivity ........................................................................................... 18

2.3 Maintenance Productivity .................................................................................. 21

2.4 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness ..................................................................... 24

2.5 Service Coverage .............................................................................................. 27

3 Demand Response Peer Analysis ................................................................................... 29

3.1 Peer Systems Demographic and Operating Statistics ...................................... 29

3.2 Service Productivity ........................................................................................... 31

3.3 Maintenance Productivity .................................................................................. 34

3.4 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness ..................................................................... 36

3.5 Service Coverage .............................................................................................. 39

FINAL I DECEMBER 9, 2009

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Peer City Population Rankings .................................................................................................................. 13 Table 2: Peer City Route Rankings .......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Peer City Ridership Rankings .................................................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Peer City Operating Expenses Rankings .................................................................................................. 13 Table 5: Peer City Base Fare Rankings ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Demographics and Operating Characteristics of The Rapid’s Bus Peer Systems ................................ 16 Table 7: Peer System Service Productivity Measures ............................................................................................ 19 Table 8: Service Productivity Trends, FY 1999 - FY 2008 ..................................................................................... 19 Table 9: Peer System Maintenance Productivity Measures .................................................................................. 22 Table 10: Maintenance Productivity Trends, 1999 - 2008 ...................................................................................... 22 Table 11: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures ........................................................................................... 25 Table 12: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1998 - FY 2007 ...................................................................................... 25 Table 13: Peer System Service Coverage Measures ............................................................................................ 27 Table 14: Demographic and Operating Characteristics of The Rapid Bus Peer Systems .................................... 29 Table 15: Peer System Service Productivity Measures .......................................................................................... 32 Table 16: Service Productivity Trends, FY 1998 - FY 2007 ................................................................................... 32 Table 17: Maintenance Productivity Trends, 1999 - 2008 ...................................................................................... 35 Table 18: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures ........................................................................................... 37 Table 19: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1999 - FY 2008 ...................................................................................... 37 Table 20: Peer System Service Coverage Measures ............................................................................................ 39

Figure 1: Service Area Population ............................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 2: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips ............................................................................................................ 17 Figure 3: Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours ................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 4: Annual Fare Revenue ............................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, FY 1999 - FY 2008 ....................................................................... 18 Figure 6: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 7: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 8: Annual Revenue Miles per Peak Bus ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 9: Annual Revenue Hours per Peak Bus...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Revenue Miles per Service Disruption: 1999 - 2008 ............................................................................ 21 Figure 11: Average Age of Fleet: 1999 – 2008 ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 12: Average Age of Active Fleet .................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 13: Work Hours per Full Time Vehicle Maintenance Employee ................................................................. 23 Figure 14: Vehicle Revenue Miles per Full Time Vehicle Maint. Employee ........................................................... 23 Figure 15: Vehicle Revenue Miles per Service Disruption ...................................................................................... 23 Figure 16: Cost per Passenger Trip, 1999 - 2008 ................................................................................................... 24 Figure 17: Cost per Revenue Hour, 1999 - 2008 .................................................................................................... 24 Figure 18: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip ........................................................................................................ 26 Figure 19: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour ......................................................................................................... 26 Figure 20: Farebox Recovery ................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 21: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour by Cost Function ............................................................................ 26 Figure 22: Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area ................................................................................... 28 Figure 23: Revenue Miles per Service Area Population ......................................................................................... 28 Figure 24: Annual Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area .................................................................... 28 Figure 25: Annual Passenger Trips per Service Area Population .......................................................................... 28 Figure 26: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips .......................................................................................................... 30 Figure 27: Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours .............................................................................................................. 30 Figure 28: Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles ............................................................................................................... 30 Figure 29: Annual Fare Revenue ............................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 30: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, FY 1998 - FY 2007 ..................................................................... 31

FINAL II DECEMBER 9, 2009

Figure 31: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour ...................................................................................... 33 Figure 32: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile ....................................................................................... 33 Figure 33: Annual Revenue Miles per Peak Bus ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 34: Annual Revenue Hours per Peak Bus ................................................................................................... 33 Figure 35: Average Age of Fleet ............................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 36: Maintenance Expense per Operating Expense ..................................................................................... 35 Figure 37: Maintenance Expense per Revenue Mile .............................................................................................. 35 Figure 38: Cost per Passenger Trip, FY 1999 – 2008 ............................................................................................ 36 Figure 39: Cost per Revenue Hour, FY 1999 – 2008 .............................................................................................. 36 Figure 40: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip ........................................................................................................ 38 Figure 41: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour ......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 42: Farebox Recovery ................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 43: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour by Cost Function ............................................................................ 38 Figure 44: Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area ................................................................................... 40 Figure 45: Revenue Miles per Service Area Population ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 46: Annual Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area .................................................................... 40 Figure 47: Annual Passenger Trips per Service Area Population .......................................................................... 40

FINAL 1 DECEMBER 9, 2009

1 INTRODUCTION

In order to gain a better understanding of unmet service needs and potential new service needs, a peer analysis was conducted to compare the Rapid’s bus and demand response systems to other transit systems that are comparable to the Rapid in terms of size of the transit system (e.g., peak buses), size of the service area (e.g., population), and types of services provided (e.g., bus, demand response, premium transit). This system-level analysis will help identify the Rapid’s strengths and weaknesses with respect to service productivity, cost effectiveness and efficiency, maintenance productivity, and service coverage. Additionally, a ten-year longitudinal analysis was completed to identify trends in the Rapid’s service productivity and cost-effectiveness. This analysis provides a high-level assessment of the Rapid’s bus and demand response operations. The knowledge gained through this assessment will assist the project team in development of operational policies aimed at improving productivity and efficiency at the system level.

1.1 Peer Group Selection

Ten peer systems were selected based on system size and regional demographic characteristics. Criteria used to choose the peer systems include urban area population and physical size, annual vehicle revenue hours, and annual unlinked passenger trips. The selected peer systems include:

• Akron, Ohio: Metro Regional Transit Authority (Metro) • Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) • Dayton, Ohio: Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) • Flint, Michigan: Mass Transportation Authority (MTA) • Lansing, Michigan: Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) • Louisville, Kentucky: Transit Authority of River City (TARC) • Madison, Wisconsin: Metro Transit System (Metro) • Nashville, Tennessee: Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) • Rochester, New York: Regional Transit Service (R-GRTA) • Toledo, Ohio: Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA)

System performance measures were computed for each peer system using 2008 National Transit Database (NTD) data. While the NTD is assembled for the purposes of comparison and sharing information throughout the transit industry, some variances are expected in comparability among operators. In addition, while there is an effort by FTA to ensure commonality in the data sources and methods of calculation, there are varying degrees of accuracy in the data submitted by the respective transit agencies. For these reasons, this peer analysis is most useful for identifying broad trends and comparisons of efficiency, effectiveness and coverage. Because of the unique operating characteristics of each system and data limitations, this analysis should not be used to draw specific conclusions or findings (i.e., the Rapid should hire “X” more vehicle maintainers) about Rapid service without more detailed analyses of staffing levels, productivity, and other factors.

FINAL

1.1.1 Grand Rapids, Michigan

The City Grand Rapids, located on both banks of the Grand River and is Michigan’s second largest citDetroit. Grand Rapids is also the seat of Kent County. The City of Grand Rapids’ population was estimated at 193,396 in 2008. Grand Rapids is surrounded by five other municipalities: EastRapids (pop 10,467), Kentwood (pop 47,419), Grandville (pop 16,718), Walker (pop 23,722) and Wyoming (pop 70,462). Kent County’s total population was estimated at 605,213. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Kent County was $45,890. 8.9% of Kent County’s poreported as living at or below the poverty line. The largest university in region, Grand Valley State University, whose primary campus is in nearby Allendale township in Ottawa County but also has a satellite campus in downtown Grand Rapids, reported an annual enrollment of 24,400 in 2008. Both campuses are currently served by The Rapid. The Agency (Interurban Transit Partnership The Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) is the public transportation provider for the cities of Grand Rapids, East Grand Rapids, Kenformed by the City of Grand Rapids in 1963 as the became a regional authority in July 1978 and was renamed the Authority, or GRATA. In January 2000, the ITP was formed, which adopted the name, Rapid, for its transit services.

The Rapids’ base fare is $1.50 with other products available such as 10farecards. Students at Grand Valagreement between the agency and Universityis also fare-free. In FY2008, The Rapid’s base farebox recovery rate was approximately 15%. Additional revenues from subsidized service (GVSU and DASH) increased the rate to 26%. Other revenue sources for operations included local property tax collections from local government (45%), state funding (31%) and federal / other funding (9%). Local funding foRapid is generated primarily through property tax assessments.

The Rapid currently operates a total a 29 route patterns. One routeAllendale was classified as express service. 3 DASH downtown circulators are also operated by TRapid. In FY2008, The Rapid reported operating a maximum fleet of 110 vehicles for local service. The Rapid’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving The Rapid’s Central Station bus terminal at a site a few blocks south ooperates three crosstown routes on (Route 44). For major capital projects, The Rapid is currently advancing its’ Silver Line Bus Rapid Transiton Division Avenue through environmental clearance and is also coordinating with Transportation Tomorrow (PTT) Task Force to study the feasibility of a downtown streetcar circulator.

2 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 776,833(5/11 - #91 in U.S.) # of Routes: 29 (8/11) 2008 Ridership: 8,619,972 2008 Operating Cost: $25,305,342 Base Fare: $1.50 (Tie 3/11)

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Grand Rapids, located on both banks of the Grand River and is Michigan’s second largest city, behind Detroit. Grand Rapids is also the seat of Kent County. The City of Grand Rapids’ population was estimated at 193,396 in 2008. Grand Rapids is surrounded by five other municipalities: East Grand

wood (pop 47,419), ville (pop 16,718), Walker (pop 23,722) and Wyoming (pop 70,462). Kent County’s total

population was estimated at 605,213. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Kent County was $45,890. 8.9% of Kent County’s poreported as living at or below the poverty line.

The largest university in region, Grand Valley State University, whose primary campus is in nearby township in Ottawa County but also has a satellite campus in downtown Grand Rapids,

reported an annual enrollment of 24,400 in 2008. Both campuses are currently served by The Rapid.

The Agency (Interurban Transit Partnership - ITP)

The Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) is the public transportation provider for the cities of pids, East Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Walker and Wyoming. Originally

formed by the City of Grand Rapids in 1963 as the Grand Rapids Transit Authoritybecame a regional authority in July 1978 and was renamed the Grand Rapids Area

. In January 2000, the ITP was formed, which adopted the name,

The Rapids’ base fare is $1.50 with other products available such as 10-ride and unlimited ride farecards. Students at Grand Valley State University ride The Rapid for free due a $1.9 million agreement between the agency and University. The downtown parking shuttle service, DASH,

free. In FY2008, The Rapid’s base farebox recovery rate was approximately 15%. l revenues from subsidized service (GVSU and DASH) increased the rate to 26%.

Other revenue sources for operations included local property tax collections from local government (45%), state funding (31%) and federal / other funding (9%). Local funding foRapid is generated primarily through property tax assessments.

The Rapid currently operates a total a 29 route patterns. One route to the GVSU campus in was classified as express service. 3 DASH downtown circulators are also operated by T

Rapid. In FY2008, The Rapid reported operating a maximum fleet of 110 vehicles for local service. The Rapid’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving The Rapid’s Central Station bus terminal at a site a few blocks south of downtown Grand Rapids. The Rapid currently operates three crosstown routes on Burton Street (Route 24), 28th Street (Route 28) and 44

For major capital projects, The Rapid is currently advancing its’ Silver Line Bus Rapid Transiton Division Avenue through environmental clearance and is also coordinating with Transportation Tomorrow (PTT) Task Force to study the feasibility of a downtown streetcar circulator.

DECEMBER 9, 2009

776,833

8,619,972 (7/11) $25,305,342 (6/11) /11)

ville (pop 16,718), Walker (pop 23,722) and Wyoming (pop 70,462). Kent County’s total population was estimated at 605,213. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Kent County was $45,890. 8.9% of Kent County’s population was

The largest university in region, Grand Valley State University, whose primary campus is in nearby township in Ottawa County but also has a satellite campus in downtown Grand Rapids,

reported an annual enrollment of 24,400 in 2008. Both campuses are currently served by The Rapid.

The Interurban Transit Partnership (ITP) is the public transportation provider for the cities of wood, Grandville, Walker and Wyoming. Originally

Grand Rapids Transit Authority, the system Grand Rapids Area Transit

. In January 2000, the ITP was formed, which adopted the name, The

ride and unlimited ride due a $1.9 million

. The downtown parking shuttle service, DASH, free. In FY2008, The Rapid’s base farebox recovery rate was approximately 15%.

l revenues from subsidized service (GVSU and DASH) increased the rate to 26%. Other revenue sources for operations included local property tax collections from local government (45%), state funding (31%) and federal / other funding (9%). Local funding for The

to the GVSU campus in was classified as express service. 3 DASH downtown circulators are also operated by The

Rapid. In FY2008, The Rapid reported operating a maximum fleet of 110 vehicles for local service. The Rapid’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving The Rapid’s Central

f downtown Grand Rapids. The Rapid currently Street (Route 28) and 44th Street

For major capital projects, The Rapid is currently advancing its’ Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit project on Division Avenue through environmental clearance and is also coordinating with the Public Transportation Tomorrow (PTT) Task Force to study the feasibility of a downtown streetcar circulator.

FINAL

1.1.2 Akron, Ohio

The City Akron, Ohio is located in Northeast Ohio on the Cuyahoga River, approximately 60 miles south of Cleveland. The Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area had a population of approximately 698,000 as of 2008, of which approximately 207,000 resides within the city limits of Akron. The median household income in 2000 was $31,835, with 14% of families below the poverty line. Though several of the world’s largest tire manufacturerswere established in Akron, the decline of manufacturing centers to close over the last several decades. The remaining major industries in Akron include healthcare, education (University of Akron manufacturing. The Agency (METRO Regional Transit Authority Metro Regional Transit Authority, RTA, serves greater Akron with 35 fixed local routes and two express routes to Cleveland. Connection opportunities are available to other regional transit agencies including GCRTA (Cuyahoga County), PARTA (Portage County), and SARTA (Canton). University of Akron’s Roo Express service had been operated by the RTA up until 2007, when the University opted to contract the service out to a private operator. RTA is funded by a ½-cent local sales tax along with state and federal contributions. The local revenue stream accounted for 65 percent of RTA’s total revenues in 2008, while state and federal dollars accounted for 15 percent. Farebox proceeds totaled 12 percent of tremaining eight percent was funded by interest and auxiliary transportation and nonrevenue. RTA‘s 35 fixed routes operate in a radial pattern serving the new downtown intermodal transit center, which also serves as the City’s Greyhound station and acts as a terminus for other interIn addition to the local fixed route network, ten neighborhood routes serve local schools and weekday ‘grocery’ routes connect multi-family housing developments with shoppingfacilities include the downtown intermodal center, the administration and maintenance facility, the Southwest Akron transfer center, the West Akron and Twinsburg park Akron does not currently have any major

3 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 698,553 (6/11 - #99 in U.S.) # of Routes: 37 (5/11) 2008 Ridership: 5,501,400 2008 Operating Cost: $25,064,008 Base Fare: $1.25 (Tie 2/11)

Akron, Ohio is located in Northeast Ohio on the Cuyahoga River, approximately 60 miles south of Cleveland. The Akron Metropolitan Statistical Area had a population of approximately 698,000 as of 2008, of which approximately 207,000 resides

limits of Akron. The median household income in 2000 was $31,835, with 14% of families below the poverty line.

Though several of the world’s largest tire manufacturers- B.F. Goodrich, Goodyear, and Firestonewere established in Akron, the decline of the U.S. auto industry has forced most of these manufacturing centers to close over the last several decades. The remaining major industries in Akron include healthcare, education (University of Akron – enrollment: 27,000), and polymer

e Agency (METRO Regional Transit Authority – METRO RTA)

Metro Regional Transit Authority, RTA, serves greater Akron with 35 fixed local routes and two express routes to Cleveland. Connection opportunities are available to other regional transit

including GCRTA (Cuyahoga County), PARTA (Portage County), and SARTA (Canton). University of Akron’s Roo Express service had been operated by the RTA up until 2007, when the University opted to contract the service out to a private operator.

cent local sales tax along with state and federal contributions. The local revenue stream accounted for 65 percent of RTA’s total revenues in 2008, while state and federal dollars accounted for 15 percent. Farebox proceeds totaled 12 percent of total revenues and the remaining eight percent was funded by interest and auxiliary transportation and non

RTA‘s 35 fixed routes operate in a radial pattern serving the new downtown intermodal transit center, e City’s Greyhound station and acts as a terminus for other inter

In addition to the local fixed route network, ten neighborhood routes serve local schools and weekday family housing developments with shopping centers. RTA’s capital

facilities include the downtown intermodal center, the administration and maintenance facility, the Southwest Akron transfer center, the West Akron and Twinsburg park-and-ride facilities.

Akron does not currently have any major corridor studies or capital improvement projects pending.

DECEMBER 9, 2009

MSA Population (2008): 698,553

2008 Ridership: 5,501,400 (10/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $25,064,008 (8/11)

2/11)

B.F. Goodrich, Goodyear, and Firestone- the U.S. auto industry has forced most of these

manufacturing centers to close over the last several decades. The remaining major industries in enrollment: 27,000), and polymer

Metro Regional Transit Authority, RTA, serves greater Akron with 35 fixed local routes and two express routes to Cleveland. Connection opportunities are available to other regional transit

including GCRTA (Cuyahoga County), PARTA (Portage County), and SARTA (Canton). University of Akron’s Roo Express service had been operated by the RTA up until 2007, when the

cent local sales tax along with state and federal contributions. The local revenue stream accounted for 65 percent of RTA’s total revenues in 2008, while state and federal

otal revenues and the remaining eight percent was funded by interest and auxiliary transportation and non-transportation

RTA‘s 35 fixed routes operate in a radial pattern serving the new downtown intermodal transit center, e City’s Greyhound station and acts as a terminus for other inter-city systems.

In addition to the local fixed route network, ten neighborhood routes serve local schools and weekday centers. RTA’s capital

facilities include the downtown intermodal center, the administration and maintenance facility, the ride facilities.

corridor studies or capital improvement projects pending.

FINAL

1.1.3 Ann Arbor, Michigan

The City Ann Arbor, population 114,024 as of the 2000 Census, is located in southeast Michigan approximately 35 miles from downtown Detroit. The median household income in Ann Arbor was approximately $51,000 as of a 2007 estimate. Thecity is home to the University of Michigan (Uwith over 41,000 students and 6,200 staff on its three campuses. Ann Arbor’s economy has welldeveloped high-tech and bio-tech sectors due to the availability of a highlyample research and development attracted to the area by the University. Ann Arbor is situated on the Huron River, with the Central Business District located south of the river adjacent to the U-M campus. Three additional commercial retail districts are located outdowntown including the Briarwood Mall, South Industrial Park, and the IRoad retail center, each located on the southern end of the urbanized area. The Transit Agency (Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Ann Arbor is served by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), “The Ride”, which operates local bus service throughout the city and neighboring Ypsilanti, including a circulator route at Eastern Michigan University, and express routes to Canton and Chelsea. fare-free bus system which connects Umedical and research facilities to the main campus. Uaccess to The Ride’s fixed-routesUniversity and AATA. AATA’s primary funding source comes from local property taxes transferred to the Agency from the City totaling $9.7 million annually, or approximately 41% of the totaand townships contribute to the local share through service purchase agreements which total approximately $658,000 per year. Intergovernmental transfers comprise nearly 40% of AATA’s total revenues; the state contributes oapproximately $2.1 million annually. User fees and transfers from the University total $3.7 million per year, or just over 15% of the total annual budget. AATA operates 25 local routes andconsists of 78 vehicles- 27 hybridstructure is radial, with most local routes converging at the Blake Transit Center in downtown AArbor. Other designated transfer centers include the Ypsilanti Transfer Center, Arborland Mall, Meijer Transfer Center, and the VA Hospital. The Authority also maintains several parkthroughout the city. AATA is the project sponsor for the proposed WALLY commuter rail line from Howell, Michigan to Ann Arbor along the Great Lakes Central Rail Corridor. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is also leading planning efforts for a commuter rail line between Detroit and Ann Arbor.

4 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 347,376(11/11 - #172 in U.S.) # of Routes: 27 (T11/11) 2008 Ridership: 5,594,800 2008 Operating Cost: $18,987,833 Base Fare: $1.50 (Tie 3/11)

Ann Arbor, population 114,024 as of the 2000 Census, is located in southeast Michigan approximately 35 miles from downtown Detroit. The median household income in Ann Arbor was approximately $51,000 as of a 2007 estimate. The city is home to the University of Michigan (U-M), with over 41,000 students and 6,200 staff on its three campuses. Ann Arbor’s economy has well-

tech sectors due to the availability of a highly-educated workforce and arch and development attracted to the area by the University.

Ann Arbor is situated on the Huron River, with the Central Business District located south of the river M campus. Three additional commercial retail districts are located out

downtown including the Briarwood Mall, South Industrial Park, and the I-94 and Ann ArborRoad retail center, each located on the southern end of the urbanized area.

The Transit Agency (Ann Arbor Transportation Authority – AATA)

is served by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), “The Ride”, which operates local bus service throughout the city and neighboring Ypsilanti, including a circulator route at Eastern Michigan University, and express routes to Canton and Chelsea. The University operates a separate

free bus system which connects U-M residence halls, park-and-ride lots, and offmedical and research facilities to the main campus. U-M students and faculty are granted free

routes as the result of a five-year, $7.2 million agreement between the

AATA’s primary funding source comes from local property taxes transferred to the Agency from the City totaling $9.7 million annually, or approximately 41% of the total revenue in 2008. Other cities and townships contribute to the local share through service purchase agreements which total approximately $658,000 per year. Intergovernmental transfers comprise nearly 40% of AATA’s total revenues; the state contributes over $7 million per year while federal operating assistance totals approximately $2.1 million annually. User fees and transfers from the University total $3.7 million per year, or just over 15% of the total annual budget.

AATA operates 25 local routes and two express routes to neighboring communities. AATA’s fleet 27 hybrid-electric and 51 conventional diesel buses. The system’s route

structure is radial, with most local routes converging at the Blake Transit Center in downtown AArbor. Other designated transfer centers include the Ypsilanti Transfer Center, Arborland Mall, Meijer Transfer Center, and the VA Hospital. The Authority also maintains several park

the proposed WALLY commuter rail line from Howell, Michigan to Ann Arbor along the Great Lakes Central Rail Corridor. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is also leading planning efforts for a commuter rail line between Detroit

DECEMBER 9, 2009



3/11)

educated workforce and

Ann Arbor is situated on the Huron River, with the Central Business District located south of the river M campus. Three additional commercial retail districts are located outside of

94 and Ann Arbor-Saline

is served by the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA), “The Ride”, which operates local bus service throughout the city and neighboring Ypsilanti, including a circulator route at Eastern

The University operates a separate ride lots, and off-campus

M students and faculty are granted free year, $7.2 million agreement between the

AATA’s primary funding source comes from local property taxes transferred to the Agency from the l revenue in 2008. Other cities

and townships contribute to the local share through service purchase agreements which total approximately $658,000 per year. Intergovernmental transfers comprise nearly 40% of AATA’s total

ver $7 million per year while federal operating assistance totals approximately $2.1 million annually. User fees and transfers from the University total $3.7 million per

two express routes to neighboring communities. AATA’s fleet electric and 51 conventional diesel buses. The system’s route

structure is radial, with most local routes converging at the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor. Other designated transfer centers include the Ypsilanti Transfer Center, Arborland Mall, Meijer Transfer Center, and the VA Hospital. The Authority also maintains several park-and-ride lots

the proposed WALLY commuter rail line from Howell, Michigan to Ann Arbor along the Great Lakes Central Rail Corridor. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is also leading planning efforts for a commuter rail line between Detroit

FINAL

1.1.4 Dayton, Ohio

The City Dayton, Ohio, is located in Southwestern Ohio approximately 45 miles north of Cincinnati and 65 southwest of Columbus. The City of Dayton’s population was 166,000 as of the 2000 census, while the MSA as a whole had a population of 848,000 in 2000. The median household income was $27,523 in 2000, with 18.2 percent of families living below the poverty line. Dayton’s economy was historically rooted in manufacturing, though like many rustseen a substantial decline over the past several decPatterson Air Force Base (~25,000 employees), various hospitals (~32,000 employees), and area universities Wright State and the University of Dayton (~10,000 employees). Dayton’s core business district is The University of Dayton is located downtown, while Wright State University is located adjacent to Wright-Patterson AFB northeast of Dayton proper. The Transit System (Greater Dayton Region Dayton is served by the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA). GDRTA operates 28 revenue routes throughout Montgomery and Greene Counties as well as three school routes within the city of Dayton. GDRTA is one oftrolleybuses and is the only system in the country to provide continuous electric transit for over 120 years. GDRTA is financed locally through a sales tax, which on 2008 generated approximator 55% of total operating revenues. Federal urbanized area formula funds contributed 24% of total revenues in 2008 while state funds contributed 1%. Farebox revenues accounted for 17% of total revenues and other sources such as advertisisources. GDRTA’s operates a route structure with routes, three rural routes, two feeder routes, and three express routes. Each route serves atone of transit five hubs located throughout the service area: and the Wright Stop Plaza in downtown Dayton.maintenance garages. The system’s fleet consists A number of fixed-route transit studies have been completed for various corridors throughout Dayton since the early 1990s. The primary corridor of interest, the “Aviation Corridor”, connects downtown Dayton to the Air Force Museum, Wright State University, and WrightCounty. The most recent iteration of these plans calls for a heritage trolley circulator service in downtown Dayton coupled with express service to the Greene County

5 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 836,544(4/11 - #85 in U.S.) # of Routes: 28 (9/11) 2008 Ridership: 10,277,100 2008 Operating Cost: $43,445,036 Base Fare: $1.75 (10/11)

Dayton, Ohio, is located in Southwestern Ohio approximately 45 miles north of Cincinnati and 65 southwest of Columbus. The City of Dayton’s population was 166,000 as of the 2000 census, while the MSA as a whole had a population of

dian household income was $27,523 in 2000, with 18.2 percent of families

Dayton’s economy was historically rooted in manufacturing, though like many rustseen a substantial decline over the past several decades. Major regional employers include WrightPatterson Air Force Base (~25,000 employees), various hospitals (~32,000 employees), and area universities Wright State and the University of Dayton (~10,000 employees).

Dayton’s core business district is located near the confluence of the Mad and Great Miami Rivers. The University of Dayton is located downtown, while Wright State University is located adjacent to

Patterson AFB northeast of Dayton proper.

The Transit System (Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority – GDRTA)

Dayton is served by the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA). GDRTA operates 28 revenue routes throughout Montgomery and Greene Counties as well as three school routes within the city of Dayton. GDRTA is one of only five transit companies in the country to operate electric trolleybuses and is the only system in the country to provide continuous electric transit for over 120

GDRTA is financed locally through a sales tax, which on 2008 generated approximator 55% of total operating revenues. Federal urbanized area formula funds contributed 24% of total revenues in 2008 while state funds contributed 1%. Farebox revenues accounted for 17% of total revenues and other sources such as advertising contracts provided the 4% balance of the operating

a route structure with eleven local routes, five suburban routes, four crosstown routes, three rural routes, two feeder routes, and three express routes. Each route serves atone of transit five hubs located throughout the service area: Eastown, Westown, Northwest, South, and the Wright Stop Plaza in downtown Dayton. In addition to these facilities, the agency owns four maintenance garages. The system’s fleet consists of 158 diesel buses and 44 electric trolleybuses.

route transit studies have been completed for various corridors throughout Dayton since the early 1990s. The primary corridor of interest, the “Aviation Corridor”, connects downtown

yton to the Air Force Museum, Wright State University, and Wright-Patterson AFB in Greene County. The most recent iteration of these plans calls for a heritage trolley circulator service in downtown Dayton coupled with express service to the Greene County attractions.

DECEMBER 9, 2009



Dayton’s economy was historically rooted in manufacturing, though like many rust-belt cities has ades. Major regional employers include Wright-

Patterson Air Force Base (~25,000 employees), various hospitals (~32,000 employees), and area

located near the confluence of the Mad and Great Miami Rivers. The University of Dayton is located downtown, while Wright State University is located adjacent to

Dayton is served by the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA). GDRTA operates 28 revenue routes throughout Montgomery and Greene Counties as well as three school routes within

only five transit companies in the country to operate electric trolleybuses and is the only system in the country to provide continuous electric transit for over 120

GDRTA is financed locally through a sales tax, which on 2008 generated approximately $31 million, or 55% of total operating revenues. Federal urbanized area formula funds contributed 24% of total revenues in 2008 while state funds contributed 1%. Farebox revenues accounted for 17% of total

ng contracts provided the 4% balance of the operating

eleven local routes, five suburban routes, four crosstown routes, three rural routes, two feeder routes, and three express routes. Each route serves at least

Eastown, Westown, Northwest, South, In addition to these facilities, the agency owns four of 158 diesel buses and 44 electric trolleybuses.

route transit studies have been completed for various corridors throughout Dayton since the early 1990s. The primary corridor of interest, the “Aviation Corridor”, connects downtown

Patterson AFB in Greene County. The most recent iteration of these plans calls for a heritage trolley circulator service in

FINAL

1.1.5 Flint, Michigan

The City Flint, Michigan, population 124,943 as of the 2000 census, is located 66 miles northwest of Detroit. The median household income in Flint was $28,018 in 2000, with approximately 23% of the population below the poverty threshold. Flint’s economy was heavily based on the auto industry for most of the 20th century, as several major auto manufacturers and related industries built plants there. General Motors was established in Flint; however, only a fraction of the auto manufacturer’s workforce remains empdeindustrialization marked the later years of the 1900s, though redevelopment is slowly renewing the urban core. Flint is home to five colleges and universities, the largest of which is the University of Michigan-Flint. The Transit Agency (Mass Transportation Authority Established in 1971, the Mass Transit Authority is the transit provider for the City of Flint. MTA operates 14 primary routes and nine peakregional/express routes serve outlying communities and connect Flint with the Detroit suburbs. MTA’s primary funding source is derived from local property taxes which account for 36% of total revenues. State funding totals 30% of revenues, while ferevenue comprises 14% of total revenues and other directly generated sources account for the remaining 2%. MTA’s route network operates in a radial pattern with each route converging at the downtown hub and customer service center. The nine peak hour routes are highroutes operating in both the AM and PM peak periods. The regional/express routes serve Great Lakes Crossing, Auburn Hills, Livingston County, and Oakland County in thearea. These routes typically operate one to two AM and PM trips. Mass Transit Authority’s fleet consists of 138 diesel buses, ranging in length from 37 to 45 feet. MTA’s capital facilities include the downtown transit hub and cusbus/rail terminal, a maintenance facility, and an administrative facility. MTA’s on-going capital improvement projects include hybrid bus acquisitions and ITS implementation. No major fixed-guideway improvements are bei

6 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 428,790 (10/11 - #139 in U.S.) # of Routes: 27 (Tie 11/11) 2008 Ridership: 5,466,700 (11/11)2008 Operating Cost: $14,912,166 Base Fare: $1.25 (Tie 2/11)

Flint, Michigan, population 124,943 as of the 2000 census, is located 66 miles northwest of Detroit. The median household income in Flint was $28,018 in 2000, with approximately 23% of the population below the poverty threshold.

vily based on the auto century, as several major auto manufacturers and related industries built

plants there. General Motors was established in Flint; however, only a fraction of the auto manufacturer’s workforce remains employed there today. Similar disinvestment and deindustrialization marked the later years of the 1900s, though redevelopment is slowly renewing the urban core. Flint is home to five colleges and universities, the largest of which is the University of

The Transit Agency (Mass Transportation Authority - MTA)

Established in 1971, the Mass Transit Authority is the transit provider for the City of Flint. MTA operates 14 primary routes and nine peak-hour routes which serve Flint proper, while fregional/express routes serve outlying communities and connect Flint with the Detroit suburbs.

MTA’s primary funding source is derived from local property taxes which account for 36% of total revenues. State funding totals 30% of revenues, while federal funding totals 18%. The farebox revenue comprises 14% of total revenues and other directly generated sources account for the

MTA’s route network operates in a radial pattern with each route converging at the downtown hub service center. The nine peak hour routes are high-frequency variations of the primary

routes operating in both the AM and PM peak periods. The regional/express routes serve Great Lakes Crossing, Auburn Hills, Livingston County, and Oakland County in the Detroit metropolitan area. These routes typically operate one to two AM and PM trips.

Mass Transit Authority’s fleet consists of 138 diesel buses, ranging in length from 37 to 45 feet. MTA’s capital facilities include the downtown transit hub and customer service center, an intercitybus/rail terminal, a maintenance facility, and an administrative facility.

going capital improvement projects include hybrid bus acquisitions and ITS guideway improvements are being planned at this time.

DECEMBER 9, 2009


(11/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $14,912,166 (11/11)

century, as several major auto manufacturers and related industries built plants there. General Motors was established in Flint; however, only a fraction of the auto

loyed there today. Similar disinvestment and deindustrialization marked the later years of the 1900s, though redevelopment is slowly renewing the urban core. Flint is home to five colleges and universities, the largest of which is the University of

Established in 1971, the Mass Transit Authority is the transit provider for the City of Flint. MTA hour routes which serve Flint proper, while four

regional/express routes serve outlying communities and connect Flint with the Detroit suburbs.

MTA’s primary funding source is derived from local property taxes which account for 36% of total deral funding totals 18%. The farebox

revenue comprises 14% of total revenues and other directly generated sources account for the

MTA’s route network operates in a radial pattern with each route converging at the downtown hub frequency variations of the primary

routes operating in both the AM and PM peak periods. The regional/express routes serve Great Detroit metropolitan

Mass Transit Authority’s fleet consists of 138 diesel buses, ranging in length from 37 to 45 feet. tomer service center, an intercity-

going capital improvement projects include hybrid bus acquisitions and ITS ng planned at this time.

FINAL

1.1.6 Lansing, Michigan

The City Lansing, the capital city of Michigan, is situated on the Grand River approximately 80 miles northwest of Detroit. As of a 2008 census update, the city population was 113,900 and the MSA population was 454,000. The median household income in Lansing was $34,833 in 2000, with about 13% below the poverty line. Lansing’s economy is largely governmentarea. However the education, healthcare, insurance, and auto manufacturing sectors represent sizable segments of the employment base. East Lansing is home to Michigan State University (over 46,000 students and 11,000 faculty and staff), General Motors (6,300 employees), and the Sparrow Health System (6,000 employees). The highLansing, largely due to the presence of MSU and regional auto manufacturers. The Transit Agency (Capital Area Transportation Authority The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) is the public transportation provider for the Lansing and Michigan State University. CATA was established in 1972 and is governed by a board of directors, including representatives from the City of Lansing, the City of East Lansing, Meridian Township, Lansing Township, Delhi Township, Ingham CATA is financed via 47% local funding (dedicated property tax assessment), 33% state funding, and 20% fares and other revenues. Michigan State also subsidizes student passes, so students are encouraged to ride the system at a discounted rate of 60 cents. CATA operates 32 routes, including 19 Lansing routes, six East Lansing routes, and seven Michigan State routes. Two routes are limited stop express routes that serve outlying areas. The Lansing fixed routes operate in a radial pattern serving the Downtown Transportation Center. The MSU routes also operate bi-directionally in a radial pattern serving the MSUIn addition to these facilities, CATA operates a maintenance facility/adminiprovides over 1,300 bus shelters throughout the system. CATA’s fleet consists of 82 40’ buses, including seven hybrids; 10 60’ articulated buses, including three hybrids; and 59 25’ buses, including two trolley buses. The Michigan-Grand Avenue Transportation Studyimprovements for the corridor between Lansing and East Lansing. A number of fixed and nonguideway modes are being explored as part of this study.

7 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 454,035(9/11 - #135 in U.S.) # of Routes: 32 (7/11) 2008 Ridership: 10,797,3002008 Operating Cost: $25,204,119 Base Fare: $1.25 (Tie 2/11)

the capital city of Michigan, is situated on the Grand River approximately 80 miles northwest of Detroit. As of a 2008 census update, the city population was 113,900 and the MSA population was 454,000. The median household income in

n 2000, with about 13%

Lansing’s economy is largely government-based, with over 14,000 state employees residing in the area. However the education, healthcare, insurance, and auto manufacturing sectors represent

f the employment base. East Lansing is home to Michigan State University (over 46,000 students and 11,000 faculty and staff), General Motors (6,300 employees), and the Sparrow Health System (6,000 employees). The high-tech and bio-tech sectors are gaininLansing, largely due to the presence of MSU and regional auto manufacturers.

The Transit Agency (Capital Area Transportation Authority - CATA)

The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) is the public transportation provider for the Lansing and Michigan State University. CATA was established in 1972 and is governed by a board of directors, including representatives from the City of Lansing, the City of East Lansing, Meridian Township, Lansing Township, Delhi Township, Ingham County, and Michigan State University.

CATA is financed via 47% local funding (dedicated property tax assessment), 33% state funding, and 20% fares and other revenues. Michigan State also subsidizes student passes, so students are

e system at a discounted rate of 60 cents.

CATA operates 32 routes, including 19 Lansing routes, six East Lansing routes, and seven Michigan State routes. Two routes are limited stop express routes that serve outlying areas. The Lansing

rate in a radial pattern serving the Downtown Transportation Center. The MSU directionally in a radial pattern serving the MSU-CATA Transportation Center.

In addition to these facilities, CATA operates a maintenance facility/administration center and provides over 1,300 bus shelters throughout the system.

CATA’s fleet consists of 82 40’ buses, including seven hybrids; 10 60’ articulated buses, including three hybrids; and 59 25’ buses, including two trolley buses.

Transportation Study is currently underway to study potential transit improvements for the corridor between Lansing and East Lansing. A number of fixed and nonguideway modes are being explored as part of this study.

DECEMBER 9, 2009



based, with over 14,000 state employees residing in the area. However the education, healthcare, insurance, and auto manufacturing sectors represent

f the employment base. East Lansing is home to Michigan State University (over 46,000 students and 11,000 faculty and staff), General Motors (6,300 employees), and the Sparrow

tech sectors are gaining momentum in

The Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) is the public transportation provider for the City of Lansing and Michigan State University. CATA was established in 1972 and is governed by a board of directors, including representatives from the City of Lansing, the City of East Lansing, Meridian

County, and Michigan State University.

CATA is financed via 47% local funding (dedicated property tax assessment), 33% state funding, and 20% fares and other revenues. Michigan State also subsidizes student passes, so students are

CATA operates 32 routes, including 19 Lansing routes, six East Lansing routes, and seven Michigan State routes. Two routes are limited stop express routes that serve outlying areas. The Lansing

rate in a radial pattern serving the Downtown Transportation Center. The MSU CATA Transportation Center.

stration center and

CATA’s fleet consists of 82 40’ buses, including seven hybrids; 10 60’ articulated buses, including

is currently underway to study potential transit improvements for the corridor between Lansing and East Lansing. A number of fixed and non-fixed-

FINAL

1.1.7 Louisville, Kentucky

The City

Louisville-Jefferson County, home to 713,877 residents (2008 US Census estimate), is located on the banks of the Ohio River along the KentuckyIndiana state border. Louisvillehas been a consolidated city-county government since 2003. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household was $39,457. 12.4% of Louisville’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line.

Louisville’s largest university, the University of Louisville, reported an annu2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 2.5 miles south of Downtown. The Agency (Transit Authority of River City The Transit Authority of River CityLouisville, Kentucky metropolitan area. TARC service is concentrated heavily in LouisvilleCounty, but also serves the suburban markets of Oldham County, Bullitt County and Clark County in Kentucky and Floyd County in southern Indiana. TARC began its bus operations in 1974 when it took over operations of the Louisville Transit Company and in 1975 TARC secured a 0.2 percent share of the Jefferson County Occupational Tax, which provides the largest source of funding for TARC. The funds are depoTransit Trust Fund (MTTF) and are used for both capital and operating expenses, which generates approximately $40 million annually. The current adult cash fare is $1.50 with discounts for monthly, senior and student passes. TARC’s curr TARC operates 55 routes in five counties covering two states using a combination of express (19 routes), local (32 routes) and circulator (3 routes) services. In 2009, TARC operated a fleet of 240 accessible buses, including nine hybrid buses. It also operated many specialized routes. Since 1999, TARC has operated a shuttle service for the University of Louisville's main campus. It operates two routes shuttling workers to Worldport, the hub of United Parcel Semployers. TARC’s route structure is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Louisville. TARC does not operate a downtown transfer center, so the routes loop through downtown using the one-way pairs of Jefferson Street and Market Street. In the late 1990s, TARC proposedLouisville and Louisville International Airport, carrying the project through preliminary engineering and environmental assessment. However, in 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) implied that the movement into Final Design was not possible without a secured local match. TARC then decided not to release their Draft Environmental Impact Statement to thproject from FTA’s New Starts program.

8 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 1,244,696(2/11 - #64 in U.S.) # of Routes: 55 (Tie 2/11) 2008 Ridership: 15,175,700 2008 Operating Cost: $53,034,703 Base Fare: $1.50 (Tie 3/11)

Jefferson County, home to 713,877 residents (2008 US Census estimate), is located on the banks of the Ohio River along the Kentucky-Indiana state border. Louisville-Jefferson County

county government sed on 2007 economic estimates,

for a household was $39,457. 12.4% of Louisville’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line.

Louisville’s largest university, the University of Louisville, reported an annual enrollment of 10,278 in 2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 2.5 miles south of Downtown.

The Agency (Transit Authority of River City – TARC)

Transit Authority of River City (TARC) is the major public transportation provider for thLouisville, Kentucky metropolitan area. TARC service is concentrated heavily in LouisvilleCounty, but also serves the suburban markets of Oldham County, Bullitt County and Clark County in Kentucky and Floyd County in southern Indiana.

began its bus operations in 1974 when it took over operations of the Louisville Transit Company and in 1975 TARC secured a 0.2 percent share of the Jefferson County Occupational Tax, which provides the largest source of funding for TARC. The funds are deposited into the Mass Transit Trust Fund (MTTF) and are used for both capital and operating expenses, which generates approximately $40 million annually. The current adult cash fare is $1.50 with discounts for monthly, senior and student passes. TARC’s current farebox recovery rate is approximately 19%.

TARC operates 55 routes in five counties covering two states using a combination of express (19 routes), local (32 routes) and circulator (3 routes) services. In 2009, TARC operated a fleet of 240

buses, including nine hybrid buses. It also operated many specialized routes. Since 1999, TARC has operated a shuttle service for the University of Louisville's main campus. It operates two routes shuttling workers to Worldport, the hub of United Parcel Service and one of Louisville's largest

TARC’s route structure is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Louisville. TARC does not operate a downtown transfer center, so the routes loop through downtown using the

pairs of Jefferson Street and Market Street.

proposed a light rail project from downtown Louisville to the University of Louisville and Louisville International Airport, carrying the project through preliminary engineering and

ronmental assessment. However, in 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) implied that the movement into Final Design was not possible without a secured local match. TARC then decided not to release their Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the public and withdrew the project from FTA’s New Starts program.

DECEMBER 9, 2009

MSA Population (2008): 1,244,696


3/11)

$39,457. 12.4% of Louisville’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line.

al enrollment of 10,278 in 2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 2.5 miles south of Downtown.

(TARC) is the major public transportation provider for the Louisville, Kentucky metropolitan area. TARC service is concentrated heavily in Louisville-Jefferson County, but also serves the suburban markets of Oldham County, Bullitt County and Clark County in

began its bus operations in 1974 when it took over operations of the Louisville Transit Company and in 1975 TARC secured a 0.2 percent share of the Jefferson County Occupational Tax,

sited into the Mass Transit Trust Fund (MTTF) and are used for both capital and operating expenses, which generates approximately $40 million annually. The current adult cash fare is $1.50 with discounts for monthly,

ent farebox recovery rate is approximately 19%.

TARC operates 55 routes in five counties covering two states using a combination of express (19 routes), local (32 routes) and circulator (3 routes) services. In 2009, TARC operated a fleet of 240

buses, including nine hybrid buses. It also operated many specialized routes. Since 1999, TARC has operated a shuttle service for the University of Louisville's main campus. It operates two

ervice and one of Louisville's largest

TARC’s route structure is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Louisville. TARC does not operate a downtown transfer center, so the routes loop through downtown using the

a light rail project from downtown Louisville to the University of Louisville and Louisville International Airport, carrying the project through preliminary engineering and

ronmental assessment. However, in 2006, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) implied that the movement into Final Design was not possible without a secured local match. TARC then

e public and withdrew the

FINAL

1.1.8 Madison, Wisconsin

The City The City of Madison, Wisconsin’s state capitol and home to 231,916 residents (2008 US Census estimate), is located on and around Lakes Mendota and Monona. The “Madison Isthmusthe lakes is where the Wisconsin SState Street, and Madison's main business and financial districts are located. Madison’s largest university, the University of Wisconsin(UW), reported an annual enrollment of 42,030 in 2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 1 mile west of the state capitol. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the 15.0% of Madison’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line. The Agency (Madison Metro) Madison Metro operates local bus service throughout the City of Madison and to the surrounding communities of Middleton, Fitchburg and Verona. In 1970 the privately owned Madison Bus Co. became the publicly owned Madison Metro. The current adult cash fare is $2.0passes. In FY2007, Madison Metro’ssources for operations included local contributions from partner governments and the UniversityWisconsin (30%), state funding (35%) and federal / other funding (15%). Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle authorized a Madison-area regional transit authority in his 2010 budget. The authority could levy up to a half-percent sales tax, or an estimated $38 officials have said that will not happen until there is a referendum on the tax. Madison Metro currently operates 55 routes providing a combination of local (49 routes), express (1 route) and university (5 routes) service. In FY2008, Madison Metro operated 168 vehicles in maximum service. Madison Metro’s route network focuses on hubs at the Capitol Square in downtown Madison and five transfer points in outer parts of the city. Madison has recently studied the commuter rail system and is exploring the potential for lowerDue to limited funding for implementation, none of these projects have moved off the drawing board. Locals anticipate that the regional transit authority (and its power to levy a sales tax) will help advance at least one of these projects.

9 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 561,(8/11 - #117 in U.S.) # of Routes: 55 (Tie 2/11) 2008 Ridership: 13,433,100 2008 Operating Cost: $39,237,204 Base Fare: $2.00 (11/11)

The City of Madison, Wisconsin’s state capitol and home to 231,916 residents (2008 US Census estimate), is located on and around Lakes Mendota

Madison Isthmus” in-between Wisconsin State Capitol,

, and Madison's main business and financial districts are located. Madison’s largest university, the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW), reported an annual enrollment of 42,030 in 2008. The university’s main campus is

ately 1 mile west of the state capitol.

Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household was $41,941. 15.0% of Madison’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line.

operates local bus service throughout the City of Madison and to the surrounding communities of Middleton, Fitchburg and Verona. In 1970 the privately owned Madison Bus Co. became the publicly owned Madison Metro.

The current adult cash fare is $2.00 with discounts for unlimited daily, monthly, senior and student Madison Metro’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 20%. Other revenue

sources for operations included local contributions from partner governments and the UniversityWisconsin (30%), state funding (35%) and federal / other funding (15%). Wisconsin Governor Jim

area regional transit authority in his 2010 budget. The authority could percent sales tax, or an estimated $38 million a year in transit funds, but local

officials have said that will not happen until there is a referendum on the tax.

Madison Metro currently operates 55 routes providing a combination of local (49 routes), express (1 ) service. In FY2008, Madison Metro operated 168 vehicles in

Madison Metro’s route network focuses on hubs at the Capitol Square in downtown Madison and five transfer points in outer parts of the city.

Madison has recently studied the feasibility of a downtown streetcar circulator, a regional commuter rail system and is exploring the potential for lower-cost Bus Rapid Transit corridors. Due to limited funding for implementation, none of these projects have moved off the drawing

Locals anticipate that the regional transit authority (and its power to levy a sales tax) will help advance at least one of these projects.

DECEMBER 9, 2009



(UW), reported an annual enrollment of 42,030 in 2008. The university’s main campus is

for a household was $41,941.

operates local bus service throughout the City of Madison and to the surrounding communities of Middleton, Fitchburg and Verona. In 1970 the privately owned Madison Bus Co.

0 with discounts for unlimited daily, monthly, senior and student farebox recovery rate was approximately 20%. Other revenue

sources for operations included local contributions from partner governments and the University of Wisconsin (30%), state funding (35%) and federal / other funding (15%). Wisconsin Governor Jim

area regional transit authority in his 2010 budget. The authority could million a year in transit funds, but local

Madison Metro currently operates 55 routes providing a combination of local (49 routes), express (1 ) service. In FY2008, Madison Metro operated 168 vehicles in

Madison Metro’s route network focuses on hubs at the Capitol Square in downtown Madison and five

feasibility of a downtown streetcar circulator, a regional cost Bus Rapid Transit corridors.

Due to limited funding for implementation, none of these projects have moved off the drawing Locals anticipate that the regional transit authority (and its power to levy a sales tax) will

FINAL

1.1.9 Nashville, Tennessee

The City Nashville is the state capitol of Tennessee and is located on the Cumberland River in Davidson County. Nashville has a consolidated citygovernment which includes seven smaller municipalities in a two-tier system. In 2008, the population of Nashville-Davidson County626,144. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in NashvilleDavidson County was $39,797. 13.0% of Nashville’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line. The Agency (Nashville MTA) Nashville MTA operates local bus service throughout NashvilleMetro-Nashville government purchased the Nashville Transit Company to create the Metropolitan Transit Authority. A second transit agency, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), otwo regional express bus routes and the Music City Star commuter rail corridor. Nashville MTA’s current adult cash fare is $1.60 with discounts for unlimited daily, monthly, senior and student passes. In FY2007, approximately 22%. Other revenue sources for operations included contributions from local government (51%), state funding (12%) and federal / other funding (16%). Tennessee passed authorizing legislation in May 2009 enabling NashvillTennessee cities to create a dedicated funding source to be created for mass transit, subject to approval by voter referendum or the local legislative body. In August 2009, MTA approved its Strategic Transit Master Plan envisioning BRT aimplementation with additional funding. The RTA is also exploring additional commuter rail corridors for implementation.

Nashville MTA currently operates 36 bus routes throughout Metroagency also has contracts with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to provide management services for the RTA and to run express bus service to Murfreesboro as well as the Music City Star bus shuttles. In FY2008, Nashville MTA operated 120 vehiclservice. In September 2009, Nashville began operating its first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on Gallatin Road. The service is starting initially with improved service frequencies (15 minute peak) and 60-foot articulated vehicles and will enhanced shelters, off-vehicle fare collection equipment and transit signal priority along the corridor.

Nashville MTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Nashville. In October 2008, MTA opened Music City Central (MCC) Station which is a multiindoor transfer facility in the heart of downtown Nashville. Most MTA routes serve downtown Nashville via the one-way pairs of 4

10 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 1,550,733 (1/11 - #57 in U.S.) # of Routes: 36 (6/11) 2008 Ridership: 9,701,700 2008 Operating Cost: $32,307,257 Base Fare: $1.60 (9/11)

Nashville is the state capitol of Tennessee and is located on the Cumberland River in Davidson County. Nashville has a consolidated city-county

rnment which includes seven smaller tier system. In 2008, the

Davidson County was

Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Nashville,797. 13.0% of Nashville’s population was reported as living at or below

local bus service throughout Nashville-Davidson County. In 1973, the Nashville government purchased the Nashville Transit Company to create the Metropolitan

Transit Authority. A second transit agency, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), otwo regional express bus routes and the Music City Star commuter rail corridor.

Nashville MTA’s current adult cash fare is $1.60 with discounts for unlimited daily, monthly, senior and student passes. In FY2007, Nashville MTA’s farebox recovery rapproximately 22%. Other revenue sources for operations included contributions from local government (51%), state funding (12%) and federal / other funding (16%). Tennessee passed authorizing legislation in May 2009 enabling Nashville and three other Tennessee cities to create a dedicated funding source to be created for mass transit, subject to approval by voter referendum or the local legislative body. In August 2009, MTA approved its Strategic Transit Master Plan envisioning BRT and/or LRT corridors that could be candidates implementation with additional funding. The RTA is also exploring additional commuter rail

Nashville MTA currently operates 36 bus routes throughout Metro-Davidson Countyalso has contracts with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to provide

management services for the RTA and to run express bus service to Murfreesboro as well as the Music City Star bus shuttles. In FY2008, Nashville MTA operated 120 vehiclservice. In September 2009, Nashville began operating its first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on Gallatin Road. The service is starting initially with improved service frequencies (15 minute

foot articulated vehicles and will begin a Phase 2 in 2010, where they will install vehicle fare collection equipment and transit signal priority along the

Nashville MTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown le. In October 2008, MTA opened Music City Central (MCC) Station which is a multi

indoor transfer facility in the heart of downtown Nashville. Most MTA routes serve downtown way pairs of 4th and 5th Streets and then terminate at the MCC Station.

DECEMBER 9, 2009



Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Nashville-,797. 13.0% of Nashville’s population was reported as living at or below

Davidson County. In 1973, the Nashville government purchased the Nashville Transit Company to create the Metropolitan

Transit Authority. A second transit agency, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), operates

Nashville MTA’s current adult cash fare is $1.60 with discounts for unlimited daily, monthly, ’s farebox recovery rate was

approximately 22%. Other revenue sources for operations included contributions from local government (51%), state funding (12%) and federal / other funding (16%). The State of

e and three other Tennessee cities to create a dedicated funding source to be created for mass transit, subject to approval by voter referendum or the local legislative body. In August 2009, MTA approved its

nd/or LRT corridors that could be candidates for implementation with additional funding. The RTA is also exploring additional commuter rail

Davidson County. The also has contracts with the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to provide

management services for the RTA and to run express bus service to Murfreesboro as well as the Music City Star bus shuttles. In FY2008, Nashville MTA operated 120 vehicles in maximum service. In September 2009, Nashville began operating its first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service on Gallatin Road. The service is starting initially with improved service frequencies (15 minute

begin a Phase 2 in 2010, where they will install vehicle fare collection equipment and transit signal priority along the

Nashville MTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown le. In October 2008, MTA opened Music City Central (MCC) Station which is a multi-level

indoor transfer facility in the heart of downtown Nashville. Most MTA routes serve downtown at the MCC Station.

FINAL

1.1.10 Rochester, New York

The City

Rochester is a New York’s third most populous city, located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Genesee River. The City of Rochester's population was approximately 206,886 (2008) within Monroe County, whose total population was 732,762 (2008). The larger Rochester marea also includes Genesee, LivingstonCounty and Wayne Counties.

Based on 2007 economic estimates, the County was $44,891. 11.2% of Monroe County’s populatiopoverty line.

The Agency (Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authorityprovider for the area in and around the authority took over the Rochester Transit Corporation from the City of Rochester. Currently, RGRTA oversees the daily operation of seven subsidiaries operators under the parent company of the RGRTA:

• RTS: The largest subsidiary of the RGRTRochester and Monroe County.

• BBS: Batavia Bus Service (BBS) serves the City of Batavia and Genesee County.• LATS: Livingston Area Transit Service (LATS) serves the Livingston County and its county seat,

Geneseo. • WATS: Wayne Area Transit Service (WATS) serves Wayne County and its county seat, Newark.• WYTS: Wyoming Transportation Service (WYTS) serves Wyoming County and its county seat,

Warsaw. • OTS: Orleans Transit Service (OTS) serves Orleans County.• STS: Seneca Transit Service (STS) serves Seneca County.

RGRTA’s base fare is $1.00 with discounts which vary by subsidiary. In FY2007, RGRTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 24%. Other revenue sources for operations included contributions from local government (3%), state funding (53%) and federal / other funding (18%).

In FY2008, RGRTA reported operating a maximum fleet of 203 vehicles between its seven subsidiaries. RTS’s route network is Rochester. The other transit subsidiaries primarily serve internal county trips, with some special services for State University of New York (SUNY) campuses.

A non-profit corporation, unaffiliated Lake Shore Blvd since 2003. The Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, recognized the potential need for a fixedlong-range transportation plan but did not specify a project or program funds for its implementation.

11 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 1,034,090(3/11 - #74 in U.S.) # of Routes: 40 (4/11) 2008 Ridership: 17,473,600 2008 Operating Cost: $52,142,592 Base Fare: $1.00 (Tie 1/11)

Rochester is a New York’s third most populous city, located on Lake Ontario at the mouth of the Genesee River. The City of Rochester's population

(2008) within Monroe County, whose total population was estimated at

The larger Rochester metropolitan Livingston, Ontario,

Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median household income for a household in Monroe County was $44,891. 11.2% of Monroe County’s population was reported as living at or below the

The Agency (Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority – RGRTA)

Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) is a public transportation provider for the area in and around Rochester, New York. RGRTA was formed in the authority took over the Rochester Transit Corporation from the City of Rochester. Currently, RGRTA oversees the daily operation of seven subsidiaries operators under the parent company of

The largest subsidiary of the RGRTA, Regional Transit Service (RTS) Rochester and Monroe County.

Batavia Bus Service (BBS) serves the City of Batavia and Genesee County. Livingston Area Transit Service (LATS) serves the Livingston County and its county seat,

Wayne Area Transit Service (WATS) serves Wayne County and its county seat, Newark.Wyoming Transportation Service (WYTS) serves Wyoming County and its county seat,

Orleans Transit Service (OTS) serves Orleans County. Seneca Transit Service (STS) serves Seneca County.

with discounts on a variety of fare packages and additional products In FY2007, RGRTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 24%.

rces for operations included contributions from local government (3%), state funding (53%) and federal / other funding (18%).

In FY2008, RGRTA reported operating a maximum fleet of 203 vehicles between its seven RTS’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown

Rochester. The other transit subsidiaries primarily serve internal county trips, with some special services for State University of New York (SUNY) campuses.

profit corporation, unaffiliated with RGRTA, has been advocating for a historic streetcar along Lake Shore Blvd since 2003. The Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester’s Metropolitan Planning Organization, recognized the potential need for a fixed-guideway system in Rochester in its

range transportation plan but did not specify a project or program funds for its implementation.

DECEMBER 9, 2009



1/11)

for a household in Monroe n was reported as living at or below the

RGRTA)

(RGRTA) is a public transportation 1970 and in 1971

the authority took over the Rochester Transit Corporation from the City of Rochester. Currently, RGRTA oversees the daily operation of seven subsidiaries operators under the parent company of

A, Regional Transit Service (RTS) serves the City of

Livingston Area Transit Service (LATS) serves the Livingston County and its county seat,

Wayne Area Transit Service (WATS) serves Wayne County and its county seat, Newark. Wyoming Transportation Service (WYTS) serves Wyoming County and its county seat,

on a variety of fare packages and additional products In FY2007, RGRTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 24%.

rces for operations included contributions from local government (3%), state

In FY2008, RGRTA reported operating a maximum fleet of 203 vehicles between its seven arily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown

Rochester. The other transit subsidiaries primarily serve internal county trips, with some special

with RGRTA, has been advocating for a historic streetcar along Lake Shore Blvd since 2003. The Genesee Transportation Council, Rochester’s Metropolitan

guideway system in Rochester in its range transportation plan but did not specify a project or program funds for its implementation.

FINAL

1.1.11 Toledo, Ohio

The City Toledo, located on the western end of Lake Erie, is Ohio’s fourth most populous city and the county seat of Lucas County. The City of Toledo’s population was estimated at 293,201 in 2008. population was estimated at 440,456. Based on 2007 economic estimates, the household income for a household in Lucas County was $38,004. 13.9% of Lucas County’s population was reported as living at or below the poverty line. Toledo’s largest university, the University of Toledo, reported an annual enrollment of 23,300 in 2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 4.5 miles west of Downtown. The Agency (Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority TARTA is the public transportation provider for the Toledo metropolitan area. In 1971, the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority became responsible for all transit lines in the Toledo area, as Community Traction Co., the previous private transit operator for the region, becapublic authority.

TARTA’s base fare is $1.00 with discounts for a variety of fare packages and products varying by subsidiary. In FY2008, TARTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 19%. Other revenue sources for operations included local proper(60%), state funding (3%) and federal / other funding (18%). TARTA is the only major transit agency in Ohio still funded by a property tax instead of a sales tax and the region is exploring the possibility of adopting a ½ cent sales tax.

TARTA currently operates a total a 62 route patterns, with several routes running different configurations throughout the day. 11 route patterns are classified as express service. In FY2008, TARTA reported operating a maximum flee TARTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Toledo. TARTA does operate a single crosstown express route between Sylvania and Perrysburg. TARTA does not currently have a downtown hub, so routes go through a large downtown loop with four major stations via Erie St, Jackson St, Summit St and Monroe St. When service is run less frequently on nights and weekends, TARTA operates what they call a “lineup” which is essentially a system-wide pulse transfer that occurs every 70 minutes along Jackson St. In 2005, Toledo conducted a Regional Core Circulator Studystreetcar lines for downtown Toledo. The Toledo 2035 longstreetcar project programmed for implementation by 2025.

12 DECEMBER

MSA Population (2008): 649(7/11 – #107 in U.S.) # of Routes: 62 (11/11) 2008 Ridership: 6,823,200 2008 Operating Cost: $24Base Fare: $1.00 (Tie 1/11)

Toledo, located on the western end of Lake Erie, is Ohio’s fourth most populous city and the county seat of Lucas County. The City of Toledo’s population was estimated at 293,201 in 2008. Lucas County’s population was estimated at 440,456.

Based on 2007 economic estimates, the median for a household in Lucas County was $38,004. 13.9% of Lucas County’s

population was reported as living at or below the poverty line.

’s largest university, the University of Toledo, reported an annual enrollment of 23,300 in 2008. The university’s main campus is approximately 4.5 miles west of Downtown.

The Agency (Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority – TARTA)

ransportation provider for the Toledo metropolitan area. In 1971, the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority became responsible for all transit lines in the Toledo area, as Community Traction Co., the previous private transit operator for the region, beca

TARTA’s base fare is $1.00 with discounts for a variety of fare packages and products varying by subsidiary. In FY2008, TARTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 19%. Other revenue sources for operations included local property tax collections from local government (60%), state funding (3%) and federal / other funding (18%). TARTA is the only major transit agency in Ohio still funded by a property tax instead of a sales tax and the region is exploring

ing a ½ cent sales tax.

TARTA currently operates a total a 62 route patterns, with several routes running different configurations throughout the day. 11 route patterns are classified as express service. In FY2008, TARTA reported operating a maximum fleet of 144 vehicles for local service.

TARTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Toledo. TARTA does operate a single crosstown express route between Sylvania and Perrysburg. TARTA

wntown hub, so routes go through a large downtown loop with four major stations via Erie St, Jackson St, Summit St and Monroe St. When service is run less frequently on nights and weekends, TARTA operates what they call a “lineup” which is essentially a

wide pulse transfer that occurs every 70 minutes along Jackson St.

Regional Core Circulator Study, which recommended two vintage streetcar lines for downtown Toledo. The Toledo 2035 long-range transportation plan has streetcar project programmed for implementation by 2025.

DECEMBER 9, 2009

649,104

6,823,200 (4/11) 24,954,393 (3/11) /11)

for a household in Lucas County was $38,004. 13.9% of Lucas County’s

’s largest university, the University of Toledo, reported an annual enrollment of 23,300 in 2008.

ransportation provider for the Toledo metropolitan area. In 1971, the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority became responsible for all transit lines in the Toledo area, as Community Traction Co., the previous private transit operator for the region, became a

TARTA’s base fare is $1.00 with discounts for a variety of fare packages and products varying by subsidiary. In FY2008, TARTA’s farebox recovery rate was approximately 19%. Other

ty tax collections from local government (60%), state funding (3%) and federal / other funding (18%). TARTA is the only major transit agency in Ohio still funded by a property tax instead of a sales tax and the region is exploring

TARTA currently operates a total a 62 route patterns, with several routes running different configurations throughout the day. 11 route patterns are classified as express service. In FY2008,

TARTA’s route network is primarily radial in nature, with most routes serving downtown Toledo. TARTA does operate a single crosstown express route between Sylvania and Perrysburg. TARTA

wntown hub, so routes go through a large downtown loop with four major stations via Erie St, Jackson St, Summit St and Monroe St. When service is run less frequently on nights and weekends, TARTA operates what they call a “lineup” which is essentially a

, which recommended two vintage range transportation plan has the


1.1.12 Peer Profile Summary

Tables 1 through 5 display the peer city rankings with respect to population, number of routes, annual ridership, annual operating expenses, and base fare. Grand Rapids typically ranks within the middle-third of the peer group in these categories.

Table 1: Peer City Population Rankings

Table 2: Peer City Route Rankings

Table 3: Peer City Ridership Rankings

Table 4: Peer City Operating Expenses Rankings

Table 5: Peer City Base Fare Rankings

Peer Rank City Population

National

Population

Rank

1 Nashville 1,550,733 57

2 Louisville 1,244,696 64

3 Rochester 1,034,090 74

4 Dayton 836,544 85

5 Grand Rapids 776,833 91

6 Akron 698,553 99

7 Toledo 649,104 107

8 Madison 561,505 117

9 Lansing 454,035 135

10 Flint 428,790 139

11 Ann Arbor 347,376 172

Peer Rank City Routes

1 Toledo 62

2 Louisville 55

3 Madison 55

4 Rochester 40

5 Akron 37

6 Nashville 36

7 Lansing 32

8 Grand Rapids 29

9 Dayton 28

10 Flint 27

11 Ann Arbor 27

Peer Rank City Ridership

1 Rochester 17,473,600

2 Louisville 15,175,700

3 Madison 13,433,100

4 Lansing 10,797,300

5 Dayton 10,277,100

6 Nashville 9,701,700

7 Grand Rapids 8,619,972

8 Toledo 6,823,200

9 Ann Arbor 5,594,800

10 Akron 5,501,400

11 Flint 5,466,700

Peer Rank CityOperating

Expenses

1 Louisville 53,034,703$

2 Rochester 52,142,592$

3 Dayton 43,445,036$

4 Madison 39,237,204$

5 Nashville 32,307,257$

6 Grand Rapids 25,305,342$

7 Lansing 25,204,119$

8 Akron 25,064,008$

9 Toledo 24,954,393$

10 Ann Arbor 18,987,833$

11 Flint 14,912,166$

Peer Rank City Base Fare

1 Flint 1.25$

2 Ann Arbor 1.50$

3 Toledo 1.00$

4 Akron 1.25$

5 Lansing 1.25$

6 Grand Rapids 1.50$

7 Nashville 1.60$

8 Madison 2.00$

9 Dayton 1.75$

10 Rochester 1.00$

11 Louisville 1.50$


1.2 System Performance Measures

The performance of The Rapid’s bus and demand response systems were compared to the peer systems based on four general categories of evaluation measures: 1) service productivity, 2) maintenance productivity, 3) cost efficiency effectiveness, and 4) service coverage.

� Service Productivity. Service productivity measures indicate how effectively a transit system provides service. The following measures were used to evaluate service productivity:

• Passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour (Weekday, Saturday, Sunday) • Passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile (Weekday, Saturday, Sunday) • Vehicle revenue miles per peak vehicle • Vehicle revenue hours per peak vehicle • Average speed in revenue service • Average passenger trip length • Weekday peak to base ratio

� Maintenance Productivity. Maintenance productivity measures indicate how efficiently

transit system maintains its fleet. The following measures were used to evaluate maintenance productivity:

• Average age of active fleet • Work hours per full-time vehicle maintenance employee • Work hours per full-time non-vehicle maintenance employee • Peak vehicles per vehicle maintenance employee • Vehicle revenue miles per vehicle maintenance employee • Vehicle revenue miles per non-vehicle maintenance employee • Miles between service disruptions

� Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness. Cost effectiveness measures indicate how much an

agency spends per passenger trip, while cost efficiency measures indicate the cost required to provide a unit of service (e.g. vehicle hours or miles). The following measures were used to evaluate cost effectiveness and efficiency:

• Total operating expenses per passenger trip • Total operating expenses per vehicle revenue hour • Total operating expenses per vehicle revenue mile • Total operating expenses per peak vehicle • Operating expenses by function (Vehicle Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Non-vehicle

Maintenance, General Administration) per revenue hour • Farebox recovery

� Service Coverage. Service coverage measures indicate the degree to which a transit

operator provides service within its coverage area. For bus service, service coverage area is defined as three-fourths of a mile on each side of a fixed route. The following measures were used to evaluate service coverage.


• Vehicle revenue hours per square mile of service area • Vehicle revenue miles per square mile of service area • Vehicle revenue hours per service area population • Vehicle revenue miles per service area population • Passenger trips per service area population

In addition to comparing The Rapid’s performance to its peer systems using FY 2008 NTD data, the project team also analyzed longitudinal trends for key performance measures using for a ten-year period from FY 1999 through FY 2008. The longitudinal analysis was intended to identify trends in The Rapid’s productivity and cost effectiveness.


2 Motor Bus Peer Analysis

2.1 Overview - Peer Systems Demographic and Operating Statistics

The ten peer transit systems provided fixed route service to a service area population that ranged from 205,000 (Ann Arbor, MI) to 755,000 (Louisville, KY). The average population of the peer systems was 471,000, just 2.4% less than the Rapid’s service area population. Despite a slightly greater-than-average service area population, the Rapid is slightly below the peer average with respect to the quantity of bus service provided and consumed. As displayed in Table 1, The Rapid’s annual fare revenue, bus revenue miles, bus revenue hours, passenger trips, and peak buses operated are below average compared to the peer systems. Figures 1-4 show a comparison of The Rapid and each of the peer systems for service area population, annual unlinked passenger trips, annual revenue vehicle hours, and annual fare revenue, respectively. Table 6: Demographics and Operating Characteristics of The Rapid’s Bus Peer Systems

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 482,740 185 104 8,620,000 323,500 4,114,200 3,875,365$

471,339 245 131 10,060,460 324,700 4,374,480 6,849,219$

Akron (Metro) 542,899 420 95 5,501,400 226,400 2,672,500 3,469,604$

Ann Arbor (AATA) 204,530 81 61 5,954,800 185,200 2,349,200 2,796,746$

Dayton (GDRTA) 559,062 274 138 10,277,100 457,600 6,823,400 9,403,693$

Flint (MTA) 436,141 258 98 5,466,700 174,600 3,208,500 2,935,100$

Lansing (CATA) 276,898 136 80 10,797,300 238,800 3,149,000 6,554,844$

Louisville (TARC) 754,756 283 205 15,175,700 619,700 7,764,400 8,964,324$

Madison (Metro) 245,181 72 168 13,433,100 366,800 4,706,200 9,083,451$

Nashville (MTA) 573,294 484 120 9,701,700 321,200 4,381,500 6,836,026$

Rochester (R-GRTA) 694,394 293 203 17,473,600 436,100 5,122,600 12,656,298$

Toledo (TARTA) 426,230 149 144 6,823,200 220,600 3,567,500 5,792,102$

Peer Average

CityService Area

Population

Service Area

Square Miles

Vehicles

Operated in

Maximum

Service

Annual Unlinked

Passenger Trips

Annual Bus

Revenue Hours

Annual Bus

Revenue Miles

Annual Fare

Revenue


Figure 1: Service Area Population

Figure 2: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips

Figure 3: Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Figure 4: Annual Fare Revenue

482,740

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Ann Arbor

Madison

Lansing

Toledo

Flint

Grand Rapids

Akron

Dayton

Nashville

Rochester

Louisville

Service Area Population

8,620,000

- 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000

Flint

Akron

Ann Arbor

Toledo

Grand Rapids

Nashville

Dayton

Lansing

Madison

Louisville

Rochester

Unlinked Passenger Trips

323,500

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

Flint

Ann Arbor

Toledo

Akron

Lansing

Nashville

Grand Rapids

Madison

Rochester

Dayton

Louisville

Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

$3,875,365

Ann Arbor

Flint

Akron

Grand Rapids

Toledo

Lansing

Nashville

Louisville

Madison

Dayton

Rochester

Annual Fare Revenue

Avg: 471,339 Avg: 10,060,460

Avg: 324,700

Avg: 4,374,480


2.2 Service Productivity

The Rapid’s bus fleet utilization is greater than the peer group average. However, ridership per unit of service provided is below average.

• The Rapid’s peak-to-base ratio is lower than the peer average (24% lower), indicating that its bus operations are spread more evenly throughout the day (refer to Table 2).

• Weekday passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour and mile, key indicators of service productivity, are 24% and 6% below the peer group average, respectively (refer to Table 2 and Figures 6 and 7). However, some of the peer systems operate significantly more service to local universities, like CATA (Michigan State University), which tends to inflate their passengers per unit of service measures (CATA ranks first in both categories for weekday productivity). If these peer systems were excluded from the analysis, The Rapid’s service productivity would be comparable to its peers. Another measure of service productivity, average speed in revenue service, is 6% below average. However, this also reflects the fact that The Rapid operates very little high-speed express service, unlike several of its peer systems.

• The Rapid’s fleet utilization, as measured by annual revenue hours and miles per peak bus, are 26% and 19% higher than the peer group average, respectively. Both revenue hours and revenue miles per peak bus rank second highest among the ten peers (refer to Table 2 and Figures 8 and 9). This reflects The Rapid’s relatively low peak to base ratio (i.e., since most buses operate all day, the average annual bus hours and miles per peak bus are higher than other systems).

• The Rapid’s productivity trends indicate substantial improvements during the last decade (refer to Table 3 and Figure 5). Passenger trips per revenue hour and mile increased 25 percent and 34 percent, respectively between 1999 and 2008.

Figure 5: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, FY 1999 - FY 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Trip

s /

Re

ve

nu

e H

ou

r


Table 7: Peer System Service Productivity Measures

Table 8: Service Productivity Trends, FY 1999 - FY 2008

Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 27.68 19.60 14.93 2.20 1.43 1.22 39,560 3,111 12.7 3.7 1.4

36.33 29.65 26.90 2.34 2.17 1.94 33,342 2,475 13.5 3.7 1.8

Akron (Metro) 24.12 27.01 23.68 2.06 2.14 1.79 28,132 2,383 11.8 4.0 1.7

Ann Arbor (AATA) 32.07 35.46 27.79 2.51 2.80 2.20 38,511 3,036 12.7 3.2 1.4

Dayton (GDRTA) 22.72 18.95 24.55 1.53 1.27 1.61 49,445 3,316 14.9 4.2 1.8

Flint (MTA) 31.20 34.11 27.78 1.68 2.09 1.56 32,740 1,782 18.4 4.1 1.9

Lansing (CATA) 47.85 42.15 30.68 3.58 2.94 2.20 39,363 2,985 13.2 3.0 1.0

Louisville (TARC) 24.18 27.99 24.05 1.93 2.21 1.94 37,875 3,023 12.5 3.8 2.0

Madison (Metro) 37.81 32.10 24.45 2.95 2.49 1.86 28,013 2,183 12.8 3.5 n/a

Nashville (MTA) 30.58 29.10 26.79 2.24 2.18 1.89 36,513 2,677 13.6 4.6 2.3

Rochester (R-GRTA) 40.94 35.44 35.15 3.46 3.13 3.09 25,234 2,148 11.7 3.2 1.9

Toledo (TARTA) 31.31 31.42 25.11 1.99 1.68 1.27 24,774 1,532 16.2 4.1 2.3

Peer Average

City

Passenger Trips per Revenue Bus Hour Passenger Trips per Revenue Bus Mile

Vehicle Revenue

Miles per Peak

Vehicle

Vehicle Revenue

Hours per Peak

Vehicle

Average Speed

in Revenue

Service (mph)

Average

Passenger Trip

Length (miles)

Weekday Peak

to Base Ratio

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average

Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change

Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 21.25 18.41 18.29 19.58 21.63 21.59 22.12 23.90 25.96 26.65 25%

Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 1.56 1.36 1.33 1.42 1.61 1.61 1.68 1.80 1.92 2.10 34%


Figure 6: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 7: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 8: Annual Revenue Miles per Peak Bus

Figure 9: Annual Revenue Hours per Peak Bus

27.68

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

Dayton

Akron

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Nashville

Flint

Toledo

Ann Arbor

Madison

Rochester

Lansing

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

2.20

- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Dayton

Flint

Louisville

Toledo

Akron

Grand Rapids

Nashville

Ann Arbor

Madison

Rochester

Lansing

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile

39,560

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Toledo

Rochester

Madison

Akron

Flint

Nashville

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Grand Rapids

Dayton

Vehicle Revenue Miles per Peak Vehicle

3,111

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Toledo

Flint

Rochester

Madison

Akron

Nashville

Lansing

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Grand Rapids

Dayton

Vehicle Revenue Hours per Peak Vehicle

Avg: 36.33

Avg: 33,342 Avg: 2,475

Avg: 2.34


2.3 Maintenance Productivity

The Rapid’s bus maintenance productivity metrics rank highly among the peer systems. In each of the categories evaluated, The Rapid performed at or above the peer average. Despite logging fewer hours annually, The Rapid’s maintenance employees maintain a high standard of vehicle reliability.

• The Rapid’s bus fleet is 30% newer and experiences 51% fewer breakdowns in revenue service than the average peer fleet (refer to Table 4 and Figures 10, 11, 12 and 15). The Rapid’s revenue miles per service disruption have varied significantly over the past ten years (Figure 10). Reasons for this variation are not explained by the data and may be the result of changes in staffing levels, maintenance procedures, or unique problems that have occurred with the Rapid fleet. The average age of the Rapid fleet has fluctuated between 5 and 7 years, which indicates that the Rapid has followed a regular and effective bus replacement program.

• The Rapid’s vehicle and non-vehicle maintenance employees typically work standard 40-hour weeks, whereas the average peer system’s maintenance employees put in 48 to 50 hours per week (refer to Table 4). The Rapid’s vehicle maintenance employees work 17% less hours per year than average, likely contributing to the agency’s relatively low maintenance costs as overtime pay is not regularly necessary.

• Additionally, The Rapid’s maintenance employees are substantially more productive than average (refer to Table 4 and Figures 13 and 14). The number of peak vehicles and vehicle revenue miles per maintenance employee is 21% and 43% above average, respectively.

Figure 10: Revenue Miles per Service Disruption: 1999 - 2008

Figure 11: Average Age of Fleet: 1999 – 2008

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mil

es

/ S

erv

ice

Dis

rup

tio

n

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Av

era

ge

Ag

e o

f F

lee

t (Y

ea

rs)


Table 9: Peer System Maintenance Productivity Measures

Table 10: Maintenance Productivity Trends, 1999 - 2008

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 5.1 1,640 1,925 3.1 123,922 663,581 4,152

7.3 1,967 1,938 2.6 86,435 421,028 2,754

Akron (Metro) 6.2 1,966 1,893 1.2 33,872 123,157 1,748

Ann Arbor (AATA) 6.0 1,864 2,295 1.9 73,413 783,067 5,489

Dayton (GDRTA) 5.7 1,878 1,795 5.5 272,936 513,038 1,376

Flint (MTA) 12.0 1,937 1,851 2.4 77,127 320,850 4,525

Lansing (CATA) 6.5 1,910 2,121 2.5 99,025 699,778 7,239

Louisville (TARC) 8.4 1,730 2,266 3.0 112,691 784,283 2,897

Madison (Metro) 7.9 2,198 1,363 5.1 142,612 392,183 5,336

Nashville (MTA) 4.4 2,186 2,266 2.4 87,806 282,677 2,923

Rochester (R-GRTA) 7.1 1,943 1,910 1.8 46,569 512,260 4,134

Toledo (TARTA) 8.5 2,226 2,122 4.1 101,929 891,875 2,344

Vehicle Revenue

Miles per Vehicle

Maintenance

Employee

Vehicle Revenue

Miles per Non-

Vehicle

Maintenance

Employee

Miles Between

Service

Disruptions

Average Age of

Active Fleet

Work Hours per

Full-Time Vehicle

Maintenance

Employee

Work Hours per

Full-Time Non-

Vehicle

Maintenance

Employee

Peak Vehicles

per Vehicle

Maintenance

Employee

Peer Average

City


Average Age of Fleet (in years) 3.68 5.36 4.61 4.80 5.86 7.18 6.70 5.85 5.63 5.10 39%

Revenue Miles Between Failures 5,413 4,490 5,650 4,875 8,242 7,967 8,797 2,474 3,047 4,152 -23%

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average


Figure 12: Average Age of Active Fleet

Figure 13: Work Hours per Full Time Vehicle Maintenance Employee

Figure 14: Vehicle Revenue Miles per Full Time Vehicle Maint. Employee

Figure 15: Vehicle Revenue Miles per Service Disruption

5.1

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Nashville

Grand Rapids

Dayton

Ann Arbor

Akron

Lansing

Rochester

Madison

Louisville

Toledo

Flint

Years

1,640

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Dayton

Lansing

Flint

Rochester

Akron

Nashville

Madison

Toledo

Work Hours per Full Time Vehicle Maintenance Employee

123,922

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Akron

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Flint

Nashville

Lansing

Toledo

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Madison

Dayton

Vehicle Revenue Miles per Full Time Vehicle Maintenance Employee

4,152

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Dayton

Akron

Toledo

Louisville

Nashville

Rochester

Grand Rapids

Flint

Madison

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Miles per Service Disruption

Avg: 7.3

Avg: 2,754 Avg: 86,435

Avg: 1,967


2.4 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness

The Rapid is among the most cost-effective and cost-efficient systems evaluated.

• The Rapid’s bus system is 23% and 18% less expensive to operate per bus-hour and bus-mile, respectively, than the peer average (refer to Table 6 and Figure 19). Additionally, when broken down by cost function, The Rapid achieves greater-than-average cost efficiency per bus-hour in each category except general administration (refer to Table 6 and Figure 21).

• The Rapid is approximately 10% more cost-effective as measured by total operating expenses per passenger trip than the peer average (refer to Table 6 and Figure 18).

• However, The Rapid’s farebox recovery ratio, or the ratio of fare revenues to total operating cost, is 2% greater than average (refer to Table 6 and Figure 20).

The Rapid’s cost-effectiveness trends were below the rate of inflation for the evaluation period, while the cost-efficiency trends were well above.

• Operating cost per passenger trip increased 11% during this period, or 1.1% annually. This

rate of increase is slightly less than the inflation rate for the decade, which was approximately 26%, or 2.4% annually (refer to Table 7 and Figure 16).1 The Rapid has been very effective at controlling costs during a decade which has seen dramatic increases in insurance, fringe benefits and fuel costs.

• Operating cost per revenue hour and revenue mile increased 39% and 49%, respectively (refer to Table 7 and Figure 17). These represent average annual increases of 3.4 and 4.1 percent, respectively. During the past decade, The Rapid’s peak vehicles increased 35%, hours increased 76%, and miles increased 64% while total operating expenses increased 144%.

Figure 16: Cost per Passenger Trip, 1999 - 2008

Figure 17: Cost per Revenue Hour, 1999 - 2008

1 Source: Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, Midwest Size Class B/C, 1999 - 2008. Not seasonally

adjusted. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Co

st /

Pa

sse

ng

er

Tri

p

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Co

st /

Re

ve

nu

e H

ou

r


Table 11: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures

Table 12: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1998 - FY 2007

Total Operating

Expenses per

Passenger Trip

Total Operating

Expenses per

Vehicle Revenue

Hour

Total Operating

Expenses per

Vehicle Revenue

Mile

Total Operating

Expenses per

Peak Vehicle

Vehicle

Operations

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Revenue Vehicle

Maintenance

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Non-Revenue

Vehicle

Maintenance

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

General

Administration

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 2.94$ 78.22$ 6.15$ 243,320$ 50.24$ 10.74$ 2.33$ 14.91$ 26%

3.27$ 101.41$ 7.53$ 250,983 64.04$ 19.21$ 3.35$ 14.81$ 24%

Akron (Metro) 4.56$ 110.71$ 9.38$ 263,832$ 67.52$ 18.25$ 4.52$ 20.41$ 14%

Ann Arbor (AATA) 3.19$ 102.53$ 8.08$ 311,275$ 60.33$ 17.42$ 3.75$ 21.02$ 28%

Dayton (GDRTA) 4.23$ 94.94$ 6.37$ 314,820$ 61.38$ 16.76$ 6.23$ 10.56$ 40%

Flint (MTA) 2.73$ 85.41$ 4.65$ 152,165$ 46.19$ 19.27$ 4.02$ 15.93$ 20%

Lansing (CATA) 2.33$ 105.54$ 8.00$ 315,051$ 69.87$ 16.39$ 1.91$ 17.37$ 26%

Louisville (TARC) 3.49$ 85.58$ 6.83$ 258,706$ 54.80$ 15.69$ 1.36$ 13.73$ 22%

Madison (Metro) 2.92$ 106.97$ 8.34$ 233,555$ 73.35$ 17.28$ 3.23$ 13.12$ 23%

Nashville (MTA) 3.33$ 100.58$ 7.37$ 269,228$ 66.08$ 16.90$ 3.84$ 13.76$ 21%

Rochester (R-GRTA) 2.98$ 119.57$ 10.18$ 256,860$ 68.55$ 31.93$ 3.41$ 15.67$ 24%

Toledo (TARTA) 3.66$ 113.12$ 6.99$ 173,294$ 75.52$ 21.06$ 1.84$ 14.69$ 23%

Peer Average

Total Operating Expenses Operating Expenses by Function

Farebox

RecoveryCity

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average


Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $ 2.65 $ 2.99 $ 3.26 $ 3.03 $ 3.15 $ 3.24 $ 3.33 $ 3.07 $ 2.94 2.94$ 11%

Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle $ 134,467 $ 140,920 $ 169,137 $ 183,670 $ 211,149 $ 231,084 $ 222,118 $ 237,615 $ 206,947 243,320$ 81%

Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $ 56.36 $ 55.05 $ 59.57 $ 59.39 $ 68.15 $ 70.00 $ 73.68 $ 73.33 $ 76.30 78.22$ 39%

Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile $ 4.13 $ 4.08 $ 4.34 $ 4.31 $ 5.06 $ 5.24 $ 5.60 $ 5.53 $ 5.64 6.15$ 49%


Figure 18: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip

Figure 19: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour

Figure 20: Farebox Recovery

Figure 21: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour by Cost Function

$2.94

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00

Lansing

Flint

Madison

Grand Rapids

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Nashville

Louisville

Toledo

Dayton

Akron

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$78.22

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

Grand Rapids

Flint

Louisville

Dayton

Nashville

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Madison

Akron

Toledo

Rochester

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

26%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Akron

Flint

Nashville

Louisville

Toledo

Madison

Rochester

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Ann Arbor

Dayton

Farebox Recovery

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140

Grand Rapids

Flint

Louisville

Dayton

Nashville

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Madison

Akron

Toledo

Rochester

Vehicle Operations Per Revenue Hour Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Per Revenue Hour

Non-Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Per Revenue Hour General Administration Per Revenue Hour

Avg: $3.27

Avg: 24%

Avg: $101.41


2.5 Service Coverage

The Rapid’s service coverage per service area (square miles) is well above average. However, when evaluated per capita the agency provides slightly less service than its peers.

• The Rapid provides 32% more revenue hours, 25% more revenue miles, and 13% more passenger trips per square mile of service area than the peer average (refer to Table 8 and Figures 22 and 24).

• When evaluated with respect to population, The Rapid provides 3% less revenue hours, 8% less revenue miles, and 16% less passenger trips per capita than average (refer to Table 8 and Figures 23 and 25).

• These service coverage measures indicate that The Rapid’s coverage area (mostly restricted to the six jurisdictions – East Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, Grandville, Kentwood, Walker and Wyoming) is more compact than the peer systems. However, The Rapid provides coverage to a slightly more dense population than its peers.

Table 13: Peer System Service Coverage Measures

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 1,749 22,239 46,595 0.67 8.52 17.86

1,325 17,855 41,063 0.69 9.28 21.34

Akron (Metro) 539 6,363 13,099 0.42 4.92 10.13

Ann Arbor (AATA) 2,286 29,002 73,516 0.91 11.49 29.11

Dayton (GDRTA) 1,670 24,903 37,508 0.82 12.21 18.38

Flint (MTA) 677 12,436 21,189 0.40 7.36 12.53

Lansing (CATA) 1,756 23,154 79,392 0.86 11.37 38.99

Louisville (TARC) 2,190 27,436 53,624 0.82 10.29 20.11

Madison (Metro) 5,094 65,364 186,571 1.50 19.19 54.79

Nashville (MTA) 664 9,053 20,045 0.56 7.64 16.92

Rochester (R-GRTA) 1,488 17,483 59,637 0.63 7.38 25.16

Toledo (TARTA) 1,481 23,943 45,793 0.52 8.37 16.01

Passenger Trips

per Service Area

Population

Vehicle Revenue

Hours per Square

Mile of Service

Area

Vehicle Revenue

Miles per Square

Mile of Service

Area

Peer Average

City

Vehicle Revenue

Hours per Service

Area Population

Vehicle Revenue

Miles per Service

Area Population

Passenger Trips

per Square Mile

of Service Area

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average


Figure 22: Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area

Figure 23: Revenue Miles per Service Area Population

Figure 24: Annual Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area

Figure 25: Annual Passenger Trips per Service Area Population

22,239

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Akron

Nashville

Flint

Rochester

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Toledo

Dayton

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Madison

Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area

8.52

- 5 10 15 20 25

Akron

Flint

Rochester

Nashville

Toledo

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Lansing

Ann Arbor

Dayton

Madison

Revenue Miles per Service Area Population

46,595

Akron

Nashville

Flint

Dayton

Toledo

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Madison

Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area

17.86

- 10 20 30 40 50 60

Akron

Flint

Toledo

Nashville

Grand Rapids

Dayton

Louisville

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Madison

Passenger Trips per Service Area Population

Avg: 21.34

Avg: 41,063

Avg: 17,855 Avg: 9.28


3 Demand Response Peer Analysis

3.1 Peer Systems Demographic and Operating Statistics

Of the demand response systems evaluated, The Rapid’s Go!Bus service ranks third in annual passenger trips provided, third in peak vehicles operated, fourth in revenue hours, fourth in revenue miles, and third in fare revenue. Table 14: Demographic and Operating Characteristics of The Rapid Bus Peer Systems

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 482,740 185 102 421,200 176,500 2,534,600 $ 1,003,863

471,339 245 87 324,610 157,300 2,489,090 $ 806,471

Akron (Metro) 542,899 420 88 214,000 104,800 1,368,400 $ 470,590

Ann Arbor (AATA) 204,530 81 38 224,700 107,900 1,621,800 $ 481,239

Dayton (GDRTA) 559,062 274 83 287,800 176,100 2,522,300 $ 766,081

Flint (MTA) 436,141 258 112 672,300 279,900 5,475,900 $ 1,118,596

Lansing (CATA) 276,898 136 95 514,400 182,300 2,753,800 $ 816,648

Louisville (TARC) 754,756 283 147 417,600 270,100 4,283,000 $ 980,990

Madison (Metro) 245,181 72 77 286,100 115,200 1,844,600 $ 265,225

Nashville (MTA) 573,294 484 96 315,200 145,400 2,276,900 $ 2,460,428

Rochester (R-GRTA) 694,394 293 39 179,300 98,000 1,565,500 $ 410,797

Toledo (TARTA) 426,230 149 94 134,700 93,300 1,178,700 $ 294,114

Annual Vehicle

Revenue Hours

Annual Vehicle

Revenue Miles

Annual Fare

Revenue

Peer Average

City PopulationService Area

Square Miles

Vehicles

Operated in

Maximum

Service

Annual Unlinked

Passenger Trips


Figure 26: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips

Figure 27: Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours

Figure 28: Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles

Figure 29: Annual Fare Revenue

421,200

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Toledo

Rochester

Akron

Ann Arbor

Madison

Dayton

Nashville

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Flint

Unlinked Passenger Trips

176,500

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000

Toledo

Rochester

Akron

Ann Arbor

Madison

Nashville

Dayton

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Louisville

Flint

Vehicle Revenue Hours

2,534,600

- 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000

Toledo

Akron

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Madison

Nashville

Dayton

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Louisville

Flint

Vehicle Revenue Miles

$1,003,863

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000

Madison

Toledo

Rochester

Akron

Ann Arbor

Dayton

Lansing

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Flint

Nashville

Annual Fare Revenue

Avg: 324,610

Avg: 2,489,090 Avg: $806,471

Avg: 157,300


3.2 Service Productivity

Go!Bus’s weekday service productivity is greater than the peer average. However, fleet utilization is below average.

• Weekday passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour and mile are greater (21% and 30%, respectively) than the peer group average (refer to Table 10 and Figures 31 and 32).

• Average speed in revenue service, is 9% below average (refer to Table 10). • Go!Bus’s fleet utilization is below the peer group average. Both revenue hours and revenue

miles per peak bus rank seventh among the peers (refer to Table 10 and Figures 33 and 34). • The Rapid’s productivity declined during the last decade. Passenger trips per revenue hour

and mile decreased 11% and 28%, respectively, between 1999 and 2008 (refer to Table 11 and Figure 30).

Figure 30: Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour, FY 1998 - FY 2007

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Trip

s /

Re

ve

nu

e H

ou

r


Table 15: Peer System Service Productivity Measures

Table 16: Service Productivity Trends, FY 1998 - FY 2007

Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 2.55 1.60 1.53 0.17 0.13 0.12 24,849 1,730 14.36 11.61

2.10 1.74 1.76 0.13 0.12 0.12 28,643 1,810 15.82 8.74

Akron (Metro) 2.07 0.93 0.43 0.16 0.09 0.03 15,550 1,191 13.06 6.54

Ann Arbor (AATA) 2.05 2.30 2.29 0.14 0.14 0.14 42,679 2,839 15.03 3.50

Dayton (GDRTA) 1.68 1.41 1.43 0.11 0.11 0.12 30,389 2,122 14.32 7.61

Flint (MTA) 2.50 1.76 1.48 0.13 0.09 0.08 48,892 2,499 19.56 10.60

Lansing (CATA) 2.83 2.53 3.16 0.19 0.18 0.22 28,987 1,919 15.11 8.22

Louisville (TARC) 1.59 1.47 1.44 0.10 0.10 0.10 29,136 1,837 15.86 10.73

Madison (Metro) 2.47 2.63 2.63 0.16 0.15 0.15 23,956 1,496 16.01 5.77

Nashville (MTA) 2.23 1.80 1.67 0.14 0.11 0.11 23,718 1,515 15.66 12.32

Rochester (R-GRTA) 1.86 1.59 1.71 0.11 0.12 0.12 40,141 2,513 15.97 7.79

Toledo (TARTA) 1.57 1.14 1.36 0.17 0.12 0.12 12,539 993 12.63 9.22

Peer Average

City

Passenger Trips per Revenue Bus Hour Passenger Trips per Revenue Bus Mile

Vehicle

Revenue Miles

per Peak

Vehicle

Vehicle

Revenue Hours

per Peak

Vehicle

Average Speed

in Revenue

Service (mph)

Average

Passenger Trip

Length (miles)

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average

Indicator 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change

Passenger Trips Per Revenue Hour 2.38 2.68 2.41 2.31 2.41 2.53 2.63 2.71 2.63 2.24 2.39 -11%

Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.13 -28%


Figure 31: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Hour

Figure 32: Weekday Passenger Trips per Revenue Mile

Figure 33: Annual Revenue Miles per Peak Bus

Figure 34: Annual Revenue Hours per Peak Bus

2.55

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Toledo

Louisville

Dayton

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Akron

Nashville

Madison

Flint

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

0.17

- 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

Louisville

Dayton

Rochester

Flint

Ann Arbor

Nashville

Madison

Akron

Toledo

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Passenger Ttrips per Vehicle Revenue Mile

24,849

- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Toledo

Akron

Nashville

Madison

Grand Rapids

Lansing

Louisville

Dayton

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Flint

Annual Revenue Miles per Peak Vehicle

1,730

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Toledo

Akron

Madison

Nashville

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Lansing

Dayton

Flint

Rochester

Ann Arbor

Annual Revenue Hours per Peak Vehicle

Avg: 2.10 Avg: 0.13

Avg: 1,810 Avg: 28,643


3.3 Maintenance Productivity

Due to differences in agency reporting regarding the allocation of maintenance employees, standard cross-sectional metrics for maintenance productivity cannot be calculated for demand response operations. However, several longitudinal measures were evaluated for this report.

• The average age of Go!Bus’s fleet has decreased 53% since 1999 (refer to Table 12 and Figure 35). The average age of the fleet varies between 1.5 and 3 years, which indicated that The Rapid has followed an efficient bus replacement program.

• Maintenance expenses per operating expenses have increased 33% over the last decade (refer to Table 12 and Figure 36). This indicates that maintenance expenses are now totaling a greater portion of the budget than in previous years.

• Maintenance expenses per revenue mile have increased 58% since 1999 (refer to Table 12 and Figure 37). This indicates that it now costs more to maintain the fleet per unit of service provided than in prior years, and possibly signals a decrease in maintenance productivity.


Table 17: Maintenance Productivity Trends, 1999 - 2008

Figure 35: Average Age of Fleet

Figure 36: Maintenance Expense per Operating Expense

Figure 37: Maintenance Expense per Revenue Mile


Average Age of Fleet (in years) 3.16 0.89 2.47 3.09 3.17 2.41 2.98 1.99 2.4 2.94 1.5 -53%

Maintenance Expense Per Operating Expense (%) 13% 14% 14% 15% 15% 15% 16% 15% 16% 15% 18% 33%

Maintenance Expense Per Revenue Mile $ 0.29 $ 0.28 $ 0.27 $ 0.31 $ 0.34 $ 0.39 $ 0.41 $ 0.45 $ 0.46 $ 0.45 0.46$ 58%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave

rag

e A

ge o

f Fl

ee

t (Y

ea

rs)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ma

inte

na

nce

Exp

en

se/

Op

era

tin

g

Exp

en

se

$0.00

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

$0.35

$0.40

$0.45

$0.50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ma

inte

na

nce

Ex

pe

nse

pe

r R

eve

nu

e

Mil

e


3.4 Cost Efficiency and Effectiveness

Go!Bus’s operations are substantially more cost effective and efficient than the peer average.

• Go!Bus recovers more of its operating costs (24%) through fare revenue than the average demand response system evaluated (16%) (refer to Table 13 and Figure 42).

• Go!Bus is more cost effective than the average peer system. The average operating cost per passenger trip is $19.82, whereas the average peer cost per trip is $27.36, a 28% difference (refer to Table 13 and Figure 40).

• Go!Bus is also more cost efficient. Its cost per unit of service provided, including vehicle hour, mile, and peak vehicle, is 16%, 8%, and 20% lower than the peer average (refer to Table 13 and Figure 41).

• When cost efficiency is evaluated by cost function, Go!Bus is substantially more cost efficient with respect to non-vehicle maintenance and service administration, and marginally more cost efficient in terms of vehicle operations (refer to Table 13 and Figure 43). Vehicle maintenance functions are slightly above average.

Go!Bus’s cost-effectiveness and efficiency trends were above the rate of inflation for the evaluation period.

• Cost per passenger trip increased 73% during this period, or 7.3% annually. This rate of

increase is well above the inflation rate for the decade, which was approximately 26%, or 2.6% annually (refer to Table 14 and Figure 38).2

• Cost per peak vehicle, revenue hour, and revenue mile increased 43%, 54%, 61%, respectively (refer to Table 14 and Figure 39).

Figure 38: Cost per Passenger Trip, FY 1999 – 2008

Figure 39: Cost per Revenue Hour, FY 1999 – 2008

2 Source: Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers, Midwest Size Class B/C, 1999 - 2008. Not seasonally

adjusted. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Co

st /

Pa

sse

nge

r Tr

ip

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

$50

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Co

st /

Re

ve

nu

e H

ou

r


Table 18: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures

Table 19: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1999 - FY 2008

Per Passenger

Trip

Per Vehicle

Revenue Hour

Per Vehicle

Revenue Mile

Per Peak

Vehicle

Vehicle

Operations

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Revenue

Vehicle

Maintenance

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Non-Revenue

Vehicle

Maintenance

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

General

Administration

Operating

Expenses Per

Revenue Hour

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 19.82$ 47.30$ 3.29$ 81,843.14$ 36.61$ 6.57$ 0.65$ 3.47$ 24%

27.36$ 56.46$ 3.57$ 102,200.23$ 38.59$ 6.08$ 1.54$ 10.24$ 16%

Akron (Metro) 26.56$ 54.23$ 4.15$ 64,582.95$ 38.55$ 7.18$ 1.97$ 6.52$ 15%

Ann Arbor (AATA) 21.13$ 44.00$ 2.93$ 124,923.68$ 36.47$ 2.11$ 0.44$ 4.97$ 10%

Dayton (GDRTA) 51.54$ 84.23$ 5.88$ 178,707.23$ 47.15$ 9.97$ 6.20$ 20.90$ 5%

Flint (MTA) 19.22$ 46.17$ 2.36$ 115,375.89$ 30.82$ 3.31$ 0.41$ 11.62$ 9%

Lansing (CATA) 19.75$ 55.72$ 3.69$ 106,918.95$ 41.44$ 3.52$ 0.84$ 9.92$ 17%

Louisville (TARC) 27.94$ 43.20$ 2.72$ 79,367.35$ 30.94$ 6.68$ 0.39$ 5.18$ 13%

Madison (Metro) 26.16$ 64.97$ 4.06$ 97,201.30$ 43.96$ 5.62$ 2.40$ 12.99$ 7%

Nashville (MTA) 36.55$ 79.23$ 5.06$ 120,006.25$ 55.60$ 11.36$ 2.49$ 9.78$ 59%

Rochester (R-GRTA) 32.28$ 59.05$ 3.70$ 148,392.31$ 42.75$ 8.97$ 0.68$ 6.65$ 7%

Toledo (TARTA) 29.77$ 42.98$ 3.40$ 42,660.64$ 27.38$ 2.92$ -$ 12.68$ 16%

Peer Average

CityFarebox

Recovery

Total Operating Expenses Operating Expenses by Function

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average


Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip $13.62 $11.47 $12.02 $13.23 $13.94 $14.98 $14.82 $16.15 $16.76 $18.05 19.82$ 73%

Operating Expense Per Peak Vehicle $42,309 $57,110 $53,699 $62,572 $77,532 $64,080 $59,138 $59,640 $64,990 $60,347 81,843$ 43%

Operating Expense Per Revenue Hour $32.39 $30.79 $28.98 $30.51 $33.64 $37.83 $38.98 $43.79 $44.06 $40.38 47.30$ 54%

Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile $2.16 $2.05 $1.93 $2.03 $2.24 $2.52 $2.60 $2.92 $2.95 $2.98 3.29$ 61%


Figure 40: Operating Cost per Passenger Trip

Figure 41: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour

Figure 42: Farebox Recovery

Figure 43: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour by Cost Function

$19.82

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60

Flint

Lansing

Grand Rapids

Ann Arbor

Madison

Akron

Louisville

Toledo

Rochester

Nashville

Dayton

Operating Expense per Passenger Trip

$47.30

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Toledo

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Flint

Grand Rapids

Akron

Lansing

Rochester

Madison

Nashville

Dayton

Operating Expense per Revenue Hour

24%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Dayton

Madison

Rochester

Flint

Ann Arbor

Louisville

Akron

Toledo

Lansing

Grand Rapids

Nashville

Farebox Recovery

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Toledo

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Flint

Grand Rapids

Akron

Lansing

Rochester

Madison

Nashville

Dayton

Vehicle Operations Per Revenue Hour Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Per Revenue Hour

Non-Revenue Vehicle Maintenance Per Revenue Hour General Administration Per Revenue Hour

Avg: $56.46

Avg: 16%

Avg: $27.36


3.5 Service Coverage

Go!Bus provides greater coverage per service area (square miles) and population than the peer average.

• Service coverage per square mile of coverage is substantially greater than that of the peer average. Revenue hours, miles, and passenger trips per square mile of service area are 49%, 35%, 72% greater than average, respectively (refer to Table 15 and Figures 44 and 46).

• Additionally, per capita coverage is generally at or greater than average as well. Revenue hours and passenger trips per service area population are 10% and 27% greater than average, respectively (refer to Table 15 and Figures 45 and 47). Revenue miles per capita are 1% below average. This is likely due to Go!Bus’s relatively compact service area compared to the peer average.

Table 20: Peer System Service Coverage Measures

Grand Rapids (Rapid) 954 13,701 2,277 0.37 5.25 0.87

642 10,160 1,325 0.33 5.28 0.69

Akron (Metro) 250 3,258 510 0.19 2.52 0.39

Ann Arbor (AATA) 1,332 20,022 2,774 0.53 7.93 1.10

Dayton (GDRTA) 643 9,205 1,050 0.31 4.51 0.51

Flint (MTA) 1,085 21,224 2,606 0.64 12.56 1.54

Lansing (CATA) 1,340 20,249 3,782 0.66 9.95 1.86

Louisville (TARC) 954 15,134 1,476 0.36 5.67 0.55

Madison (Metro) 1,600 25,619 3,974 0.47 7.52 1.17

Nashville (MTA) 300 4,704 651 0.25 3.97 0.55

Rochester (R-GRTA) 334 5,343 612 0.14 2.25 0.26

Toledo (TARTA) 626 7,911 904 0.22 2.77 0.32

Peer Average

City

Passenger Trips

per Service

Area

Population

Vehicle

Revenue Hours

per Square Mile

of Service Area

Vehicle

Revenue Miles

per Square Mile

of Service Area

Vehicle

Revenue Hours

per Service

Area

Population

Vehicle

Revenue Miles

per Service

Area

Population

Passenger Trips

per Square Mile

of Service Area

Greater Than

25% Below

Average

Between 0%

and 25%

Below

Average

At or Above

Average


Figure 44: Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area

Figure 45: Revenue Miles per Service Area Population

Figure 46: Annual Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area

Figure 47: Annual Passenger Trips per Service Area Population

13,701

- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Akron

Nashville

Rochester

Toledo

Dayton

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Flint

Madison

Revenue Miles per Square Mile of Service Area

5.25

- 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Rochester

Akron

Toledo

Nashville

Dayton

Grand Rapids

Louisville

Madison

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Flint

Revenue Miles per Service Area Population

2,276.76

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

Akron

Rochester

Nashville

Toledo

Dayton

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Flint

Ann Arbor

Lansing

Madison

Passenger Trips per Square Mile of Service Area

0.87

- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00

Rochester

Toledo

Akron

Dayton

Nashville

Louisville

Grand Rapids

Ann Arbor

Madison

Flint

Lansing

Passenger Trips per Service Area Population

Avg: 10,160 Avg: 5.28

Avg: 0.69 Avg: 1,325

Documents

Transit Peer Review - mlivemedia.mlive.com › grpress › news_impact › other › Rapid Peer Analysi… · FINAL REPORT Transit Peer Review December 9, 2009 Submitted By: HDR Engineering,