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,
Post on 29-May-2020
2 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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
MSA Population (2008): 347,376
2008 Ridership: 5,594,800 (9/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $18,987,833 (10/11)
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
MSA Population (2008): 836,544
2008 Ridership: 10,277,100 (5/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $43,445,036 (3/11)
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
MSA Population (2008): 428,790
(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
MSA Population (2008): 454,035
2008 Ridership: 10,797,300 (4/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $25,204,119 (7/11)
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
2008 Ridership: 15,175,700 (2/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $53,034,703 (1/11)
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
MSA Population (2008): 561,505
2008 Ridership: 13,433,100 (3/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $39,237,204 (4/11)
(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
MSA Population (2008): 1,550,733
2008 Ridership: 9,701,700 (6/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $32,307,257 (5/11)
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
MSA Population (2008): 1,034,090
2008 Ridership: 17,473,600 (1/11) 2008 Operating Cost: $52,142,592 (2/11)
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
FINAL 13 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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$
FINAL 14 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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.
FINAL 15 DECEMBER 9, 2009
• 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.
FINAL 16 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 17 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 18 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 19 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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%
FINAL 20 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 21 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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)
FINAL 22 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change
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
FINAL 23 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 24 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
$90
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Co
st /
Re
ve
nu
e H
ou
r
FINAL 25 DECEMBER 9, 2009
Table 11: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures
Table 12: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1998 - FY 2007
Total Operating
Expenses per
Passenger Trip
Total Operating
Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue
Hour
Total Operating
Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Total Operating
Expenses per
Peak Vehicle
Vehicle
Operations
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Revenue Vehicle
Maintenance
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Non-Revenue
Vehicle
Maintenance
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
General
Administration
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Grand Rapids (Rapid) 2.94$ 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
Indicator 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change
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%
FINAL 26 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 27 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 28 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 29 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 30 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 31 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 32 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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%
FINAL 33 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 34 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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.
FINAL 35 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
Indicator 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change
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
FINAL 36 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
$50
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Co
st /
Re
ve
nu
e H
ou
r
FINAL 37 DECEMBER 9, 2009
Table 18: Peer System Cost Effectiveness Measures
Table 19: Cost Effectiveness Trends, FY 1999 - FY 2008
Per Passenger
Trip
Per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Per Peak
Vehicle
Vehicle
Operations
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Revenue
Vehicle
Maintenance
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Non-Revenue
Vehicle
Maintenance
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
General
Administration
Operating
Expenses Per
Revenue Hour
Grand Rapids (Rapid) 19.82$ 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
Indicator 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % Change
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%
FINAL 38 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 39 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
FINAL 40 DECEMBER 9, 2009
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
top related