HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL TRANSIT BENCHMARKING STUDY

Transcription

1 HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL TRANSIT BENCHMARKING STUDY Agenda Item # 13 Presented by: John V. Mihaly Transportation Analyst II Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization February 16, 2017

2 2 Outline Background Peer agency comparisons Case studies Observations and future study

3 3 Background Study focused on comparing the performance of Hampton Roads transit agencies to peer agencies nationwide. Goal was to set a baseline for the measurement of future performance of Hampton Roads transit agencies. The Hampton Roads Regional Transit Benchmarking Study was conducted in coordination with staff from Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (WATA), and Suffolk Transit.

4 4 Peer Comparisons The Hampton Roads Regional Transit Benchmarking Study compares each of the three public transit agencies in Hampton Roads to peer agencies across the Nation for the following measures: Ridership Riders per Revenue Hour Riders per Revenue Mile Operating Expenses per Rider Fare Revenue per Rider Farebox Recovery Ratio

5 5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8 8

9 9

10 10 10

11 HRT Peer Agency Rankings ( ) Transit Agency Total Annual Bus Ridership Bus Riders per Revenue Hour Bus Riders per Revenue Mile Bus Operating Expenses per Rider Bus Fare Revenue per Rider Bus Farebox Recovery Ratio Composite Score Final Rank Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, OH Regional Transit Service and Lift Line, Inc., Rochester NY Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, Cincinnati OH Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, Providence RI Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte NC Long Beach Transit, CA Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, Buffalo NY City of Detroit Department of Transportation, MI Sacramento Regional Transit District, CA Hampton Roads Transit - HRT Hampton Roads, VA CTTRANSIT - Hartford Division, CT Ride-On Montgomery County Transit, MD Omnitrans, Riverside CA Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany NY Metropolitan Transit Authority, Nashville TN Transit Authority of River City, Lou. KY Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, Tampa FL Central Ohio Transit Authority, Columbus OH City of Albuquerque Transit Department, NM Mass Transit Department - City of El Paso, TX Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Pete FL Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, MO Indianapolis and Marion County Public Transportation, IN PalmTran, Inc., Palm Beach FL Delaware Transit Corporation, Dover DE Jacksonville Transportation Authority, FL

12 Transit Agency WATA Peer Agency Rankings ( ) Total Annual Bus Ridership Bus Riders per Revenue Hour Bus Riders per Revenue Mile Bus Operating Expenses per Rider Bus Fare Revenue per Rider Bus Farebox Recovery Ratio Composite Score Blacksburg Transit, VA Harrisonburg Dept of Pub Transp, VA University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR City of Rome Transit Department, GA Iowa City Transit, IA Greater Lynchburg Transit Company, VA Williamsport Bureau of Transportation, PA No. AZ Intergov. Public Transp. Auth., AZ Bangor-BAT Community Connector, ME LaCrosse Municipal Transit Utility, WI Eau Claire Transit, WI ART (Asheville Redefines Transit), NC Muncie Indiana Transit System, IN Wausau Area Transit System, WI City of Monroe Transit System, LA Altoona Metro Transit, PA Petersburg Area Transit, VA Missoula Urban Transportation District, MT Decatur Public Transit System, IL Janesville Transit System, WI Williamsburg Area Transit Authority Transit Services of Frederick County, MD Johnson City Transit System, TN Shoreline Metro, Sheboygan, WI Battle Creek Transit, MI The Lawton Area Transit System, OK City of Dubuque, IA Great Falls Transit District, MT Ohio Valley Regional Transp Auth, Wheeling, WV Santa Fe Trails - City of Santa Fe, NM Mid-Ohio Valley Transit Auth, Parkersburg, WV St. Joseph Transit, MO Final Rank 12

13 Transit Agency Suffolk Peer Agency Rankings ( ) Total Annual Bus Ridership Bus Riders per Revenue Hour Bus Riders per Revenue Mile Bus Operating Expenses per Rider Bus Fare Revenue per Rider Bus Farebox Recovery Ratio Composite Score Glens Falls Transit System, NY Allegany County Transit, MD City of St. George, UT City of Middletown Transit System, OH Fond du Lac Area Transit, WI City of Salisbury, NC Goldsboro-Wayne Transp Auth, NC City of Joplin Metro Area Public, MO Lake Charles Transit System, LA Intracity Transit, Hot Springs, AR Longview Transit, TX Fort Smith Transit, AR City of Loveland Transit, CO City of Albany, OR City of Delano, CA City of Sierra Vista, AZ El Dorado County Transit Authority, CA Bettendorf Transit System, IA ColumBUS Transit, IN Kingsport Area Transit System, TN Voluntary Action Center, Sycamore, IL Port Arthur Transit, TX Hub City Transit, Hattiesburg, MS Bowling Green/Comm Action of So. KY City of Lake Havasu, AZ Cape Girardeau Co. Transit Auth, MO St. Bernard Urban Rapid Transit, LA Suffolk Transit, Suffolk, VA Jonesboro Economical Transp System, AR Cleveland Urban Area Transit Sys Div, TN Pine Bluff Transit, AR Final Rank 13

14 14 Case Studies Three of the top five ranked peer agencies for each of the three local transit agencies were selected for case studies. The case studies evaluated six potential contributing factors to success. Zero car Households (HH) % Number of park-n-ride facilities Poverty rate % Transit as mode to work % Local funding source % State/Federal funding source %

15 HRT Case Studies Top Ranked Peer Agencies: Potential Contributing Factors Sources: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Agency staff phone interviews 15 Zero Car HH % Park-N-Ride Facilities Poverty Rate % Transit Mode to Work % Local Funding Source % State/Federal Funding % RTS, Rochester NY GCRTA, Cleveland OH CATS, Charlotte NC HRT, Hampton Roads VA

16 16 HRT Case Study 1: Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RGRTA) The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) in Cleveland, OH is the number one ranked comparable agency for HRT with a composite score of 34. GCRTA received operating funds of: 72% local, 21% was directly generated, and 7% local sources. When RTA was formed, Cuyahoga County voters approved a 1% county-wide sales tax, which constitutes about 70% of its operating revenue. GCRTA provides bus rapid transit service to all stops along GCRTA s Healthline.

17 WATA Case Study 1: The Blacksburg Transit System The Blacksburg Transit System in Blacksburg, VA is the top ranked comparable agency for WATA with a composite score of 19. The three top ranked transit systems in the WATA group are all located within or near a large public university system. A relatively high number of commuters in the BTS service area use transit as their primary mode to work (6.44%). Blacksburg Transit received only 4% of their funding from local sources and a large share from state /federal sources (52%). The remaining funding (44% ) was directly generated. 17

18 Suffolk Case Study 2: Allegany County Transit (ACT) The Allegany County Transit (ACT) in Allegany County, MD is the second ranked comparable agency for Suffolk Transit with a composite score of 37. ACT received only 17% of their funding from local sources and a large share from state /federal sources (67%). The remaining funding (16%) was directly generated. ACT provides bus service for Frostburg State University and Allegany County College. 18

19 19 Observations Financial support from community organizations such as hospitals, educational institutions, and large employers tends to contribute to higher ridership numbers. Special taxes and fees provide additional sources of revenue for some transit agencies. Most of the case study agencies had a special fee or tax as a part of their overall operating funds matrices. Park-n-ride lots tend to contribute to additional utilization of bus services. In many cases, the institution of higher education contributed directly to the local transit agency in exchange for rides for students, faculty, and employees of the school who presented a valid identification document.

20 20 Future Study A public transit working group consisting of representatives from HRTPO staff, local transit agencies, and interested localities has been formed to guide the selection of topics for further research that may include: A more detailed analysis of local economic and geographic profiles of the top ranked and local agencies. Focused research on customer amenities and how they may affect ridership (ex. number of shelters vs. number of bus stops). An in-depth analysis of the dedicated funding sources of the top ranked peer agencies. Examination of the effect that the presence of high-capacity transit has on bus ridership and levels of service. Research on the effects of average fleet age and percent of annual breakdowns of equipment on ridership.

21 21 Recommended Action Approve the final report for public distribution. Action to be taken under Meeting Agenda item #19-E.

22 Questions? Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake, VA (757)