Planning and Implementation of Technology - ITRE · ITRE’s Transit Technical Assistance Program...

ITRE Transit Technical Assistance Program Highlights

CONTACTS: Debra Collins ([email protected], 704.639.7653) Kai Monast ([email protected], 919.515.8768) ITRE’s Transit Technical Assistance Program has enjoyed a nearly 20-year relationship providing value-added technical assistance, training, research, and implementation for NCDOT, transit systems, local governments, and vendors of transit products. Planning and Implementation of Technology

• Bi-Annual Vehicle Utilization Data collection and analysis of ridership, miles, and hours for all rural systems since 2004;

• The Community Transportation Technology Implementation Plan identifies eligible technologies up to 3 years in advance and guides transit systems through an implementation process designed to ensure a full, successful, and cost-effective implementation;

• Assist urban systems with planning and implementing the ITS National Architecture using the various FTA required tools;

• Implement the NCDOT’s technology policy, updating regional and system technology plans, system engineering analysis for each project, etc.;

• Software implementation on the statewide, regional, and individual transit system levels; including continuous improvement of technology implementation processes, project management, and working with vendors and vendor user groups;

• Assist transit systems and state DOTs develop procurement specifications for vehicles (vans, hybrid buses, etc.), services (maintenance services, operations and management), software (paratransit scheduling and dispatching, maintenance, real-time passenger information systems, interactive voice response (IVR) systems;

• Managing the statewide implementation of maintenance software and security cameras/ Performance

• Quarterly collection and analysis of Operating Statistics for urban and rural transit systems. These statistics are compiled, cleaned, corrected, and output in easy to read summary files that show change over time for key statistics;

• Annual reporting hundreds of lines of Operating Statistics data for each transit system of to the FTA’s National Transit Database. ITRE is responsible for ensuring that the data are complete and accurate, as this reporting is a requirement of SAFETEA-LU funding;

• Assess transit systems performance and encourage performance improvement through the Performance Planning process, where we compare a system to itself and to its peers over time;

• Develop, implement, and support of TrIP_Maker, a paratransit scheduling and billing database for the smaller rural public transportation providers, currently used by 15 transit systems. This software is specifically designed to improve transit system performance;

• Increase organizational and operational efficiencies through greater coordination and consolidation of resources—envisioning future ideals, developing plans to move toward an ideal target, and providing strategies to achieve a desired goal;

• Create datasets for Community Transportation Services Plans that include developing a budget tool, fully allocated cost model, Transit Dependent Index dataset by county;

• Map and analyze origin / destination / route data collected from transit systems;

Training

• Transportation Leadership Development – for more than 10 years, The Public Transportation Group has partnered with Virginia W. Blair to provide a dynamic leadership program designed to give transportation professionals an opportunity to significantly improve their decision-making and leadership skills. It provides a framework for each participant to shape his or her own unique leadership style;

• Americans with Disability Act - Once a year for the past several years, ITRE has partnered with Russell Thatcher, TranSystems, to keep NC Transit operators on top of the unfolding ADA issues;

• Paratransit Foundations - ITRE Public Transportation staff has filled a need for training on topics that give paratransit operators a fresh look at industry business practices. These courses are offered as webinars twice per year and are available for in person delivery. Courses currently being taught are 1) Policies and Practices, 2) Basics of Scheduling, 3) Basics of Dispatching, 4) Understanding Billing, 5) Using Your Data, and 6) Service Delivery Methods;

• Skillbuilding Workshops – ITRE has recently developed 4 new classes that use a combined learning of web based (using Moodle), information gathering and attending an in person workshop. The topics for this training are 1) Building Relationships with Public Officials at All Levels, 2) Building a Budget Tool for Additional Funding, 3) Building and Maintaining Effective Organizations through Good Employees, and 4) Contributing to Sustainable Communities;

• User Groups – ITRE sponsors user groups that support various technologies used in the state – RouteMatch TS, AssetWorks InfoCenter, UTA Automatic Passenger Counters, Genfare Fareboxes, TrIP_Maker, etc.

Davidson County Transportation System

FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation Division

Community Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

Pg 1

ID 57

Contact Name: Hodges, George R.

Contact Phone: (336) 242-2252

System Website: www.co.davidson.nc.us

Service Area Type: Combined City/County

Counties Served:

Contractor: None

Out Of County Service Provided? Yes

Coordination with Other Transit Systems? Yes

Peer Group: 2

137.8

103.9

90.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012

33

37

24

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2010 2011 2012

402

325

178

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2010 2011 2012

31%

51%

18%

MedicaidOther ContractNonContract

Trips By Funding Type

Passengers By Year in Thousands

10.8

7.73

1.77

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

0.63

0.33

0.44

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Miles Per Year

Passengers, Hours and Miles By Mode

Deviated FixedDemand Response Fixed Route

Efficiency By Mode

Passengers Per Mile

System Type: Community

4%

96%

Weekday

Weekend

Passengers By Day Type

Passengers Per Hour

Hours Per Yearin Thousandsin Thousands

Service Type Passengers Hours Miles

Demand Response 33,351 18,871 76,772

Deviated Fixed 13,012 1,683 39,883

Fixed Route 36,653 3,576 61,362

Other 54,786 0 0

Date Printed: 12/4/2012 Data last updated on: 11/16/2012




Pg 2

ID 57

$11.42$10.33

$9.14

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

2010 2011 2012

$7.10

$5.97

$4.11

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

2010 2011 2012

21%

55%

24%

Federal

State

Local

Subsidy per trip is calculated using the total amount of

Federal and State administrative and operating funds a transit

system received divided by the total number of trips. Cost per

trip is calculated using the total system expenses divided by

the total number of trips.

Data SummarySubsidy Per Trip By Year

Cost Per Trip By Year

Administrative and Operating Funding Sources

Notes: Passengers Per Hour, Passengers Per Mile and Total Passengers include contracted trips but not contracted miles or hours.BENCHMARKING STATISTICS are in blue and bold

2011

Miles: 325,165

Hours: 36,660

Passengers Per Hour: 2.83

Passengers Per Mile: 0.319

Total Passengers: 103,890

Cost Per Trip: $10.33

2012

178,017

24,130

5.71

0.774

137,802

$9.14

% Change

-45%

-34%

102%

142%

33%

-11%

Subsidy Per Trip: $5.97 $4.11 -31%

Non-Contract Trips

Per Non-Urban

Population:

0.60 40%0.83

0Reportable Incidents: 0 0%

Reportable Fatalities: 0 0 0%

Reportable Injuries: 0 0 0%

5310,16,17, 20 Funds: $0 $0

5311 Funds: $165,691 $170,012

ARRA Funds: $0 $0

Other Federal Funds: $85,731 $98,395

CTP Admin Funds: $10,356 $10,001

ROAP Funds: $358,363 $287,972

Other State Funds: $0 $0

Local Contract Funds: $420,044 $644,385

Local Fares: $8,425 $2,301

Other Local Funds: $24,437 $46,913

Cost Per Mile: $3.30 $7.08

Cost Per Hour: $29.27 $52.22

114%

78%

0%

3%

0%

15%

-3%

-20%

0%

53%

-73%

92%

Total Federal Funds: $251,422 $268,407 7%

Total State Funds: $368,719 $297,973 -19%

Total Local Funds: $452,906 $693,599 53%

Administrative: 3.00 3.04 1%

Maintenance: 0.00 0.00 0%

Drivers Under 30: 0.00 0.00 0%

10.00 9.21 -8%

0.00 1.41 0%

0.00 0.00 0%

EMPLOYEE FTE SUMMARY

Other Employees: 0.00 2.00 0%

Total Employee FTEs: 13.00 15.66 20%

Drivers 30-64:

Drivers 65-74:

Drivers 75 and Older:





Pg 3

ID 57

PASSENGER TRIPS BY DAY OF WEEK

0

5000

10000

15000

Total 9853 12200 11089 11765 9952 9912 10412 11447 12030 11800 13177 14165

Non-Contract 4957 5231 4927 5303 4496 4793 5095 5871 6189 6596 7409 8708

Medicaid Contract 1763 2794 2163 2124 1801 1936 2151 2336 2334 1928 2132 2023

Other Contract 3133 4175 3999 4338 3655 3183 3166 3240 3507 3276 3636 3434

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

0

2000

4000

6000

Demand Res 3710 4765 3932 3533 2903 2606 2563 2253 2375 1901 1476 1334

Dev Fixed 303 1120 1537 2555 3555 3942

Fixed Rt 3064 3512 2918 3177 2504 3105 3107 3210 3162 2768 2518 3608

Other 3079 3923 4239 5055 4545 4201 4439 4864 4956 4576 5628 5281


0

5000

10000

15000

Demand Res 9618 11249 7590 6748 6116 8938 5135 3011 2058 3944 6610 5755

Dev Fixed 3579 3235 3442 9050 10521 10056

Fixed Rt 4975 5436 5109 5351 4847 4656 4885 4984 5620 4652 5462 5385

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


PASSENGERS BY MODE

PASSENGERS BY CONTRACT TYPE

SERVICE MILES BY MODE

Day of Week AprAug Dec FebJanJul JunMar MayNovOctSep

Weekday 11,42911,708 9,314 10,9139,9539,295 13,66111,466 12,7009,60311,15410,630

Saturday 331470 580 502419538 480532 447278581452

Sunday 4022 18 324020 2432 3071307





Pg 4

ID 57

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Demand Res 2840 3247 3213 3222 2239 782 520 713 729 546 437 383

Dev Fixed 99 189 198 380 418 399

Fixed Rt 312 324 300 312 246 270 288 300 324 276 312 312

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0

10

20

30

40

Demand Res 3 3 2 2 3 11 10 4 3 7 15 15

Dev Fixed 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 17 17 24 25 25

Fixed Rt 16 17 17 17 20 17 17 17 17 17 18 17

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0

0.5

1

1.5

Demand Res 0.386 0.424 0.518 0.524 0.475 0.292 0.499 0.748 1.154 0.482 0.223 0.232

Dev Fixed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.085 0.346 0.447 0.282 0.338 0.392

Fixed Rt 0.616 0.646 0.571 0.594 0.517 0.667 0.636 0.644 0.563 0.595 0.461 0.67

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


0

5

10

15

Demand Res 1.31 1.47 1.22 1.1 1.3 3.33 4.93 3.16 3.26 3.48 3.38 3.48

Dev Fixed 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.06 5.93 7.76 6.72 8.5 9.88

Fixed Rt 9.82 10.84 9.73 10.18 10.18 11.5 10.79 10.7 9.76 10.03 8.07 11.56

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


MILES PER HOUR (SERVICE) BY MODE

PASSENGERS PER SERVICE MILE BY MODE

PASSENGERS PER SERVICE HOUR BY MODE

SERVICE HOURS BY MODE


Snow Hill

Walstonburg

Hookerton

Greene County Transit Dependence Index

µ0 2.5 51.25Miles

Data compiled from Census 2010 and the most recent AmericanCommunity Survey.

February 14, 2012

TDI = PD x [AVNV + AVE + AVY + AVD + AVBP], where: PD = populaton per square mile AVNV = amount of vulnerability based on presence of no vehicle households AVE = amount of vulnerability based on presence of older adult populaton AVY = amount of vulnerability based on presence of youth populaton AVD = amount of vulnerability based on presence of disabled populaton AVBP = amount of vulnerability based on presence of below-poverty populaton

The Transit Dependency Index combines population density, no vehicle household, older adult population, youth population, disabled population, and below-poverty population into one factorthat measures that transit dependency of geographic locations.

TDI Values5 Least Dependent6 - 89 - 1011 - 1516 - 28 Most Dependent

CPTA

Hyde

Dare

ICPTA

CARTS

KARTS

WPRTA

Pitt

YVEDDI

RCATS

Wake

DuplinCarteret

BladenPender

Tar River

Wilkes

Beaufort

Moore

Onslow

Union

Robeson

Tyrrell

Sampson

Iredell

Columbus

SwainJohnston

Brunswick

Ashe

Guilford

Anson

Harnett Wayne

Chatham

Macon

Rowan

Hoke

LeeStanly

Lenoir

BuncombeHaywood

GatesPerson

Wilson

Forsyth

Caswell

Polk

Orange

Madison

RutherfordGaston

ClayCherokee

Rockingham

McDowell

Avery

LincolnCabarrusGraham

MartinDavidson

Jackson

CumberlandRichmond

Cleveland

AlamanceYancey

Mecklenburg

Durham

Scotland

Greene

Watauga

Washington

Henderson

Transylvania

Mitchell

Alleghany

New Hanover

µ

NC PEER GROUPS

0 40 8020Miles

5

3

4

Peer Group ResultsGroup n Value Range

2

1

14

6

Value Range

8-10

4-6

Group n

17-20

14-16

11-13

15

25

21

01/12/2011

Eastern Band ofCherokee Indians

Debra Collins NCSU-ITRE [email protected] 704.639.7653 http://www.itre.ncsu.edu

Institute for Transportation Research and Education North Carolina State University

North Carolina Community Transportation System

Technology Implementation Planning

May 16, 2012

Introduction This technology plan establishes anticipated funding years for three kinds of paratransit technologies: 1) Scheduling Software, 2) Mobile Data Computers/Automatic Vehicle Locators, and 3) Maintenance Software. Other technologies will be added as needed. This plan provides guidance on when money should be budgeted by the state and the local transit agencies. Because there are prerequisites for most of these technologies, this plan should be used to help the transit agencies meet the requirements of each technology before the technologies are funded. See the Project Implementation Timing section for implementation steps. All technology projects must be endorsed by NCDOT and funding must be approved by the North Carolina Board of Transportation or the Federal Transit Administration.

Project Implementation Timing This Technology Implementation Plan anticipates the next series of technology implementations so transit agencies can make business practice changes to prepare for the technology and make plans to obtain the local match. The timeline and graphic below identify the review requirements and other tasks that must be completed before and after the technology implementation. Task Timing 1. Systems eligible for technology are identified based on actual and

estimated average daily passengers. Systems are contacted to determine if they are interested in proceeding with the technology.

0- 3 years before implementation

2. Systems proceeding with the technology receive assistance with identifying business practices and policies that may hinder successful implementation. The type of assistance depends on the technology, as listed below:

• Schedule Assistance Software- Manifest and policies review • Advanced Scheduling Software- A performance plan specific

to the system is created by ITRE and updated annually by the system

• MDC/AVL- Review to ensure full implementation of the Advanced Scheduling Software.

0-3 years before implementation

3. The Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding document is provided to the identified systems and the systems identify areas that need improvement.


NC Transit System Technology Implementation Planning Page 2 of 11

4. With the help of NCDOT/PTD and ITRE, systems begin working toward addressing all business practice and policy concerns identified the review in Task 2 and the pre-application in Task 3.


5. System completes all necessary business practice and policies changes identified in the review in Task 2 and in the Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding document.

6-12 months before implementation

6. The system submits the completed Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding. If Federal funds are requested, the system also submits the grant application at this point.


7. ITRE and NCDOT/PTD review the Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding and/or the Federal funds grant application and approve or deny the application. Denied applications must address the reasons for denial and resubmit the application, returning to Task 3.


8. Approved systems receive the full Community Transportation Technology Application, fill it out completely, and submit it NCDOT/PTD. At this time, systems schedule site visits to view the requested technology.


9. NCDOT/PTD and ITRE verify completeness of the application and prepare the Board of Transportation agenda item (if necessary).


10. The Board of Transportation approves or denies funding (if necessary).


11. Implementation begins. Implementation 12. Implementation is complete and the project is ‘Live’. 0-6 months after

implementation 13. The system completes a Post-Implementation Assessment and

submits it to ITRE. 12-18 months after implementation

14. ITRE assesses the implementation by comparing the Pre-Implementation Assessment required in the Community Transportation Technology Application with the Post-Implementation Assessment.

12-24 months after implementation


Average Daily Passenger Projections The purpose of this section is to anticipate when a transit system will cross the required average daily passenger trip threshold to qualify for technology. At 300 average daily passenger trips per weekday, the system becomes eligible for Advanced Scheduling Software and Mobile Data Computer/Automated Vehicle Locator. The current year and previous year average daily passenger totals from the Vehicle Utilization Data are compared to achieve an Actual Growth rate. Because only two years of data are compared, the Actual Growth is tempered by assuming that high growth systems (>10% growth) may realize an Estimated Growth of 7% over time, moderate growth systems (1-10% growth) may realize a 4% Estimated Growth, and low growth systems (negative or less than 1% growth) may realize a 1% Estimated Growth. Average daily passenger totals are highlighted in RED when they reach 290 trips/day because it is anticipated that the system may potentially cross the threshold in the next fiscal year. Growth projections should be updated annually, based on the most current data available.


Table 1. Average Daily Passengers Projections

System Type Avg Daily Passengers Growth Rate Estimated Avg Daily Passengers

2010 2011 Actual Estimated1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Alamance- ACTA Single 326 342 5% 4% 356 370 385 401 417 Alleghany Single 71 77 7% 4% 80 83 86 89 93 Anson Single 128 151 18% 7% 162 173 185 198 212 Apple Country Single 95 102 7% 4% 106 110 114 119 124 ARHS-ICPTA Regional 402 383 -5% 1% 387 391 395 399 403 Ashe Single 199 240 21% 7% 257 275 294 315 337 Avery Single 51 49 -4% 1% 50 50 51 51 52 Beaufort Single 127 137 8% 4% 142 148 154 160 167 Bladen Single 109 115 5% 4% 120 125 130 135 140 Brunswick Single 204 179 -12% 1% 181 182 184 186 188 Buncombe- MM Single 605 677 12% 7% 724 775 829 887 949 Cabarrus Single 219 219 0% 1% 221 223 226 228 230 Carteret Single 286 249 -13% 1% 251 254 257 259 262 CARTS Regional 416 407 -2% 1% 411 416 420 424 428 Caswell Single 105 108 3% 4% 112 116 121 126 131 Chatham Single 164 220 34% 7% 235 252 269 288 308 Cherokee Single 256 215 -16% 1% 217 220 222 224 226 Clay Single 68 83 22% 7% 89 95 102 109 116 Cleveland Single 317 306 -3% 1% 309 312 315 318 321 Columbus Single 155 167 8% 4% 173 180 187 195 203 CPTA Regional 437 458 5% 4% 477 496 516 536 558 Cumberland Single 1% 0 0 0 0 0 Dare Single 46 36 -22% 1% 37 37 37 38 38 Davidson Single 295 383 30% 7% 410 439 470 502 538 Duplin Single 245 221 -10% 1% 223 226 228 230 232 Durham Single 137 74 -46% 1% 75 76 76 77 78 Eastern Band (EBCI) Single 167 304 83% 7% 326 349 373 399 427 Forsyth Single 1% 0 0 0 0 0 Gaston Single 526 463 -12% 1% 467 472 477 481 486 Gates Single 135 110 -18% 1% 111 112 114 115 116 Goldsboro/Wayne Regional 351 431 23% 7% 461 493 528 565 604 Graham Single 84 93 11% 7% 100 107 114 122 131 Greene Single 84 96 14% 7% 102 109 117 125 134 Guilford Single 768 781 1% 789 796 804 813 821 Harnett Single 375 341 -9% 1% 344 347 351 354 358 Haywood Single 269 229 -15% 1% 231 234 236 238 241 Hoke Single 304 309 2% 4% 321 334 348 362 376 Hyde Single 52 74 42% 7% 79 85 91 97 104 Iredell Single 602 502 -17% 1% 507 512 517 522 528 Jackson Single 156 272 75% 7% 291 311 333 356 381 Johnston Single 318 382 20% 7% 408 437 467 500 535 KARTS Regional 591 655 11% 7% 701 750 802 858 918 Lee Single 266 272 2% 4% 282 294 306 318 330 Lenoir Single 343 372 9% 4% 387 402 418 435 452 Lincoln Single 175 206 18% 7% 220 236 252 270 289 Macon Single 151 141 -7% 1% 142 144 145 147 148 Madison Single 59 58 -2% 1% 58 59 60 60 61


Table 1. Average Daily Passengers Projections (Continued)

System Type Avg Daily Passengers Growth Rate Estimated Avg Daily Passengers

2010 2011 Actual Estimated1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Martin Single 181 180 0% 1% 182 184 186 188 190 McDowell Single 227 213 -6% 1% 215 217 219 222 224 Mecklenburg Single 334 305 -9% 1% 308 311 314 317 320 Mitchell Single 122 216 77% 7% 231 248 265 284 303 Moore Single 240 243 1% 4% 253 263 273 284 295 Nash Edgecombe (Tar River) Regional 381 413 8% 4% 429 446 464 483 502 New Hanover Single 280 318 13% 7% 340 364 389 416 445 Onslow Single 272 275 1% 4% 286 298 309 322 335 Orange Single 235 247 5% 4% 257 267 278 289 301 Pender Single 94 84 -11% 1% 85 86 87 88 88 Person Single 190 175 -8% 1% 177 179 181 182 184 Pitt Single 199 223 12% 7% 239 255 273 292 313 Polk Single 189 177 -6% 1% 179 181 182 184 186 Randolph Regional 276 331 20% 7% 354 379 405 433 464 Richmond Single 159 183 15% 7% 196 210 225 240 257 Rockingham Single 233 244 5% 4% 254 264 274 285 297 Rowan Single 377 456 21% 7% 487 522 558 597 639 Rutherford Single 236 249 5% 4% 259 269 280 291 303 Sampson Single 104 130 25% 7% 139 149 160 171 183 Scotland Single 247 149 -40% 1% 150 152 153 155 156 SEATS (Robeson) Single 303 317 5% 4% 330 343 357 371 386 Stanly Single 242 245 1% 4% 255 265 275 286 298 Swain Single 71 46 -35% 1% 46 47 47 48 48 Transylvania Single 101 103 2% 4% 107 111 116 120 125 Tyrrell Single 7 5 -34% 1% 5 5 5 5 5 Union Single 352 333 -5% 1% 336 339 343 346 350 Wake Single 395 424 7% 4% 440 458 476 495 515 Washington Single 83 73 -12% 1% 74 74 75 76 77 Watauga (AppalCART) Single 147 178 21% 7% 191 204 218 234 250 Western Piedmont (WPRTA)3 Regional 480 562 17% 7% 601 643 688 737 788 Wilkes Single 245 244 0% 1% 247 249 252 254 257 Wilson Single 278 263 -5% 1% 266 268 271 274 276 Yancey Single 87 89 2% 4% 92 96 100 104 108 YVEDDI Regional 743 673 -9% 1% 680 686 693 700 707

1 Estimated Growth based on Actual growth. High growth = 7%, Moderate = 4%, Low = 1% 2 Estimated Average Daily Passengers for 2010 = Average Daily Passengers 2009 * (1+Estimated Growth)


Scheduling Software Implementations

Types of Scheduling Software There are two categories of scheduling software addressed in this report. The most basic assists transit systems in scheduling trips, but has no capability for routing. This Schedule Assistance Software (SA) includes CTS and TrIP_Maker, for example. Homemade software solutions must be independently analyzed to determine if they qualify as Schedule Assistance Software. Qualifying Homemade software must:

• Be a relational database • Minimize data entry errors by allowing the user to select clients, runs, vehicles, drivers,

etc. • Create agency bills • Accurately report passenger trips, service and revenue miles and hours, and other

essential data. Schedule Assistance Software implementations identified in this document are suggestions. There are no minimum requirements for Schedule Assistance Software and there is no application or budget approval necessary to implement the software. Scheduling Assistance Software implementations are listed in this report to help transportation systems plan for growth and to ensure that the transportation system has successfully implemented a qualifying Schedule Assistance Software for at least 3 years before Advanced Scheduling Software will be funded. Advanced Scheduling Software (AD) will schedule passengers to vehicles and plan the vehicle’s daily route. RouteMatch, StrataGen, and Trapeze are examples of Advanced Scheduling Software. Transit systems must meet very specific criteria before being eligible for Advanced Scheduling Software to ensure that the software will be fully implemented and used to its maximum potential. The exact criteria are included in the document titled “Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding.”


Table 2. Anticipated Scheduling Software Installations

SystemGo Live Year

CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 Comments

Alamance- ACTA FY05Alleghany SAAnson FY07Apple Country SAARHS-ICPTA FY01Ashe SA ADAvery SA ADBeaufort SABladen FY06?Brunswick FY03?Buncombe- MM FY04Cabarrus FY09Carteret FY07CARTS FY06Caswell FY12 SAChatham FY08 ADCherokee FY06Clay SACleveland FY11 ARRA FundedColumbus FY09 Self-Funded ADCPTA FY01Cumberland FY02?Dare FY11Davidson FY02Duplin FY03?Durham FY09 Regional ProjectEastern Band (EBCI) FY02?Forsyth FY08Gaston FY09Gates SAGoldsboro/Wayne FY05?Graham FY06?Greene FY01?Guilford FY02?Harnett FY05 ADHaywoodHoke FY05? ADHydeIredell FY05JacksonJohnston FY12 ADKARTS FY06?Lee FY05? ADLenoir XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Pulled out of AD projectLincoln FY11 Self-Funded ADMacon FY11 Self-Funded ADMadisonMartin FY08?McDowell Not CoordinatedMecklenburg FY08Mitchell FY11 ADMoore FY08 Self-Funded ADNash Edgecombe (Tar River) FY08 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Reverted from AD FY07


Table 2. Anticipated Scheduling Software Installations (Continued)

SystemGo Live Year

CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 Comments

New Hanover FY11 Urban Tech FundsOnslow FY07Orange FY00?Pender FY03?Person FY04?Pitt SA ADPolk SARandolph FY11 ARRA FundedRichmond SARockingham FY04 ADRowan FY12 ADRutherford FY01Sampson FY07?Scotland Reverted from SA FY09SEATS (Robeson) FY00 ADStanly SA ADSwain SATransylvania FY06TyrrellUnion FY05 Self-Funded ADWake FY04Washington FY11Watauga (AppalCART)Western Piedmont (WPRTA)3 FY09Wilkes FY04Wilson FY05? ADYancey SAYVEDDI AD


AnticipatedMobileDataComputer/AutomaticVehicleLocatorInstallationsMobile Data Computer/Automatic Vehicle Locator (MDC/AVL) installations are an add-on technology for Advanced Scheduling Software. All requirements for Advanced Technology Software implementations must be met, in addition to the following requirements: Mobile Data Computer/Automatic Vehicle Locator (MDC/AVL) technologies work with Advanced Scheduling Software. MDC/AVLs perform many functions to increase productivity and mobility, including:

• Visually display location of transit vehicles, estimated travel speed, estimated arrival times, and passengers currently on the vehicle

• Allow real time updating of driver manifests to add/remove/alter trips as needed • Assist drivers with directions and routing • Automatically capture essential trip data, such as odometer readings and times, no shows,

and cancellations • Automatically report trip data to the office

Transit systems must meet very specific criteria before being eligible for MDC/AVLs to ensure that the devices will be fully implemented and used to their maximum potential. The exact criteria are included in the document titled “Pre-Application: Community Transportation Advanced Technology Funding.” Many of the scheduled MDC/AVL implementations are dependent upon fully implemented installations of Advanced Scheduling Software. This plan allows three years for new installations of Advanced Scheduling Software to become fully implemented and prepare for MDC/AVL technology. Alamance- ACTA is currently implementing a program that is similar to MDC/AVL technology. Therefore, they are not anticipated to require MDC/AVL funding in the near future.


Table 3. Anticipated MDC/AVL Installations MDC/AVL ???? Timing uncertain No Timeframe XXXX Ineligible

Funding Year +++ Voluntarily waiting

SystemGo Live Year CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 Comments

Alamance- ACTA ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? Substitute MDC programAlleghanyAnsonApple CountryARHS-ICPTA FY09AsheAveryBeaufortBladenBrunswickBuncombe- MM FY10Cabarrus FY11 ARRA FundedCarteret <300 trips/dayCARTS Voluntarily waitingCaswellChathamCherokeeClayCleveland 3 years after ADColumbusCPTACumberland No State vehiclesDareDavidson FY12Duplin FY07DurhamEastern Band (EBCI)Forsyth FY07? No State vehiclesGaston 3 years after ADGatesGoldsboro/WayneGrahamGreeneGuilford FY11 ARRA FundedHarnett 3 years after ADHaywood 3 years after ADHoke 3 years after ADHydeIredell FY09JacksonJohnston 3 years after ADKARTS FY09 When fully implemented


Table 3. Anticipated MDC/AVL Installations (Continued)

SystemGo Live Year CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 CY16 Comments

Lee 3 years after ADLenoirLincoln FY11MaconMadisonMartinMcDowellMecklenburg FY11 ARRA FundedMitchellMoore <300 trips/dayNash Edgecombe (Tar River) ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? Needs ADNew Hanover Onslow <300 trips/dayOrangePenderPersonPittPolkRandolph 3 years after ADRichmond 3 years after ADRockingham 3 years after ADRowan 3 years after ADRutherfordSampsonScotlandSEATS (Robeson) 3 years after ADStanlySwainTransylvaniaTyrrellUnion 3 years after ADWake FY09 MPO FundedWashingtonWatauga (AppalCART)Western Piedmont (WPRTA)3 FY11 ARRA FundedWilkes <300 trips/dayWilson 3 years after ADYanceyYVEDDI 3 years after AD

Participant Signatures:

Transit System Representative:

Date: / / 20

ITRE:

Date: / / 20

NCDOT Mobility Development Specialist:

Date: / / 20

By signing this document, participants indicate their agreement with the statements outlined in this plan and declare their commitment to advancing the performance, service and operation of the transit system.

Performance Plan and Analysis

HYDE COUNTY January 2012

2 HYDE COUNTY TRANSIT Performance Planning Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The Performance Planning Analysis is conducted at the system’s request as a part of a Technology Plan, after the system is identified as needing assistance, or as part of the 5-year plan. The purpose of this plan is to provide the transit system with a guide to achieve higher performance measures and improve business practices. The system also has the opportunity to independently update the plan to track performance and create a solid foundation for future improvements.

Much of the performance planning process is based on self-reflection and accurate self-reporting. The most valuable Performance Plan is one where the transit system has thoughtfully and accurately answered the questions. To begin the Performance Planning Analysis process, the Business Practices Questionnaire and Employee Information Worksheet are sent to the transit system and a data set is requested. After the completed questionnaire is received and examined, a site visit is conducted. Once the site visit is complete, further analysis of the information is conducted and recommendations are created.

Methods of Analysis: The Business Practices Questionnaire [Appendix A] and Employee Information Worksheet [Appendix B] cover topics such as human resources, operational policies, organizational culture and the system’s planning process. Providing as much detail as needed to fully complete the questionnaire is encouraged because the depth of responses is also analyzed. The way the question is answered, the amount of detail provided and other aspects of the responses illustrate how well the system is prepared for the process and how they view their performance. Vehicle Utilization Data (VUD) Compilation [Appendix C] is used to analyze performance on specific performance measures from a single collection period and over time.

Reports are requested as needed, including reports on cancellations and no shows. Other items, such as daily driver manifests and funding source rates are collected and reviewed to understand application of business practices in day-to-day operations.

This report includes recommendations, which include a target area and a preliminary objective for improvement. Specific steps for achieving the objectives are listed with defined timeframes. These objectives are only the first steps in improving performance. As the system grows and develops, goals will be adjusted and the planning process will be revised.

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Strongest Area: Hyde County does a remarkable job of attracting riders from non-traditional funding sources and providing efficient revenue service.

Area Needing Most Improvement:

The transit system could further expand service by attracting seasonal riders and providing tourism-based services.


THE FUTURE FOR SYSTEM NAME

Every transit system must strive to improve and create an image of their future upon which to base goals and measure success. The expectations listed here provide the transit system with a vision of where their system is going and where they want to be in the near future. The future for the transit system has been developed by the system representatives, with the assistance of ITRE.

TRANSIT SYSTEM TO FILL OUT

PERFORMANCE PLANNING EVALUATION CHECKLIST

Major areas discussed in this Performance Plan are listed in this table with a general rating of the system’s policies, progress or achievements in that area.

Rating Key

Exceptional Below Average

Above Average Needs substantial improvement

Average

Performance Measure Rating/Category Other Data Analysis Cancelations N/A No Shows Percentage of subscription and demand response trips N/A

Comparisons To VUD Peer Group Weekday Passengers Per Service Hour Weekday Passengers Per Revenue Hour Weekday Passengers Per Service Mile Weekday Passengers Per Revenue Mile Weekday Average Daily Passengers


RECOMMENDATIONS

Throughout the analysis, look for the Recommendation Flag to identify areas that relate to specific recommendations and the Quality Check indicating strong points.

1. Target Area: Improved performance measures

Every community transportation system should aspire to grow their business and increase effectiveness in providing service.

Goals:

Performance Measure Current Level

Growth %

6 months 12 months

18 months

Weekday Average Daily Passengers 67 10% 73 81 89 Weekday Passengers per Service Mile 0.116 5% 0.122 0.128 0.135 Weekday Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.174 3% 0.180 0.185 0.191 Weekday Passengers per Service Hour 2.88 5% 3.03 3.18 3.34 Weekday Passengers per Revenue Hour 4.54 3% 4.68 4.82 4.96 Weekday Average Daily Passengers 67 10% 73 81 89

Steps to Improvement:

6 Months ‐ Through the 5-year CTSP, explore opportunities for serving seasonal residents and short-term visitors

‐ Evaluate mix of lift and non-lift vehicles 12 Months ‐ On-Going ‐ Continue to market transportation services to employment centers and other

destinations

2. Target Area: Preparation for growth Objective: Set the system up so that it can easily handle expansion

Steps to Improvement:

6 Months ‐ Explore affordable scheduling assistance software packages that will assist with record-keeping, billing, and reporting

12 Months ‐ Begin making business practice changes to match the requirements of the scheduling assistance software

18 Months ‐ Implement scheduling assistance software


Data and Questionnaire Analysis

1. Comparisons To Vehicle Utilization Data (VUD) Peer Group: Vehicle Utilization Data was used to understand the system’s performance in comparison to peer systems in the state. See the last page for a map of the VUD Peer Groups.

1.A. Current Summary Statistics: The table below compares descriptive statistics from Fall 2011 VUD for HYDE COUNTY TRANSIT with other counties in their peer group.

Weekday Statistics Group 4 HYDE % Difference

# % # % Average Daily Passengers 176 67 -62% Average Daily No Shows 7 4% 3 4% -57% Average Daily Wheelchair Passengers 11 6% 1 1% -91% Total Vehicles 17 6 -65% Lift Vehicles 11 65% 3 50% -73% Service Hours 74 23 -69% Revenue Hours 59 80% 15 64% -75% Deadhead Hours 15 20% 8 36% -44% Service Miles 1,707 575 -66% Revenue Miles 1,345 79% 383 67% -72% Deadhead Miles 362 21% 192 33% -47% Passengers Per Service Hour 2.49 2.88 16% Passengers Per Revenue Hour 3.31 4.54 37% Passengers Per Service Mile 0.106 0.116 10% Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.140 0.174 25%


1.A.1. Weekday Average Daily Passengers: Hyde County has considerably less population than other counties in the peer group. With 67 passengers per day (>10 trips per vehicle per day), the transit system may be running at capacity.

1.A.2. Weekday Average Daily Wheelchair Passengers: At the site visit, the transit system indicated that there are very few customers within the service area that require lift vehicles. This statistic validates this belief.

1.A.3. Lift Vehicles: With so few trips requiring lift vehicles, the transit system is correct to have a smaller lift vehicle percent than the peer average as long as there are no capacity constraints for trips requiring lift equipped vehicles.

1.A.4. Weekday Passengers per Service/Revenue Mile/Hour: The transit system does an excellent job of ensuring the efficient delivery of passengers and excels in all efficiency categories compared to the peer group.

2. Vehicle Utilization Data Compilation Analysis The August VUD for 2011 was disrupted by Hurricane Irene. For this reason, Hyde reported an entire week of VUD starting with Thursday, August 18 and continued through Wednesday, August 24.

2.A. Capital Assessment Form: The transit system does a good job of taking vehicles out of service when there are no trips to perform.

2.B. Performance Indicators: There is considerable variation in service requirements during the week. Large swings in passengers and service/revenue hours/miles typically indicates inaccuracies in the data. The 18.70 passengers per revenue hour for Saturday, Aug. 20 may be accurate due to the highly efficient revenue service generated by this particular employment center. It is expected that the statistics in the graphs will change dramatically on the weekends. For this collection period, the weekend is in the middle of the collection period.

With such a sparsely populated geography, need to take most trips out of the county, and accurate recording of service times, it is not surprising that Hyde Transit has large gaps in the daily use of its vehicles. Most of these gaps can be explained as waiting times for out of county and Ocracoke runs.

The transit system is commended for operating on weekends.

2.C. Driver Analysis: There is a potential mistake in data entry for driver Beasley’s revenue hours on 8/18, as

the miles per revenue hour compute to over 100 mph. Using a basic scheduling software that checks the math on verified runs and automatically reports the VUD will help to alleviate these mistakes in the future.


3. Historic Vehicle Utilization Data Statistics The table below gives the system’s VUD performance information over the past three years as well as the system’s current performance in each area and the percent change from the first collection period.

Spring 2009

Fall 2009

Spring 2010

Fall 2010

Spring 2011

Fall 2011 Difference

Average Daily Passengers 68 58 56 48 69 67 -2%

Passengers per Service Mile 0.069 0.102 0.076 0.093 0.086 0.116 41%

Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.119 0.158 0.120 0.125 0.108 0.174 32%

Passengers per Service Hour 2.22 3.11 2.03 2.27 3.45 2.88 23%

Passengers per Revenue Hour 3.03 4.53 2.96 3.36 4.16 4.54 33%

3.A. Weekday Average Daily Passengers: The average daily passengers have remained stable over a 3 year

period. The transit system should continually strive to increase passenger trips by acquiring new funding sources and providing innovative service to county residents and visitors.

3.B. Weekday Passengers per Service/Revenue Mile/Hour: The efficiency of the system has increased substantially over a 3 year period.

4. Other Data Analysis: Hyde is unable to provide information at this level because it does not use scheduling software.

Current Monthly Statistics (Average Weekday) #

%

Total Scheduled Passengers N/A Total Passengers Carried Subscription Passengers Demand Response Passengers Cancellations Subscription Cancellations Demand Cancellations No Shows Subscription No Shows Demand No Shows

5. Manifest Review

5.A. Data

5.A.1. Space for All Necessary Information: Yes

5.A.2. Manifests Filled Out Completely: Yes


5.A.3. Data Looks Accurate: Yes

5.B. Legibility

5.B.1. Data Entered Consistently: Yes

5.B.2. Easy to Read Numbers: Yes

5.B.3. Easy to Determine Who Rode or Why Not: Yes

5.C. Number of Manifests: Ok

5.D. Ordered

5.D.1. Format Allows for Ordering of Manifests: No

5.D.2. Pickup and Drop-off Times are Correct: No

5.D.3. Appears that the Office Controls the Information, Not the Driver: No. However, the innovative method of paying drivers by the run and not by the hour incentivizes the drivers to find the most efficient way of delivering the trips.

5.E. Clients on Manifest Ride: Yes

6. Employment, Training and Staff: ITRE has not been able to receive a copy of the Business Practices Questionnaire. Therefore, information in the following sections comes from memory from the site visit and may be incorrect or incomplete. The following analysis is based on the corresponding sections of the Business Practices Questionnaire, Employee Worksheet and site visit. If needed, a comparison was made to the day-to-day documents (manifests, etc) received from the system.


6.A. Job Advertisement [Questionnaire Sections 1a – 1c ]:

6.B. Designation of Staff Duties and Driver Work Assignment [Questionnaire Section 1c, 1d, 3k – 3m]: The transit system has a very innovative method for paying drivers. Instead of paying by the hour, they pay by the run. Each run has a pre-determined payment for the driver. With this payment plan, the transit system can be confident that drivers are not taking longer to perform the run than necessary.

6.C. Staff Software Utilization and Computer Proficiency [Questionnaire Sections 1b and 1d]: Staff appears to be comfortable using a system of linked Excel spreadsheets that meets its current needs. Transit-specific scheduling software is not utilized in this operation. With the small size of the transit system and the skillsets of the office staff, it can continue to successfully operate without software. However, the system is not in a position to handle growth without implementing some kind of scheduling

software that assists with data collection and reporting. It is recommended that the system transition to a basic scheduling assistance software to prepare for future growth.

7. Operations and Administrative Policies:

7.A. Repairs and Routine Maintenance Policy [Questionnaire Section 4a – 4d]: The system has implemented AssetWORKS, which will assist in tracking and scheduling maintenance.

7.B. Scheduling Policy and Procedure, Use of Real-time Dispatching [Questionnaire Section 3a – 3c, 3e, 3f and 3m]: Schedules are determined the day before the run occurs. Once on the road, the drivers tend to manage their schedules independently.

7.C. Vehicle Outstationing [Questionnaire Section 5c]: There is a continual issue with drivers having to come back to the base to switch vehicles. Vehicles are outstationed but are switched at the office on a regular basis due to capacity constraints.

7.D. Policies and Procedure for Emergencies, Sick Drivers or Vehicle Breakdown [Questionnaire Section 3m]:

7.E. Charges and Procedures for No Shows or Cancellations, Administrative Fees and Fuel Charges [Questionnaire Sections 3e – 3j, 5.b.2, 7f , 7g, 8b and 8c]:

7.F. Reports and Self-evaluation (data availability and accessibility) [Questionnaire Sections 5d, 6h and 6i]: The transit system is able to pull most information quickly using the system it has developed in-house.

7.G. Interagency Coordination and Trip Brokering [Questionnaire Sections 5a and 5b]: There are no options for brokering trips within the county.

7.H. Out of County Services [Questionnaire Section 3n]: Hyde must continually go out of county for most medical appointments. Many of the trips are to Washington and Greenville. Due to its’ isolated location, the only opportunity for coordination is with Beaufort County and these opportunities are limited.

7.I. Service Types [Questionnaire Section 3o]:

7.J. Community Visibility [Questionnaire Section 9a-9c]: The transit system has one of the most distinctive van logos in the entire state.


8. Billing, Funding Sources and Budgeting:

8.A. Billing Methods and Rates [Questionnaire Section 5.a.2, 7a, 7b]:

8.B. Costs of Service [Questionnaire Section 8a]:

8.C. Rate Setting [Questionnaire Sections 8e]:

8.D. Funding Sources [Questionnaire Sections 6f, 6j, 7c – 7e, and 8f]: Hyde Transit does not carry any Medicaid trips, which sets it apart from its peers. Instead, the transit system has focused on finding other sources within the community and has done an excellent job of outreach.

8.E. Budgeting [Questionnaire Sections 2e, 8d and 8g]: As a non-profit, the transit system must accurately budget because the county will not bail them out in case of an issue.

9. Planning:

9.A. Procedure for Policy Change and Review Process [Questionnaire Sections 2d, 3d, 6b – 6e, 6g]:

9.B. Service Planning, Expansion and Review Process [Questionnaire Section 6a, 6b and 6g]:


Other Areas of Analysis

During the performance planning process, many aspects of a system’s performance are analyzed; all of the areas of analysis are listed below. Only those that need comment are included in the body of the Plan.

Total passenger trips Deadhead Miles and Hours Cancelations and no shows for subscription trips and

demand response trips Number of wheelchair passengers Number of lift-equipped vehicles Weekday Average Daily Passengers Weekday Average No Shows Weekday Average Wheelchair Passengers Total Vehicles Lift Vehicles Weekday Service Hours Weekday Revenue Hours Weekday Service Miles Weekday Revenue Miles Deadhead Miles and Hours Hiring practices Designation of staff duties and driver work

assignment Software utilization and computer proficiency

Organizational structure Work environment Repairs/routine maintenance policy Use of real-time dispatching Vehicle out stationing Policy and procedure for emergencies, sick drivers or

vehicle breakdown Charges for no shows and cancellations Administrative Fees and Fuel Surcharge Reports and self-evaluation, availability and ability to

access data Interagency Coordination Billing methods and Rates Cost of Service Rate Setting Funding Sources Budget Process Policy change procedure and review process Service planning, expansion and review process Community awareness and relationship

BURKE

CALDWELLALEXANDER

SURRY STOKES

YADKIN

DAVIE

HYDE

DARE

WAKE

PITT

BLADEN

DUPLIN

PENDER

WILKES

CARTERET

ROBESON

SAMPSONUNION

ONSLOW

MOORE

BEAUFORT

COLUMBUS

SWAIN

WAYNE

BRUNSWICK

ASHE

JOHNSTON

ANSON

CHATHAM

IREDELL

MACON

ROWAN

TYRRELL

HOKE

GUILFORD

HARNETT

LEE

MARTIN

BUNCOMBE

DAVIDSON

HAYWOOD

STANLYLENOIR

JACKSON

GATES

CUMBERLAND

MADISON

PERSON

WILSON

ORANGE

CASWELL

CATAWBA

FORSYTH

ROCKINGHAM

GASTONCHEROKEE

POLK

RUTHERFORD

CLAY

CLEVELAND

MCDOWELL

YANCEY

AVERY

LINCOLNGRAHAM CABARRUS

WATAUGA

GREENE

RICHMOND

ALAMANCE

MECKLENBURG

DURHAM

WASHINGTON

HENDERSON

SCOTLAND

TRANSYLVANIA

MITCHELL

ALLEGHANY

NEW HANOVER

CURRITUCK

CAMDEN

PASQUOTANK

PERQUIMANS

CHOWAN

HERTFORD

BERTIE

NORTHAMPTON

HALIFAX

WARREN

FRANKLIN

GRANVILLE

VANCE

NASHEDGECOMBE

JONES

CRAVENPAMLICO

RANDOLPH

MONTGOMERY

RALEIGH= T

CARY= T

D CITY= T

SCHEDULING SOFTWARE

Regional System

Single System

CHAPELHILL=T

Other (O)

TrIP_Maker

Trapeze (T)

RouteMatch

CTS

Stratagen (S)

TTA= T

12/10/12

Files in GIS folder on Kai's Computer

CHARLOTTE= S

High Point = TWinston-Salem = T

Greensboro = TPART = T

FAYETTEVILLE= T

8/6/2012Passengers: Serv

Miles:Deadhead Mile %:

Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:

Route:Route AnalysisHoke Area Transit Services

1 1 9 0% 0.3 0% 3.00 3.000.11 0.11 27 2710 6 39 5% 1.7 18% 3.60 4.390.15 0.16 23 27100 11 107 13% 4.0 15% 2.75 3.220.10 0.12 27 27101 13 76 21% 4.8 15% 2.74 3.210.17 0.22 16 15102 17 107 8% 5.4 12% 3.15 3.590.16 0.17 20 2112 10 85 18% 3.3 28% 3.08 4.290.12 0.14 26 3017 14 109 15% 5.5 23% 2.55 3.310.13 0.15 20 2218 18 170 11% 7.2 16% 2.50 2.970.11 0.12 24 2519 14 159 6% 7.8 6% 1.81 1.930.09 0.09 21 212 4 69 16% 3.4 10% 1.19 1.330.06 0.07 21 1920 18 208 12% 7.0 5% 2.57 2.700.09 0.10 30 2822 6 38 13% 2.2 15% 2.77 3.270.16 0.18 18 1823 14 118 9% 5.5 4% 2.56 2.670.12 0.13 22 203 2 2 0% 0.3 0% 7.06 7.061.00 1.00 7 7305 72 100 4% 3.8 5% 19.12 20.190.72 0.75 27 27601 15 169 9% 8.3 7% 1.81 1.940.09 0.10 20 20602 28 186 8% 8.5 13% 3.29 3.770.15 0.16 22 23604 18 148 10% 8.0 19% 2.25 2.770.12 0.14 19 20801 2 166 2% 6.0 6% 0.33 0.350.01 0.01 28 299 8 41 0% 1.9 8% 4.32 4.710.20 0.20 22 24901 9 99 6% 5.5 4% 1.64 1.700.09 0.10 18 18902 13 150 12% 7.3 9% 1.79 1.980.09 0.10 21 20903 2 82 13% 4.0 11% 0.51 0.570.02 0.03 21 20

315 2437 111.2 0.129 2223 Routes 10% 11% 0.143 2.83 3.19 22

Deadhead Mile % and Deadhead Hr % indicate the non‐revenue percent of miles and hours (Service‐Revenue)/ServicePage 1 of 11Hoke Area Transit Services



Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


1 1 10 50% 0.5 36% 2.14 3.330.10 0.20 21 1710 6 21 5% 1.4 31% 4.24 6.100.29 0.30 15 20100 9 91 11% 4.3 17% 2.12 2.560.10 0.11 21 23101 9 40 13% 3.5 8% 2.55 2.760.23 0.26 11 11102 15 165 5% 8.5 7% 1.76 1.900.09 0.10 19 2012 7 65 45% 2.4 37% 2.90 4.620.11 0.19 27 2417 11 106 8% 5.3 14% 2.10 2.440.10 0.11 20 2218 20 200 7% 7.8 12% 2.58 2.930.10 0.11 26 2719 14 171 9% 7.1 4% 1.98 2.070.08 0.09 24 232 1 48 54% 1.5 63% 0.67 1.820.02 0.05 32 4020 16 203 15% 8.3 11% 1.92 2.160.08 0.09 24 2322 11 63 13% 3.5 13% 3.19 3.670.17 0.20 18 1823 17 101 19% 5.1 10% 3.32 3.710.17 0.21 20 183 2 9 33% 0.7 50% 3.00 6.000.22 0.33 14 18304 18 184 5% 8.3 6% 2.16 2.300.10 0.10 22 22305 78 137 7% 5.9 3% 13.18 13.570.57 0.61 23 224 1 57 51% 1.6 54% 0.63 1.360.02 0.04 36 385 2 25 68% 0.9 79% 2.14 10.000.08 0.25 27 40501 7 71 14% 2.6 16% 2.73 3.260.10 0.11 28 286 1 5 0% 0.3 0% 3.00 3.000.20 0.20 15 15602 23 145 9% 6.6 13% 3.49 4.000.16 0.17 22 23604 19 139 9% 8.0 12% 2.38 2.700.14 0.15 17 187 1 5 20% 0.2 0% 6.00 6.000.20 0.25 30 24701 12 96 6% 4.9 4% 2.46 2.560.13 0.13 20 19702 23 190 6% 10.5 10% 2.19 2.440.12 0.13 18 19703 15 97 8% 7.0 6% 2.13 2.260.15 0.17 14 139 5 27 4% 1.6 16% 3.16 3.750.19 0.19 17 20

344 2471 118.2 0.139 2127 Routes 13% 12% 0.159 2.91 3.32 21




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


1 2 9 0% 0.5 0% 4.00 4.000.22 0.22 18 1810 7 41 0% 1.8 9% 3.82 4.200.17 0.17 22 25100 7 72 22% 3.5 23% 2.00 2.590.10 0.13 21 21101 10 69 32% 5.3 37% 1.89 3.000.14 0.21 13 14102 18 191 4% 8.7 7% 2.08 2.230.09 0.10 22 2312 9 70 21% 3.0 34% 3.00 4.580.13 0.16 23 2817 16 195 7% 6.5 13% 2.46 2.820.08 0.09 30 3218 23 186 7% 7.1 12% 3.23 3.690.12 0.13 26 2819 17 205 5% 8.5 11% 2.00 2.250.08 0.09 24 262 7 46 2% 2.5 13% 2.80 3.210.15 0.16 18 2120 18 236 4% 12.3 30% 1.47 2.100.08 0.08 19 2622 7 56 11% 3.3 28% 2.15 2.980.13 0.14 17 2123 11 99 14% 4.3 21% 2.55 3.240.11 0.13 23 253 1 6 17% 0.2 0% 5.45 5.450.17 0.20 33 27305 78 122 12% 4.7 11% 16.71 18.870.64 0.73 26 2633 6 37 14% 2.6 10% 2.28 2.540.16 0.19 14 144 1 6 0% 0.3 0% 4.00 4.000.17 0.17 24 24501 7 76 11% 3.0 18% 2.32 2.840.09 0.10 25 28601 13 160 7% 7.9 7% 1.65 1.780.08 0.09 20 20602 20 104 13% 6.0 15% 3.33 3.910.19 0.22 17 18604 19 110 3% 7.0 14% 2.71 3.140.17 0.18 16 189 8 54 6% 1.9 5% 4.17 4.400.15 0.16 28 28901 14 97 9% 6.3 9% 2.22 2.450.14 0.16 15 15902 12 109 12% 7.0 9% 1.71 1.880.11 0.13 16 15903 8 98 17% 5.8 8% 1.39 1.510.08 0.10 17 15

339 2454 119.8 0.138 2025 Routes 9% 15% 0.152 2.83 3.35 22




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


1 1 2 50% 0.3 24% 3.53 4.620.50 1.00 7 510 9 56 0% 2.2 11% 4.15 4.660.16 0.16 26 29100 8 78 28% 3.2 21% 2.53 3.180.10 0.14 25 22101 25 126 6% 7.5 8% 3.33 3.630.20 0.21 17 17102 17 201 4% 8.0 6% 2.13 2.260.08 0.09 25 2612 9 95 29% 4.5 48% 2.00 3.860.09 0.13 21 2917 10 107 9% 5.3 33% 1.90 2.840.09 0.10 20 2818 18 167 7% 7.7 13% 2.33 2.670.11 0.12 22 2319 19 191 8% 7.5 7% 2.53 2.720.10 0.11 25 252 2 7 0% 0.4 0% 4.62 4.620.29 0.29 16 1620 18 184 6% 7.8 9% 2.30 2.510.10 0.10 23 2423 15 147 14% 6.3 13% 2.40 2.770.10 0.12 24 23304 20 176 6% 8.3 7% 2.42 2.610.11 0.12 21 22305 76 137 9% 5.7 12% 13.33 15.100.55 0.61 24 25501 8 133 11% 5.2 13% 1.55 1.790.06 0.07 26 2760 2 40 10% 3.4 13% 0.59 0.670.05 0.06 12 12602 22 133 14% 6.8 15% 3.26 3.850.17 0.19 20 20604 21 143 8% 8.0 11% 2.63 2.940.15 0.16 18 18701 11 115 5% 5.2 3% 2.10 2.170.10 0.10 22 22702 23 142 9% 7.0 4% 3.29 3.430.16 0.18 20 19703 12 115 9% 6.3 9% 1.92 2.100.10 0.11 18 18801 10 238 6% 10.2 6% 0.98 1.040.04 0.04 23 239 9 59 7% 2.2 15% 4.15 4.910.15 0.16 27 30

365 2792 128.8 0.131 2223 Routes 9% 12% 0.144 2.83 3.21 22




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


1 1 8 13% 0.7 15% 1.50 1.760.13 0.14 12 1210 8 66 9% 2.0 17% 4.00 4.800.12 0.13 33 36100 8 103 17% 4.0 22% 2.00 2.550.08 0.09 26 27101 12 55 33% 4.3 13% 2.82 3.240.22 0.32 13 10102 18 197 9% 8.9 4% 2.02 2.110.09 0.10 22 2112 4 38 55% 2.5 71% 1.60 5.450.11 0.24 15 2317 8 112 8% 3.7 15% 2.18 2.550.07 0.08 31 3318 18 179 9% 7.7 14% 2.34 2.710.10 0.11 23 2420 15 219 4% 7.5 8% 2.00 2.170.07 0.07 29 3022 6 71 14% 3.3 24% 1.85 2.420.08 0.10 22 2523 10 103 14% 4.2 17% 2.36 2.830.10 0.11 24 25305 73 119 2% 6.3 29% 11.68 16.530.61 0.62 19 2631 16 146 12% 6.8 15% 2.37 2.770.11 0.12 22 2233 9 34 21% 3.0 10% 3.00 3.330.26 0.33 11 10501 9 145 12% 4.8 9% 1.86 2.040.06 0.07 30 29601 13 180 6% 7.5 2% 1.73 1.770.07 0.08 24 23602 20 171 9% 7.8 13% 2.58 2.970.12 0.13 22 23604 17 111 5% 8.0 17% 2.13 2.550.15 0.16 14 168 6 106 15% 5.0 17% 1.20 1.440.06 0.07 21 229 9 60 10% 2.2 18% 4.15 5.090.15 0.17 28 31

280 2223 99.9 0.126 2220 Routes 11% 15% 0.141 2.80 3.29 23




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:

Driver:Driver AnalysisHoke Area Transit Services

11 18 148 10% 8.0 19% 2.25 2.770.122 0.135 19 20

37 15 169 9% 8.3 7% 1.81 1.940.089 0.097 20 20

44 1 9 0% 0.3 0% 3.00 3.000.111 0.111 27 27

5 24 194 16% 8.8 25% 2.74 3.650.124 0.147 22 25

55 28 186 8% 8.5 13% 3.29 3.770.151 0.164 22 23

56 2 166 2% 6.0 6% 0.33 0.350.012 0.012 28 29

57 72 100 4% 3.8 5% 19.12 20.190.720 0.750 27 27

6 27 194 14% 10.2 9% 2.64 2.900.139 0.162 19 18

61 11 181 9% 9.4 7% 1.17 1.250.061 0.067 19 19

62 18 208 12% 7.0 5% 2.57 2.700.087 0.098 30 28

63 18 170 11% 7.2 16% 2.50 2.970.106 0.118 24 25

64 14 80 3% 3.5 13% 3.98 4.570.175 0.179 23 25

65 17 145 13% 6.2 15% 2.76 3.240.117 0.135 24 24

67 16 161 6% 8.0 6% 1.99 2.120.099 0.106 20 20

69 21 176 11% 8.8 11% 2.40 2.710.119 0.135 20 20

9 13 150 12% 7.3 9% 1.79 1.980.087 0.098 21 20

315 2437 111.2 0.13 2216 Drivers 10% 11% 0.14 2.83 3.19 22




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


11 19 139 9% 8.0 12% 2.38 2.700.137 0.150 17 18

37 18 184 5% 8.3 6% 2.16 2.300.098 0.103 22 22

41 3 82 56% 2.5 63% 1.18 3.210.037 0.083 32 39

5 18 171 22% 7.7 21% 2.35 2.980.105 0.134 22 22

55 25 154 10% 7.3 16% 3.45 4.110.162 0.181 21 23

57 86 213 9% 8.8 7% 9.75 10.450.404 0.443 24 24

6 26 141 17% 8.7 9% 3.01 3.310.184 0.222 16 15

61 27 193 7% 11.9 5% 2.27 2.390.140 0.151 16 16

62 23 190 6% 10.5 10% 2.19 2.440.121 0.129 18 19

63 20 200 7% 7.8 12% 2.58 2.930.100 0.107 26 27

64 11 48 4% 3.0 23% 3.67 4.750.229 0.239 16 20

65 20 154 12% 7.7 15% 2.60 3.070.130 0.147 20 21

67 14 171 9% 7.1 4% 1.98 2.070.082 0.090 24 23

68 16 203 15% 8.3 11% 1.92 2.160.079 0.093 24 23

69 15 165 5% 8.5 7% 1.76 1.900.091 0.096 19 20

9 3 63 51% 2.1 52% 1.41 2.950.048 0.097 30 30

344 2471 118.2 0.14 2116 Drivers 13% 12% 0.16 2.91 3.32 21




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


11 19 110 3% 7.0 14% 2.71 3.140.173 0.178 16 18

37 13 160 7% 7.9 7% 1.65 1.780.081 0.087 20 20

44 3 15 0% 0.8 0% 4.00 4.000.200 0.200 20 20

5 25 265 11% 9.5 20% 2.63 3.280.094 0.105 28 31

55 27 150 10% 8.5 14% 3.18 3.700.180 0.200 18 18

56 1 6 17% 0.2 0% 5.45 5.450.167 0.200 33 27

57 85 198 12% 7.7 14% 11.06 12.880.429 0.486 26 27

6 11 99 14% 4.3 21% 2.55 3.240.111 0.129 23 25

61 14 97 9% 6.3 9% 2.22 2.450.144 0.159 15 15

62 8 98 17% 5.8 8% 1.39 1.510.082 0.099 17 15

63 23 186 7% 7.1 12% 3.23 3.690.124 0.133 26 28

64 15 95 3% 3.8 7% 4.00 4.310.158 0.163 25 26

65 14 128 17% 6.8 25% 2.07 2.770.109 0.132 19 21

66 16 106 25% 7.9 28% 2.02 2.810.151 0.203 13 14

67 17 205 5% 8.5 11% 2.00 2.250.083 0.087 24 26

68 18 236 4% 12.3 30% 1.47 2.100.076 0.080 19 26

69 18 191 4% 8.7 7% 2.08 2.230.094 0.098 22 23

9 12 109 12% 7.0 9% 1.71 1.880.110 0.125 16 15

339 2454 119.8 0.14 2018 Drivers 9% 15% 0.15 2.83 3.35 22




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


11 21 143 8% 8.0 11% 2.63 2.940.147 0.160 18 18

37 20 176 6% 8.3 7% 2.42 2.610.114 0.120 21 22

41 1 2 50% 0.3 24% 3.53 4.620.500 1.000 7 5

5 19 202 19% 9.8 40% 1.95 3.250.094 0.116 21 28

51 25 126 6% 7.5 8% 3.33 3.630.198 0.212 17 17

55 22 133 14% 6.8 15% 3.26 3.850.165 0.191 20 20

57 84 270 10% 10.9 12% 7.74 8.840.311 0.346 25 26

6 10 238 6% 10.2 6% 0.98 1.040.042 0.045 23 23

61 23 230 7% 11.5 6% 2.00 2.130.100 0.107 20 20

62 4 47 9% 3.9 11% 1.04 1.170.085 0.093 12 13

63 18 167 7% 7.7 13% 2.33 2.670.108 0.116 22 23

64 18 115 3% 4.3 13% 4.15 4.780.157 0.162 27 29

65 23 225 19% 9.4 16% 2.44 2.900.102 0.126 24 23

66 23 142 9% 7.0 4% 3.29 3.430.162 0.178 20 19

67 19 191 8% 7.5 7% 2.53 2.720.099 0.108 25 25

68 18 184 6% 7.8 9% 2.30 2.510.098 0.104 23 24

69 17 201 4% 8.0 6% 2.13 2.260.085 0.088 25 26

365 2792 128.8 0.13 2217 Drivers 9% 12% 0.14 2.83 3.21 22




Serv Hour:

Deadhead Hr %:

Pass Per Serv Hr:

Pass Per Rev Hr:

Pass Per Serv Mile:

Pass Per Rev Mile:

Miles Per Serv Hr:

Miles Per Rev Hr:


11 17 111 5% 8.0 17% 2.13 2.550.153 0.160 14 16

44 1 8 13% 0.7 15% 1.50 1.760.125 0.143 12 12

5 8 112 8% 3.7 15% 2.18 2.550.071 0.078 31 33

51 21 89 28% 7.3 12% 2.90 3.280.236 0.328 12 10

55 20 171 9% 7.8 13% 2.58 2.970.117 0.128 22 23

6 10 103 14% 4.2 17% 2.36 2.830.097 0.112 24 25

62 82 264 8% 11.1 20% 7.40 9.280.311 0.336 24 28

63 18 179 9% 7.7 14% 2.34 2.710.101 0.111 23 24

64 9 60 10% 2.2 18% 4.15 5.090.150 0.167 28 31

65 20 184 21% 9.3 30% 2.16 3.080.109 0.137 20 22

66 14 174 16% 7.3 23% 1.93 2.490.080 0.096 24 26

67 13 180 6% 7.5 2% 1.73 1.770.072 0.077 24 23

68 15 219 4% 7.5 8% 2.00 2.170.068 0.071 29 30

69 18 197 9% 8.9 4% 2.02 2.110.091 0.100 22 21

9 14 172 13% 7.0 17% 2.00 2.400.081 0.093 25 26

280 2223 99.9 0.13 2215 Drivers 11% 15% 0.14 2.80 3.29 23


Performance Indicators (Daily) and CAP From 8/6/2012 to 8/10/2012 HOKE AREA TRANSIT

Passengers per Service Hour

2.83

2.91

2.83 2.832.80

2.7

2.75

2.8

2.85

2.9

2.95

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Passengers per Service & Revenue Mile

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Passengers per Service & Revenue Hour

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Passengers per Revenue Hour

3.19

3.323.35

3.21

3.29

3.13.153.2

3.253.3

3.353.4

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Total Service & Revenue Miles

0500

10001500200025003000

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Total Service & Revenue Hours

020406080

100120140

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Total Passengers

315344 339 365

280

0

100

200

300

400

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12

Pax/Revenue HourPax/Service Hour Pax/Service Miles Pax/Revenue Miles

Service Hours Revenue Hours Service Miles Revenue Miles

Total Wheelchairs

02468

1012

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12 Wheel Chairs

Total No Shows

0

5

10

15

20

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12No Shows

Page 1 of 9HOKE AREA TRANSIT SERVICES 8/21/2012


Totals: Amount Billed & FAC (by Mileage Rate)

$0.00$1,000.00$2,000.00$3,000.00$4,000.00$5,000.00

8/6/12

8/7/12

8/8/12

8/9/12

8/10/1

2

Amount Billed FAC Total

Amount Billed per Pax Trip &FAC per Pax Trip

$0.00$2.00$4.00$6.00$8.00

$10.00$12.00$14.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amount Billed FAC per Pax

Amount Billed per Service MileFAC per Service Mile

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amount Billed FAC Svc Mile

Amount Billed per Revenue MileFAC per Service Mile

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amount Billed FAC Svc Mile

Amount Billed per Svc & Rev MileFAC per Svc Mile

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amt Billed Svc FAC Svc MileAmt Billed Rev

Amount Billed per Service HourFAC per Service Hour

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amount Billed FAC Svc Hour

Amount Billed per Revenue HourFAC per Service Hour

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amount Billed FAC Svc Hour

Amount Billed per Svc & Rev HourFAC per Svc Hour

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

8/6/12 8/7/12 8/8/12 8/9/12 8/10/12Amt Billed Svc FAC Svc HourAmt Billed Rev



Active Revenue Vehicles

Weekend Summary

Weekday Summary

Cost Summary

Date TotalPax

SvcMiles

RevMiles

SvcHours

RevHours

PaxperSvcHour

PaxperRevHour

PaxperSvcMile

PaxperRevMile

NoShows

WheelChairs

DayofWeek

08/06/12 315 2437 2198 111.22 98.80 2.83 3.190.13 0.1412 9Monday

08/07/12 344 2471 2160 118.17 103.47 2.91 3.320.14 0.1617 7Tuesday

08/08/12 339 2454 2227 119.83 101.32 2.83 3.350.14 0.1510 10Wednesday

08/09/12 365 2792 2538 128.75 113.63 2.83 3.210.13 0.149 5Thursday

08/10/12 280 2223 1986 99.93 85.03 2.80 3.290.13 0.1412 7Friday

2.84 3.270.13 0.15Weekday Averages: 329 2475 2222 115.58 100.45 12 8

1643 12377 11109 577.90 502.25 60 38Weekday Totals:

Date TotalPax

SvcMiles

RevMiles

SvcHours

RevHours

ActualCosts

FACperSvcHour

REVperSvcHour

REVperRevHour

FACperSvcMile

REVperSvcMile

REVperRevMile

FACperPax

REVperPax

AmountBilled

8/6/2012 315 2437 2198 111.22 98.80 $33.96 $38.23 $1.55 $1.72 $11.99$3,777.37

8/7/2012 344 2471 2160 118.17 103.47 $32.42 $37.02 $1.55 $1.77 $11.14$3,830.67

8/8/2012 339 2454 2227 119.83 101.32 $31.73 $37.53 $1.55 $1.71 $11.22$3,802.40

8/9/2012 365 2792 2538 128.75 113.63 $33.67 $38.15 $1.55 $1.71 $11.88$4,335.04

8/10/2012 280 2223 1986 99.93 85.03 $34.50 $40.54 $1.55 $1.74 $12.31$3,447.28

1643 12377 11109 577.90 502.25 $19,192.76Totals:

VehicleCapacity:

VehicleWCStations:

NumberofVehicles:VehicleType:

TotalCapacity:

TotalWCCapacity:

Bus 10 23 30 6

Bus 14 01 14 0

Bus 14 22 28 4

Bus 15 21 15 2

Truck 2 01 2 0

Van 6 12 12 2

Van 7 03 21 0

Van 8 23 24 6

Van 9 01 9 0


Performance Indicators (Daily) and CAP From 8/6/2012 to 8/10/2012 HOKE AREA TRANSIT Van 9 21 9 2

Van 11 21 11 2

Van 12 08 96 0

Van 13 06 78 0

Van 14 01 14 0

Van 16 22 32 4

2836Totals: 395

Hoke Area Transit Services: Capital Assessment1,643577.9

Week Totals 12,377

Miles Hours Pass

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Veh ID Cap Miles Hours Pass

Date: 8/6/2012 Day: Monday

am pm28 7 9 0:20 11

34 10 293 14:10 352

44 13 150 7:15 133

45 13 169 8:18 154

46 16 208 7:00 185

47 16 181 9:26 116

48 13 80 3:31 147

54 6 2 0:17 28

55 6 166 6:00 29

74 8 194 10:13 2710

75 8 186 8:30 2811

76 8 194 8:45 2412

79 14 239 10:33 2213

80 14 259 11:31 8614

81 14 107 5:24 1715

315111.2 Daily Totals2,437 Active (Vehicle in Service) Inactive (Vehicle NOT in Service)36 Revenue Vehicles




Date: 8/7/2012 Day: Tuesday

am pm28 7 58 1:58 21

34 10 342 16:20 352

35 10 5 0:10 13

44 13 174 9:10 174

45 13 141 8:39 265

46 16 190 10:30 236

47 16 193 11:55 277

48 13 48 3:00 118

54 6 82 2:32 39

74 8 184 8:20 1810

75 8 299 14:17 4311

76 8 171 7:40 1812

79 14 371 14:50 3413

80 14 142 6:15 7914

81 14 71 2:34 715





Date: 8/8/2012 Day: Wednesday

am pm28 7 98 5:45 81

34 10 301 15:40 372

35 10 265 9:30 253

36 10 6 0:15 14

44 13 106 7:55 165

45 13 160 7:53 136

46 16 128 6:45 147

47 16 97 6:19 148

48 13 95 3:45 159

54 6 46 2:30 710

55 6 9 0:30 211

74 8 99 4:19 1112

75 8 340 18:15 3813

76 8 109 7:00 1214

79 14 391 15:37 4015

80 14 6 0:11 116

81 14 198 7:41 8517





Date: 8/9/2012 Day: Thursday

am pm28 7 238 10:14 101

34 10 344 16:00 382

35 10 202 9:45 193

36 10 142 7:00 234

44 13 126 7:30 255

46 16 40 3:25 26

47 16 230 11:29 237

48 13 115 4:20 188

54 6 9 0:43 39

74 8 225 9:25 2310

75 8 133 6:45 2211

76 8 184 7:50 1812

79 14 358 15:13 3713

80 14 270 10:51 8414

81 14 176 8:15 2015





Date: 8/10/2012 Day: Friday

am pm28 7 114 5:40 71

34 10 330 15:30 322

35 10 112 3:40 83

36 10 197 8:55 184

45 13 180 7:30 135

46 16 264 11:05 826

47 16 184 9:15 207

48 13 126 4:10 178

74 8 103 4:14 109

75 8 171 7:45 2010

76 8 174 7:15 1411

79 14 179 7:42 1812

81 14 89 7:15 2113



FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation DivisionPublic Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

State-Wide Public Transportation Pg 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2010 2011 2012

Passengers By Year In Millions

5%

14%

66%

15%

Miles By Year In Millions Hours By Year in Millions

Total Hours: 5,486,991Total Miles: 88,900,885

Total Passengers: 77,191,873

Total Federal Funding: $54,434,337Total State Funding: $50,598,457

Total Local Funding: $235,296,431Total Other Funding: $18,127,193

Total Funding: $358,456,418

Highlights

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 2011 2012

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2010 2011 2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

2010 2011 2012

Revenue Sources by Year in Millions

2010 Revenue Sources

Data Summary

StateFederal Local OtherRevenue Data Legend

Systems By Type

Total Public Transportation Systems: 99

Consolidated Small City-Community: 1Regional Urban: 2Human Service: 2Fixed Route in Small Cities: 2Regional Community: 6Consolidated Urban-Community: 5Urban Single-City: 15Community: 66

2011

Miles: 90,008,836Hours: 5,549,912Total Passengers: 72,957,653

Federal Revenue: $50,914,195

State Revenue: $55,958,283Local Revenue: $237,584,433

2012

88,900,8855,486,991

77,191,873

$54,434,337

$50,598,457$235,296,431

% Change

-1%-1%6%

7%

-10%-1%

Other Revenue: $17,809,589 $18,127,193 2%

Data last updated on: 12/6/2012Date Printed: 1/23/2013

FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation DivisionUrban Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

State-Wide Urban Transportation 1

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

2010

2011

2012

Passengers By Year In Thousands

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

2010

2011

2012

Miles By Year In Thousands

Hours By Year in Thousands

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

2010

2011

2012

2.2

137.49

26.92

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

Efficiency By ModePassengers Per Hour

0.1

9.32

1.91

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

Passengers Per Mile

Light Rail

Demand Response

Fixed RouteLegend

Total Hours: 3,132,737Total Miles: 44,671,624

Total Passengers: 70,043,440 Total Federal Funding: $39,176,092Total State Funding: $32,999,553

Total Local Funding: $133,098,173Total Other Funding: $7,758,376


HighlightsSystems By TypeRegional Urban 2Fixed Route in Small Cities 2Consolidated Urban-Communit 5Urban-Single City 15

24Total Urban Transportation System


FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation DivisionUrban Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

State-Wide Urban Transportation 2

0.820.93 0.96

0.67

0.84 0.78

1.00

1.291.19

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

2010 2011 2012

5%

20%53%

22%

Operating Ratio By Year and By Mode Cost Per Trip By Year and By Mode

REVENUE DATA BY MODE

21.90 21.2824.09

3.41 2.86 2.534.94

2.70 2.81

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

2010 2011 2012

1% 3%

89%

7%0%

0%

91%

9%

Fixed Route Demand Response Light Rail

StateFederalLocalOther

DATA SUMMARY Demand Response Fixed Route Light Rail

Light Rail

Demand Response

Fixed Route

Legend

Legend

Cost per trip is calculated using the total system expenses divided by the total number of trips.

Statistics in blue and bold are used for benchmarking purposesOperating Ratio is calculated by summing all local funds and dividing by expenses

Capital expenses and revenues are not included

2011

Operating Ratio: 0.93

Hours: 537,316Passengers Per Hour: 2.98Passengers Per Mile: 0.186Total Passengers: 1,599,108


Federal Assistance: $2,969,218State Assistance: $2,150,448Local Assistance: $28,449,531

2012

0.96

736,1992.16

0.1461,588,841

$24.09

$2,866,280$1,167,711

$33,949,400

% Change

4%

37%-27%-22%

-1%

13%

-3%-46%19%

Subsidy Per Trip: $3.20 $2.54 -21%

Miles: 8,581,440 10,885,833 27%

Other Assistance $456,235 $294,823 -35%Operating Revenues: $3,352,373 $3,446,558 3%TOTAL REVENUES $37,377,806 $41,724,773 12%

TOTAL EXPENSES: $38,774,453 $41,724,772 8%

2011

1.29

27,924170.80

9.1824,769,534

$2.70

$0$0

$12,894,511

2012

1.19

35,563137.49

9.3214,889,453

$2.81

$1,200,000$0

$12,543,855

% Change

-8%

27%-20%

2%2%

4%

0%0%

-3%

$0.00 $0.25 0%

519,447 524,536 1%

$0 $0 0%$3,678,428 $3,793,166 3%

$16,572,939 $17,537,021 6%

$16,572,939 $17,537,021 6%

2011

0.84

2,509,64123.731.752

59,546,571

$2.86

$25,875,908$32,304,664

$105,033,802

2012

0.78

2,360,97526.921.911

63,565,146

$2.53

$35,109,812$31,831,842$86,604,918

% Change

-7%

-6%13%

9%6%

-12%

36%-1%

-18%

$0.98 $1.05 8%

33,983,036 33,261,255 -2%

$7,278,730 $7,463,553 3%$47,527,886 $49,504,249 4%

$218,020,990 $210,514,374 -3%

$203,455,330 $210,514,373 3%


FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation DivisionCommunity Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

State-Wide Community Transportation Summary Pg 1

7.157.047.07

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2010 2011 2012

44.746.9

44.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2010 2011 2012

2.4 2.52.4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2011 2012

50%

27% 23%

MedicaidNonContractOther Contract

Trips By Funding Type

Passengers By Year in Millions

25.6

3.91

2.14

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0

1.83

0.25

0.11

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Hours Per Year in Millions

Passengers, Hours and Miles By Mode

Deviated FixedDemand Response Fixed Route

Efficiency By ModePassengers Per Mile

3%

97%

WeekdayWeekend

Passengers By Day Type

Passengers Per Hour

Miles Per Year in Millions

Total Passengers: 7,148,433

Total Miles: 44,229,261Total Hours: 2,354,254

Total State Funding: $14,915,528Total Local Funding: $45,826,636

Total Federal Funding: $15,258,245

Highlights


Service Type Passengers Hours MilesDemand Response 4,755,787 2,225,036 42,330,381Deviated Fixed 254,910 64,316 996,728Fixed Route 1,645,752 64,902 902,152Other 491,984 0 0

Systems By TypeConsolidated Small City-Community 1Human Service 2Consolidated Urban-Community 5Regional Community 6Community 66

80Total Community Transportation Systems:


FY 2012 NCDOT Public Transportation DivisionCommunity Transportation Operating and Financial Statistics Report

State-Wide Community Transportation Summary Pg 2

$12.50 $12.78 $12.37

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

2010 2011 2012

$5.66$6.19

$4.60

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

2010 2011 2012

20%

63%

17%

Federal State Local

Subsidy per trip is calculated using the total amount of Federal and State administrative and operating funds a transit system received divided by the total number of trips. Cost per trip is calculated using the total system expenses divided by the total number of trips.

Data SummarySubsidy Per Trip By Year

Cost Per Trip By Year

Administrative and Operating Funding Sources

Note: Statistics in bold italics are used for benchmarking purposes

2011

Miles: 46,924,913Hours: 2,475,031Passengers Per Hour: 2.85Passengers Per Mile: 0.150Total Passengers: 7,042,440


2012

44,229,2612,354,254

3.0360.162

7,148,433

$12.37

% Change

-6%-5%7%8%2%

-3%Subsidy Per Trip: $6.19 $4.60 -26%

Non-Contract Trips Per Non-Urban Population:

1.07 5%1.13

58Reportable Incidents: 59 2%Reportable Fatalities: 0 0 #Num!Reportable Injuries: 31 69 123%


Centennial Campus Box 8601, Raleigh, NC 27695-8601 (919) 515-8899 (919) 515-8898 fax http://www.itre.ncsu.edu Institute for Transportation Research and Education

North Carolina State University

Benchmarking Guidebook for North Carolina

Urban Transportation Systems

Revised and Updated August 2010 (Original Document Published June 2006)

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Thomas J. Cook

NCSU-ITRE [email protected]

(919) 515-8622

Debra G. Collins NCSU-ITRE

[email protected] (704) 639-7653

Kai Monast NCSU-ITRE


Benchmarking Guidebook for North Carolina Urban Transportation Systems

Page 1

Introduction Benchmarking improves performance by establishing standards and identifying best practices. The purpose of this Guidebook is to assist urban transportation system managers benchmark the performance of their transit system. Benchmarking helps ensure transit systems throughout the state are using public funding as productively as possible while serving their riders efficiently and effectively. For more information on the benchmarking process, see the companion report Implementing a Benchmarking Process at North Carolina Public Transportation Systems, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, 2010. Organization of this Guidebook The guidebook is organized as follows:

1. Finding Your Peer Group 2. Applying Benchmarking Statistics 3. Determining Your Performance 4. Comparing Your System to Your Peers 5. Improving Your Performance


Page 2

1. Peer Groups This peer grouping methodology categorizes North Carolina urban transportations systems based on size- small or large. There are many ways to determine a transportation system’s size. For these peer groups, the size is determined by the number of weekday peak period routes. If the transportation system has 10 or more weekday peak period routes, they are considered large. If they have nine or fewer routes, they are considered small. We compared the results of more complicated size determinations and found that the number of weekday peak period routes established similar peer groups and was simple and effective way to categorize urban systems into peer groups. The light rail service operated by Charlotte’s CATS and the services operated by Triangle Transit and the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) are recommended for comparison with national peers because they are unique and have no peers within the state. The table below shows the number of weekday peak period routes and the peer group for each system, based on route statistics compiled in 2010. The route totals should be updated annually. URBAN PEER GROUPS

Transit System Peer Group

Number of Fixed Rotues

Charlotte (CATS) 1 70Raleigh (CAT) 1 43Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill Transit) 1 24Winston-Salem (WSTA) 1 24Greensboro (GTA) 1 23Durham (DATA) 1 18Asheville (ATA) 1 16Wilmington (WAVE Transit) 1 13High Point (HiTran) 1 12Fayetteville (FAST) 1 11NCSU (Wolfline) 1 11Gastonia (Gastonia Transit) 2 9Rocky Mount (Tar River Transit) 2 9Concord/Kannapolis (CK Rider) 2 7Cary (C-Tran) 2 6Wilson (Wilson Transit) 2 6Western Piedmont Regional Transportation Authority 2 5Greenville (GREAT) 2 5Goldsboro (Gateway Transit) 2 5Henderson County (Apple Country Transit) 2 4Salisbury (Salisbury Transit System) 2 3Jacksonville (Jacksonville Transit) 2 2


Page 3

2. Benchmarking Statistics Urban transportation systems should be cost effective, efficient, and productive. One statistic cannot comprehensively measure performance for each of the three factors. Therefore, each factor has its own benchmarking statistic.

Operating Ratio Definition [Farebox Revenues + Other Local Contributions] ÷ Operating Expenses Measures Effectiveness and Efficiency Goal Maximize Description Operating Ratio is the performance measure recommended to assess the local

financial support for urban transportation systems. This statistic is the ratio of revenues to operating expenses, and is preferable to Farebox Recovery Ratio as a measure to assess the level of all local contributions to operating expenses, not just farebox revenues.

Cost per Passenger Trip Definition [Operating Cost + Administrative Cost] ÷ Passenger Trips Measures Effectiveness and Efficiency Goal Minimize Description The total cost associated with delivering a trip, including Federal, State, and Local

operating and administrative funds. This factor measures “efficiency” by using cost and “effectiveness” by using riders carried.

Passenger Trips per Vehicle-Hour Definition Passenger Trips ÷ Vehicle Hours Measures Productivity Goal Maximize Description Measures the productivity of a transportation system. As a performance

measure, productivity captures the ability of a transportation system to provide service using the least number of resources—in-service vehicles and personnel—the essence of efficient, effective transportation service.


Page 4

3. Determining Your Performance Now that the peer groups have been developed and the benchmarking statistics have been compiled, we have to rank transportation systems by service mode within their peer group. Using peer group averages is not appropriate because there can be significant variation in the data, which skews the average value. To account for variations in the data, we use the 50th Percentile (median) and the 85th Percentile to establish the cutoffs for acceptable and superior performance within a peer group. Percentiles are common statistical methods that disregard extreme values. To determine the median: 1. Sort the individual system values from lowest

to highest. However, Cost per Trip should be minimized. Therefore, that data should be sorted from high to low.

2. Locate the midpoint; where ½ of the values

are higher and ½ of the values are lower (solid line). In this example, the median is 12.5.

To determine the 85th Percentile (basis of superior performance): 1. After sorting the data, locate the point where

85% of the values are lower and 15% of the values are higher (green dotted line).

2. Systems with values higher than the 85th Percentile are superior for this statistic. In this example, the 85th Percentile is 14.5.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cary

CK Rider

Gastonia

Goldsboro

Greenville

Henderson

Jacksonville

Tar River Transit

Salisbury

WPR

TA

Wilson

Trips Per Vehicle Hour (FR)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cary

CK Rider

Gastonia

Goldsboro

Greenville

Henderson

Jacksonville

Tar River Transit

Salisbury

WPR

TA

Wilson


Median

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cary

CK Rider

Gastonia

Goldsboro

Greenville

Henderson

Jacksonville

Tar River Transit

Salisbury

WPRTA

Wilson


85th Percentile (ABOVE)

Median


Page 5

To determine the lower cutoff of acceptable performance: 1. Subtract the median value (12.5) from the 85th

Percentile value (14.5), resulting in a difference of 2.0.

2. Subtract the difference (2.0) from the median (12.5), resulting in the acceptable cutoff value of 10.5. In this example, systems with values between 10.5 and 14.5 are within the acceptable range. Values below 10.5 are below the acceptable cutoff.

The method outlined above establishes the acceptable range based on the difference between superior and the norm (median), and subtracts this range from the median to establish the lower bound. This method does not result in having a specific number of transit systems outside of the acceptable range. Some peer group statistics may result in all transit systems with acceptable and superior performance. Other statistics may result in some transit systems performing below the acceptable cutoff.

4. Comparing Your System to Your Peers Operating Statistics (OpStats) data are used to generate the benchmarking statistics. On Page 2 of the Individual OpStats report and Page 1 of the Peer Group report, you will see the benchmarking statistics in bold and italics (see the following pages for examples). These reports are available from ITRE and from NCDOT/PTD. The data are divided by service mode (dial-a-ride, fixed route, light rail). There are no light rail peers in North Carolina, so light rail statistics do not appear on the peer group reports. All of the benchmarking statistics measure something of vital importance to urban transportation systems. Transportation systems may find that they show superior performance for some factors but unacceptable performance on others. If this occurs, do not summarize the benchmarking statistics into one overall score. Systems with superior performance on some factors and unacceptable performance on others should maintain their superior status while working to improve on the unacceptable performance factors. OpStats data are self-reported by the transportation systems. All financial information should match the year-end audit. Some cost information may not appear in the OpStats report. We strongly encourage transportation systems to track all revenues and expenses related to transportation delivery.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cary

CK Rider

Gastonia

Goldsboro

Greenville

Henderson

Jacksonville

Tar River Transit

Salisbury

WPR

TA

Wilson


85th Percentile (ABOVE)

Median

Acceptable (ABOVE)


Page 6


Page 7


Page 8

5. Improving Your Performance The desired outcome from benchmarking is an improvement in an organization’s performance. Organizations that are not within the acceptable or superior levels should work with ITRE, NCDOT/PTD, and other resources to develop a plan for improvement. Specific actions for improvement should be included, along with a timeline for completing each action. Transportation systems may also pursue improvement plans on their own, using the following methodologies:

1. Using quality improvement processes such as TQM (Total Quality Management). 2. Using a “best practices” methodology.

Quality Improvement Processes Quality improvement processes usually involve the concept of “continuous improvement.” The underlying premise is that the way to achieve excellence is to make continuous small improvements in the quality of a product or service. This quality improvement requires regular, data-driven measurements of quality (“metrics”). Wherever possible, an attempt is made to define quality from a customer perspective (whether the customer in an external or internal one). If it is determined that there is a quality (or performance) problem in a particular area, a common practice is to form a small team of people who have responsibility and/or expertise in that area. The team then conducts a problem-solving process to address it. Typically, such a process involves the following steps:


Page 9

Quality Improvement Process

Clarify the Problem

Identify Root Causes

Develop Alternative Solutions

Evaluate Alternatives

Implement Selected

Alternative(s)

Monitor and Adjust

These steps are explained below:

1. Clarify the problem. Make sure that the exact nature of the problem is clearly understood and agreed to by everyone.

2. Identify the causes of the problem. Dig down to determine the underlying root causes. Make sure that there is a cause and effect relationship.

3. Develop alternatives for solving the problem. Ideally this would include preventing the problem in the future rather than just fixing the current problem.

4. Evaluate the alternatives and select the best one(s). It can be useful as part of this effort to have the team develop and agree on the criteria that will be used to choose the best alternative(s).

5. Implement the selected alternative(s). It is important to have individuals who have responsibility for implementing the changes on the problem-solving team. This involvement helps them understand and accept what is proposed.

6. Monitor the results and make adjustments as necessary. A key to implementing change is to monitor actual results to make sure that they are what was intended. If not, make necessary adjustments.

Best Practices Methodology Best practices methodology utilizes external references as sources of information for performance improvement. Once it is determined that your organization is falling short in a particular area of performance, you can search for another organization that performs well in that area and adopt its practices. In addition, you can study organizations outside the transit industry for relevant best practices. For example, the parcel delivery industry could provide useful information on vehicle scheduling and/or utilization. Other, non-related industries could serve as information sources for best practices in areas such as finance or human resources.



Benchmarking Guidebook for North Carolina

Community Transportation Systems

Revised and Updated August 2010 (Original Document Published June 2006)

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Thomas J. Cook

NCSU-ITRE [email protected]

(919) 515-8622

Debra G. Collins NCSU-ITRE


Kai Monast NCSU-ITRE


Benchmarking Guidebook for North Carolina Community Transportation Systems

Page 1

Introduction Benchmarking improves performance by establishing standards and identifying best practices. The purpose of this Guidebook is to assist community transportation system managers benchmark the performance of their transit system. Benchmarking helps ensure transit systems throughout the state are using public funding as productively as possible while serving their riders efficiently and effectively. For more information on the benchmarking process, see the companion report Implementing a Benchmarking Process at North Carolina Public Transportation Systems, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, 2010. Organization of this Guidebook The guidebook is organized as follows:

1. Finding Your Peer Group 2. Applying Benchmarking Statistics 3. Determining Your Performance 4. Comparing Your System to Your Peers 5. Improving Your Performance


Page 2

1. Peer Groups This peer grouping methodology categorizes North Carolina community transportations systems based on uncontrollable geographic and demographic profiles. This scheme groups transportation systems so each system in a peer group has a similar opportunity to perform as well as the highest performing member of its group. By accounting for uncontrollable factors, differences in performance are primarily due to controllable factors. In other words, all the members of a peer group share similar opportunities to succeed. The degree to which they succeed can be primarily attributed to factors completely or partially under their control. The transportation system director, staff, and/or governing board can work together to adjust the factors under their control to improve performance.

Two types of factors were used to determine the peer groups and the challenges to a system’s opportunity to succeed:

Geographic Factors: Range of Elevation and Highway Density Demographic Factors: Population Density and Rural Population Ratio

Transportation systems receive scores of 1 to 4 for each factor, with 1 representing the least level of challenge and 4 representing the greatest level of challenge. The scores for each of the four factors are added together to create a group transportation systems with similar opportunities to succeed. The resulting peer groups are shown below. These peer groups will be updated with the decennial Census data and when transportation system service areas change.

COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PEER GROUPS Maps showing transportation system scores for each factor are displayed below, along with a more detailed explanation of the factors.


Page 3

Range of Elevation (Maximum Elevation (ft) – Minimum Elevation)- Geographic factor that indicates the potential difficulty of operating due to lower operating speeds resulting from mountainous terrain.

Highway Density (Miles of State & Federal Highways/ Service Area Size (sq. mi))- Geographic factor that indicates the potential difficulty of operating due to having fewer highways in the transportation network.

Population Density (Population / Service Area Size (sq. mi) )– Demographic factor indicating the relative proximity of trip origins. Areas with lower Population Density are more likely to have longer trip lengths and be more difficult to serve efficiently. Rural Population Ratio (Rural Population / Total Population) – Demographic factor indicating the demand for trips outside the service area. Rural areas have fewer services available within the area, requiring more costly, time consuming, and inefficient trips outside the service area.


Page 4

2. Benchmarking Statistics Community transportation systems should be cost effective, efficient, productive, and accessible. One statistic cannot comprehensively measure performance for each of the four factors. Therefore, each factor has its own benchmarking statistic.

Subsidy per Passenger Trip Definition [Federal + State Administrative and Operating Assistance] ÷ Passenger Trips Measures Effectiveness and Efficiency Goal Minimize Description The total State and Federal operating and administrative expenses divided by the

total number of passenger trips. This measure captures both “efficiency” using cost to State and Federal taxpayers and effectiveness using total passenger trips. This measure assesses the transit system’s effectiveness leveraging State and Federal funds to provide service to residents.

Cost per Passenger Trip Definition [Operating Cost + Administrative Cost] ÷ Passenger Trips Measures Effectiveness and Efficiency Goal Minimize Description The total cost associated with delivering a trip, including Federal, State, and Local

operating and administrative funds. This factor measures “efficiency” by using cost and “effectiveness” by using riders carried.

Passenger Trips per Vehicle-Hour Definition Passenger Trips ÷ Vehicle Hours Measures Productivity Goal Maximize Description Measures the productivity of a demand-response transportation system. As a

performance measure, productivity captures the ability of a transportation system to schedule and serve passenger trips with similar origins, destinations, and time parameters, using the least number of in-service vehicles and hours—the essence of shared-ride, public demand-response service.

Non-Contract Trips per Non-Urbanized Service Area Population Definition Non Contract Trips ÷ [Total Service Area Population – Population within an

Urbanized Area] Measures Accessibility Goal Maximize Description Non-contract trips include only those demand-response trips provided for

passengers whose trips are not funded by a human service agency. This measure reflects the number of trips provided to the general public. More general public trips show a transportation system is reaching out and trying to grow its business and better serve its community. Non-urbanized service area population includes only the population of a CT system’s service area that lives outside urbanized areas and outside urban clusters1.

1 Non-Urban population is the total population of the service area minus the Urbanized Area population and minus the Urban Cluster population, according to and defined by the US Census.


Page 5

3. Determining Your Performance Now that the peer groups have been developed and the benchmarking statistics have been compiled, we rank transportation systems within their peer group. Using peer group averages is not appropriate because there can be significant variation in the data, which skews the average value. To account for variations in the data, we use the 50th Percentile (median) and the 85th Percentile to establish the cutoffs for acceptable and superior performance within a peer group. Percentiles are common statistical methods that disregard extreme values. To determine the median: 1. Sort the individual system values from lowest

to highest. However, subsidy per Trip and Cost per Trip should be minimized. Therefore, that data should be sorted from high to low.

2. Locate the midpoint; where ½ of the values

are higher and ½ of the values are lower (solid line). In this example, the median is 2.1.

To determine the 85th Percentile (basis of superior performance): 1. After sorting the data, locate the point where

85% of the values are lower and 15% of the values are higher (green dotted line).

2. Systems with values higher than the 85th Percentile are superior for this statistic. In this example, the 85th Percentile is 2.95.


Page 6

To determine the lower cutoff of acceptable performance: 1. Subtract the median value (2.1) from the 85th

Percentile value (2.95), resulting in a difference of 0.85.

2. Subtract the difference (0.85) from the median (2.1), resulting in the acceptable cutoff value of 1.25. In this example, systems with values between 1.25 and 2.95 are within the acceptable range. Values below 1.25 are below the acceptable cutoff.

The method outlined above establishes the acceptable range based on the difference between superior and the norm (median), and subtracts this range from the median to establish the lower bound. This method does not result in having a specific number of transit systems outside of the acceptable range. Some peer group statistics may result in all transit systems having acceptable or superior performance. Other statistics may result in some transit systems performing below the acceptable cutoff.


Page 7

4. Comparing Your System to Your Peers Operating Statistics (OpStats) data are used to generate the benchmarking statistics. On Page 2 of both the Peer Group and Individual OpStats reports, you will see the four benchmarking statistics in bold and italics (see the following pages for examples). These reports are available from ITRE and from NCDOT/PTD. All four of the benchmarking statistics measure something of vital importance to community transportation systems. Transportation systems may find that they show superior performance for some factors but unacceptable performance on others. If this occurs, do not attempt to average the benchmarking statistics into one overall score. Systems with superior performance on some factors and unacceptable performance on others should strive to maintain their superior status while working to improve on the unacceptable performance factors. OpStats data are self-reported by the transportation systems. All financial information should match the year-end audit. In the future, trip counts will be verified against the Vehicle Utilization Data and actual manifests. Some cost information may not appear in the OpStats report. County departments, for instance, may not track driver salaries because they are paid from the general fund. We strongly encourage transportation systems to track all revenues and expenses related to transportation delivery.


Page 8


Page 9


Page 10

5. Improving Your Performance The desired outcome from benchmarking is an improvement in an organization’s performance. For systems that need improvement, NCDOT/PTD and ITRE will schedule a meeting to determine if the poor scores are a result of data irregularities. If the data are accurate, it will be necessary for the transportation system to work with ITRE and NCDOT/PTD to develop an improvement plan. These improvement plans may be included in the Community Transportation Service Plan, Performance Plans, or another acceptable planning process. The resulting plan should address the reasons for the low performance and set targets for achieving improvement. Specific actions for improvement should be included, along with a timeline for completing each action. Transportation systems may also pursue improvement plans on their own, using the following methodologies:

1. Using quality improvement processes such as TQM (Total Quality Management). 2. Using a “best practices” methodology.

Quality Improvement Processes Quality improvement processes usually involve the concept of “continuous improvement.” The underlying premise is that the way to achieve excellence is to make continuous small improvements in the quality of a product or service. This quality improvement requires regular, data-driven measurements of quality (“metrics”). Wherever possible, an attempt is made to define quality from a customer perspective (whether the customer in an external or internal one). If it is determined that there is a quality (or performance) problem in a particular area, a common practice is to form a small team of people who have responsibility and/or expertise in that area. The team then conducts a problem-solving process to address it. Typically, such a process involves the following steps:


Page 11

Quality Improvement Process

These steps are explained below:

1. Clarify the problem. Make sure that the exact nature of the problem is clearly understood and agreed to by everyone.

2. Identify the causes of the problem. Dig down to determine the underlying root causes. Make sure that there is a cause and effect relationship.

3. Develop alternatives for solving the problem. Ideally this would include preventing the problem in the future rather than just fixing the current problem.

4. Evaluate the alternatives and select the best one(s). It can be useful as part of this effort to have the team develop and agree on the criteria that will be used to choose the best alternative(s).

5. Implement the selected alternative(s). It is important to have individuals who have responsibility for implementing the changes on the problem-solving team. This involvement helps them understand and accept what is proposed.

6. Monitor the results and make adjustments as necessary. A key to implementing change is to monitor actual results to make sure that they are what was intended. If not, make necessary adjustments.

Best Practices Methodology Best practices methodology utilizes external references as sources of information for performance improvement. Once it is determined that your organization is falling short in a particular area of performance, you can search for another organization that performs well in that area and adopt its practices. In addition, you can study organizations outside the transit industry for relevant best practices. For example, the parcel delivery industry could provide useful information on vehicle scheduling and/or utilization. Other, non-related industries could serve as information sources for best practices in areas such as finance or human resources.

1

2012‐2013PublicTransportationGroupTrainingCalendar

Ginny Blair: [email protected] Kai Monast: [email protected]

CourseDescriptionsFollow…

Date Course Time Registration Contact

June 14 2012 Budgeting as a Planning Tool Skillbuilding Workshop I Introduction 10‐10:45

Ginny Blair

June 15 Service Delivery Methods 10‐11:30 Kai Monast

June 21 Using Your Data‐ Special Session 10‐11:30

Ginny Blair or Kai Monast

July 12 Building Relationships with Public Officials at All Levels Skillbuilding Workshop Introduction 10‐10:45

Ginny Blair

July 19 Budgeting as a Planning Tool Skillbuilding Workshop II Introduction 10‐10:45

Ginny Blair

July 26 Using Your Data‐ Special Session 10‐11:30

Ginny Blair or Kai Monast

September 18 Policies and Practices 10‐11:30 Kai Monast

October 16 Basics of Scheduling 10‐11:30 Kai Monast

November 15 Basics of Dispatching 10‐11:30am Kai Monast

December 3 Understanding Billing 10‐11:30 Kai Monast January 8, 2013 Using Your Data 10‐11:30am

Kai Monast

February 14 Service Delivery Methods 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

March 12 Policies and Practices 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

April 9 Basics of Scheduling 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

May 14 Basics of Dispatching 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

June 11 Understanding Billing 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

July 9 Using Your Data 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

August 13 Service Delivery Methods 1‐2:30pm Kai Monast

2

ServiceDeliveryMethodsAudience: Managers, schedulers, and employees being cross trained in scheduling from all rural and urban coordinated transportation systems that schedule and dispatch their own trips. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: Rural public transportation can be a difficult to conduct and difficult to explain. Every experienced scheduler has a concept for how the daily service is being delivered. This class will formally explore service delivery models, discuss the impacts on performance and customer service of different service delivery models, and provide guidance on how to map and explain your service delivery model so that it is understandable to the public and your advisory boards.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about the following service delivery models: • Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule • Demand Response • Route Deviation • Point Deviation • Demand Responsive Connector • Request Stops • Flexible Route Segments • Zone Routes • Blended

PoliciesandPracticesAudience: Managers and Directors of coordinated transportation systems. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: There are certain policies and practices that are required for the success of every transit system. This course is a discussion forum about the essential policies and practices, including items such as Client Pickup Windows, Managing No Shows, Radio Traffic, Driver Pay Considerations, and many, many more.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about: 1. Essential operating policies and practices necessary for…

a. Managing Schedules b. Managing Operations c. Managing Your Fleet d. Managing Your Employees e. Managing Funding Agencies f. Managing Performance g. Managing Contractors

3

BasicsofSchedulingAudience: Managers, schedulers, and employees being cross trained in scheduling from all rural and urban coordinated transportation systems that schedule and dispatch their own trips. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: This course will be taught in two parts. The first part of the course covers basic scheduling skills, the theory of scheduling, the optimal scheduling work flow, and using performance measures to improve schedules. The last portion of the course shifts gears to discuss how to use the free web‐based tools to create more efficient routes and ordered manifests.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about: 1. The basic skills necessary for scheduling 2. The optimal work flow for the scheduling process 3. Different organizational techniques for schedules 4. How to analyze scheduling efficiency 5. Tools to create more efficient schedules

BasicsofDispatchingAudience: Managers, dispatchers, and employees being cross trained in dispatching from all rural and urban coordinated transportation systems that schedule and dispatch their own trips. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: Dispatching is the heart and soul of safe, efficient, and effective transportation systems. Most dispatchers, however, have no formal training in the art of dispatching. This course goes over the basic principles of dispatching, discusses examples of real situations dispatchers face every day, and provides tools for dispatchers to perform their job duties more effectively.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about: 1. The basic skills necessary for dispatching 2. The dispatching work flow 3. The connections between scheduling, dispatching, and verification 4. How to analyze dispatching efficiency 5. Crisis management using interactive scenarios 6. The impacts of different dispatching decisions 7. Tools to deliver more efficient service

4

UnderstandingBillingAudience: Managers and directors of urban and rural coordinated transportation systems that are responsible for establishing billing rates. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: North Carolina coordinated transit systems use numerous billing methods. Each method has its own benefits and drawbacks, and it is essential that these impacts are understood. In this course, we will learn about how to establish billing rates using the most common methods and reveal the impacts that your billing methods may have on your funding agencies, your clients, and your service delivery.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about: 1. The definitions of the different billing types 2. How to select a billing type 3. How to calculate your billing rates 4. The impacts of each billing type on your service delivery and agency bills

UsingYourDataAudience: Rural coordinated transportation systems using scheduling and dispatching technologies such as RouteMatch, CTS, Trapeze, StrataGen, and TrIP_Maker or any other system that has available data. This is the last of 5 courses on paratransit taught by ITRE. This course builds on lessons learned in Policies and Practices, Scheduling, Dispatching, and Billing Courses. However, it is not necessary to have attended the other courses. This course does not apply to urban fixed route and ADA paratransit.

Description: Systems with scheduling/dispatching technologies collect a large amount of transportation data each day. This course describes the data that is collected, shows a myriad of useful ways to analyze the data, and suggests other data that could be collected in the future. This course will help transit systems make full use of their data to ensure accuracy, create and analyze bills, track changes over time, track performance measures, submit required reports, and provide timely and valuable information to the public, advisory boards, and elected officials.

Expectations: Attendees can expect to learn about: 1. The different types of data that their scheduling software collects; 2. Ways to organize and combine data to get meaningful results; 3. Useful methods for tracking changes in service. 4. Ideas for presenting information about your system to advisory boards and interest groups.

Planning and Implementation of Technology - ITRE · ITRE’s Transit Technical Assistance Program...

Documents

Transcript of Planning and Implementation of Technology - ITRE · ITRE’s Transit Technical Assistance Program...