April 2010
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority Revenue and Expense
Forecast Evaluation 2011–2016
Wes Clarke, Warren Brown, and Matt Hauer
Carl Vinson Institute of Government
University of Georgia
Michael Meyer
Georgia Institute of Technology
The University of Georgia
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Revenue and Expense Forecast Evaluation 2011–2016 Wes Clarke
Warren Brown
Matt Hauer
Carl Vinson Institute of Government
University of Georgia
Michael Meyer
Georgia Institute of Technology
April 2010
Carl Vinson Institute of Government
The University of Georgia
Athens
Contents Executive Summary ……………………………………. 2 Introduction ..…………………………………………….. 4 MARTA System and Service Levels …………..... 5 Revenue: Sales Tax .……………………………………. 5 Passenger Fare Recovery Using an Input‐Output Model …………………………………… 9 Projected Demand for Public Transit in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area: A Demographic Perspective ...…………………………………………….. 11 Estimates of Travel Behavior ..……………………. 20 Other Revenue …………………………………………… 25 Expenditure ……………………………………………….. 27 Operating Budget ……………………………………….. 28 Capital Budget .………………………………………….. 34 A Comparison of Transit Systems in Major U.S. Cities ………………………………………… 40 Appendices ………………………………………………… 58 Notes …………………………………………………………. 74 1
Executive Summary The purpose of this report is convey the findings of a study designed to evaluate the reasonableness of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA) near‐term forecasts for revenue and expenditures and to compare the funding systems and service of MARTA with peer transit systems in major U.S. cities. To evaluate the reasonableness of MARTA’s forecasts, faculty at the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia have reviewed the forecasts and the assumptions driving those numbers, discussed the methods used with MARTA staff, and produced forecasts using alternative methodologies. The forecasts produced were checked using sensitivity analysis to ensure that major assumptions were not driving the final estimates. Faculty at the Georgia Institute of Technology produced the comparisons with peer transit agencies and considered service levels, funding schemes, and unique characteristics of each agency included in the comparison. The major findings of this study are summarized below. •
MARTA’s sales tax estimate for the six fiscal years from 2011 through 2016 is $1,861 billion. The Carl Vinson Institute of Government estimate is 9.3 percent higher at $2,034 billion. This difference is primarily driven by economic recovery that the Georgia Economic Modeling System (GEMS) projects will begin sooner than anticipated in the MARTA forecasts. •
Demand for transit services in the metropolitan Atlanta area during fiscal years 2011 through 2016 are estimated to be 9.4 percent higher than MARTA forecasts based on population growth projected in the official state estimates. This increased demand will lead to a need for additional service hours in both the bus and rail systems. •
Based on the projections of increased demand for services and a quicker economic recovery, the Vinson Institute estimates that fare revenue will be about 22 percent higher than estimated by MARTA. However, these revenues can only be realized by increasing service levels in response to the demand for bus and rail transit. •
Over the period FY2011 through FY2016, MARTA forecasts $2,104.82 billion in total revenues for operations from all sources including sales tax, fare recovery, and federal grants. The Vinson Institute forecasts a total of $2,166.22 billion, a difference of 2.9 percent. •
The Vinson Institute forecasts that operating needs that will supply the required service levels to meet the demand for transit services for this same period will be $3,064.6 billion. 2
•
Given current revenue and expenditure trends, the funding gap in 2020 will be $348.4 million annually, and by 2030 will reach $1.1 billion annually (see Appendices A and B). •
Capital investment in the rail system and revenue vehicles will require the issuance of $730 million in sales tax revenue bonds between FY2013 and FY2019 to maintain current levels of capital investment. MARTA officials believe investment levels must increase in order to maintain a state of good repair. •
Almost all of the transit systems considered to be MARTA’s peer agencies have suffered ridership losses over the past two years, except in those places (such as Denver) where transit service has been expanded significantly. Even in such cases, growth in ridership has been at a much slower rate than in recent years. •
Of MARTA’s peer institutions, MARTA maintained one of the highest farebox recovery ratios from 2002 to 2008. The only peer agency that was consistently higher than MARTA was the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which only operates heavy rail service. •
MARTA’s peer institutions have a much wider operating funding base (more sources of funding) than that available to MARTA. In many cases, state and local governments provide direct assistance to the transit agency (to supplement own source revenues). Those that have a broader funding base seem to have established a more stable transit service than MARTA with resulting stable ridership. This finding is not surprising given that the uncertainty of service cutbacks could cause riders to seek alternative means of travel. •
Similarly, MARTA’s peer institutions have a much broader base of capital funding than that available to MARTA, again including state and local funding that is not found in the MARTA case. Once again, those having such a broad base seem to have experienced more stable operations than MARTA even during the recent economic recession. •
Many of MARTA’s peer institutions have been pursuing aggressive expansion of their transit services, primarily by adding bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail services. The major funding source for the light rail services in particular has been a service area‐
specific sales tax. 3
Introduction The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) was created by the Georgia General Assembly in 1965 with passage of the MARTA Act. The organization was initially formed from the Atlanta Transit System that dated to 1950 and operated trackless trolleys and buses. Bus operations under the new organization began in 1972 with construction of the first commuter rail line commenced three years later. The first train service began in 1979. MARTA provides bus and rail transit services in Fulton and Dekalb counties, and although the region is served by a number of other public transportation providers, MARTA accounts for more than 90 percent of all public transportation boardings in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Reciprocal agreements with other transit providers allow MARTA riders to connect with those other providers at no additional cost. Riders on those other systems may also transfer to MARTA bus services at no additional cost. MARTA operations are funded largely by two main sources: a 1 percent local option sales tax in Fulton and Dekalb counties that provides roughly 40 percent of operating needs, and passenger fare revenue that currently contributes around 28 percent. The system also receives federal assistance, which varies but is usually less than 15 percent of operating needs, and some funding from other sources including lease and interest income. The MARTA Act directs that local option sales tax revenue be divided evenly between the operating and capital budgets. In the three‐and‐one‐half decades since construction on the first rail line began, MARTA has invested heavily in infrastructure for its rail operations and has expanded its bus service that connects seamlessly with its rail operations. Although its operating requirements have grown tremendously during the period as the system has expanded, the requirement that half of the sales tax revenue be dedicated to capital needs remains. This stipulation has created a structural imbalance between MARTA’s revenues that can be used for operations and the system’s operating budget needs. 4
In September 2009, MARTA officials, faced with declining revenues as a result of a lagging economy, asked the Carl Vinson Institute of Government to review the forecasts of revenues and expenditures that were driving short‐term budget development and longer term planning. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasts generated by MARTA. This has been accomplished using alternate methods and data, and has involved faculty at the Vinson Institute and transportation engineering faculty at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The methods for developing alternative forecasts of revenues, service demands, and expenditures included use of the Georgia Economic Modeling System (GEMS) and are discussed in each section of the report. MARTA System and Service Levels MARTA operates more than 600 buses on 132 routes in Dekalb and Fulton counties. The average bus logs nearly 50,000 miles and more than 3,700 hours each year. MARTA’s rail operations utilize 338 passenger rail cars connecting 38 stations on 48 miles of track. Each rail car logs over 65,000 miles each year. In 2010, MARTA reported that it has just over 143 million passenger boardings annually. Many of those passengers board a train or bus that takes them to their destination. However, many transfer within the bus or rail system, or across those systems. Transit officials speak in terms of linked and unlinked trips with a linked trip being one from the point of origin to the final destination that may include one or more transfers. Revenue Sales Tax MARTA’s sales tax revenue forecasts are prepared by the Economic Forecasting Center of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University in Atlanta using a regression equation that models revenue collections as a function of metropolitan Atlanta employment in a previous period with a seasonal adjustment. As noted in a memo to MARTA’s Director of Treasury Services dated July 14, 2009, the model has been accurate in forecasting MARTA’s 5
sales tax revenues since 2005 and correctly predicted a roughly 7 percent drop in sales tax revenues for FY2009, as shown in Table 1. The Economic Forecasting Center’s model predicts a 3.85 percent decrease in MARTA’s sales tax revenues in FY2010, the year that ends June 30, 2010, followed by steady growth in the 3 percent range through FY2014. Table 1
MARTA Sales Tax Revenue Forecasts and GEMS Forecasts* Fiscal Year
MARTA Projections
Amount
Increase
2001**
304,388,000
-----
2002**
286,435,000
-5.90%
2003**
272,578,000
2004**
280,663,000
2005**
GEMS Forecast
Amount
Increase
304,388,000
-----
286,435,000
-5.90%
-4.84%
272,578,000
-4.84%
2.97%
280,663,000
2.97%
296,351,000
5.59%
296,351,000
5.59%
2006**
331,213,000
11.76%
331,213,000
11.76%
2007**
349,215,000
5.44%
349,215,000
5.44%
2008**
351,596,000
0.68%
351,596,000
0.68%
2009**
327,425,000
-6.87%
295,525,000
-9.74%
-6.87%
0.54%
2010
327,425,000
297,112,717
2011
284,144,000
-3.85%
300,786,465
5.86%
2012
292,579,000
2.97%
317,782,801
8.61%
9.76%
2013
301,182,000
2.94%
330,564,641
2014
310,901,000
3.23%
338,435,730
8.86%
2015
327,160,000
5.23%
344,110,821
5.18%
2016
345,595,000
5.63%
349,373,198
1.09%
2011 - 2016
1,861,561,000
*Estimates through 2030 are contained in Appendix A. **Actual figures FY2001 through FY2009 Data Source: MARTA and GEMS 2,034,853,400
6
Since the task of this report is to verify the reasonableness of the forecasts, the Vinson Institute during November and December 2009 began preparing a model of MARTA’s revenue and expenditure structure using forecasting methods different from those used by Georgia State University. Specifically, the Institute used an input‐output model of Fulton and Dekalb Counties to forecast sales tax revenue collections in those counties. GEMS is a standard input‐output economic model that allows researchers to establish a baseline forecast for a region, make changes to the assumptions driving the model, and compute the change in the forecast. GEMS uses county level data and allows users to create customized regions for analysis. The region of interest modeled here is MARTA’s service region, Fulton County and Dekalb County. GEMS is structural in nature, meaning that it clearly includes cause‐and‐effect relationships. The model is based on two key underlying assumptions from mainstream economic theory: (1) households maximize utility and (2) producers maximize profits. In the model, businesses produce goods and services to sell to other firms, consumers, investors, governments, and purchasers outside the region. Output is produced using labor, capital, fuel, and intermediate inputs. Supply and demand for labor are incorporated into the model to calculate wage rates. Population and labor supply contribute to demand and to wage determination. Workers, in turn, respond to wages and other labor market conditions. Supply and demand interact in the wages, prices, and profits block. Prices and profits determine market shares. Output depends on market shares and the components of demand. GEMS brings together all of the elements to determine the value of each variable for each year in the baseline forecasts. Extensive data sets covering all areas in the country and two decades’ worth of research were used to ensure that the model was theoretically sound and based on all of the relevant data available. Data used in the model come primarily from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of Labor including the Economics and Statistics 7
Administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other agencies. The general economic downturn that Georgia and the rest of the U.S. experienced over the past 18 months has had a dramatic impact on both personal income and government revenues, including MARTA’s sales tax receipts. To model the effects of the loss of economic activity, the Institute used U.S. Department of Commerce estimates of the gross domestic product (GDP) gap – that is, the difference in economic activity that would have occurred had the U.S. been at full employment over the period. Those estimates are available for years 2009 through 2014. Estimates for 2015 and 2016 were calculated based on the trend through 2014. The baseline forecast obtained from GEMS gives county‐levels estimates based primarily on how the economy has performed since 2001. After obtaining that forecast, we reduced consumer demand for goods and services using the GDP gap estimates from the Department of Commerce as inputs to the model. This estimate of the loss of economic activity affects all aspects of the model including consumer demand, manufacturing, employment, and government revenues. Using the employment, wage bill, and economic output forecasts, we calculated the ratio of MARTA’s sales tax and fare revenue to these measures of economic activity for years 2001 through 2008. These ratios are fairly stable over the period and were used to produce an estimate of sales tax and fare revenue for the years 2010 through 2016 based on GEMS forecasts of future employment, wage bill, and economic output. The resulting forecasts produced using GEMS are remarkably close to those obtained by the Center for Economic Forecasting using employment projections and a seasonal adjustment. GEMS predicts sharper decline in the current year, FY2010, growth in FY2011 rather than a decline, and more robust growth beginning in FY2012. Over the six‐year period from FY2011 through FY2016, GEMS forecasts 6.4 percent greater revenue – $1,981 million versus $1,861 million. 8
Passenger Fare Recovery Using an Input­Output Model Revenue from operations is forecast using economic and unemployment data from the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University in conjunction with MARTA data on trends in linked and unlinked trips. A fare increase from $1.75 to $2.00 in FY2010 is expected make up for an anticipated decline in passenger boardings and produce small growth in fare revenue, from $102.7 million in FY2009 to $102.85 million. Boardings are expected to be down around 6 percent, from 152 million to 143 million. We employed two methods to check the reasonableness of MARTA’s forecast for passenger fare revenue. First, we estimated fare revenue using historical ratios of fare revenue to the number of jobs that GEMS forecasts for the service area, Fulton and Dekalb Counties. The historical ratio of fare revenue to jobs is more stable than either the wage bill (the total of all salaries and wages) or the estimated total economic output. This finding supports MARTA’s use of the Georgia State Economic Forecasting Center’s model. The MARTA forecast and the GEMS forecast are contained in Table 2. The major differences in the two estimates is the greater decline in fare revenue predicted by GEMS for FY2010, and the more robust growth, albeit from a lower level in FY2010, predicted to begin in FY2011. GEMS predicts strong growth through FY2013, and then more moderate growth through FY2016. Over the period from FY2011 through FY2016, GEMS predicts about 1.3 percent greater revenue, $643.8 million compared to $635.2 million. A second method employed to estimate fare revenue uses population projections produced by the Applied Demography Center at the Vinson Institute. That estimate is discussed in the next section. 9
Table 2 MARTA Passenger Fare Revenue Forecasts and GEMS Forecasts* Fiscal Year MARTA Projections
Fare Revenue Increase
GEMS Forecast Fare Revenue
Increase 2001** 101,278,000 ‐‐‐‐‐
101,278,000
‐‐‐‐‐ 2002** 102,207,000 0.92%
102,207,000
0.92% 2003** 96,059,000 ‐6.02%
96,059,000
‐6.02% 2004** 92,750,843 ‐3.44%
92,750,843
‐3.44% 2005** 91,825,694 ‐1.00%
91,825,694
‐1.00% 2006** 95,124,741 3.59%
95,124,741
3.59% 2007** 98,450,114 3.50%
98,450,114
3.50% 2008** 101,199,908 2.79%
101,199,908
2.79% 2009** 108,648,531 7.36%
108,648,531
7.36% 2010 98,051,802 ‐9.75%
92,020,467
‐15.30% 2011 100,486,445 2.48%
93,413,120
1.51% 2012 102,373,084 1.88%
100,100,547
7.16% 2013 104,708,362 2.28%
106,313,456
6.21% 2014 106,956,644 2.15%
111,764,242
5.13% 2015 109,204,873 2.10%
115,084,963
2.97% 2016 111,500,359 2.10%
117,165,759
1.81% 643,842,087
2011 ‐ 2016 635,229,768 *Estimated through 2030 are contained in Appendix A. **Actual figures. Source: MARTA and GEMS 10
Projected Demand for Public Transit in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area: A Demographic Perspective The objective of this section is to estimate how population growth and changing composition of the resident population in the central counties of the Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area will affect the demand for public transit bus and rail services . In order to do this, projections of county population size and composition prepared by the Applied Demography Program of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government are combined with travel behavior data from the National Household Travel Survey. Geographic Area Determining which counties to include in the analysis required an examination of travel patterns into and out of DeKalb and Fulton Counties. Data from the Census Bureau’s Local Employment Dynamics (LED) program for 2008 were used to map out connections between home and work. Figure 1 and Table 3 contain data from LED’s On‐The‐Map tool regarding the flow of workers living in the region to jobs in DeKalb and Fulton Counties. The LED data come from Unemployment Insurance Wage Records reported by employers and used for administering the unemployment insurance system for each state. Employer locations are assigned by the state while worker’s residential locations are assigned by the Census Bureau using data from multiple federal agencies. The data contained in Figure 1 are the locations of all workers aged 16 and above who are employed in either Fulton or DeKalb counties. The data are then presented as a thermal by census tract: the darker the area, the higher concentration of workers who work in Fulton and DeKalb counties. While some persons might live and commute from very far, the vast majority of persons who work in the DeKalb and Fulton Counties tend to live and commute within a 15‐county labor shed. These 15 counties are also defined as the central counties of the Atlanta‐Sandy Springs Metropolitan Statistical Area (Atlanta MSA). A county is defined as being a central county in a Metropolitan Statistical Area if at least 50 percent of the population lives within urban areas of 10,000 or more people. Outlying counties are included in a Metropolitan Statistical Area if they meet requirements having to do with strong social and economic ties to the central counties. These ties include commuting patterns. The 15 central counties of the Atlanta MSA are: 11
Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, and Spalding Counties. These core counties represent the largest footprint of commuter patterns and the largest possible market share that MARTA could attract to utilize public transit. The remaining counties that make up the Atlanta MSA do not exhibit large enough commuting patterns to the city of Atlanta to warrant projecting potential ridership for public transportation. All other counties outside of the 10 largest contributing counties of workers account for less than 17 percent of total commuters and any one county accounts for less than 1 percent of total workers. Population Projections for the Central Counties of the Atlanta MSA Projections of the resident population of the Atlanta MSA and its counties were prepared using a cohort‐component projection technique for the period from 2008 through 2030. The demographers at the Vinson Institute prepared projections for all of Georgia’s 159 counties in partnership with Georgia’s Office of Planning and Budget. These projections, like all projections, involve the use of certain assumptions about future events that may or may not occur. Users of these projections should be aware that although the projections have been prepared with the use of standard methodologies and with extensive attempts being made to account for existing demographic patterns, they may not accurately project the future population of the metropolitan area or of particular counties. The projections are based on historical trends, current estimates, and developments that will affect population change. These projections should be used only with full awareness of the inherent limitations of population projections in general and with knowledge of the procedures and assumptions described in this document. These are projections of the total resident population of the Atlanta MSA and its counties from 2008 through 2030. The resident population includes all persons, as reported in the 2000 Census and subsequent estimates of population by the U.S. Census Bureau for whom the county is their “usual place of residence.” These include persons in a variety of living quarters such as single‐family housing units, multi‐unit structures such as duplexes and apartment buildings, nursing homes, military barracks, college residence halls, and correctional facilities. Seasonal and temporary residents are not included. 12
Table 3 Top 10 Counties for Flow of Workers Living in the Region to Jobs in DeKalb and Fulton Counties, 2008 County Total Fulton DeKalb Gwinnett Cobb Clayton Forsyth Cherokee Henry Douglas Fayette Other Counties Count
Share
958,503 235,205 186,925 113,871 112,580 42,509 26,302 25,356 24,398 15,234 13,305 162,818 100.0% 24.5% 19.5% 11.9% 11.7% 4.4% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% 1.6% 1.4% 17.0% Source: Local Employment Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau 13
Figure 1 14
Growth and Change in the Atlanta Region The Atlanta MSA is projected to continue growing at a rapid pace to 2030, adding roughly 100,000 to 150,000 persons annually over the next twenty years. By 2030 it is expected that the total population of the metropolitan area will swell from 5.6 million to 8.5 million (See Table 4). Table 4
Projected Resident Population for the Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2010–2030 County 2010 2015
2020
Total MSA Central Counties DeKalb County Fulton County 5,620,449 5,034,077 760,651 1,047,216 6,237,186 5,562,865 819,193 1,114,788 6,941,110 6,167,072 885,607 1,192,726 2025
7,731,740 6,843,180 960,283 1,273,988 2030 8,529,759 7,520,499 1,025,225 1,356,515 Source: Applied Demography Program, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. "Georgia 2030: Population Projections." In partnership with the Georgia Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, March 12, 2010. Most of that growth will be contained in the central counties of the metro area, and the two core counties of DeKalb and Fulton are projected to increase well over a half million in population. All of the race/ethnic categories of persons are also anticipated to continue growing (see Table 5). The projections classified people in three main groups: Hispanics/Latinos; White non‐Hispanic; and Black and Other non‐Hispanic. In terms of the pace of growth, the Hispanic/Latino population will grow the fastest, and the largest numerical increase will occur for the Black/Other non‐Hispanic. The White non‐Hispanic population will also increase substantially, adding over one million persons. The working age population, 20 to 64 years of age, will increase by 1.2 million persons by 2030. The older population aged 65 years and over will grow rapidly, increasing from 9 percent of the total population of the central counties in 2010 to 14 percent in 2030. In DeKalb and Fulton Counties the older population is projected to almost double in size over the next 20 years (see Table 6). 15
Table 5
Projected Characteristics of the Resident Population for the Central Counties of the Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area 2010 Population 0‐19 years 20‐44 years 45‐64 years 65+ years 2015
2020
2025
2030 4,608,599 1,479,764 1,857,041 1,271,794 425,478 5,030,407 1,631,592 2,025,999 1,372,816 532,458 5,514,872 1,814,893 2,246,698 1,453,281 652,200 6,057,092 2,033,316 2,504,744 1,519,032 786,088 6,597,801 2,252,956 2,735,351 1,609,494 922,698 529,803 213,562 232,982 68,206 15,054 615,314 261,187 243,519 90,160 20,448 733,638 324,066 261,710 119,528 28,333 807,594 359,824 290,949 122,759 34,063 880,913 394,016 316,369 130,662 39,866 2,527,070 635,383 821,837 770,352 299,498 2,664,507 666,764 830,958 801,859 364,926 2,831,188 698,349 881,991 816,688 434,160 3,186,152 794,121 991,549 869,742 530,740 3,552,966 894,648 1,095,826 930,941 631,551 1,977,204 630,819 802,222 433,237 110,927 2,283,044 703,641 951,522 480,797 147,084 2,602,246 792,478 1,102,996 517,064 189,707 2,849,434 879,371 1,222,246 526,532 221,285 3,086,620 964,291 1,323,156 547,892 251,282 Hispanic/Latino 0‐19 years 20‐44 years 45‐64 years 65+ years White non‐Hispanic 0‐19 years 20‐44 years 45‐64 years 65+ years Black/Other non‐
Hispanic 0‐19 years 20‐44 years 45‐64 years 65+ years Source: Applied Demography Program, Carl Vinson Institute of Government University of Georgia. "Georgia 2030: Population Projections ‐ Detailed Characteristics." April 2010. 16
Table 6
Projected Resident Population Aged 65 Years and Older for DeKalb and Fulton Counties County DeKalb Fulton 2010 67,755 91,219 2015
2020
2025
2030
78,519 114,977 89,593 138,597 100,758 159,819 110,972 178,669 Source: Applied Demography Program, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. "Georgia 2030: Population Projections ‐ Detailed Characteristics." April 2010. Cohort­Component Projection Technique The cohort‐component projection technique was one of the principal methods used to prepare the projections. As the name implies, the basic characteristics of this technique are the use of separate cohorts (persons with one or more common characteristics) and the separate projection of each of the major components of population change (fertility, mortality and migration) for each of the cohorts. These projections of components for each cohort are then combined in the familiar demographic bookkeeping equation. 1 In this, as in any other uses of the cohort‐component technique at least four major steps must be completed: •
The selection of a baseline set of cohorts for the projection area or areas of interest for the baseline time period (usually the last census and other dates for which detailed base data are available); •
The determination of appropriate baseline migration, mortality, and fertility measures for each cohort for the baseline time period; •
The determination of a method for projecting trends in fertility, mortality and migration rates over the projection period; •
The selection of a computational procedure for applying the rates to the baseline cohorts to project the population for the projection period. 17
Baseline Population The Census Bureau’s 2008 estimates of county population with detailed characteristics of age, sex, and race/ethnicity were used as the baseline population for the projections. Fertility Rates Age, sex and race/ethnicity‐specific fertility rates were computed using births by age, sex and race/ethnicity and place of residence of the mother. The numerators for such rates are the average number of births for 1999, 2000, and 2001 for mothers in each age, sex, and race/ethnicity group, and the denominators are the population counts by age, sex, and race/ethnicity in 2000. Birth data to compute the rates were obtained from the Georgia Division of Public Health and data on women by age (10 – 49 years) and race/ethnicity were obtained from the 2000 Census of Population. These data showed total fertility rates for Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, Whites non‐Hispanic, and the Other racial/ethnic group in 2000 that were 2.14, 3.41, 1.97, and 1.88 respectively. For Hispanics we used a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.88 and applied the fertility schedule from the data to develop age‐specific fertility rates (ASFR). The Census Bureau projected a TFR of 2.88 for the Hispanic population by 2050. Mortality Rates To obtain baseline mortality measures, survival rates by single years of age for both sexes and for each of the racial/ethnic groups were needed. Survival rates for Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, and the Other racial/ethnic category were computed using death data from the Georgia Division of Public Health for 1999, 2000, and 2001. For Hispanic and Other populations, an exponential curve was fit to the mortality data to generate survival rates for age groups with missing values. Migration Rates Migration is the most difficult component of change process to project and for which to obtain baseline rates. For the Georgia population projections, rates were derived using two approaches. One was the standard residual migration formula. Births by sex and race/ethnicity, and deaths by age, sex and race/ethnicity were applied to the 1990 population to produce an expected 2000 population and to post‐2000 projections to produce an expected population for later periods. These expected population estimates were compared to the actual Census count 18
to calculate a net migration estimate for 1990 – 2000 and for post‐2000 time periods. The second approach was to derive estimates of the gross flows of in‐migrants and out‐migrants for each county based on data from the 2000 Census on residence in 1995. Demographic Modeling The demographers at the Vinson Institute used a cohort‐component model to produce detailed characteristics of the projected population and the demographic components of change—
births, deaths, in‐migration, and out‐migration. The fertility and mortality rates were held constant at their levels as of the 2000 Census. Multiple Scenarios and Expert Judgment Inputs to the Vinson Institute model were developed by a rigorous process drawing from historical trends, alternative migration scenarios, other existing population projections, local knowledge, and a panel of experts. The historical trends were drawn from 40 years of annual estimates of county population produced by the U.S. Census Bureau from 1969 through 2008. Four alternative migration scenarios were used to produce a set of preliminary projections. The first scenario assumed that net migration would remain at the same rate as in the decade of the 1990s. The second scenario assumed that net migration would reduce to half the rate of the 1990s. The third scenario assumed that net migration would remain at the same rate as the 2000 ‐ 2007 period. And the fourth scenario was for analytical purposes and assumed that net migration would be zero. Other existing population projections were also examined. These included projections from commercial vendors, including Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., and Moody’s Economy.com. OPB’s previous set of projections were reviewed, as were projections prepared for the Atlanta Regional Commission and for the Coastal Plan. Input based on local knowledge came from two main sources. The first was the existing comprehensive plans prepared by counties, which included population projections. The second was several hundred written comments submitted by local governments in response to a preliminary set of population projections. The Vinson Institute and OPB formed a panel of experts drawn from each organization plus the Department of Community Affairs. The experts worked with the demographers at the Vinson Institute to 19
review and evaluate all the various inputs. In an iterative process, alternative assumptions regarding net migration were developed and used in the model. The final set net migration rates were determined to be the most realistic based on an overall evaluation of the input data. The county projections that resulted from the procedure described above were characterized as the “bottom‐up” approach. The counties were dealt with individually without any controls at the state or regional level. Each county’s population projection was evaluated on the basis of data and information specific to that county. The county populations were then summed to a state total, which was evaluated and compared with other projections for the state. Based on a state level analysis and comparison with Moody’s forecast for Georgia it was determined that the “bottom‐up” total for the state was conservative and represented a “low” projection. The higher Moody’s forecast was used as an approximate control, and the counties were proportionally adjusted upward to fit the new state totals. Again, the time series for county total populations were examined in light of their historical trends and the other inputs. Estimates of Travel Behavior The National Household Travel Survey is a source of national data on travel behavior of the American public and has been conducted since 1969. The data are collected on daily trips that have been taken in a 24‐hour period and include the purpose of the trip, means of transportation, distance and travel time, and the month, week, day, and time of day of the trip. These data have been used to determine the relationship between travel behavior and demographics of the traveler. The survey population was analyzed by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. The total number of public transit trips by bus and rail by demographic group was then divided by the population for each age by sex by race/ethnic group to generate the average number of bus and rail trips by age, sex, and race/ethnic group. This average then became the building block for the demographic‐
based projections of ridership for the 15 core counties of the Atlanta MSA. 20
For this study, our survey population included only persons who resided in metropolitan statistical areas of 1 million persons or more and had access to heavy rail. These MSAs included Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington DC. The number of survey respondents in these metropolitan areas totaled over 54,000. The average number of trips on public transit varies across the population by age, sex, and race/ethnicity (see Table 7). The variations demonstrate the need to analyze and project trip behavior with an appreciation of the demographic composition of the population residing and traveling in the transit service area. However, travel behavior also varies substantially between metropolitan areas. As will be shown in the next section, among the major metropolitan areas included in the sub‐sample chosen for this analysis, the New York metropolitan area dominates the sample in terms of population size and even more with respect to the utilization of public transit. At the other end, the Atlanta metropolitan area has the lowest rates of utilization of public transit. It is therefore likely that the per capita rates derived from the National Household Travel Survey sub‐sample for major metro areas with rail service are far higher than can be expected for the Atlanta metropolitan area. The Atlanta metropolitan area has lowest proportion of the workforce using public transit for their commute to work among the 11 major metropolitan areas with heavy rail service. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for the years from 2006 to 2008 reports for the Atlanta MSA that 3.6 percent of the workforce uses public transit as their primary means of transportation to work, compared with the average of 13.8 percent across all 11 major metropolitan areas. 21
Table 7 Estimates of Yearly Trips Per Capita by Age and Race/Ethnicity Yearly Bus Trips Per Capita
Hispanics Males Whites
Yearly Light Rail Trips Per Capita
Blacks and Others
5‐9 10‐14 15‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60‐64 65‐69 70‐74 75‐79 80‐84 85+ Hispanics
Whites Blacks and Others
57 61 123 154 75 112 44 48 37 58 53 27 212 131 74 19 9 17 16 17 28 11 6 32 19 18 13 15 27 10 8 10 11 12 13 56 164 180 155 52 37 43 37 111 33 70 96 6 162 41 94 0 0 22 28 33 10 30 25 12 32 42 4 16 3 8 0 0 1 14 22 10 28 23 60 25 24 20 24 24 17 1 6 5 1 12 12 27 24 144 66 37 31 36 30 48 25 13 10 0 16 0 1 3 31 26 3 8 26 23 59 53 7 32 9 23 0 0 0 1 2 8 17 15 40 14 13 8 14 25 13 9 9 7 0 1 46 12 51 162 53 21 22 52 80 124 37 33 2 3 0 3 0 Females 5‐9 10‐14 15‐19 20‐24 25‐29 30‐34 35‐39 40‐44 45‐49 50‐54 55‐59 60‐64 65‐69 70‐74 75‐79 80‐84 85+ 60 70 131 89 123 101 58 141 67 88 50 117 93 83 56 32 53 6 4 50 23 20 7 24 13 15 26 18 34 9 10 15 30 19 33 95 128 74 129 149 64 72 208 160 65 25 112 39 44 123 116 Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2009. Federal Highway Administration. Sample: Residents of Metropolitan Areas with 1+ million population and heavy rail service – Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Prepared by: Applied Demography Program, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. 22
By applying the detailed demographic per capita rates of bus and light rail trips to the population projections we can see what impact—beyond sheer growth in population numbers—that changes to the age, sex, and race/ethnic composition of the population will have on the demand for public transit. If residents of the central counties of the Atlanta metropolitan area conformed to the average travel behavior of all residents of major metropolitan areas then in 2005 they would have taken 117.5 million trips on public transit rail and 209.2 million trips on public transit buses. This is considerably more than the number of trips reported for the Atlanta area in the National Transit Database. Although the total number of trips is too high for Atlanta, the impact of population growth and changing demographic composition is useful. By applying the average number of trips per year from the National Household Travel Survey for the 102 detailed demographic categories of age‐sex‐race/ethnicity to the projections of detailed population characteristics prepared by the Vinson Institute’s Applied Demography Program, the impact of population growth and changing composition can be shown. Overall per capita trips on public transit rail and bus remain relatively stable throughout the projection period. The major changes are a relative increase in total trips by Hispanics that offsets the slower growth in trips by Whites. Therefore projections of future trips can be based on simple historical per capita rates and Vinson Institute projections of total population. Table 8 shows the passenger boarding estimates produced by MARTA in their forecasts and those produced by the Vinson Institute. Based on population growth and GEMS forecasts for economic growth, passenger boarding rates are expected to return to their historical rates of around 32 boardings per capita from the low of 27.4 per capita in FY2010. Historically, MARTA has realized 68 cents in fare revenue per passenger boarding, but the fare increase implemented in FY2010 has raised this figure to about 74.5 cents per boarding. These figures produced the Vinson Institute fare revenue estimates in Table 9. 23
Table 8
Passenger Boarding Estimates MARTA Projection Fiscal Year Passenger Boardings Percent Increase Popula‐ tion
2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 138,403,346
147,524,398
150,912,300
156,542,393
137,948,999
150,438,212
153,254,659
156,747,279
160,109,787
162,015,653
163,944,206
‐‐‐‐‐ 6.59% 2.30% 3.73% ‐11.88% 2.48% 1.87% 2.28% 2.15% 1.19% 1.19% 4,440,431
4,588,843
4,737,254
4,885,666
5,034,077
5,139,835
5,245,592
5,351,350
5,457,107
5,562,865
5,600,000
Vinson Institute Projection Board‐
Percent ings per Passenger Increase
capita
Boardings ‐‐‐‐‐
3.34%
3.23%
3.13%
3.04%
2.10%
2.06%
2.02%
1.98%
1.94%
0.67%
31.17
32.15
31.86
32.04
27.40
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
32.00
Percent Increase
138,403,346 ‐‐‐‐‐
147,524,398 6.59%
150,912,300 2.30%
156,542,393 3.73%
137,948,999 ‐11.88%
164,474,707 19.23%
167,858,950 2.06%
171,243,194 2.02%
174,627,437 1.98%
178,011,680 1.94%
179,200,000 0.67%
Source: MARTA and Applied Demography Program, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. *Actual figures. Table 9
Estimated Fare Revenue* MARTA Projection
Fiscal Year 2006** 2007** 2008** 2009** 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Estimated Fare Revenue 95.14 99.26 101.39 102.70 102.85 100.49 102.37 104.71 106.96 108.42 109.91 Percent Increase
‐‐‐‐‐
4.33%
2.15%
1.29%
0.15%
‐2.30%
1.88%
2.28%
2.15%
1.37%
1.37%
Vinson Institute Projection Estimated Fare revenue
95.14
99.26
101.39
102.70
102.85
104.99
110.75
116.65
122.70
128.89
133.59
Percent Increase
‐‐‐‐‐ 4.33% 2.15% 1.29% 0.15% 2.08% 5.48% 5.33% 5.18% 5.05% 3.65% Source: MARTA and Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia *Estimates through 2030 are contained in Appendix A. **Actual figures. 24
Other Revenue Sales tax and passenger revenue have provided about 80 percent of MARTA’s revenues in recent years, and there is no reason to expect a change during that proportion in the study period. Except for an infusion of $45 million in federal dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into the FY2010 budget, other revenue sources that MARTA has available are not expected to grow faster than recent trends would indicate. Some additional revenue may be derived from new lease programs that will increase vending opportunities in MARTA train stations and bus facilities, and leases of property in transit‐related development, but these sources have historically been small and cannot be expected to contribute more than their historical levels without significant new projects. Moreover, MARTA officials are uncertain how these efforts will affect operations and maintenance budgets should development occur. Total estimated revenue for the period from FY2006 to FY 2016 is contained in Table 10. Estimates through FY2030 can be found in Appendix A. 25
Table 10
Vinson Institute Estimate of MARTA Operating Revenue FY2006–FY2010* 50% Sales Tax Passenger Revenue Other Transit Related Federal Operating Assistance Lease Income Interest from Capital Reserve Lease to Service Amortized Revenue Breeze Card Token Re‐evaluation Revenue Prior Period Audit Adjustment TOTAL 2006** 2007**
2008**
2009**
2010
2011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
165.61 95.14 10.71 174.61 99.26 11.25 175.80 101.39 17.85 163.71 102.70 14.68 148.56 102.85 13.94 150.39 104.99 14.89 158.89 110.75 15.90 165.28 116.65 16.99 169.22 122.70 18.14 172.06 128.89 19.38 174.69 133.59 20.70 37.33 4.87 39.00 4.88 41.38 6.08 41.79 5.78 87.30 5.88 43.39 6.16 45.06 6.46 46.78 6.77 48.58 7.10 50.44 7.44 52.37 7.80 4.65 6.02 8.74 0.00 0.00 3.75 3.95 4.09 4.27 3.86 3.89 3.92 3.94 3.97 4.00 4.03 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.56 323.62 ‐0.02 341.95 1.82 357.15 0.00 332.93 0.00 362.390 323.72 340.98 356.42 369.71 382.21 393.18 *Estimates through 2030 are contained in Appendix A **Actual figure. Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. 26
Expenditure Expenditures are estimated using the ridership projections produced by the Vinson Institute Applied Demography Program and historical rates of utilization by the Atlanta MSA population. As noted in the previous section, utilization rates in metropolitan Atlanta are much lower than in other metropolitan areas that have more extensive transit systems. Ridership projections for FY2011 through FY2016 are in Table 8. Even at historical rates, the population growth expected for Fulton and Dekalb Counties will increase demand for transit services. Coupled with the economic growth expected in FY2011, our model predicts a return to historical high levels of ridership with growth of around 2 percent in subsequent years for the period under consideration. To estimate the cost of providing transit services at this level of demand, we used data provided by MARTA for bus and rail operational hours during FY2006 through 2010, and the number of passengers historically transported. To make the estimate of expenditures more conservative, we assume that MARTA will increase the riders per service hour to higher levels, reaching a high of 36.8 per service hour in 2016 (see Table 11). Each hour of rail operation is adjusted using MARTA’s train service weight of 12.3637. Bus and rail operational hours are used as inputs to determine operating budget needs for the bus and rail service units. 27
Table 11 Estimated MARTA Service Hours FY2011–FY2016
Fiscal Year Estimated passenger boardings 2011 2012
2013
2015 2014
2016
164,474,707 167,858,950 171,243,194 174,627,437 178,011,680 179,200,000 Passengers per service hour* Estimated service hours 33.47 34.09 34.87 35.62 36.21 36.80 4,914,805 4,923,751 4,911,098 4,902,977 4,916,651 4,869,032 Bus hours 2,577,146 2,581,837 2,575,202 2,570,944 2,590,045 2,576,770 189,075 189,419 188,932 188,620 188,181 185,403 Train hours *This figure historically has been between 27 and 32 but has trended higher in recent years. Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia
Operating Budget The data in Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15 present the estimated budgetary needs for the bus and rail operations, other operating departments, and MARTA as a whole. The major assumptions driving these estimates are that •
•
•
Support units will grow at historical levels, Bus and rail operating units will be driven by increased demand, and Ridership per operating hour will increase steadily as discussed above. The trends in each budgetary line item (growth and percent of total budget) were considered in estimating future needs. In some instances such as overtime expense in the rail division (see Table 12), the amount estimated for FY2010 is less than the actual expenditure in FY2006. In other cases, spending over the time period appears to be episodic, such as the miscellaneous lines in both rail operations and for the other operating units (see Tables 13 and 14). In these cases we make the assumption that those lines will grow overall at the average level of the unit. While growth at these rates might not take place, the assumption brings those lines up to a level that probably would have existed had the economy not suffered a downturn in FY2009 and FY2010. For example, overtime spending in the rail operations unit was $6.7 million in FY2006 and $7.8 million in FY2007. The decline beginning in FY2008 and continuing through FY2010 is not likely to continue once the economy begins to grow. From FY2006 through FY2010, overtime spending has been about 6.9 percent of the rail operations unit budget. Bus operations expenditures (see Table 12) have grown at a rate of 7.59 percent from FY2006 through FY2010. While MARTA has plans for expanding some service and adding new bus 28
services, such as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations on Memorial Drive, transit planners have indicated that some routes may be consolidated or service levels reduced in the face of budget cuts over the next 18 months. In order to make a conservative estimate of budgetary needs, we assume that those cuts in service and efficiencies gained from streamlining operations will result in an overall growth rate of 4.33 percent from FY2010 through FY2016. Rail operations expenditures (see Table 13) increased at a higher rate than bus operations over the period from FY2006 through FY2010, driven largely by rising costs for labor and benefits. In the rail operations unit these two lines increased by 10.4 percent and 18.2 percent, respectively, while rail operations unit expenditures overall by 10.5 percent during the period. Overtime expense in the unit decreased from FY2006 to FY2010. Again, we anticipate that the decline was temporary, driven by the economic downturn. Recovery of the economy is expected to increase utilization of rail services, which will reverse the decline in overtime expense and cause budgetary needs in this unit to grow at previous levels of around 11 percent over the period from FY2011 through FY2016. 29
Table 12
Department of Bus Operations: Expenditures FY2006–FY2010 and Estimated Budgetary Needs FY2011–FY2016 (Dollars) Fiscal Year 2006* 2007* 2008*
2009*
Salaries and Wages 64,905,064 65,346,424 72,553,176 76,892,708 77,757,374 91,536,215 94,261,678 96,642,914 Overtime 11,616,666 11,843,452 14,675,142 12,451,492 12,902,556 16,258,201 16,742,283 17,165,227 Benefits Labor Subtotal Contractual Services Materials and Supplies Other Operating Casualty and Liability Miscellaneous Other Non‐
operating 2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
99,175,332 102,700,086 105,024,697 17,615,022 18,241,071 18,653,957 26,587,406 28,987,427 35,872,861 36,643,612 38,919,781 42,767,827 44,041,226 45,153,794 46,336,999 47,983,845 49,069,956 103,109,136 106,177,303 123,101,179 125,987,812 129,579,711 150,562,242 155,045,187 158,961,935 163,127,353 168,925,001 172,748,610 549,452 743,789 851,006 873,828 1,177,579 1,074,414 1,106,404 1,134,354 1,164,078 1,205,451 1,232,736 22,244,645 24,116,204 29,836,691 34,255,738 37,679,818 37,933,593 39,063,054 40,049,864 41,099,326 42,560,022 43,523,365 4,362 506,912 23,903 62,241 74,973 172,184 177,311 181,790 186,554 193,184 197,557 1,301,097 1,286,986 1,136,777 1,182,936 1,937,192 1,752,849 1,805,040 1,850,639 1,899,133 1,966,629 2,011,143 21,713 13,850 14,551 17,667 15,230 21,257 21,890 22,443 23,031 23,850 24,390 62,979 22,972 31,437 491,853 118,300 186,307 191,854 196,701 201,855 209,029 213,761 24,184,248 26,690,713 31,894,365 36,884,263 41,003,092 41,140,605 42,365,554 43,435,791 44,573,977 46,158,164 47,202,952 Department Total 127,293,384 132,868,016 154,995,544 *Actual figures. Compound Growth Rate from FY2006 to FY 2010 = 7.59% Compound Growth Rate from FY1010 to FY2016 = 4.33% Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia 162,872,075 170,582,803 191,702,847 197,410,741 202,397,726 207,701,330 215,083,166 219,951,562 Non‐Labor Subtotal 2010
30
Table 13
Department of Rail Operations: Expenditures FY2006–FY2010 and Estimated Budgetary Needs FY2011–FY2016 (Dollars) Fiscal Year 2006* 2007* 2008*
33,667,709 42,746,951 46,007,507 46,779,476 49,972,901 60,211,100 66,325,602 72,740,867 79,849,930 87,594,588 94,892,852 Overtime 6,718,547 7,795,437 6,929,147 5,993,647 5,889,963 9,155,442 10,085,186 11,060,664 12,141,638 13,319,257 14,429,000 Benefits 12,827,212 19,067,620 22,068,853 22,086,379 25,066,444 27,778,482 30,599,417 33,559,109 36,838,886 40,411,896 43,778,961 Labor Subtotal 53,213,468 69,610,008 75,005,507 74,859,502 80,929,308 97,145,024 107,010,205 117,360,640 128,830,455 141,325,742 153,100,813 Contractual Services 1,637,291 1,842,965 1,176,135 3,077,767 3,823,835 3,175,184 3,497,627 3,835,931 4,210,822 4,619,230 5,004,098 Materials and Supplies 5,670,323 7,344,134 7,175,545 9,505,555 8,658,280 10,536,473 11,606,463 12,729,085 13,973,115 15,328,370 16,605,509 10,905,580 12,602,965 13,781,464 14,505,824 14,422,451 18,191,327 20,038,675 21,976,892 24,124,724 26,464,585 28,669,579 2,201,805 2,256,678 2,098,484 1,905,786 1,880,039 2,841,347 3,129,889 3,432,623 3,768,098 4,133,567 4,477,970 880 2,922 5,548 6,031 5,390 5,706 6,286 6,894 7,567 8,301 8,993 Salaries and Wages Other Operating Casualty and Liability Miscellaneous 2009*
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Other Non‐
operating Non‐Labor Subtotal 46,322 62,695 78,159 93,757 79,861 99,116 109,182 119,742 131,445 144,194 156,208 20,462,201 24,112,359 24,315,335 29,094,720 28,869,856 34,849,153 38,388,122 42,101,167 46,215,772 50,698,247 54,922,357 Department Total 73,675,669 93,722,367 99,320,842 103,954,222 109,799,164 131,994,177 145,398,327 159,461,807 175,046,226 192,023,989 208,023,170 *Actual figures. Compound Growth Rate from FY2006 to FY 2010 = 10.49% Compound Growth Rate from FY1010 to FY2016 = 11.24% Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia 31
Table 14
Remainder of the Division of Operations: Expenditures FY2006–FY2010 and Estimated Budgetary Needs FY2011–FY2016 (Dollars) 2006* 2007* 7,191,428 8,447,268 9,742,108 10,366,488 12,119,053 13,746,537 15,592,578 17,686,527 20,061,675 22,755,784 25,811,690 829,859 1,022,328 1,042,392 1,169,634 975,260 1,106,229 1,254,786 1,423,293 1,614,429 1,831,233 2,077,151 3,126,896 4,365,692 5,400,984 5,962,503 5,852,489 6,638,428 7,529,911 8,541,113 9,688,111 10,989,141 12,464,887 11,148,183 13,835,288 16,185,484 17,498,625 18,946,802 21,491,194 24,377,276 27,650,933 31,364,214 35,576,158 40,353,728 Contractual Services 151,467 208,572 77,102 93,105 109,830 109,830 109,830 109,830 109,830 109,830 109,830 Materials and Supplies 154,580 34,521 29,178 16,799 9,692 9,692 9,692 9,692 9,692 9,692 9,692 ‐1,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144,578 146,130 134,170 121,215 129,503 129,503 129,503 129,503 129,503 129,503 129,503 0 1,737 44,935 67,660 86,485 98,099 111,273 126,216 143,166 162,392 184,200 97,926 151,470 155,916 134,184 78,447 78,447 78,447 78,447 78,447 78,447 78,447 547,454 542,430 441,301 432,963 413,957 306,049 319,223 334,166 351,116 370,342 392,150 11,695,637 14,377,718 16,626,785 17,931,588 19,360,759 21,797,243 24,696,499 27,985,099 31,715,330 35,946,499 40,745,878 Salaries and Wages Overtime Benefits Labor Subtotal Other Operating Casualty and Liability Miscellaneous Other Non‐
operating Non‐labor Subtotal Total Other Operations 2008*
2009*
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
*Actual figures. Compound Growth Rate from FY2006 to FY2010 = 13.43% Compound Growth Rate from FY1010 to FY2016 = 13.20% Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia 32
Table 15
All Divisions: Expenditures FY2006–FY2010 and Estimated Budgetary Needs FY2011–FY2016 (Dollars) 2006** Salaries and Wages 2007** 2008**
2009**
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
168,673,205 177,667,223 200,278,863
208,237,093
220,768,170
214,131,739 227,808,673
241,923,229
257,415,323
275,125,261
291,842,534
Overtime 24,921,263 24,547,645 28,261,140
25,314,635
24,634,699
27,324,746 28,940,700
30,565,374
32,349,528
34,437,101
36,277,981
Benefits 67,319,735 81,418,574 98,002,682
100,246,866
109,007,907
101,021,226 107,533,211
114,257,504
121,631,857
130,050,237
138,020,095
260,914,203 283,633,442 326,542,685
333,798,594
354,410,776
342,477,711 364,282,585
386,746,107
411,396,708
439,612,599
466,140,610
Contractual Services 16,136,912 18,389,023 17,126,426
18,062,764
17,608,659
10,967,425 11,627,863
12,323,979
13,084,172
13,917,252
14,742,588
Materials and Supplies 30,877,855 34,126,863 40,769,224
46,915,675
49,505,836
49,825,595 52,122,423
54,336,822
56,743,465
59,681,389
62,053,354
Other Operating 14,821,081 17,289,245 18,076,056
18,969,042
18,887,836
20,226,990 22,224,746
24,324,049
26,645,460
29,173,928
31,579,458
7,577,325
8,304,577
9,212,963
10,058,435 10,468,565
10,887,199
11,342,383
11,847,489
12,309,487
Labor Subtotal Casualty and Liability Miscellaneous Other Non‐operating Non‐Labor Subtotal TOTAL ALL DIVISIONS 5,722,826 8,110,822 608,451 527,087 591,235
560,651
505,650
531,207 559,175
589,920
623,914
661,705
703,083
1,312,943 1,726,653 2,104,743
2,221,820
2,488,455
2,589,284 2,689,160
2,794,239
2,906,583
3,028,245
3,153,456
69,480,068 80,169,693 86,245,009
95,034,529
98,209,399
94,198,936 99,731,110
105,335,072
111,465,045
118,469,804
124,742,479
330,394,271 363,803,135 412,787,694
428,833,123
452,620,175
436,676,647 464,013,695
492,081,179
522,861,753
558,082,403
590,883,089
*Estimates through 2030 are contained in Appendix B
**Actual figures. Compound Growth Rate from FY2006 to FY 2010 = 8.19% Compound Growth Rate from FY1010 to FY2016 = 4.54% Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia 33
Capital Budget MARTA’s capital budget uses three major revenue sources: sales tax revenue, federal and state grants, and bonded debt backed by a pledge of future sales tax revenue. Currently, MARTA is required to use 50 percent of the sales tax levy in Fulton and Dekalb Counties for capital needs. Under the current plan, MARTA expects to maintain a balance in its capital fund of around $20 million between FY2010 and FY2019 (see Table 16). However, the capital plan as it currently exists will see annual spending decline from around $250 million to $150 million, a level that MARTA officials indicate is not sufficient to maintain the existing infrastructure. Most local governments, including municipalities, counties, and special purpose entities like MARTA, adjust capital budgets annually, adding projects to the approved list as needs arise and are identified. In reality, the spending plan that MARTA presents in its FY2010 capital budget accurately reflects what will be spent on capital needs in FY2010 and possibly one or two more years. The planned capital spending that is identified for years beyond FY2011 or FY2012 are simply those projects that have been identified and analyzed sufficiently to know their costs. Other projects will be added to those years as they are approved. As examples, the current capital budget includes approved spending amounts for the study of several major projects, including a park‐and‐ride facility at the Stonecrest Mall area and the I‐20 East Corridor, the Beltline in downtown Atlanta, and the Clifton Corridor. Additional funds for expansion planning are allocated in years beyond FY2012. None of the actual construction costs for these projects are reflected in the current capital plan. They will be added as they are determined. The analysis of the capital budget will be in two steps. The first step is to determine the spending needs for MARTA’s approved projects and the need for additional bus and rail vehicles to meet the increased demand that population growth will generate. The additional bus and rail service hours using those population estimates suggests that MARTA will need 10 percent more revenue vehicles beginning at least by FY2013. Under the current budget, bus replacement is included in the State of Good Repair line item. Beginning in FY2013, MARTA expects to purchase about $30 to $32 million in replacement vehicles each year until FY2019. As a conservative estimate of the revenue vehicles needed to increase service hours for both the bus and rail service, we have added 10 percent to those replacement plans beginning in FY2013. Additional vehicles may be needed sooner. Table 17 shows that MARTA will need to issue $127 million in additional sales tax revenue bonds beginning in FY2016 just to fund currently approved projects and meet the additional demand for service. Figure 2 shows MARTA’s approved capital spending and the additional vehicular needs to provide additional service hours. 34
The second part of this analysis calculates the additional capital revenue needed to maintain MARTA’s current (FY2010 through FY2013) investment level. This calculation assumes that most projects that will be completed in the next four years have been identified, analyzed, and approved. In discussions with MARTA transit planners and finance department officials, we learned that additions to the capital improvement plan over the near term are generally small items that are identified during the course of operations. Major projects such as the Beltline and Stonecrest Park‐and‐Ride facility will be on the plan three to four years ahead of the start of construction. It is years four through ten of the plan that will have significant additional projects added over the course of the next three to four years. MARTA officials indicate that investment in both bus and rail facilities in the approved capital plan are not sufficient to maintain a state of good repair and to expand services to areas that have demand already identified. The first rail stations began operation in 1979 and are now more than 30 years old. While some rehabilitation has been done on these facilities in recent years, additional capital improvements are needed. Table 18 shows the capital needs over the next 10 years if MARTA were to continue investing in its capital facilities and revenue vehicles at the current rate. This is a very conservative estimate of need since MARTA officials believe capital investment should be increasing rather than declining or just maintaining the current level. Simply maintaining current investment levels will not be sufficient to meet the Federal Transit Authority’s standards for a state of good repair. Even so, at just the current investment levels, MARTA will need to issue more than $670 million in sales tax revenue bonds between FY2016 and FY2019. Figure 2 show the three levels of capital investment calculated in this analysis. 35
Table 16
MARTA Capital Budget Plan: FY2010–FY2019 Fiscal Year MARTA Planned Capital Revenue
2013
2014
2015 2016
2010 2011
2012
29.2 80.6 20.8 20.2 20.9 20.1 2017
2018
2019
20.1 20.2 20.2 20.5 Revenue (millions) Beginning Balance Sales Tax 153.2 151.0 155.1 160.5 169.3 179.2 184.1 188.2 199.2 210.7 Federal Funds 83.3 57.9 64.8 60.3 43.1 42.5 42.5 43.5 43.6 43.6 Other Revenue 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capital Appreciation Bonds Debt Issue 0.0 56.0 122.0 125.0 116.0 123.0 100.0 94.0 90.0 81.0 Total Revenue 469.1 349.0 366.3 369.7 353.1 368.8 350.8 350.1 357.3 360.2 Fiscal Year 2010 2011
2012
MARTA Planned Capital Spending
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
188,987 151,374 154,535 185,928 138,153 34,808 31,116 43,573 12,581 4,370 2,426 2,428 2,426 26,348 11,230 8,246 3,500 Total Capital Program 254,513 196,146 208,782 Debt Service Total Cash Demand 134,000 388,513 132,100 328,246
137,300 346,082
Expenditures for Approved Projects (thousands) State of Good Repair Service Enhancements Regulatory Requirements System Expansion 164,359 169,413 138,161 140,080 145,250 7,365 7,943 13,400 10,858 10,171 7,382 2,430 2,430 2,431 2,130 2,129 2,130 6,552 7,748 11,000 7,500 2,500 2,500 204,435 180,706 187,534 164,992 160,568 160,050 150,165 144,500 348,935
152,200 332,906
161,100 348,634 165,600 330,592
169,300 329,868
176,800 336,850
189,600 339,765
Source: MARTA 36
Table 17
Vinson Institute Capital Budget Estimates to Meet Current Service Levels: FY2010–FY2019 Fiscal Year Vinson Institute Estimate
2013
2014
2015 2010 2011
2012
29.2 75.9 15.5 18.7 19.4 148.6 150.39 158.89 165.28 Federal Funds 83.3 57.9 64.8 Other Revenue 3.4 3.5 3.6 200.0 0.0 0.0 464.5 2016
2017
2018
2019
14.1 2.4 ‐11.5 ‐24.8 ‐44.0 169.22 172.06 174.69 179.5 184.4 189.4 60.3 43.1 42.5 42.5 43.5 43.6 43.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 122.0 125.0 116.0 123.0 100.0 94.0 90.0 81.0 343.7 364.8 373.0 351.6 355.6 323.7 309.6 297.4 274.4 MARTA Planned Capital Needs
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
160,568 160,050 150,165 Revenue (millions) Beginning Balance Sales Tax Capital Appreciation Bonds Debt Issue Total Revenue Fiscal Year Total Planned Capital Program 2010 2011
2012
254,513 196,146 208,782 204,435 180,706 187,534 164,992 Additional Capital Needs for Current Service Levels (thousands)
Bus Procurement L‐CARE Rail Car rehab/enhancement ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 Paratransit Van ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 Total Additional Capital Needs ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 Total Estimated Capital Needs 254,513 196,146 208,782 209,036 185,307 192,135 169,593 165,169 164,651 154,766 Debt Service 134,000 132,100 137,300 144,500 152,200 161,100 165,600 169,300 176,800 189,600 Total Cash Demand 388,513 328,246 346,082 353,536 337,507 353,235 335,193 334,469 341,451 344,366 Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia and MARTA 37
Table 18
Vinson Institute Capital Budget Estimates to Maintain Current Investment Level: FY2010–FY2019 Fiscal Year Vinson Institute Estimate
2013
2014
2015 2010 2011
2012
29.2 75.9 15.5 18.7 19.4 148.6 150.39 158.89 165.28 Federal Funds 83.3 57.9 64.8 Other Revenue 3.4 3.5 3.6 2016
2017
2018
2019
‐21.2 ‐61.3 ‐126.2 ‐194.9 ‐270.0 169.22 172.06 174.69 179.5 184.4 189.4 60.3 43.1 42.5 42.5 43.5 43.6 43.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Revenue (millions) Beginning Balance Sales Tax Capital Appreciation Bonds Debt Issue Total Revenue Fiscal Year Total Planned Capital Program 200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 122.0 125.0 116.0 123.0 100.0 94.0 90.0 81.0 435.3 267.8 349.3 354.3 332.1 341.6 321.3 321.2 322.3 318.4 MARTA Planned Capital Needs
2013
2014
2015 2016
2017
2018
2019
215,969 215,969 215,969 2010 2011
2012
254,513 196,146 208,782 204,435 215,969 215,969 215,969 Additional Capital Needs for Current Service Levels (thousands)
Bus Procurement L‐CARE Rail Car rehab/enhancement ‐‐‐‐‐ 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 3,604 ‐‐‐‐‐ 503 503 503 503 503 503 503 Paratransit Van ‐‐‐‐‐ 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 4,601 Total Additional Capital Needs Total Estimated Capital Needs to Maintain Existing Service Levels 254,513 196,146 208,782 209,036 220,570 220,570 220,570 220,570 220,570 220,570 Debt Service 134,000 132,100 137,300 144,500 152,200 161,100 165,600 169,300 176,800 189,600 Total Cash Demand 388,513 328,246 346,082 353,536 372,770 381,670 386,170 389,870 397,370 410,170 Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia and MARTA 38
Figure 2 MARTA Approved Capital Budget, Estimated Capital Needs for Existing Service Level, and Estimated Capital Needs to Maintain Existing Investment Level (thousands of dollars) 300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total Planned Capital Program
Total Estimated Capital Needs to Maintain Existing Service Levels
Total Estimated Capital Needs to Maintain Existing Investment Level
39
A Comparison of Transit Systems in Major U.S. Cities The purpose of this section is to examine funding of other transit systems in the country, comparing the program and finance differences and the impact they have on funding reliability, stable program delivery, and adequacy of service provision. The final section examines how MARTA’s funding scheme differs and the impact of these differences on the operating budget. Methodology The information found in this memorandum was produced from two major data sources. The first was the National Transit Database, which includes a wide range of data on transit ridership and financial statistics for the nation’s transit properties. The second source was more detailed case studies of transit systems that are similar to MARTA, including the systems in Charlotte (NC), Dallas (TX), Denver (CO), Houston (TX), Miami (FL), Phoenix (AZ), San Diego (CA), San Francisco (CA) and Washington D.C. These systems are described below in more detail. Charlotte–CATS Organization CATS was set up in 1999 following the adoption of a 2025 transit/land use long range plan by the City of Charlotte and the County of Mecklenburg. Part of this plan was the creation of a supportive transit system that would reinforce the land use patterns desired in the plan. A sales tax referendum passed (and was reaffirmed by a second overwhelming vote) that provided the funding base for expanding the region’s transit system. CATS is governed by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), consisting of eight voting members: six mayors from the cities in the metropolitan area, one county representative and one state representative. Five non‐voting members represent adjacent areas. A Citizens Transit Advisory Board advises MTS on long‐range planning as does a Transit Services Advisory Committee for short‐range operations. Service CATS offers bus, light‐rail, and paratransit services, all directly operated, covering an area of 445 square miles and a service population of 700,000. The bus system consists of 32 local and 10 express routes served by 272 vehicles. Demand response and vanpool needs are provided with 172 vehicles. The new light‐rail line, called LYNX, currently operates with 19 cars and 15 stations that have feeder bus service. Average weekday ridership for 2009 was 99,000 trips, a 12 percent decline from 2008. 40
Finance Operating expenses (includes costs not part of PT agreement and cash): The farebox recovery ratio for the transit system is approximately 14 percent, based on a flat fare structure for local services and a graduated price for express routes. State funds, from the state DOT, represent approximately 11 percent of the operating budget. The most funds come from a one‐half‐cent sales tax approved by the voters. Capital expenses: CATS develops a 5/10 capital budget. For year 2009, 54.3 percent of the capital funds went to redeem short‐term borrowing. Federal (91 percent) and state (9 percent) assistance made up the capital program for bus improvements and the rapid transit program. Dallas–DART Organization DART was created in 1983 with the vote of 14 cities and Dallas County, which set up a 15 member governing board and approved a one‐cent sales tax, primarily for operations. Eight members are appointed by the City of Dallas and the rest are appointed from the remaining cities. Service DART serves 689 square miles and a population of 2.4 million with five major modes of transportation: bus, demand responsive, vanpool, light rail, and commuter rail. Total average weekday ridership in 2009 was approximately 208,000 trips, a 13 percent decline from 2008. Buses carry the most passengers, with a fleet of 564 buses serving 130 routes and using 84 miles of HOV lanes. Eighty‐five cars form the light‐rail fleet, which operates along 48.6 miles of tracks for three lines and 39 stations. The 35‐mile‐long commuter rail line is jointly operated with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues cover approximately 11 percent of operating expenses due to relatively high operating expenses for the bus service. For DART, both federal assistance and other funds just summed up to only 10 percent, leaving the remaining 79 percent to be funded from a sales tax. Capital expenses: DART is in the process of expanding its light‐rail lines to nearly double the current size by 2013 and completing 110 miles by 2018. Also, 60 new miles of commuter rail and 213 miles of HOV/BRT corridors are planned for the next decade. New facilities and bike/pedestrian integration are also being considered. Similar to the operating funds, most funds for capital expenditures were local (approximately 78 percent). However, only $50 million 41
of these funds in 2008 came from the one‐cent sales tax while the rest came from a bond loan. Federal funds covered the remaining 22 percent, with $96 million coming from capital grants and $34 million from formula funds. Denver–RTD Organization The Regional Transportation District (RTD) was founded in 1969 as a political subdivision of the State of Colorado to develop, maintain, and operate a mass transportation system for the Denver metropolitan region. Eight counties, including Denver and Boulder, constitute the District and appoint 15 members to the Board of Directors. The Board sets policy, oversees budgets, and establishes short‐ and long‐range transit goals. Service The District serves an area of 2,325 square miles with a population of 2.6 million with bus, light rail, demand responsive, and vanpool services. Light rail is the most recent transit mode added to the service, consisting of 101 vehicles in maximum service serving 36 (20 with park‐and‐ride) stations over 35 miles. Bus service is offered as local, express, limited, and regional service. Along with the demand‐responsive and vanpool services, this service is integrated with the light rail lines. Daily ridership is approximately 303,000 trips, an increase of one percent over the ridership level in 2008, one of the few major transit services to see an increase over that period of time. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent 21 percent of the operating funds expended (equivalent to a 29 percent recovery ratio excluding cash reconciliation); fares are based on a zonal system. Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking, represent 14 percent of operating funds. For the remaining 65 percent non‐directly generated, 10 percent came from federal assistance, and 55 percent from local funds in the form of a one‐cent sales tax. Capital expenses: RTD has one of the largest transit capital investment programs in the nation, FasTracks, a multibillion dollar voter‐approved plan that consists of two commuter rail lines, a large expansion of its light rail system and the creation of BRT lines. However, FasTracks has faced cost overruns with recent announcements that insufficient funds were available to finish the planned system. Only $283 million was expended in 2008. It is expected that 85 percent of the funding will come from a local sales tax and the remaining 15 percent from the federal government. 42
Houston–METRO Organization The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) was created in 1978 when citizens voted for a one‐cent sales tax mainly for transit operations. The main purpose for the creation of the authority was to transform local bus service into an integrated multimodal transit system. The City of Houston has five voting members on the Board, the other 14 communities in the service district appoint two members, while Harris County appoints two others for a total of nine members. Service METRO serves an area of 1,285 square miles and a population of 2.8 million by providing five major modes of transportation: bus, demand responsive services, vanpools, light rail and commuter rail. Total average weekday ridership is approximately 281,000 trips, a 13 percent decline from 2008 levels. The majority of this ridership comes from buses, with a fleet of 835 vehicles serving 132 local and express routes. The light‐rail fleet is relatively new (with around 20 vehicles providing service); a 128‐vehicle paratransit service is provided through a purchased transportation agreement. The light rail‐line is 7.5 miles long and has 16 stations. The whole system is integrated by 20 transit centers that work like multimodal hubs; 28 park and ride facilities provide park‐ and kiss‐and‐ride service to the light‐rail line. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent approximately 15 percent of total operating funds, due in part to heavily subsidized flat fares for local services. Park‐and‐ride fares are higher and increase by zone, but the associated revenues, along with advertising and others, only represent 7 percent of the operating budget. Federal assistance represents 14 percent of the operating budget, and 65 percent comes from sales tax revenues. Capital expenses: Despite the current economic climate, METRO plans to expand its service and improve service quality. Recent projects include its Quickline BRT service, new park and ride lots, a new light‐rail transit line and more vehicles for the existing line, 28 new miles of commuter rail, and six more intermodal facilities. To pay for some of these improvements, federal assistance in the amount of 10 percent of the capital costs was provided, with the remaining 90 percent coming from sales taxes. 43
Miami–MDT Organization Miami‐Dade Transit (MDT), formerly MTA, began operations in 1960 through an ordinance passed by the Dade County Commission for unifying various transit companies serving the Miami region. Dade County thus provides governance for the MDT. Service The agency serves an estimated 2.4 million passengers in an area of 306 square miles, while average weekday ridership was reported at 316,000 trips in 2009, a 19 percent decrease from 2008 levels. MDT operates four distinct services: buses (including ‘BRT‐lite’), heavy rail, automated people mover (‘monorail’), and demand responsive service. Bus ridership makes up more than 60 percent of the system ridership based on 825 vehicles serving 100+ routes, followed by heavy rail, people mover, and demand‐responsive services. The latter is provided through a purchased transportation agreement. The heavy rail system operates on a single line 22.4 miles long with 22 stations, while the monorail guideway is 4.4 miles long, serving 21 stations. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent an approximate 18 percent of operational funds (Note: the people mover is free). Approximately 65 percent of the operations budget comes from the county’s general revenue, while only 5 percent comes from a half‐cent sales tax voted on in 2002 that had a heavy capital construction component (see below). The rest of the budget comes from federal and state programs. Capital expenses: Capital projects in planning include the Kendall Corridor BRT, a new SmartCard system, and total replacement of the downtown people mover cars, new bus shelters, and security systems. Most of the sales tax went to these improvements (52 percent of total capital funding), with state gas tax funds providing about 9 percent of the costs, while the federal government through its capital programs and formula grants provided the remaining portion of the capital investment program. Phoenix–RPTA/Valley Metro Organization The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA, Valley Metro), was established in 1985 by the state legislature, with the intent being primarily to integrate existing transit services. Each 44
city appoints a representative to the RPTA Board of Directors, for a total of 16 members. The Board has created four committees that focus on different aspects of authority business. Service Valley Metro serves a population of approximately 1.6 million people within an area of 517 square miles. The average weekday ridership in 2009 was approximately 226,000, served by a combination of bus and demand‐response services and a new light rail line. This ridership number represented a nine percent increase in ridership over 2008, primarily due to the new light rail line initiating service. The maximum operating fleet of buses is 450 vehicles operating (more than 1000 total rolling stock) along 85 bus routes, while the light rail fleet consists of 45 vehicles running on a single line of 20 miles and serving 32 stations. The system includes 15 transfer centers and 20 public park‐and‐ride facilities. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent 18 percent of the operating budget (Valley Metro uses a flat‐fare system). Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking, represent 15 percent of the operating budget. Of the remaining 67 percent non‐directly generated funding, 3 percent came from federal assistance, 4 percent from state funds (from general revenue), and 59 percent from local funds ($71 million from sales taxes and $30 million from general revenues). Capital expenses: Although expansions of its rail and bus services are in advanced planning and approved by voters, Valley Metro has invested mostly in existing service improvements. A sales tax provided 42 percent of the capital funds for the recent investment program, state funds represented 3 percent (general revenue), and the remaining 55 percent came from the federal government (16 percent capital grants, 39 percent formula allocation). Salt Lake City–UTA Organization The Utah Transit Authority was formed in 1969 by the state legislature when the cities of Salt Lake City, Sandy, and Murray voted to form a transit district. Currently, a Board of Trustees of 19 members governs the UTA, representing 6 counties, the state House and Senate, and the executive branch of the state. The board sets policies, provides overall guidance, and plans transit programs. Service The authority serves an area of 1,412 square miles with a population of 1.75 million, with bus, light rail, commuter rail, and demand‐responsive and vanpool services. Buses are the major mode of transportation service provided, and include local, express, and ski services. In July 2008, UTA’s first BRT line opened, called the MAX. UTA has invested in light rail (TRAX), which 45
has been integrated with the bus system and has three lines and 29 stations along 19 miles. Daily ridership on the entire system in 2009 was approximately 140,000 trips, a 5 percent reduction from the ridership levels in 2008. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent approximately 17 percent of the operating funds expended (equivalent to a 24 percent recovery ratio) and come from flat fares and conventional discount passes. Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking fees, represented 9 percent of the budget. For the remaining 74 percent non‐directly generated revenues, 17 percent came from federal assistance, and 59 percent from a sales tax. Capital expenses: UTA has major plans to expand its light rail system with 90 cars on order, as well as modernizing its vehicle fleet and operations technologies. The plans represent a significant investment in transit in Salt Lake City (in 2008, this investment was almost $600 million, 75 percent coming from local funds (a $445 million bond), 14 percent from the sales tax, and the remaining 11 percent from federal capital and formula programs. San Diego–MTS Organization The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) was created in 1976 with its primary purpose being the coordination of bus routes, fares, and transfers among different fixed‐route operating entities. In essence, the MTS was to act as an umbrella agency in charge of operations. Today, planning, policy, and construction are the responsibility of SANDAG (the region’s metropolitan planning organization) while MTS supervises the operations of its subsidiaries–San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI), San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), and other rail transit operators. The board of directors is composed of 15 members representing cities in San Diego County, with four appointed by the City of San Diego. Service MTS serves a population of approximately 2.2 million people living within an area of 406 square miles. The average weekday ridership for 2009 was 255,000 trips, a decline of 6 percent from 2008 levels. Service is provided through a combination of bus, demand‐responsive and light‐
rail modes. SDTI is the service provider for light rail, and SDTC, for buses. Light‐rail service consists of three lines with a total of 52 miles and 53 stations, served by a fleet of 93 vehicles. The maximum operating fleet of buses is 199 vehicles serving 82 fixed routes. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent approximately 39 percent of the operating budget. Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking, were relatively 46
negligible. For the remaining 61 percent non‐directly generated, 16 percent came from federal assistance, 36 percent from state funds in the form of sales taxes in the most part and some from gas taxes, and only 9 percent from local sales tax. Federal assistance completes the funding with 16 percent of funds expended. Capital expenses: Most recent capital expenses came in the form of a new transit center, a BRT project, fleet refurbishing, and a new fare‐collection system. All funds that MTS directly manages come from the State of California via SANDAG. San Francisco–BART Organization The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) was founded in 1957 by the state legislature. BART has as its main objective building and operating a rapid‐rail network connecting the region’s commercial centers. The current Board of Directors is composed of 9 members, in total representing BART’s four currently participating counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo. Service The district serves an area of just 93 miles and a population of 834,000 people, handling 359,000 average weekday trips in 2009, a 5 percent decline from 2008. Its only mode of operation is heavy rail, using 104 miles of rail tracks and 43 stations distributed in five lines. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent approximately 53 percent of the operating budget (equivalent to a 64 percent recovery ratio excluding cash reconciliation) and come from distance‐based fares. Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking, represent about five percent of the budget. For the remaining 42 percent non‐directly generated, 5 percent comes from federal assistance, and 37 percent from local funds, the majority coming from sales taxes and some $48 million from property taxes. State funds were negligible, amounting to just over $300,000 in 2008. Capital expenses: The largest capital expenditure for BART currently is modernizing its facilities for earthquake safety, but in general most capital expenses in recent years have gone to system reinvestment and safety enhancements. These were financed through local funds (65 percent) in the form of sales taxes and bonds, and through state funds coming from a sales tax, a gas tax, and tolls (19 percent). Federal assistance represented 15 percent and other funds, such as donations, were relatively negligible. 47
San Francisco–SFMTA/Muni Organization The San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni), part of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) since 1999, was founded in 1912. SFMTA is currently governed by seven members from the City of San Francisco appointed by the mayor. A Citizens Advisory Council of 15 members reviews budget and recommends policy. Service Muni serves a population of 825,000 people living within an area of 49 square miles. The average weekday ridership in 2009 was 700,000 trips, served by a combination of bus, trolley bus, cable car, light‐rail (all directly operated), and demand‐responsive (contracted) services. The maximum operating fleet of buses is 378 vehicles, while the trolleybus system uses 243 vehicles; light rail, 139; and cable cars, 27. Finance Operating expenses: Fare revenues represent 26 percent of the operating budget and come from flat fares. Additional funds, such as revenues from advertising and parking, represent 4 percent. For the remaining 70 percent non‐directly generated, only 1 percent came from federal assistance, 17 percent from state funds in the form of sales taxes and transfers from state agencies, and 53 percent from local funds, the majority coming from general revenue and sales taxes, with some transfers from BART. Capital expenses: Most capital expenses have been dedicated to general reinvestment and other general capital improvements. Local funding sources provided 22 percent of these funds from sales taxes, state funds (35 percent) came from gas taxes and tolls, and the remaining 43 percent came from the federal government (12 percent capital programs, 31 percent formula). Washington D.C.–WMATA Organization The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was created in 1967 through joint legislation passed by the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Congress. Its main functions are to plan, build, operate, and finance a transit system in the national capital area. WMATA is governed by a board of 6 directors and 6 alternates, two each from D.C., Maryland, and Virginia. Service The authority operates 106.1 miles of heavy rail (MetroRail) built from 1969 to 2005, consisting of five lines, 86 stations, and 830 cars, and along with its bus system (MetroBus) and paratransit 48
system (MetroAccess). As of 2009, WMATA serves a population of 3.4 million within a 1,500 square mile area. Metrobus directly operates 1,261 buses and 24 through purchased transportation while MetroAccess operates 452 vehicles through purchased transportation. Average weekday ridership for 2009 was approximately 1.343 million trips. Finance Operating expenses (includes costs not part of PT agreement and cash): The farebox recovery ratio for the three modes combined is approximately 40 percent, based on a fare structure that discriminates by time of day, distance, and zone. Other directly generated funds such as parking fees and advertisement make up 15 percent of operating expenses. The rest is covered primarily by local funds (26 percent) and state funds (18 percent). Federal assistance is discretionary and not very significant. Capital expenses: WMATA developed, together with local jurisdictions, a capital improvement program called Metro Matters that uses a pay‐as‐you‐go funding strategy. The current version expires on June 30, 2010, and is expected to be reapproved for future investments. In 2008, the capital funding breakdown was local (49 percent), federal (42 percent), and state (9 percent). For 2009, nearly $202 million was approved as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Some Comparisons Farebox Recovery Ratio The data from the National Transit Database and information collected from MARTA’s peer agencies reveals some interesting comparisons. Figure 3, for example, shows the trends in farebox recovery from 2002 to 2008 for the 12 systems being examined. Some caution needs to be given to interpreting the data solely from the graph without recognizing some of the key differences in each of the systems (described briefly above). For example, those systems opening new services will likely experience a bump down in farebox recovery until the service starts to attract the levels it was designed for. Having said this, however, it is interesting to note that of the 12 systems, MARTA shows one of the stronger farebox recovery ratios. BART has a very high ratio simply because it only operates heavy‐rail service and thus skews the results when compared with other truly multimodal systems. 49
Figure 3 Trend in Farebox Recovery Ratios, 2002–2008 Farebox revenue 2002‐2008
100%
90%
Farebox recovery reatio (%)
80%
Washington
Charlotte
70%
Atlanta
Miami
60%
Houston
50%
Dallas
Salt Lake City
40%
Denver
San Francisco
30%
San Francisco
20%
San Diego
Phoenix
10%
0%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
50
Sources for Operations Funding Although funding for operations varies across the different systems being examined, in general other transit properties in the peer group tend to have more sources of operations funding than MARTA. Figure 4a shows that for the 11 peer agencies, about 51 percent of the operations budget comes from a directly generated source (such as a sales tax), 12 percent comes from state government, 21 percent from local governments, and 16 percent from federal sources. Figure 4b shows the comparable breakdown for MARTA. 51
Figure4 Percentage Operations Budget Funding Source 4a: MARTA Peer Group 4b: MARTA 52
Sources for Capital Funding The funding for capital expenditures shows the same range as that illustrated above in Figure 4. Table 19 shows the breakdown of capital funds for both MARTA and the peer agencies by source. Figure 5a shows that 42 percent of the capital funding for the peer agencies comes from a directly generated funding source–that is, a sales tax. Just over a third comes from federal funds, 12 percent from local funding sources, and 11 percent from state sources. Figure 5b shows a comparable breakdown for MARTA. What is striking about this table and corresponding figures is the reliance of MARTA on directly generated funds, with very little funding support coming from other sources. MARTA in Comparison Every transit agency is different, and thus it is not surprising that an examination of transit agencies in the country similar to MARTA show differences in how they are structured and the type of financing strategies used to support their service. MARTA was created in 1965 by the state legislature and approved by voter referendum in the City of Atlanta and in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. As other agencies, MARTA is led by a board of directors composed of six committees and 14 members representing the City of Atlanta, and the Counties of Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, and Clayton. Four ex‐officio members represent the Georgia Building Authority, the Georgia Department of Revenue, the Georgia Department of Transportation, and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. An approximate 1.5 million people live within a service area of 498 square miles, with 475,000 reported using the system per day in 2009 (a 7 percent decline from 2008). The largest ridership comes from the heavy‐rail system, which consists of 188 cars, followed by the bus system and demand‐responsive vehicles, mostly operated directly by MARTA. The heavy‐rail system currently has four lines totaling 38 stations and 47.6 miles. 53
Table 19
Breakdown of Source of Capital Funds, MARTA and Peer Agencies Agency Directly Generated Funds State Funds Local Funds Dedicated Taxes, Tolls and Others Other Directly Generated Funds Funds Allocated Out of General Revenue Dedicated Taxes, Tolls and Others Funds Allocated Out of General Revenues Dedicated Taxes, Tolls and Others Peers 14% 28% 4% 7% 5% MARTA 33% 41% 1% 0% 0% Federal Funds Capital Program Urbanized Area Formula Other FTA 7% 17% 16% 1% 0% 19% 3% 3% Other USDOT Other Federal Total 100% 0% 100% Source: Transit agencies.
54
Figure 5 Percentage Capital Budget Funding Source 5a: MARTA Peer Group 5b: MARTA 55
Fare revenues represent approximately 22 percent of the total operational funds expended (equivalent to 27 percent when excluding cash reconciliation and purchased transportation). Other funds, such as those coming from parking and advertising, represent approximately 11 percent of the operational budget, while federal funds represented 9 percent (according to the NTD). The remainder, 58 percent, comes mostly from a sales tax, although this past year insufficient revenues have created significant challenges to MARTA management in covering the operating budget. Capital investments in recent years have focused on refurbishing old vehicles, enhancing facilities, modernizing operations technologies, and modernizing administrative systems, including the implementation of a SmartCard fare collection system. The most recent capital project is the Memorial Avenue BRT line, although major projects, such as the Beltline and heavy‐rail extensions, are in project planning. When comparing MARTA with its peer agencies, several key observations merit consideration. •
Almost all of the transit systems considered to be MARTA’s peer agencies have suffered ridership losses over the past two years, except in those cases (such as Denver) where transit service has been expanded significantly. Even in such cases, growth in ridership has been at a much slower rate than in recent years. •
Of MARTA’s peer institutions, MARTA maintained one of the highest farebox recovery ratios from 2002 to 2008. The only peer agency that was consistently higher than MARTA was BART, which operates only heavy rail service. •
MARTA’s peer institutions have a much wider operating funding base (more sources of funding) than that available to MARTA. In many cases, state and local governments provide direct assistance to the transit agency (in addition to sales tax revenues). Those that have a broader funding base seem to have established a more stable transit service with resulting stable ridership. This is not surprising given that the uncertainty of service cutbacks could cause riders to seek alternative means of travel. •
The primary source of funds for both operating and capital purchases is “directly generated funds,” most often a sales tax. In most cases, this was a transit dedicated sales tax applied to the service area. Except in San Diego where the sales tax has been levied over a very long period, most sales taxes have a sunset provision. The primary concept in providing support for transit, however, is to let the region that benefits from the service vote on the necessary funding. •
Similarly, MARTA’s peer institutions have a much broader base of capital funding than that available to MARTA. Primarily, the funding base includes state and local funding that is not found in the MARTA case. Once again, those having such a broad base seem to have 56
experienced more stable operations than MARTA even during the recent economic recession. •
Many of MARTA’s peer institutions have been pursuing aggressive expansion of their transit services, primarily by adding bus rapid transit (BRT) and light‐rail services. The major funding source for the light rail services in particular has been a service area specific sales tax. •
The composition of peer agency boards of directors almost always includes only those entities that are contributing financially to the operation of the transit service. Thus, in those cases where state government is providing funds to the transit agency, it usually has a seat on the board. Although it is difficult to relate with great certainty the characteristics of an agency’s funding strategy with the stability of its program, an examination of MARTA’s peer agencies seems to suggest that those agencies that have a diverse set of funding–that is, those that obtain funding from a variety of different sources–have had the more stable transit program over the past 10 years. In particular, they have been able to support not only their basic service but also an expansion of services in key market areas. This is perhaps the most important lesson for MARTA from this peer comparison. 57
Appendix A Vinson Institute Estimates of MARTA Operating Revenue FY2010–FY2030 (millions of dollars) 2006* 50% Sales Tax 2007* 2008* 2009* 2010* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 165.61 174.61 175.80 163.71 148.56 150.39 158.89 165.28 169.22 172.06 174.69 179.87 182.42 Passenger Revenue 95.14 99.26 101.39 102.70 102.85 104.99 110.75 116.65 122.70 128.89 133.59 134.49 136.55 Other Transit Related 10.71 11.25 17.85 14.68 13.94 14.89 15.90 16.99 18.14 19.38 20.70 22.11 23.62 Federal Operating Assistance 37.33 39.00 41.38 41.79 87.30 43.39 45.06 46.78 48.58 50.44 52.37 54.38 56.46 6.16 6.46 6.77 7.10 7.44 7.80 8.18 8.57 Lease Income 4.87 4.88 6.08 5.78 5.88 Interest from Capital Reserve 4.65 6.02 8.74 0.00 0.00 Lease to Service Amortized Revenue 3.75 3.95 4.09 4.27 3.86 3.89 3.92 3.94 3.97 4.00 4.03 4.06 4.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 323.72 340.98 356.42 369.71 382.21 393.18 403.09 411.71 2024 2025 2026 2027 Breeze Card Token Re‐evaluation Revenue 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Prior Period Audit Adjustment 1.56 ‐0.02 1.82 0.00 0.00 323.62 341.95 357.15 332.93 362.390 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028 2029 2030 50% Sales Tax 184.94 187.43 189.89 192.31 194.69 197.04 199.35 201.62 203.85 206.04 208.20 210.33 Passenger Revenue 138.63 140.76 142.91 145.09 147.31 149.56 151.85 154.17 156.53 158.93 161.36 163.82 Other Transit Related 25.22 26.94 28.78 30.74 32.83 35.07 37.46 40.01 42.73 45.64 48.75 52.08 Federal Operating Assistance 58.63 60.88 63.21 65.63 68.15 70.76 73.48 76.29 79.22 82.25 85.41 88.68 8.99 9.42 9.87 10.35 10.85 11.37 11.92 12.50 13.10 13.73 14.39 15.09 4.12 4.15 4.18 4.21 4.24 4.27 4.30 4.33 4.36 4.40 4.43 4.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 438.84 448.33 458.07 468.08 478.36 488.92 499.80 511.00 522.54 534.46 Lease Income Interest from Capital Reserve Lease to Service Amortized Revenue Breeze Card Token Re‐evaluation Revenue Prior Period Audit Adjustment 420.54 429.58 *Actual figures. Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. 58
Appendix B Vinson Institute Estimates of MARTA Operating Expenditures FY2006–FY2030 (millions of dollars) TOTAL ALL DIVISIONS Salaries and Wages 2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 220.77 214.13 227.81 241.92 257.42 275.13 291.84 312.16 333.88 168.67 177.67 200.28 Overtime 24.92 24.55 28.26 25.31 24.63 27.32 28.94 30.57 32.35 34.44 36.28 36.17 36.07 Benefits 67.32 81.42 98.00 100.25 109.01 101.02 107.53 114.26 121.63 130.05 138.02 155.69 175.63 260.91 283.63 326.54 333.80 354.41 342.48 364.28 386.75 411.40 439.61 466.14 504.02 545.58 Contractual Services 16.14 18.39 17.13 18.06 17.61 10.97 11.63 12.32 13.08 13.92 14.74 15.07 15.07 Marterials and Supplies 30.88 34.13 40.77 46.92 49.51 49.83 52.12 54.34 56.74 59.68 62.05 69.83 69.83 Other Operating 14.82 17.29 18.08 18.97 18.89 20.23 22.22 24.32 26.65 29.17 31.58 33.55 33.55 Casualty and Liability 5.72 8.11 7.58 8.30 9.21 10.06 10.47 10.89 11.34 11.85 12.31 13.87 13.87 Miscellaneous 0.61 0.53 0.59 0.56 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.70 0.67 0.67 Nother Non Operating 1.31 1.73 2.10 2.22 2.49 2.59 2.69 2.79 2.91 3.03 3.15 3.70 3.70 69.48 80.17 86.25 95.03 98.21 94.20 99.73 105.34 111.47 118.47 124.74 136.68 136.68 330.39 363.80 412.79 428.83 452.62 436.68 464.01 492.08 522.86 558.08 590.88 640.71 682.27 Labor Subtotal Non‐Labor Subtotal TOTAL ALL DIVISIONS 208.24 2010 *Actual figures. 59
Appendix B (Continued) Vinson Institute Estimates of MARTA Operating Expenditures FY2006–FY2030 (millions of dollars) TOTAL ALL DIVISIONS 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 357.12 381.98 408.57 437.00 467.42 499.95 534.75 571.97 611.78 654.36 699.91 748.63 Overtime 35.96 35.86 35.76 35.65 35.55 35.45 35.35 35.24 35.14 35.04 34.94 34.84 Benefits 198.12 223.49 252.11 284.39 320.81 361.89 408.23 460.50 519.47 585.99 661.03 745.67 Labor Subtotal 591.21 641.33 696.43 757.05 823.78 897.29 978.33 1,067.72 1,166.39 1,275.39 1,395.88 1,529.14 Contractual Services 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 15.07 Marterials and Supplies 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 69.83 Other Operating 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 33.55 Casualty and Liability 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 13.87 Miscellaneous 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Nother Non Operating 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 Non‐Labor Subtotal 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 136.68 TOTAL ALL DIVISIONS 727.89 778.01 833.11 893.73 960.46 1,033.97 1,115.01 1,204.40 1,303.08 1,412.08 1,532.56 1,665.82 Salaries and Wages 2019 Source: Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia 60
Appendix C Transit System Data Sheets 61
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
ID Number: 3030
www.WMATA.com
General Manager: Mr. John Catoe
(202) 962-1000
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 40%)
Fare Revenues
( 26%)
Local Funds
( 18%)
State Funds
( 1%)
Federal Assistance
Washington, DC-VA-MD
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
1,157
3,933,920
8
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
692
1,305,693
Population
2,108,517,008
425,236,560
1,426,306
700,652
463,649
Summary of Operating Expenses
$571,060,840
379,093,105
252,624,724
18,000,000
211,616,824
( 15%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 49%)
Local funds
$260,858,400
( 9%)
( 42%)
( 0%)
47,657,600
225,289,608
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
Directly
Operated
Purchased
Transportation 1
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$94,064,928
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
$533,805,608
Total Capital Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
$1,338,330,565
Total Operating Expenses
$1,432,395,493
Total Operating Funds Expended
126,600,985
7,862,592
2,567
3,052
880
$903,149,846
141,588,043
71,483,617
222,109,059
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
$571,060,840
Total
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
1,261
830
0
24
0
452
$47,919,315
$172,122,103
$0
$954,805
$182,346,817
$0
$9,959,679
$118,988,286
$0
$0
$1,514,603
$0
$58,833,799
$474,971,809
$0
Total
2,091
476
$220,041,418
$183,301,622
$128,947,965
$1,514,603
$533,805,608
1%
15%
9%
26%
42%
40%
49%
18%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
$515,807,412
$755,747,463
$66,775,690
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$58,833,799
$474,971,809
$0
448,851,774
1,639,628,551
20,036,683
39,475,749
69,792,997
17,332,239
135,484,298
288,039,725
1,712,537
3,659,962
2,749,921
1,452,709
94.8
211.8
N/A
1,510
1,090
452
8.3
19.2
2.3
1,285
830
452
2.42
2.19
N/A
18%
31%
0%
Fare
1
Revenues
$109,484,606
$458,304,931
$3,271,303
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$13.07
$10.83
$3.85
$140.93
$274.83
$45.97
$1.15
$0.46
$3.33
$3.81
$2.62
$38.99
3.43
4.13
0.10
37.02
104.74
1.18
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
5.00
$0.50
4.00
$0.40
Heavy Rail
Heavy Rail
$0.30
2.00
$0.10
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
08
Heavy Rail
3.00
$0.20
1.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
0.00
07
06
08
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
62
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)
ID Number: 4008
www.ridetransit.org
Chief Executive Officer: Mr. Keith Parker
Charlotte, NC 28202-2858
(704) 336-7245
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 14%)
Fare Revenues
( 74%)
Local Funds
( 11%)
State Funds
( 0%)
Federal Assistance
Charlotte, NC-SC
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
435
758,927
48
199, 229, 338
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
445
696,837
Population
127,924,518
22,720,940
81,037
42,608
23,900
Summary of Operating Expenses
$16,554,610
$16,554,610
88,685,902
13,464,159
0
696,855
( 1%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
(- 47%)
Local funds
$(32,030,219)
( 14%)
(134%)
( 0%)
9,297,745
90,325,575
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$100,987,929
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$18,413,599
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$67,593,101
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$65,268,836
19,007,269
0
16,711,824
$119,401,526
Total Operating Funds Expended
16,663,779
1,024,190
463
546
148
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
272
77
19
95
0
0
0
0
$11,554,833
$0
$6,925,861
$72,840
$2,267,325
$0
$44,127,772
$0
$1,496,951
$0
$913,903
$0
$233,616
$0
$0
$0
$15,552,725
$0
$51,967,536
$72,840
Total
463
0
$18,553,534
$46,395,097
$2,410,854
$233,616
$67,593,101
1%
14%
9%
11%
74%
91%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Vanpool
$83,084,773
$9,495,402
$7,527,878
$879,876
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$15,552,725
$51,967,536
$0
$72,840
98,307,838
13,064,876
2,337,814
14,213,990
11,725,493
478,950
2,406,509
2,052,827
19,896,809
2,262,631
260,710
300,790
819,544
30,594
135,248
38,804
22.0
19.0
N/A
N/A
342
19
84
101
6.4
1.5
4.2
4.7
272
19
77
95
1.90
2.80
N/A
N/A
26%
0%
9%
6%
Fare
1
Revenues
$13,743,705
$1,622,813
$584,402
$603,690
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$7.09
$19.83
$3.13
$0.43
$101.38
$310.37
$55.66
$22.67
$0.85
$0.73
$3.22
$0.06
$4.18
$4.20
$28.87
$2.93
1.70
4.72
0.11
0.15
24.28
73.96
1.93
7.75
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
$1.00
$0.80
Bus
Bus
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Vanpool
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$100.00
$80.00
Bus
Light Rail
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
08
05
08
06
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Light Rail
05
08
06
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Light Rail
05
08
06
63
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
ID Number: 4022
www.itsmarta.com
Provides purchased transportation services to: Clayton County Board of Commissioners (4157)
General Manager/CEO: Dr. Beverly Scott
Atlanta, GA 30324-3330
(404) 848-5313
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 22%)
Fare Revenues
( 58%)
Local Funds
( 0%)
State Funds
( 9%)
Federal Assistance
Atlanta, GA
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
1,963
3,499,840
11
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
498
1,574,600
Population
812,302,269
150,912,988
486,146
289,678
205,857
Summary of Operating Expenses
$101,216,344
$101,216,344
271,509,795
0
43,174,839
51,534,809
( 11%)
Other Funds
55,317,162
3,348,525
810
1,060
455
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 68%)
Local funds
$176,305,499
( 1%)
( 31%)
( 0%)
1,643,428
79,547,943
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$374,316,000
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$5,934,643
$93,119,787
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$257,496,870
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$324,981,251
42,929,861
5,934,643
470,245
Purchased Transportation Reported Separately
$467,435,787
Total Operating Funds Expended
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
504
188
118
0
0
0
$3,884,337
$87,107,932
$13,746,659
$23,354,174
$81,063,085
$0
$17,169,782
$24,092,824
$2,575,037
$1,822,788
$2,528,502
$151,750
$46,231,081
$194,792,343
$16,473,446
Total
810
0
$104,738,928
$104,417,259
$43,837,643
$4,503,040
$257,496,870
1%
9%
11%
31%
22%
68%
58%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
$193,924,843
$158,545,028
$15,911,486
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$46,231,081
$194,792,343
$16,473,446
213,459,568
593,419,360
5,423,341
27,099,043
23,208,017
5,010,102
67,519,392
82,984,033
409,563
2,191,352
873,380
283,793
16.5
96.1
N/A
621
264
175
6.3
18.2
0.9
504
188
118
1.54
1.38
N/A
23%
40%
48%
Fare
1
Revenues
$51,475,939
$49,242,449
$497,956
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$7.16
$6.83
$3.18
$88.50
$181.53
$56.07
$0.91
$0.27
$2.93
$2.87
$1.91
$38.85
2.49
3.58
0.08
30.81
95.01
1.44
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
$1.00
$0.80
Bus
Bus
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.35
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
64
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Miami-Dade Transit (MDT)
ID Number: 4034
www.miamidade.gov/transit
Director: Mr. Harpal Kapoor
(786) 469-5675
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 18%)
Fare Revenues
( 70%)
Local Funds
( 5%)
State Funds
( 5%)
Federal Assistance
Miami, FL
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
1,116
4,919,036
5
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
306
2,402,208
Population
599,371,183
114,802,110
363,807
230,546
166,487
Summary of Operating Expenses
$89,273,031
$89,273,030
349,194,204
22,743,076
26,068,069
13,942,641
( 3%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 61%)
Local funds
$110,764,342
( 7%)
( 32%)
( 0%)
12,615,554
57,412,821
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$487,948,954
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$13,272,066
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$180,792,717
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$283,341,803
81,553,394
43,921,095
79,132,662
$501,221,020
Total Operating Funds Expended
55,291,678
4,126,215
1,245
1,445
545
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Heavy Rail
Automated Guideway
Demand Response
825
98
20
0
0
0
0
302
$9,364,172
$0
$0
$0
$32,643,841
$73,205,175
$0
$0
$26,609,459
$36,786,195
$933,164
$0
$0
$0
$1,250,711
$0
$68,617,472
$109,991,370
$2,183,875
$0
Total
943
302
$9,364,172
$105,849,016
$64,328,818
$1,250,711
$180,792,717
3%
5%
7%
18%
32%
5%
61%
70%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
Automated Guideway
$337,894,421
$82,381,902
$44,829,765
$22,842,866
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$68,617,472
$109,991,370
$0
$2,183,875
426,400,643
142,152,120
22,224,772
8,593,648
33,407,289
7,158,361
13,605,381
1,120,647
85,789,745
18,538,741
1,634,468
8,839,156
2,752,703
318,765
944,519
110,228
64.4
45.0
N/A
8.5
915
130
368
32
5.4
26.0
2.8
16.3
825
98
302
20
1.65
1.56
N/A
1.00
11%
33%
22%
60%
Fare
1
Revenues
$71,722,693
$13,246,540
$4,303,798
$0
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$10.11
$11.51
$3.30
$20.38
$122.75
$258.44
$47.46
$207.23
$0.79
$0.58
$2.02
$2.66
$3.94
$4.44
$27.43
$2.58
2.57
2.59
0.12
7.89
31.17
58.16
1.73
80.19
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.80
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
$1.00
$0.80
Bus
Bus
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Heavy Rail
Demand Response
Automated Guideway
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.80
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
65
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Metro)
ID Number: 6008
www.ridemetro.org
President & CEO: Mr. Frank Wilson
Houston, TX 77208-1429
(713) 739-4899
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 15%)
Fare Revenues
( 65%)
Local Funds
( 0%)
State Funds
( 14%)
Federal Assistance
Houston, TX
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
1,295
3,822,509
10
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
1,285
2,796,994
Population
629,575,333
100,277,342
348,051
149,325
96,076
Summary of Operating Expenses
$56,701,736
$56,316,052
251,473,084
0
54,076,098
26,263,048
( 7%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 90%)
Local funds
$249,830,408
( 0%)
( 10%)
( 0%)
0
27,028,174
550,203
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$345,615,323
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$42,512,959
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$277,408,785
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$237,802,757
63,726,181
65,606,914
(21,520,529)
$388,128,282
Total Operating Funds Expended
63,994,797
3,897,642
2,076
3,000
412
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Commuter Rail
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
835
0
0
17
0
192
0
376
0
656
$9,320,728
$0
$0
$528,972
$0
$65,788,060
$4,055,952
$591,046
$155,942,517
$0
$35,688,493
$0
$0
$2,691,625
$0
$2,801,392
$0
$0
$0
$0
$113,598,673
$4,055,952
$591,046
$159,163,114
$0
Total
852
1,224
$9,849,700
$226,377,575
$38,380,118
$2,801,392
$277,408,785
7%
0%
14%
10%
15%
90%
65%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
$291,326,047
$33,849,200
$15,858,496
$4,581,580
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$113,598,673
$591,046
$159,163,114
$0
522,762,119
16,546,679
29,795,528
60,471,007
39,620,318
13,741,616
884,171
9,748,692
84,594,867
1,418,647
11,800,912
2,462,916
2,744,941
792,644
70,528
289,529
297.3
N/A
14.8
N/A
1,210
974
18
798
8.2
3.4
4.0
1.7
1,027
376
17
656
2.58
N/A
1.21
N/A
18%
159%
6%
22%
Fare
1
Revenues
$47,355,640
$1,327,803
$5,263,413
$2,754,880
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$7.35
$2.46
$17.94
$0.47
$106.13
$42.70
$224.85
$15.82
$0.56
$2.05
$0.53
$0.08
$3.44
$23.86
$1.34
$1.86
2.14
0.10
13.35
0.25
30.82
1.79
167.32
8.51
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.80
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
$2.80
$2.40
$2.00
$1.60
$1.20
$0.80
$0.40
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$2.40
$2.00
$1.60
$1.20
$0.80
$0.40
$0.00
Demand
Response
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Demand
Response
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Demand
Response
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
66
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)
ID Number: 6056
www.dart.org
President/Executive Director: Mr. Gary Thomas
Dallas, TX 75202-7226
(214) 749-2544
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 11%)
Fare Revenues
( 79%)
Local Funds
( 0%)
State Funds
( 9%)
Federal Assistance
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
1,407
4,145,659
6
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
689
2,404,050
Population
396,543,460
67,390,127
231,086
73,992
82,445
Summary of Operating Expenses
$48,957,079
$48,957,079
362,411,682
0
43,585,329
4,898,108
( 1%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 78%)
Local funds
$457,295,121
( 0%)
( 22%)
( 0%)
2,299,163
129,971,852
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$391,878,199
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$67,973,999
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$589,566,136
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$236,767,472
58,522,800
42,568,145
54,019,782
$459,852,198
Total Operating Funds Expended
44,563,540
2,808,868
1,006
1,233
428
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Commuter Rail
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
564
0
0
85
129
0
21
207
0
0
$5,752,074
$403,381
$-876,640
$90,584,479
$0
$6,262,196
$37,325,146
$137,426
$394,704,309
$0
$5,407,892
$1,036,784
$525,662
$43,959,846
$0
$3,018,860
$0
$0
$1,324,711
$0
$530,573,345
$0
Total
778
228
$95,863,294
$438,429,077
$50,930,184
$4,343,571
$589,566,126
$20,441,022
$38,765,311
$-213,552
1%
11%
0%
9%
22%
78%
79%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Commuter Rail
Vanpool
$237,725,221
$89,218,007
$38,943,226
$24,080,795
$1,910,950
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$20,441,022
$530,573,345
-$213,552
$38,765,311
$0
185,601,705
151,754,718
11,360,474
18,758,308
29,068,255
27,781,344
5,250,953
8,109,876
671,252
2,750,115
44,752,343
19,437,603
910,157
1,592,974
697,050
2,028,437
244,033
441,543
27,779
67,076
75.0
87.7
N/A
29.0
N/A
728
115
209
36
145
8.3
9.3
1.0
16.9
1.3
564
85
207
21
129
1.44
3.70
N/A
1.46
N/A
29%
35%
1%
71%
12%
Fare
1
Revenues
$30,948,254
$13,822,668
$1,921,405
$1,953,469
$311,283
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$8.56
$16.99
$4.80
$35.87
$0.69
$117.20
$365.60
$88.20
$866.87
$28.49
$1.28
$0.59
$3.43
$1.28
$0.07
$5.31
$4.59
$42.79
$15.12
$2.74
1.61
3.70
0.11
2.37
0.25
22.06
79.65
2.06
57.34
10.39
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$10.00
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
$8.00
Bus
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Commuter Rail
Vanpool
$6.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.80
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
5.00
4.00
Light Rail
Light Rail
3.00
2.00
1.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
0.00
07
06
08
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
67
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
ID Number: 8001
www.rideuta.com
General Manager: Mr. John Inglish
(801) 262-5626
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 17%)
Fare Revenues
( 0%)
Local Funds
( 58%)
State Funds
( 17%)
Federal Assistance
Salt Lake City, UT
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
231
887,650
43
79, 102
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
1,412
1,744,417
Population
359,526,527
41,713,708
148,484
73,094
17,270
Summary of Operating Expenses
$34,748,201
$34,748,201
0
119,893,509
34,902,519
18,963,550
( 9%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 75%)
Local funds
$444,666,675
( 14%)
( 11%)
( 0%)
84,893,387
65,382,404
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$176,185,048
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$32,322,730
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$594,942,466
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$119,340,136
34,387,425
4,456,444
18,001,043
$208,507,779
Total Operating Funds Expended
33,289,094
1,635,403
1,043
1,297
291
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Commuter Rail
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
371
18
85
46
458
0
0
65
0
0
$5,276,583
$37,670,794
$4,207,663
$170,018,521
$0
$12,138,323
$141,451,327
$40,947
$173,305,827
$0
$21,545,417
$14,447,081
$3,747,565
$9,557,492
$0
$1,126,066
$14,529
$101,458
$292,873
$0
$40,086,389
$193,583,731
$8,097,633
$353,174,713
$0
Total
978
65
$217,173,561
$326,936,424
$49,297,555
$1,534,926
$594,942,466
9%
11%
14%
17%
17%
58%
75%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Commuter Rail
Vanpool
$108,471,615
$27,382,554
$18,960,404
$16,567,863
$4,802,612
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$40,086,389
$353,174,713
$8,097,633
$193,583,731
$0
176,378,040
71,120,837
5,203,925
35,451,824
71,371,901
16,759,734
2,906,184
2,939,442
1,505,817
9,177,917
23,395,624
14,752,512
478,242
1,429,633
1,657,697
895,943
253,899
208,896
72,711
203,954
46.0
39.4
N/A
87.7
N/A
481
55
188
25
548
7.0
11.7
3.0
4.0
3.1
371
46
150
18
458
1.53
1.39
N/A
1.20
N/A
30%
20%
25%
39%
20%
Fare
1
Revenues
$18,024,884
$9,796,589
$1,631,138
$2,455,729
$2,839,861
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$6.47
$9.42
$6.45
$11.00
$0.52
$121.07
$107.85
$90.76
$227.86
$23.55
$0.61
$0.39
$3.64
$0.47
$0.07
$4.64
$1.86
$39.65
$11.59
$2.90
1.40
5.08
0.16
0.95
0.18
26.11
58.10
2.29
19.66
8.13
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Commuter Rail
Vanpool
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.45
$0.40
$0.35
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
68
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)
ID Number: 8006
www.rtd-Denver.com
Chair Of The Board: Mr. Lee Kemp
(303) 299-2730
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 21%)
Fare Revenues
( 55%)
Local Funds
( 0%)
State Funds
( 11%)
Federal Assistance
Denver-Aurora, CO
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
499
1,984,889
21
239, 330, 379
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
2,326
2,619,000
Population
554,090,840
101,175,756
335,385
167,368
114,518
Summary of Operating Expenses
$89,942,987
$89,942,987
237,570,026
0
49,104,603
58,905,661
( 14%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 86%)
Local funds
$241,829,749
( 0%)
( 14%)
( 0%)
0
40,928,631
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$374,820,525
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$60,702,752
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$282,758,380
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$158,842,178
44,075,123
123,159,067
48,744,157
$435,523,277
Total Operating Funds Expended
60,946,006
4,038,228
1,512
1,861
565
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
Vanpool
527
11
101
0
365
351
0
157
$15,877,325
$7,554,671
$26,529,239
$0
$5,358,466
$245,574
$202,283,954
$0
$2,856,466
$0
$20,959,974
$0
$956,844
$0
$135,867
$0
$25,049,101
$7,800,245
$249,909,034
$0
Total
639
873
$49,961,235
$207,887,994
$23,816,440
$1,092,711
$282,758,380
11%
14%
14%
21%
55%
86%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Vanpool
$292,088,992
$41,677,168
$39,313,781
$1,740,584
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$25,049,101
$249,909,034
$7,800,245
$0
393,156,362
134,036,460
12,942,261
13,955,757
38,587,624
9,405,736
9,470,022
3,482,624
78,522,347
20,635,133
1,521,279
496,997
2,823,339
488,701
641,452
84,736
50.7
70.0
N/A
N/A
1,113
117
457
174
6.4
5.0
2.6
0.0
892
101
362
157
1.83
1.25
N/A
N/A
25%
16%
26%
11%
Fare
1
Revenues
$64,878,541
$21,945,973
$2,276,132
$842,341
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$7.57
$4.43
$4.15
$0.50
$103.46
$85.28
$61.29
$20.54
$0.74
$0.31
$3.04
$0.12
$3.72
$2.02
$25.84
$3.50
2.03
2.19
0.16
0.14
27.81
42.22
2.37
5.87
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
Vanpool
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
69
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
ID Number: 9003
www.bart.gov
General Manager: Ms. Dorothy Dugger
Oakland, CA 94604-2688
(510) 464-6060
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 53%)
Fare Revenues
( 37%)
Local Funds
( 0%)
State Funds
( 5%)
Federal Assistance
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
527
3,228,605
12
65, 139
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
93
833,762
Population
1,448,529,163
115,227,684
384,231
183,976
138,857
Summary of Operating Expenses
$308,852,291
212,665,989
305,317
27,257,203
31,801,581
( 5%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 65%)
Local funds
$165,582,643
( 19%)
( 15%)
( 0%)
48,232,364
38,897,795
309,069
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
Directly
Operated
Heavy Rail
Purchased
Transportation 1
540
0
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$7,240,526
$112,030,309
$128,416,386
$5,334,650
$101,895,500
$253,021,871
Total Capital Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
$478,986,881
Total Operating Expenses
$580,882,381
Total Operating Funds Expended
66,988,477
1,940,391
540
669
255
$401,399,909
30,731,192
0
46,855,780
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
$308,852,291
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Total
5%
$253,021,871
5%
0%
19%
15%
37%
53%
0%
65%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Heavy Rail
$478,986,881
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$253,021,871
1,448,529,163
66,988,477
115,227,684
1,940,391
209.0
669
10.7
540
2.12
24%
Fare
1
Revenues
$308,852,291
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$7.15
$246.85
$0.33
$4.16
1.72
59.38
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.35
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Heavy Rail
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Heavy Rail
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Heavy Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
70
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI)
ID Number: 9015
www.sfmta.com
Executive Director/CEO, MTA: Mr. Nathaniel Ford, Sr.
San Francisco, CA 94103-5417
(415) 701-4720
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 26%)
Fare Revenues
( 53%)
Local Funds
( 17%)
State Funds
( 1%)
Federal Assistance
San Francisco-Oakland, CA
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
527
3,228,605
12
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
49
824,525
Population
437,643,932
221,213,458
690,925
473,540
353,327
Summary of Operating Expenses
$151,531,553
$151,531,553
308,611,417
97,426,732
6,099,115
22,001,057
( 4%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 22%)
Local funds
$30,076,000
( 35%)
( 43%)
( 0%)
48,401,000
58,917,000
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$584,114,742
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$1,555,136
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$137,394,000
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$470,381,501
53,406,795
19,151,752
41,174,694
$585,669,874
Total Operating Funds Expended
29,087,358
3,506,621
2,361
2,879
533
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
4% 1%
Bus
Cable Car
Demand Response
Light Rail
Trolleybus
378
27
0
139
243
0
0
1,574
0
0
$16,144,444
$0
$0
$3,099,980
$4,686,128
$8,053,019
$1,120,179
$0
$76,876,296
$1,082,253
$1,639,575
$1,466,895
$0
$19,103,142
$966,753
$550,256
$27,547
$0
$2,258,467
$319,066
$101,337,885
$7,054,200
Total
787
1,574
$23,930,552
$87,131,747
$23,176,365
$3,155,336
$137,394,000
$26,387,294
$2,614,621
$0
26%
35%
43%
53%
17%
22%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Trolleybus
Cable Car
Demand Response
$235,329,004
$142,510,861
$135,507,057
$51,337,023
$19,430,797
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$26,387,294
$101,337,885
$7,054,200
$2,614,621
$0
182,706,274
133,115,688
105,941,611
9,146,845
6,733,514
12,249,672
5,848,361
6,556,700
478,385
3,954,240
89,913,251
50,312,720
72,394,327
7,425,205
1,167,955
1,396,637
649,907
969,714
146,190
344,173
8.5
83.1
163.3
8.8
N/A
511
186
331
40
1,811
8.0
24.8
9.2
98.8
4.4
378
139
243
27
1,574
1.58
1.22
1.42
1.00
N/A
35%
34%
36%
48%
15%
Fare
1
Revenues
$56,915,526
$26,306,334
$42,416,811
$24,248,137
$1,644,745
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$19.21
$24.37
$20.67
$107.31
$4.91
$168.50
$219.28
$139.74
$351.17
$56.46
$1.29
$1.07
$1.28
$5.61
$2.89
$2.62
$2.83
$1.87
$6.91
$16.64
7.34
8.60
11.04
15.52
0.30
64.38
77.42
74.66
50.79
3.39
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$20.00
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
$16.00
Bus
$8.00
$4.00
$0.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Trolleybus
Cable Car
Demand Response
$12.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$28.00
$24.00
$20.00
$16.00
$12.00
$8.00
$4.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Light Rail
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
71
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)
ID Number: 9026
www.sdmts.com
Chief Executive Officer: Mr. Paul Jablonski
(619) 557-4515
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 39%)
Fare Revenues
( 9%)
Local Funds
( 36%)
State Funds
( 16%)
Federal Assistance
San Diego, CA
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
782
2,674,436
15
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
406
2,220,359
Population
384,352,957
87,175,484
275,829
173,054
135,267
Summary of Operating Expenses
$75,938,626
$75,938,626
17,832,915
69,061,921
30,004,379
555,906
( 0%)
Other Funds
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 0%)
Local funds
$0
(100%)
( 0%)
( 0%)
71,100,679
0
0
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$194,873,622
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$(1,479,875)
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$71,100,679
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$90,944,340
26,558,204
46,993,310
30,377,768
$193,393,747
Total Operating Funds Expended
30,026,616
2,328,688
605
786
408
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
0%
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
199
0
93
214
99
0
$3,407,465
$0
$23,623
$1,809,211
$44,971
$3,954,216
$18,257,077
$0
$42,998,945
$314,121
$0
$291,050
$23,787,874
$44,971
$47,267,834
Total
292
313
$3,431,088
$5,808,398
$61,256,022
$605,171
$71,100,679
16%
39%
9%
36%
100%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
$129,591,558
$55,949,227
$9,332,837
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$23,787,874
$47,267,834
$44,971
173,404,413
206,923,846
4,024,698
18,728,287
8,002,889
3,295,440
48,964,787
37,620,944
589,753
1,694,677
439,377
194,634
17.2
108.4
N/A
528
134
124
8.5
17.0
4.1
413
93
99
1.18
1.58
N/A
28%
44%
25%
Fare
1
Revenues
$43,064,118
$31,120,170
$1,754,338
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$6.92
$6.99
$2.83
$76.47
$127.34
$47.95
$0.75
$0.27
$2.32
$2.65
$1.49
$15.82
2.61
4.70
0.18
28.89
85.62
3.03
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
$1.00
$0.80
Bus
Bus
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Light Rail
Demand Response
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
08
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.28
$0.24
$0.20
$0.16
$0.12
$0.08
$0.04
$0.00
Light Rail
07
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
5.00
4.00
Light Rail
Light Rail
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
07
07
08
08
72
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
City of Phoenix Public Transit Department dba Valley Metro (Valley Metro)
ID Number: 9032
www.valleymetro.org/
Public Transit Director: Ms. Debbie Cotton
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1598
(602) 534-6765
General Information
Financial Information
Urbanized Area (UZA) Statistics - 2000 Census
Fare Revenues Earned
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
( 18%)
Fare Revenues
( 59%)
Local Funds
( 4%)
State Funds
( 3%)
Federal Assistance
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
Square Miles
Population
Population Ranking out of 465 UZAs
Other UZAs Served
Service Consumption
Annual Passenger Miles
Annual Unlinked Trips
799
2,907,049
13
347
Service Area Statistics
Square Miles
Average Weekday Unlinked Trips
Average Saturday Unlinked Trips
Average Sunday Unlinked Trips
Service Supplied
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Vehicles Available for Maximum Service
Base Period Requirement
517
1,595,260
Population
191,188,897
53,145,740
180,296
83,761
47,778
Summary of Operating Expenses
$30,978,085
$30,978,085
101,379,735
6,807,896
5,670,851
26,227,010
( 15%)
Other Funds
25,378,851
1,929,481
587
700
196
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
( 42%)
Local funds
$36,734,522
( 3%)
( 55%)
( 1%)
2,551,191
48,184,920
708,661
State Funds
Federal Assistance
Other Funds
$170,621,984
Revenue
Vehicles
Systems and
Guideways
Facilities and
Stations
Other
$5,747,289
$441,593
Reconciling Cash Expenditures
Sources of Capital Funds Expended
Sources of Operating Funds Expended
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service and Uses of Capital Funds
Purchased
Transportation 1
Total Operating Expenses
$88,179,294
Total Capital Funds Expended
Directly
Operated
$11,782,303
16,733,321
123,104,884
19,001,476
Purchased Transportation Reported Separately
$171,063,577
Total Operating Funds Expended
Salary, Wages and Benefits
Materials and Supplies
Purchased Transportation
Other Operating Expenses
Total
Bus
Demand Response
Light Rail
0
32
0
450
105
0
$36,945,634
$2,864,166
$0
$5,975,936
$0
$4,812,729
$17,607,019
$0
$4,320,041
$12,935,429
$0
$2,718,343
$73,464,018
$2,864,166
$11,851,113
Total
32
555
$39,809,800
$10,788,665
$21,927,060
$15,653,772
$88,179,297
3%1%
3%
15%
18%
42%
55%
59%
4%
Modal Characteristics
Operating
Expenses1
Bus
Demand Response
$143,078,210
$21,796,485
Uses of
Capital
Funds
Annual
Passenger
Miles
Annual Vehicle
Revenue MIles
Annual
Unlinked Trips
Annual Vehicle
Revenue Hours
Fixed Guideway
Directional
Route Miles
Vehicles Available
for Maximum
Service
Average Fleet
Age in Years
Vehicles Operated
in Maximum
Service
Peak to
Base Ratio
Percent
Spares
$73,464,018
$2,864,166
186,894,711
4,294,186
20,770,149
4,608,702
52,588,089
557,651
1,591,053
338,428
105.9
N/A
518
182
6.2
2.4
450
137
2.28
N/A
15%
33%
Fare
1
Revenues
$30,290,455
$687,630
Performance Measures
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per
Unlinked Passenger Trip
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
$6.89
$4.73
$89.93
$64.41
$0.77
$5.08
$2.72
$39.09
2.53
0.12
33.05
1.65
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
Bus
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
Service Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Hour
Bus
Demand Response
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
3.20
2.80
2.40
2.00
1.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
Bus
99
08
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Operating Expenses per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expenses per
Passenger Mile
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
$5.00
$4.00
Bus
Demand
Response
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
$0.00
07
06
08
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Unlinked Passenger Trips per
Vehicle Revenue Mile
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
Demand
Response
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
07
06
08
Demand
Response
99
01
00
03
02
05
04
73
1 Excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately
07
06
08
11/2/2009
Data Source: 2008 National Transit Database
Notes 1
Pt2 = Pt1 + Bt1 ‐ t2 ‐ Dt1 ‐ t2 + Mt1 ‐ t2 Where: Pt2 = the population projected at some future date t1 ‐ t2 years hence Pt1 = the population at the base year t1 Bt1 ‐ t2 = the number of births that occur during the interval t1 ‐ t2 Dt1 ‐ t2 = the number of deaths that occur during the interval t1 ‐ t2 Mt1 ‐ t2 = the amount of net migration that takes place during the interval t1 ‐ t2 When several cohorts are used, Pt2 may be seen as: Pt2 = Sum of Pci, t2 as i goes from 1 to n Where: Pt2 is as in the equation above Pci, t2 = population of a given cohort at time t2 and Pci,t2 = Pci,t1 + Bci,t1‐t2 ‐ Dci,t1‐t2 + Mci,t1‐t2 Where: all terms are as noted above but are specific to given cohorts ci 74
The Carl Vinson Institute of Government has served as an integral part of
the University of Georgia for more than 80 years. A public service and outreach unit of the university, the Institute has as its chief objective assisting
public officials in achieving ­better government and communities, particularly in Georgia. To this end, it draws upon the resources and expertise of
the university to offer an extensive program of governmental instruction,
research and policy analysis, and technical assistance.
Collectively, Vinson Institute faculty and staff design and conduct more than
600 training and development programs per year, in which more than 18,000
public officials participate. Technical assistance takes many forms, including eval­uation of existing facilities and methods, provision of information
for decision makers, and assistance in establishing new programs. Research
helps inform policy decisions at local and state levels.