1 FIXED ROUTE OVERVIEW

(1)

1 FIXED ROUTE OVERVIEW

Thirty transit agencies in Ohio operate fixed route or deviated fixed route service, representing a little less than half of the 62 transit agencies in Ohio. While many transit agencies operate a combination of transit services; this analysis focuses on the fixed route and deviated fixed route services only. For purposes of the Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study, the study team categorized the transit agencies operating fixed route service first based on service type, separating traditional fixed route services from deviated fixed route services. Traditional fixed route systems were then grouped by size, based on annual passenger trips and annual operating budget. This

categorization led to four groupings (see also Figure 1-1):

1. Large Fixed Route: The five largest transit systems in Ohio were classified as large agencies; they all had system wide

¹

ridership in 2012 within a range of between 5.4 million and 48 million. Annual operating budgets ranged between $45 million and $220 million.

2. Medium Fixed Route: The next largest group of transit systems also consisted of five agencies. These agencies had systemwide annual passenger trips in 2012 of between 700,000 and 3.4 million and annual operating budgets between $8.4 million and $26 million.

3. Small Fixed Route: Small fixed route service operators had systemwide annual (2012) passenger trips between 20,000 and 390,000 and annual operating budgets between

$350,000 and $3 million.

4. Deviated Fixed Route: There are six transit agencies in Ohio that operate deviated fixed route service. Given the relative uniqueness of the service, all agencies operating deviated fixed route service were categorized based on this characteristic regardless of annual ridership or budget.

As part of understanding how each agency provides fixed route service, the study team considered several service characteristics including:

─ Service and Ridership Trends

─ Level and Type of Service

─ Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

─ Capital Resources/Fleet Management

─ Funding Sources, including Fares

A summary of the findings from this analysis is provided in the following section. More information is also available in the analyses of each of the system groups.

1 Systemwide ridership and budgets include all modes, including paratransit and/or rail services.

(2)

Figure 1-1: Transit Agencies Operating Fixed Route Service by Category

Large Fixed Route (5) Medium Fixed Route (5) Small Fixed Route (14) Deviated Fixed Route (6)

METRO Regional Transit Authority (Akron)

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (Cincinnati) Central Ohio Transit Authority

(Columbus)

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

Laketran (Lake County) Portage Area Regional Transportation

Authority

Stark Area Regional Transit Authority Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority

Western Reserve Transit Authority (Mahoning County)

Butler County Regional Transit Authority Chillicothe Transit System Clermont Transportation Connection

Delaware Area Transit Agency Tristate Transit Authority/ Ironton- Lawrence County Community Action

Organization

Lima/Allen County Regional Transit Authority

Lorain County Transit Middletown Transit System

Richland County Transit Southeast Area Transit (Muskingum and

Guernsey Counties) Springfield City Area Transit Steel Valley Regional Transit Authority

(Jefferson County) Community Action Bus Lines

(Washington County) Eastern Ohio Regional Transit Authority

(Wheeling, WV)

Ashtabula County Transportation System

Athens Public Transit GreeneCATS Public Transit (Greene

County) Knox Area Transit Medina County Public Transit

Sandusky Transit System

(3)

TRENDS AND FINDINGS

Service and Ridership Trends

Fixed route transit agencies provide between 0.4 and 1.0 hours of transit service per capita and between 2.2 and 22.4 passenger trips per capita. Larger systems provide both more service and more trips than smaller agencies on a per capita basis, with large fixed route agencies providing, on average, ten times as many trips per capita as deviated fixed route systems.

Trend data between 2008 and 2012 shows that all system categories reduced service levels and lost ridership. Small and medium sized fixed route systems, on average, reduced service more dramatically than the largest fixed route systems or the deviated fixed route systems. The deviated fixed route systems were the only category of systems that demonstrated an overall net gain in ridership over the five year period.

Figure 1-2: Service and Ridership Trends: Averages by Category (All Modes) Large Fixed

Route (5) Medium Fixed

Route (5) Small Fixed

Route (14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) Annual Service Hours per

Capita (2012) 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4

Annual Passenger Trips per

Capita (2012) 22.4 6.5 2.8 2.2

Change in Revenue Vehicle

Hours (2008-2012) -3% -9% -11% -2%

Change in Ridership (2008-

2012) -14% -5% -26% 10%

Source: Nelson\Nygaard adapted from data provided by ODOT

Level and Type of Service

Schedules for each transit agency were examined in order to determine the percent of routes within each agency that operates a frequent level of service, defined as two or more trips per hour, and extended service spans such as weekday evenings, Saturdays, or Sundays. The following summarizes the study team’s findings:

─ All of the large fixed route systems operate a portion of their routes with two or more trips per hour during both the AM peak and the midday period, though percentage of frequent routes varies significantly by system. All large fixed route agencies also operate some service on weekday evenings, Saturdays, and Sundays.

─ Service available on the medium fixed route systems is more limited as compared to large fixed route. Several transit agencies in this category do not operate any routes with two or more trips per hour. There is also differences among agencies with regard to extended service span, such as evening service. Agencies tend to operate on weekday evenings, Saturdays, or Sundays, but not during all three time periods.

─ The majority of small fixed route agencies do not operate frequent service, and those that

do operate only a small percentage of frequent routes. Less than half of small fixed route

(4)

agencies operate Saturday service, less than one quarter operate weekday evening service, and no small fixed route agencies operate Sunday service.

─ About half of deviated fixed route systems operate weekday evening and/or Saturday service. Only one agency offers Sunday service.

Fixed route agencies were also surveyed regarding whether or not they employ different types of transit technologies, such as (for example) Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) or scheduling software. Large systems are fairly technology rich, with most systems currently using or planning to implement the technologies surveyed. Medium fixed route systems have more variation, with some agencies using more than others. Small and deviated fixed route systems were mostly limited to two types of technology, scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Locating systems. Overall passenger-facing technologies such as real-time arrival information or web-based trip planners are only available at the larger systems.

Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

Fixed route systems generally cost between $4.00 and $10.00 per vehicle mile and between

$49.00 and $123.00 per vehicle hour, based on averages of each category. Smaller systems spend less for each mile or hour of service as compared to the larger systems.

Average operating costs per passenger are about $5.00 for large and medium systems and $11.00 for small fixed route and deviated fixed route systems. Small fixed route and deviated fixed route systems on average have similar productivities, carrying 9 passengers per hour. Large systems carry three times that, 27 passengers per hour. Looking at the combination of cost effectiveness and cost efficient metrics shows that while larger systems spend more to produce a unit of service (i.e. one mile or one hour of service), they are more productive in terms of the number riders carried for the amount of money spent.

Figure 1-3: Average Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency by Category (rounded) 2012 (Fixed Route Service Only)

Large Fixed Route

(5) Medium Fixed

Route (5) Small Fixed Route

(14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) Operating Cost per

Revenue Vehicle

Mile $10.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00

Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour

$123.00 $84.00 $79.00 $49.00 Operating Cost per

Passenger $5.00 $5.00 $11.00 $11.00

Passengers per

Vehicle Hour 27 17 9 9

Capital Resources/Fleet Management

Transit agencies operating fixed route services have, on average by category, between 14% and

24% of their fleet beyond useful life. The average number of road calls by agency varies between 6

and 28.

(5)

Figure 1-4: Percentage of Fleet beyond Useful Life and Rate of Road calls per 100,000 miles – Averages by Category

Large Fixed Route

(5) Medium Fixed

Route (5) Small Fixed Route

(14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) Percent of Fleet

Beyond Useful Life 14% 24% 24% 20%

Road Calls per

100,000 miles 28 12 6 n/a

Funding Sources, including Fares

Fixed route transit services in Ohio are funded through a combination of federal, local and state funds, plus fares, contracts, and other resources. Within this general formula, however, there is a lot of variation in how individual transit agencies fund their systems:

─ While state funding plays a small role in capital funding for some medium and large agencies, capital funding for small and deviated fixed route agencies is provided exclusively by local and federal sources.

─ Operating revenues are largely provided by local sources for large and medium fixed route agencies. Small fixed route and deviated fixed route agencies receive between 3%

and 25% of operating funds from state sources and receive much small portions of operating revenue from local sources than larger agencies.

─ Operating revenues from farebox and contract sources vary between and within agency groupings.

─ All agencies charge a fare to passengers. Statewide the fare for fixed route services ranges between $0.50 and $3.75. Generally speaking higher fares are charged for commuter routes which serve long distance trips. Most fares for local service are between $1.00 and

$2.00.

─ Averages by category show fare revenues per rider between $0.76 and $1.06. This compares with the range of average cost per passenger by agency between $5.00 and

$11.00. Thus, generally speaking, fares account for between 7% and 21% of the cost of providing service.

Figure 1-5: Average Fare per Rider by Category Large Fixed

Route (5) Medium Fixed

Route (5) Small Fixed Route

(14) Deviated Fixed Route (6)

Average Fare per Rider $1.06 $0.79 $0.80 $0.76

(6)

2 LARGE FIXED ROUTE SYSTEMS

The analysis of large transit operators that provide fixed route transit service is designed to provide broad insights into how systems vary by category, consider how service may be enhanced and identify areas where additional investment may be warranted. The analysis considers several indicators, including quantitative and qualitative metrics, which are broadly grouped as:

1. Service and Ridership Trends 2. Level and Type of Service

3. Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency 4. Fleet Management

5. Funding Sources

Classification of Large Systems

Systems were classified based on the ranges of three characteristics – annual passenger trips, revenue vehicle hours and operating expenses (see Figure 2-1). Systems classified as large systems, relative to the other systems in Ohio, provided significantly more trips and hours of services, and had greater operating expenses than the rest of the transit agencies in Ohio. In total five systems are in this category:

─ Cleveland – Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA)

─ Columbus – Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA)

─ Cincinnati – Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA)

─ Dayton – Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA)

─ Akron – METRO Regional Transit Authority (METRO)

It is worth noting that despite having similar characteristics, there are considerable differences within the peer group (see Figure 2-1). This is true for transit service indicators as well as service area population and population density. For many of the metrics considered, for example, the largest system (Cleveland) is significantly bigger than the smallest system (Akron). However, relative to all agencies operating fixed route bus services in Ohio, these five agencies have more in common than other agencies. The grouping, therefore, is relative to systems operating in Ohio only. In addition, only one of the systems (Cleveland) provides rail services; therefore, rail services were removed from the analysis (except where otherwise noted) to make comparisons as consistent as possible.

²

2 Data supporting the service evaluation was largely derived from Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT’s) Status of Transit (SOT) Database. In order to separate out rail service, however, several data points for GCRTA were drawn from the National Transit Database (NTD) instead of the SOT. In the case of GCRTA, the SOT and NTD datasets were determined to be similar enough to support the analysis at this level.

(7)

Figure 2-1: Operating Characteristics Defining Large Fixed Route Systems (All modes including rail)

Agency

Annual Passenger

Trips

Annual Revenue

Hours

Annual Operating

Budget

Service Area Size

(miles) Service Area Population

Service Area Density (persons per square

mile)

Cleveland 48,231,034 1,786,054 $220,284,561 459 1,393,978 3,037

Columbus 18,692,312 949,216 $95,770,109 560 1,214,390 2,169

Cincinnati 17,553,043 1,933,446 $88,447,189 308 782,072 2,539

Dayton 10,716,962 554,954 $68,546,887 274 559,062 2,040

Akron 5,477,594 405,540 $45,525,264 420 516,033 1,229

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data provided by ODOT

Service and Ridership Trends

The analysis considered both the amount of service provided (in terms of annual revenue vehicle hours) and the amount of service consumed (annual ridership). The analysis also includes per capita measures to normalize comparisons among systems with different service area

populations, but still show the amount of service available and consumed.

Total Vehicle Hours per Capita

Vehicle hours

³

per capita measure the amount of service available relative to the service area population. The data shown is based on the number of revenue vehicle hours for all services operated by each system. Population numbers are sourced from data reported by each system to ODOT in 2012.

On average, Ohio’s large fixed route systems provide slightly less than one hour of service for every person in the service area annually. Cleveland provides slightly more than the average at about 1.1 hours of service per capita, while Akron provides the least, with at about 0.75 hours per capita.

3 Reflects revenue vehicle hours or only hours when the buses are being used in service to pick up passengers.

(8)

Figure 2-2: Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours (All modes including rail) per Capita (Service Area Population)

Riders per Capita

Riders per capita divides the number of riders, measured as annual unlinked passenger trips (boardings on all modes), by the number of residents of the agency’s defined service area. The average number of riders per capita for Ohio’s large fixed route systems is 22. Cleveland is above the peer group average with almost 35 riders per capita, while Akron is below the average with just over ten riders per capita. Annual riders per capita directly are aligned with annual revenue hours per capita; systems that provide more service also carry more riders.

Figure 2-3: Total Annual Riders (Unlinked Trips, All modes including rail) per Capita (Service Area Population)

1.1 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.7

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Cleveland Cincinnati Dayton Columbus Akron

Annual Vehicle Hours per Capita Average

34.6

22.4

19.2

15.4

10.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cleveland Cincinnati Dayton Columbus Akron

Annual Passengers per Capita Average

(9)

Vehicle Hours - Five Year Trend

As part of understanding the service, the analysis examined the amount of service provided on all modes during the five year period between 2008 and 2012. Several operators experienced fluctuations in the amount of service provided during this time period, especially between 2008 and 2010. Columbus and Akron, for example, increased service, while Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton decreased the amount of service provided. The trend for service growth was strongest for Columbus, while Cleveland experienced a greater reduction in service as compared to the other large fixed route systems.

Figure 2-4: Systemwide Revenue Vehicle Hours by Agency (2008 to 2012) (All modes including rail)

Ridership - Five Year Trend

Trends in ridership were also considered for the same five year period. Overall, the five systems combined lost 14% of their riders between 2008 and 2012. Cleveland lost the most riders, with 14 million fewer riders in 2012 as compared with 2008; most of loss in ridership occurred between 2008 and 2010. Cincinnati also lost ridership and also lost most of its ridership between 2009 and 2010. Columbus increased ridership over the same period, while ridership at Akron and Dayton remained mostly flat.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours

Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Akron

(10)

Figure 2-5: Five Year (2008-2012) Trend in Total Ridership (All modes including Rail)

Level and Type of Service

As part of the service analysis, the study team considered how much service is available (or provided) using a combination of metrics including service frequency; the availability of service on weekday evenings and weekends; and the availability of transit technologies

Frequency of Service

Frequency of service was measured as the percent of fixed routes bus service that have at least two trips per hour (roughly 30 minute frequency) or four trips per hour (15-minute frequency) during the peak and midday time periods. For purposes of this analysis, the peak period is defined as the hour between 7:00 AM and 7:59 AM and the midday time period is defined as the hour from 12 noon to 12:59 PM. To calculate the measure, Nelson\Nygaard examined the route schedules and used the local system’s own definition of a route.

⁴

Service frequent varies considerably among transit agencies. Cleveland and Cincinnati provide the most frequent service during the AM peak period: 30% of Cleveland’s routes and 20% of

Cincinnati’s routes operate with at least 15 minute service. In terms of systems with 30 minute service during the peak, Cincinnati had the highest percentage of routes operating at 30 minute service during the AM peak (76%) followed by Cleveland (69%) and Akron (65%). Dayton has the lowest percentage of routes (29%) with 30 minute service during the AM peak.

Midday service also shows variations between systems, especially with regards to 15 minute service. Cleveland and Cincinnati operates roughly 10% of its routes with at least 15 minute

4

NN followed each system’s definition of a route. Therefore if two routes share a common trunk segment with a combined frequency that meets the criterion but each route does not, it would not be counted. On the other hand, if a single route has branches, but has frequent service meeting the criterion on the trunk portion, it would be counted.

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

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Passenger Boardings

Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Akron

(11)

service during the midday. Dayton and Akron, however, do not have any routes with 15 minute service in the midday. Most of the systems operate at least 30% of their routes in midday with at least two trips per hour. Cleveland has the highest percentage (41%), followed by Akron at 38;

Columbus (36%) and Cincinnati (33%) have similar service levels. Dayton has the lowest percentage of routes operating at least two times per hour in the midday (12%).

Figure 2-6: Service Frequency by System for the AM Peak Hour (Shown as a Percentage of all Bus Routes)

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014

Figure 2-7: Service Frequency by System in the Midday (Shown as Percent of all Bus Routes)

76%

69% 65%

48%

29%

20%

30%

3% 7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Cincinnati Cleveland Akron Columbus Dayton

Percent of All Routes

2+ trips per hour: AM Peak 4+ trips per hour: AM Peak

41% 38%

36% 33%

11% 12%

0%

4%

9%

0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Cleveland Akron Columbus Cincinnati Dayton

Percent of All Routes

2+ trips per hour: Midday 4+ trips per hour: Midday

(12)

Service Availability on Weekday Evenings and Weekend Days

The Nelson\Nygaard team also considered the portion of existing services available on weekday evenings (defined as after 7:00 PM) and weekend days (Saturdays and Sundays). The measure was calculated by counting up the routes that offer service on weekday evenings and weekend days and expressing this as a percentage of the total number of routes.

In general less service is available on weekday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays as compared with traditional business hours. And, in general, there is more service on weekday evenings than on Saturdays; and more on Saturdays than on Sundays. Within these general findings, there are variations. Cleveland (80% of all routes) has the most weekday evening service and Columbus has the least (40% of all routes). In addition, both Dayton and Akron operate more service on

Saturdays than on weekday evenings; and Cleveland and Dayton operate the same number of routes on Sundays as on Saturdays.

Figure 2-8: Transit Agency Service During Off Peak Periods (Shown as a Percentage of All Bus Routes)

Availability of Specific Technologies

The availability of seven specific transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies was also considered (see Figure 2-9). In general, Ohio’s largest fixed route systems are relatively technology rich. Cleveland, the largest system, has each of the technologies examined. In most cases, transit agencies without certain technologies are in the process of acquiring them. Akron, the system with the fewest ITS-related technologies, has plans to implement several systems in 2014. The only exception to this general finding is mobile passenger schedules. In 2013, only Cleveland had this technology; mobile passenger schedules are in planning at Columbus and Cincinnati but not at Dayton or Akron.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Cleveland Akron Cincinnati Dayton Columbus

Percent of All Routes

Weekday Evenings Saturday Sunday

(13)

Figure 2-9: Availability of Specific ITS Technologies by System

System

Automatic Vehicle Location Systems

(GPS/AVL)

Automatic Passenger Counters (APC)

Real Time Arrival Information

Systems Scheduling Software

Web Trip Planner/

Google Transit

Mobile Passenger

Schedules Registering Fareboxes

Cleveland X X X X X X X

Columbus X X Planned X X Planned X

Cincinnati X X X X X Planned X

Dayton X X X X X X

Akron Implement

2014 Implement in

2014 X X X

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on interviews with transit agencies.

Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

Service and cost effectiveness and efficiency compare service inputs, outputs and consumption in various ways. In the case of transit service, operating costs is the primary service input, while service outputs include revenue service hours and revenue service miles. Service consumption includes ridership and farebox revenues. The data is then expressed in terms of three

performance indicators commonly used in the transit industry as follows:

─ Cost efficiency. Ratios of service inputs to service outputs, and measure the efficiency of resource allocation within the agency. Cost efficiency is measured in terms of

operating cost per revenue mile and hour.

─ Cost effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service inputs to service consumption and measure how well the service is utilized by the community. Cost effectiveness is measured in terms of operating cost per passenger.

─ Service effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service consumption to service outputs and measure how well the capacity of service is being utilized by the consumer.

Service effectiveness is measured in terms of passengers per revenue hour (and/or revenue mile).

Cost Efficiency - Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile

The average bus operating cost per vehicle mile among these large fixed route systems in Ohio is

$9.84. Most agencies have per mile costs very close to the average. Akron and Cleveland have

higher than average costs per mile, over $11.00 per mile, while Cincinnati, Dayton, and

Columbus, in central and southwest Ohio, have costs under the large system average, at just

below $9.00 per mile.

(14)

Figure 2-10: Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Cost Efficiency - Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour

The average operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for large fixed route bus service in Ohio is

$122.90. Most of the large systems are close to the average. Akron and Cleveland have the highest cost per hour at $134.75 and $134.74, respectively, while Columbus has the lowest cost per hour at $107.43.

Figure 2-11: Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour (Fixed Route Bus Only)

$11.58

$11.03

$8.86 $8.78 $8.69

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

Cleveland Akron Cincinnati Dayton Columbus

Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Average

$134.75 $134.74

$127.73

$114.02

$107.43

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

Akron Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus

Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour Average

(15)

Cost Effectiveness - Operating Cost per Passenger

The average operating cost per passenger on large fixed route bus systems in Ohio is $4.54. Most of the systems are close to the average; Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati and Columbus, have operating costs between $3.88 and $5.10. Akron has a higher cost per passenger as compared with this peer group, spending $7.47 per passenger.

Figure 2-12: Operating Cost per Passenger (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Service Effectiveness - Riders per Revenue Vehicle Hour

On average, the large fixed route by systems carry 27 passengers per revenue vehicle hour. Three of the five systems (Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton) are close to the average. Cleveland is above average the peer group average, carrying 34 passengers per hour (on its bus system only) while Akron is below the peer average, carrying 18 passengers per hour.

$7.47

$5.10

$4.71 $4.61

$3.88

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

Akron Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland

Operating Cost per Passenger Average

(16)

Figure 2-13: Riders per Revenue Vehicle Hour (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Fleet Management

A transit agency’s fleet of vehicles – or buses – is a critical part of a transit system’s ability to provide cost efficient and effective services. As part of the service evaluation, therefore, the team considered the percentage of the vehicle fleet that is beyond its “useful life” as defined by the FTA together with the number of road calls or vehicle break downs reported for the system.

Percent of Bus Fleet beyond Useful Life

Most transit agencies have some portion of their fleet that would be defined as beyond their

“useful life”. These vehicles may be used as spares; in many cases, agencies are waiting for capital funding to replace vehicles. On average, large fixed route systems had about 14% of their fleet older than the defined useful life. The range varies widely; 23% of the vehicles used by Akron Metro are beyond their useful life as compared to only 4% of the vehicles deployed by Columbus.

34.7 25.0 24.2

23.3

18.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron

Passengers per Vehicle Hour Average

(17)

Figure 2-14: Percent of Bus Fleet Beyond Useful Life (All rubber tired vehicles, excluding rail vehicles)

Road Calls/Mechanical Failures per 100,000 Vehicle Miles

Road calls or mechanical failures are typically measured in terms of miles driven, or in this case, the number of major mechanical failures per 100,000 vehicle revenue miles operated in 2012. On average, the large fixed route systems experienced 28 road calls per 100,000 revenue miles. There is considerable variation between the systems in terms of road calls. Akron had exactly the average number of road calls, while Dayton had the highest number with 41 and Cincinnati had the lowest with 13.

Figure 2-15: Road Calls per 100K Miles (Fixed Route Bus Only)

23%

19%

15%

7%

4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Akron Cincinnati Dayton Cleveland Columbus

% Vehicles Beyond Useful Life Average

41.4

36.2

27.7

22.9

12.6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Dayton Columbus Akron Cleveland Cincinnati

Road calls per 100k miles Average

(18)

Funding Sources

Another set of metrics was used to assess how individual transit agencies fund their services. The analysis considered both capital and operating revenues and the relative proportions of local, state, federal revenues plus locally generated revenues such as fares, contract revenue and other sources, such as advertising. In addition, the evaluation also examined average fare per rider. The data reflects a single year of data supplied by individual agencies to ODOT.

Capital Revenue by Funding Source

Federal funds are by far the largest source of capital revenue, accounting for between 50% and 90% of all revenues. While federal funds are consistently the largest revenue source for capital expenditures, there is variation among the systems. Columbus has the smallest federal share at 53% while Cleveland’s federal share is 90%. After federal funds, local resources are the second largest revenue source for capital expenditure for all systems except Cleveland where there were no local capital revenues in 2012. Otherwise, the local share ranged from 21% to 43%. In general, state revenues are not widely used for capital funding; three systems – Dayton, Cincinnati and Akron did not use state funds at all. State funds played the largest role in Cleveland, funding 10%

of capital revenue.

Figure 2-16: Capital Revenue by Funding Source (All modes including rail)

Operating Revenue by Funding Source

Transit operating revenues are provided through a combination of federal, state and local

revenues as well as farebox (fares), contract and other revenue sources. All of the large fixed route operators use local funds to support their transit services (see Figure 2-17) with local revenues accounting for at least 50% of all funding. Farebox and contract revenues are also important for the large fixed route systems. Cincinnati has the highest farebox revenue percentage, 27%, and also earns another 7% in contract revenue.

Federal and state resources are not large funding streams for operating revenue in any of the large urban systems. In general, federal revenues contribute as much as 25% of operating revenue

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron

Federal

State

Local

(19)

(Dayton) to no funds (Columbus); Cleveland, Cincinnati and Akron receive about 10% of their operating revenues from federal funds. State contributions represent a very small portion of the large fixed route agency budgets, comprising 1% or less of each agency’s operating funding.

Figure 2-17: Operating Revenue by Funding Source (All modes including rail)

Average Fare per Rider

The study team also considered the average fare per rider as a measure of users’ contributions to service costs. The average fare calculation is based on total farebox revenue divided by total ridership, therefore, it includes cash fares as well as discounts and bulk purchase fares (see Figure 2-18 for Adult One Way Cash Fares). The average fare among the five systems is just over $1.00, with both Cleveland and Columbus nearly exactly at the average. Cincinnati’s average fare is higher than the peer group average, while both Akron and Dayton have lower average fares as compared with the peer group average.

Figure 2-18: Adult One-Way Cash Fare by System (2014)

Agency Adult One-Way Cash Fare (2014)

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (CGRTA) $2.25

Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) $2.00

Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) $1.75 Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) $1.75 METRO Regional Transit Authority (METRO) $1.25

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on individual agency websites, January 2014

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron

Federal

State

Other

Contract

Farebox

Local

(20)

Figure 2-19: Average Fare Revenue per Rider (Fixed Route Bus Only)

$1.48

$1.05 $1.04

$0.87 $0.85

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland Akron Dayton

Fare Revenue per Passenger Average

(21)

3 MEDIUM FIXED ROUTE SYSTEMS

After large systems, the next category of Ohio’s fixed route transit system is medium systems.

These medium sized transit operators were examined to consider how this category of services and systems provide transit systems, and how services vary within the category. The analysis is intended to identify ways that service may be enhanced and identify areas where additional investment may be warranted. The analysis considers several indicators, including quantitative and qualitative metrics, which are broadly grouped as:

1. Service and Ridership Trends 2. Level and Type of Service

3. Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency 4. Fleet Management

5. Funding Sources

Classification of Medium Systems

Ohio has five transit systems that were classified as medium fixed route systems. Consistent with the classification overall, medium sized systems fall within a range of annual passenger trips, revenue vehicle hours and operating expenses (see Figure 3-1). Medium fixed route systems carried more passengers, provided more hours of service, and had greater operating expenses than agencies classified as small fixed route systems but measured significantly less of all variables in comparison to the large fixed route systems. Five systems fell into the medium fixed route category:

─ Toledo – Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA)

─ Stark County – Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA)

─ Western Reserve – Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA) (Mahoning County)

─ Portage County – Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority (PARTA)

─ Laketran (in Lake County)

As shown in Figure 3-1, there is considerable variation in service area size, population, and

population density among the five agencies. Portage County, for examples, has a relatively low

population density as compared to the peer systems and for all metrics Toledo is larger than the

other systems. However, relative to all agencies operating fixed route bus services in Ohio, these

five agencies have more in common than other agencies. The grouping, therefore, is relative to

systems operating in Ohio only.

(22)

Figure 3-1: Operating and Contextual Characteristics Defining Medium Fixed Route Systems (All Modes)

Agency

Annual Passenger

Trips

Annual Revenue

Hours

Annual Operating

Budget

Service Area Size (miles)

Service Area Population

Service Area Density (persons per square mile)

Toledo 3,415,007 399,132 $26,354,262 150 426,230 2,842

Stark County 2,658,900 193,336 $15,292,214 567 375,087 662

Western Reserve 1,858,107 107,930 $8,904,640 228 417,437 1,831

Portage County 1,527,613 103,154 $8,408,781 492 155,012 315

Laketran 714,609 127,282 $11,445,752 228 227,511 998

Service and Ridership Trends

The analysis considered both the amount of service provided (in terms of annual revenue vehicle hours) and the amount of service consumed (annual ridership). The analysis also includes per capita measures to normalize comparisons among systems with different service area

populations, but still show the amount of service available and consumed.

Total Vehicle Hours per Capita

Vehicle hours

⁵

per capita measure the amount of service available relative to the service area population. The data shown is based on the number of revenue vehicle hours for all services operated by each system. Population numbers are sourced from data reported by each system to ODOT in 2012.

The average annual revenue vehicle hours per capita for the medium size fixed route systems in Ohio is 0.59. Three systems – Portage County, Laketran and Stark County – are close to this average. Toledo has a much higher quantity of service with 0.98 while Western Reserve provides a much smaller amount of revenue vehicle hours per capita (0.26 annual revenue vehicle hours per capita).

5 Reflects revenue vehicle hours or only hours when the buses are being used in service to pick up passengers.

(23)

Figure 3-2: Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours (All Modes) per Capita (Service Area Population)

Riders per Capita

Riders per capita divides the number of riders, measured as annual unlinked passenger trips (boardings on all modes), by the number of residents of the agency’s defined service area. The average total annual riders per capita for the medium size fixed route systems is 6.5; variations within the group, however, are considerable. Portage County has the highest ridership per capita with 9.5 while Laketran has the lowest with 3.1. Stark County is closest to the average with 7.1.

Among medium fixed route systems the annual riders per capita does not follow the same pattern as revenue hours per capita directly; Toledo, for example, does not carry the most riders per capita despite offering more service per capita.

Figure 3-3: Total Annual Riders (Unlinked Trips, All Modes) per Capita (Service Area Population)

0.98

0.64 0.56 0.52

0.26 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Toledo Portage County Laketran Stark County Western Reserve Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours per Capita Average

9.5

8.4

7.1

4.5

3.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Portage County Toledo Stark County Western Reserve Laketran

Annual Passengers per Capita Average

(24)

Vehicle Hours - Five Year Trend

As part of understanding the service, the analysis examined the amount of service provided on all modes during the five year period between 2008 and 2012. The five year trend shows that three systems – Toledo, Stark County and Laketran -- have had a net decline in revenue vehicle hours for all modes (i.e., bus and demand response) most noticeably between 2008 and 2010. Toledo lost riders between 2008 and 1010 and then rebounded in 2011 and held steady until 2012.

Service at Portage County has been quite stable for the entire five year period. Western Reserve has had a small increase in service since 2008 which took place in 2010 after a slight decline in 2009. Overall medium fixed route systems reduced revenue vehicle hours by 9% on all modes over the five year period.

Figure 3-4: Systemwide Revenue Vehicle Hours by agency (2008 – 2102) (All Modes)*

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data provided by ODOT Note: * Trends in Revenue Vehicle Hours are reported for all modes. For most operators, the amount of service provided by other modes, such as demand response services are a very small portion of their overall service network.

However, Laketran provides more demand response service than fixed route service, thus the trend for all vehicle hours is influenced by changes in the demand response service. See also the analysis of demand response services.

Ridership - Five Year Trend

Ridership was also examined over the same five year period. Medium fixed route systems experienced a 5% decrease in ridership over the five year period. However there is some contrast among the trends of each of the five systems. Ridership decreased for Toledo and to a lesser extent for Laketran. This trends are in line with the amount of service provided, which also declined. Ridership over the five year period increased for Western Reserve and to a lesser extent for Stark County. Ridership at Portage County has been quite stable.

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours

Toledo Stark Co. Portage Co. Western Reserve Laketran

(25)

Figure 3-5: Five Year (2008-2012) Trend in Systemwide Total Ridership (All Modes)

Level and Type of Service

The study team also inventoried the level and type of transit service provided by medium sized transit agencies, using a a combination of metrics to evaluate service levels. These metrics

included service frequency; the availability of service on weekday evenings and weekends; and the availability of transit technologies.

Frequency of Service

Frequency of service was measured as the percent of fixed routes bus service that have at least two trips per hour (roughly 30 minute frequency) or four trips per hour (15-minute frequency) during the peak and midday time periods. For purposes of this analysis, the peak period is defined as the hour between 7:00 AM and 7:59 AM and the midday time period is defined as the hour from 12 noon to 12:59 PM. To calculate the measure, Nelson\Nygaard examined the route schedules and used the local system’s own definition of a route

⁶

.

As shown in Figure 3-6, there are differences in the availability of frequent service during the AM peak hour. Western Reserve has nearly two thirds of its routes operating at least twice per hour, while Portage has less than half and Toledo has less than one quarter. Stark County does not operate any services with frequencies of 30 minutes or more during the peak period and Laketran has 6%. Only Portage County has routes operating very frequently (at least four times per hour);

about one fifth of its routes fall into this category.

6

NN followed each system’s definition of a route. Therefore if two routes share a common trunk segment with a combined frequency that meets the criterion but each route does not, it would not be counted. On the other hand, if a single route has branches, but has frequent service meeting the criterion on the trunk portion, it would be counted.

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Annual Passenger Boardings

Toledo Stark Co. Portage Co. Western Reserve Laketran

(26)

During the midday hour, the ranking of agencies changes slightly. Portage County and Western Reserve are still the most frequent but Portage County has the largest share (half) of its routes operating at least twice per hour, following by Western Reserve with about one third. Each of these systems operates a smaller portion of its routes frequently in the midday compared to the AM peak hour. The other three systems rank in the midday in the same way as in the AM peak.

Toledo, ranked third, has a slightly smaller share of its routes operating frequent service in the midday compared to the AM peak, while Laketran has a considerably higher share of its routes operating frequent service in the midday compared to the AM peak. Stark County has no frequent routes in the midday. As in the AM peak hour, only Portage operates routes four or more times per hour -- over one quarter of the routes, which is a larger share than in the AM peak hour.

Figure 3-6: Service Frequency by System for the AM Peak Hour (Shown as a Percentage of all Routes)

64%

43%

21%

6%

0%

21%

0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Western Reserve Portage County Toledo Laketran Stark County

Percent of All Routes

2+ trips per hour: AM Peak 4+ trips per hour: AM Peak

(27)

Figure 3-7: Service Frequency by System in the Midday (Shown as Percent of Routes)

Service Availability on Weekday Evenings and Weekend Days

The Nelson\Nygaard team considered the portion of existing services that are available on weekday evenings (defined as after 7:00 PM) and weekend days (Saturdays and Sundays). The measure was calculated by counting up the routes that offer service on weekday evenings and weekend days and expressing this as a percentage of the total number of routes.

All of the systems operate during weekday evenings but there is wide range in the percentage of routes operated. Stark County operates almost nearly all (90%) of its routes during weekday evenings, the highest of medium size fixed route systems. Three other systems all operated 40%0- 50% of their routes on weekday evenings, while Western Reserve operates the smallest

percentage (6%).

All of the systems classified as medium fixed route agencies, except for Laketran offer Saturday service. Western Reserve and Stark County offer the most Saturday service (94% and 88% of routes, respectively). Toledo follows with 61%. Portage County has only 29% of routes operating on Saturday. Only two systems operate Sunday service. Toledo offers Sunday service on 57% of its routes, just slightly less than on Saturday. Portage County has only 7% of its routes offering Sunday service.

50%

32%

18%

13%

0%

29%

0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Portage County Western Reserve Toledo Laketran Stark County

Percent of All Routes

2+ trips per hour: Midday 4+ trips per hour: Midday

(28)

Figure 3-8: Transit Agency Service During Off Peak Periods (Shown as a Percentage of All Routes)

Availability of Specific Technologies

The availability of seven specific transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies was also considered (see

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Stark County Portage County Toledo Laketran Western Reserve

Percent of All Routes

Weekday Evenings Saturday Sunday

(29)

Figure 3-9). There is considerable variation among the medium size fixed route systems with

respect to technology. Toledo has the most technology followed by Stark County and then

Laketran. All have scheduling software and in 2014 all will have registering fareboxes (with

Toledo implementation this year). Three systems have GPS/AVL, though Western Reserve and

Portage County do not. Though only Portage County has already implemented it, perhaps the next

most popular technology is Web Trip Planner/Google Transit with all but one system (Western

Reserve) either having implemented it, implementing in 2014 or planning for it. Automatic

Passenger Counters, Real Time Arrival Information Systems, and Mobile Passenger Schedules are

available at two agencies each.

(30)

Figure 3-9: Availability of Specific ITS Technologies by System

System

Automatic Vehicle Location Systems (GPS/AVL)

Automatic Passenger

Counters (APC)

Real Time Arrival Information

Systems Scheduling Software

Web Trip Planner/

Google Transit

Mobile Passenger

Schedules Registering Fareboxes

Toledo X X X X Planned X Implement

in 2014 Stark

County X X X X Implement

in 2014 X

Western

Reserve X X

Portage

County X X X

Laketran X X Implement

in 2014 X X

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on interviews with transit agencies.

Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency

Service and cost effectiveness and efficiency compare service inputs, outputs and consumption in various ways. In the case of transit service, operating costs is the primary service input, while service outputs include revenue service hours and revenue service miles. Service consumption includes ridership and farebox revenues. The data is then expressed in terms of three

performance indicators commonly used in the transit industry follows:

─ Cost efficiency. These indicators are the ratios of service inputs to service outputs, and measure the efficiency of resource allocation within the agency. Cost efficiency is

measured in terms of operating cost per revenue mile and hour.

─ Cost effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service inputs to service consumption and measure how well the service is utilized by the community. Cost effectiveness is measured in terms of operating cost per passenger.

─ Service effectiveness. These indicators are the ratio of service consumption to service outputs and measure how well the capacity of service is being utilized by the consumer.

Service effectiveness is measured in terms of passengers per revenue hour (and/or revenue mile).Cost Efficiency

Cost Efficiency - Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile

The overall average operating cost per revenue vehicle mile for the five systems is $6.00. There is

substantial variation among the five systems with the lowest cost per mile ($3.95) at Stark County

and the highest cost ($7.87) at Toledo.

(31)

Figure 3-10: Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Cost Efficiency - Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour

The overall average operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for the five systems is $84.37. There is substantial variation among the five systems. Stark County has the lowest operating cost per revenue vehicle hour ($60.96), significantly lower than the average and the system with the highest hourly cost ($114.77 at Laketran). Toledo which had the highest cost per vehicle mile is almost exactly at the average cost her vehicle hour.

Figure 3-11: Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour (Fixed Route Bus Only)

$7.87

$6.63

$6.42

$5.28

$3.95

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

Toledo Laketran Western Reserve Portage County Stark County Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Average

$114.77

$91.19

$83.66

$71.26

$60.96

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

Laketran Western Reserve Toledo Portage County Stark County

Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour Average

(32)

Cost Effectiveness - Operating Cost per Passenger

The overall average operating cost per passenger for the five systems is $5.43. The system with the lowest cost per passenger ($3.11) is Portage County and the system with the highest cost is Laketran ($9.51). This difference is likely a direct result of the service design. Portage County operates a large amount of service at Kent State University and carries large volumes of riders relatively short distances. As a result, the cost of each trip is low. Laketran, on the other hand, largely provides express service and consequently, is carrying a moderate number of passengers a long distance. Each passenger trip, therefore, is more expensive.

Figure 3-12: Operating Cost per Passenger (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Service Effectiveness - Riders per Revenue Vehicle Hour

The productivity of service in riders per vehicle hour varies substantially among the five systems.

The overall average for the five systems is 17.4; Stark County is quite close to this average at 18.3.

Two systems are much lower and two systems are somewhat higher. Laketran and Toledo are considerably lower than the average, at 12.1 and 11.9, respectively, while Portage County and Western Reserve are somewhat higher at 22.9 and 21.8, respectively.

$9.51

$7.03

$4.18

$3.33 $3.11

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

Laketran Toledo Western Reserve Stark County Portage County

Operating Cost per Passenger Average

(33)

Figure 3-13: Riders per Revenue Vehicle Hour (Fixed Route Bus Only)

Fleet Management

A transit agency’s fleet of vehicles – or buses – is a critical part of a transit system’s ability to provide cost efficient and effective services. As part of the service evaluation, therefore, the team considered the percentage of the vehicle fleet that is beyond its “useful life” as defined by the FTA together with the number of road calls or vehicle break downs reported for the system.

Percent of Bus Fleet beyond Useful Life

Most transit agencies have some portion of their fleet that would be defined as beyond its “useful life”. These vehicles may be used as spares or may be ready for replacement as the agency waits to secure capital funding. On average, these five systems had about one quarter of their fleet beyond its useful life. Consistent with the results for other metrics, systems performed differently in this measure. Three systems – Stark County, Portage County and Laketran - have a small portion (12% or less) of their fleet that is beyond its useful life. This compares with Western Reserve where over half the fleet (53%) is beyond its useful life and Toledo where just over a third (37%) of the fleet is beyond its useful life.

22.9 21.8

18.3 12.1 11.9

0 5 10 15 20 25

Portage County Western Reserve Stark County Laketran Toledo

Passengers per Vehicle Hour Average

(34)

Figure 3-14: Percent of Bus Fleet Beyond Useful Life (Whole System)

Road Calls/Mechanical Failures per 100,000 Vehicle Miles

Road calls or mechanical failures are typically measured in terms of miles driven, or in this case, the number of major mechanical failures per 100,000 vehicle revenue miles operated in 2012.

While the average of the five systems experience 12.4 road calls per 100, 000 miles, and Laketran reflects the average at 12.8. With the exception of Toledo, which has a much higher rate of road calls (36.6), the other three systems are below the system average.

Figure 3-15: Road Calls per 100K Miles (Fixed Route Bus Only)

53%

37%

12% 10% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Western Reserve Toledo Laketran Portage County Stark County

% Vehicles Beyond Useful life Average

36.6

12.8 6.6 4.9

1.2 0.0

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Toledo Laketran Western Reserve Stark County Portage County

Road Calls per 100k Miles Average

(35)

Funding Sources

Another set of metrics were used to assess how individual transit agencies fund their services. The analysis considered both capital and the operating revenues and the relative proportions of local, state, federal revenues plus locally generated revenues including fares, contract revenue and other sources, such as advertising. In addition, the evaluation also examined average fare per rider. The data reflects information supplied by individual agencies to ODOT and describes the funding sources.

Capital Revenue by Funding Source

Federal funding plays a large role in capital revenue sources, providing between 65% and 100% of funding for medium fixed route systems. State contributions were also noted in Stark County and Portage County, while local funding was used for capital purchases in Western Reserve, Portage County and Laketran.

Figure 3-16: Capital Revenue by Funding Source (All Modes)

Operating Revenue by Funding Source

Compared with capital purchases, the funding structure for transit agency operations is much different. Federal funds play a much smaller role and local funding a much larger one. Local funds account for between 48% (Portage County) and 71% (Stark County) of operating budgets.

Contract revenue plays a role in three systems – Portage County, Laketran and Toledo; with contract revenue accounting for a considerable portion of funds raised by Portage County. With the exception of Portage County, after local funds, the next largest funding source for transit operations is federal grants. State funding is a smaller portion of operating funds than local or federal for all agencies. Laketran receives the highest proportion of state funding, 8%. Finally the farebox plays a role in all system revenues. Its role is largest in Toledo at 15% and smallest at Portage County (3%).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Toledo Stark County Western

Reserve Portage

County Laketran

Federal

State

Local

(36)

Figure 3-17: Operating Revenue by Funding Source (All Modes)

Average Fare per Rider

The study team also considered the average fare per rider as a measure of users’ contributions to service costs. In this respect, the higher the average fare, the more the user is contributing to the service costs. The average fare calculation is based on total farebox revenue divided by total ridership, therefore, it includes cash fares as well as discounts and bulk purchase fares (see Figure 3-18 for Adult One Way Cash Fares). The average fare per rider varies quite a bit among the systems. The highest average fare is at Laketran at $1.68; reflecting the prevalence of express services in that system which charge a higher fare. Likewise Portage County has the lowest average fare, which is counter balanced by high contract revenue (see Figure 3-17) associated with service agreements reached with Kent State University.

Figure 3-18: Adult One-Way Cash Fare by System (2014)

Agency Adult One-Way Cash Fare (2014)

Laketran $1.75 Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) $1.50

Western Reserve Transit Authority (WRTA) $1.25 Portage Area Regional Transit Authority (PARTA) $1.00 Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority (TARTA) $1.00

Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on individual agency websites, January 2014

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Toledo Stark County Western

Reserve Portage

County Laketran

Federal

State

Other

Contract

Farebox

Local

(37)

Figure 3-19: Average Fare Revenue per Rider (Fixed Route Bus Only)

$1.68

$0.96

$0.51

$0.44

$0.35

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

Laketran Toledo Western Reserve Stark County Portage County

Fare Revenue per Passenger Average