Small Urban & Rural Transit Center

Transcription

1 Small Urban & Rural Transit Center

2 Acknowledgements This research was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), United States Department of Transportation, and conducted by the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center within the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University. The guidance of Jill Hough, Director of the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center, and Jarrett Stoltzfus, FTA Project Manager for the project, is also acknowledged. This report was written by Jeremy Mattson. Disclaimer The content presented in this report is the sole responsibility of the Small Urban & Rural Transit Center, the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute and the authors. North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender expression/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, sex, sexual orientation, status as a U.S. veteran, race or religion. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701)

3 Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 RURAL AMERICA... 2 RURAL TRANSPORTATION... 4 NATIONAL RURAL TRANSIT... 8 Operating Statistics Financial Statistics Fleet Statistics NATIONAL RURAL TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURES REGIONAL AND STATE STATISTICS TRIBAL TRANSIT REFERENCES GLOSSARY OF TERMS... 32

4 List of Tables Table 1. Characteristics of U.S. Urban and Rural Populations...3 Table 2. Geographic Mobility...3 Table 3. Vehicles Available in Household...4 Table 4. Commuting to Work...4 Table 5. Travel Behavior for Urban and Rural Residents, by Age Group...5 Table 6. Trip Purpose for Transit and Non-Transit Trips...7 Table 7. Number of Rural Transit Providers Nationwide...8 Table 8. Counties with Rural Transit Service...9 Table 9. Rural Transit Operating Statistics...10 Table 10. Agency Level Changes in Service Miles, Hours, and Trips, Table 11. Rural Transit Operating Statistics, Median and Percentile Rankings per Agency, Table 12. Rural Transit Financial Statistics...12 Table 13. Average Fleet Size...13 Table 14. Number of Vehicles in Operation...13 Table 15. Percentage of Rural Transit Vehicles that are ADA Accessible...14 Table 16. Average Vehicle Age...15 Table 17. Average Vehicle Length...15 Table 18. Average Seating Capacity...15 Table 19. Vehicle Ownership, Table 20. Primary Funding Source for Vehicles, Table 21. Trips per Mile and Trips per Hour...17 Table 22. Trips per Mile by Number of Miles Provided, Table 23. Trips per Hour by Number of Hours Provided, Table 24. Trips, Miles, and Hours per Vehicle...19 Table 25. Operating Costs per Trip and per Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio...19 Table 26. Operating Costs per Trip and per Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio, Percentile Rankings, Table 27. Operating Statistics and Performance Measures by Size of Operation, Table 28. Regional Data, Table 29. Rural Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles of Service by State, (million miles)...24 Table 30. State Operating Statistics, Table 31. State Financial Statistics, Table 32. State Fleet Statistics, Table 33. State Performance Measures, Table 34. Mobility Needs Indicators for Native American and Alaska Native Communities...29 Table 35. Tribal Transit Statistics, List of Figures Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled on Urban and Rural Roadways...5 Figure 2. Percentage of Trips by Public Transportation, by Size of Metro Area...6 Figure 3. FTA Spending under the Section 5311 Program, Figure 4. Fleet Composition...14 Figure 5. FTA Regions...21 Figure 6. FTA Regions and Corresponding Tribes and Transit Services...30

5 INTRODUCTION Public transportation plays a fundamental role in the livability of all communities. Information on transit service availability and cost is necessary to efficiently and effectively meet rural community mobility needs. Financial and operating statistics can be used by agency managers, local decision makers, state directors, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and lawmakers to assist in policy making, planning, managing operations, and evaluating performance. The Rural Transit Fact Book provides information to assist the transit industry in the United States provide efficient and effective service to rural communities. The intent of the Rural Transit Fact Book is to serve as a national resource for statistics and information on rural transit in America. This publication includes rural demographic and travel behavior data as well as financial and operating statistics for agencies receiving section 5311 funding. In addition to national level data, statistics are presented by state, FTA region, tribe, and mode, as well as other agency characteristics. The rural transit data presented in this report were obtained from the Rural National Transit Database (NTD). The 2011 edition of the Rural Transit Fact Book was the first published by SURTC and included Rural NTD data for This publication updates the original Fact Book with the addition of 2010 data. SURTC is not responsible for the accuracy of the data reported to the Rural NTD. Over time, it is expected that the quality of data contained in the Rural NTD will improve in terms of completeness and accuracy as the FTA raises data concerns with states who in turn receive better data from subrecipients. As noted, this publication presents data for transit providers receiving section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program funding. This program provides funding to states for the purpose of supporting public transportation in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000. A number of rural transit providers also receive funding under the section 5310, Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, program. However, nationwide data for 5310 services are not available, as they are not required to report such data to the NTD. Therefore, rural transit providers not funded by the 5311 program but receiving funding from section 5310 are not included in this report. Rural Transit Fact Book

6 RURAL AMERICA Geography influences the type and level of transit service that best serves a community. About 74 million Americans, or close to a quarter of the country s population, live in a rural area, according to data from the American Community Survey (ACS). Table 1 shows select demographic data from the ACS 3-year estimates for the United States and for urban and rural areas. As defined by the ACS, urban includes urban areas and urban clusters. Urbanized areas have 50,000 or more people and urban clusters have at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people, and both areas have a core area with a density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. All other areas are defined as rural. Rural populations tend to be slightly older. The median age is 40 in rural areas and 36 in urban areas. Approximately 14% of residents in rural areas are 65 or older, compared to 13% of those in urban areas. On the other hand, urban areas have a slightly higher percentage of residents aged 85 or older (1.7%) than do rural areas (1.4%). The percentage of people with disabilities is slightly higher in rural areas (13%) than in urban areas (12%). Rural areas tend to be less ethnically diverse. Urban residents are more likely than their rural counterparts to be non-white or Hispanic, and the foreign-born population is much higher in urban areas (15%) than in rural areas (5%). Education levels vary somewhat between urban and rural communities. The percentage of individuals that have completed high school in rural areas is about the same, or slightly higher, than that for urban areas, but urban areas tend to have a higher percentage of residents with a bachelor s or advanced degree. Median household income is slightly higher in rural areas, and a higher percentage of urban residents live below the poverty line. Rural residents are much more likely to own their house, and both mortgageowners and renters in rural areas spend a lower percentage of their income on housing than do their urban counterparts. Urban residents tend to have greater geographic mobility than those in rural areas (see Table 2). That is, they are less tied to a geographic area and are more likely to move. About 15% of urban residents have moved during the last year, compared to 11% of rural residents. Urban residents are also more likely to make longer moves, and rural residents are more likely than those in urban areas to live in the state in which they were born. Rural Transit Fact Book

7 Table 1. Characteristics of U.S. Urban and Rural Populations United States Urban Rural Total Population (million people) Average household size Gender Age Male (%) Female (%) Median Age or older (%) or older (%) Population with a Disability (%) Race (%) White Black or African-American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Hispanic or Latino Foreign Born (%) Education Level Completed (%) High school Bachelor s degree Advanced degree Economic Characteristics Individuals below the poverty line (%) Median household income (thousand dollars) Source: American Community Survey Table 2. Geographic Mobility United States Urban Rural percentage Native population born in their state of residence Lived in a different house in the United States one year ago Lived in a different state one year ago Source: American Community Survey Rural Transit Fact Book

8 RURAL TRANSPORTATION Data from the ACS, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) show there are some differences in transportation and travel behavior between urban and rural areas. One notable difference is a greater reliance on automobiles by rural residents (see Tables 3 and 4). Just 4% of rural households do not have a vehicle available, compared to 11% of urban households. Meanwhile, 71% of rural households have 2 or more vehicles, while only 53% of urban households have 2 or more vehicles. Rural workers are more likely to drive alone to work and less likely to commute by public transportation than those in urban areas. Fewer than 1% of rural residents use public transportation to travel to work, compared to 6% of urban residents. Only 1.5% of rural workers aged 16 or older do not have access to a vehicle, compared to 5.3% of their urban counterparts. Rural residents also tend to have slightly longer commutes (measured in minutes). Table 3. Vehicles Available in Household United States Urban Rural percentage None or more Source: American Community Survey Table 4. Commuting to Work United States Urban Rural Mode Used Car, truck, or van drove alone 76.0% 74.5% 80.9% Car, truck, or van carpooled 10.2% 10.1% 10.4% Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 5.0% 6.3% 0.6% Walked 2.8% 3.2% 1.8% Other means 1.8% 1.9% 1.2% Worked at home 4.2% 4.0% 5.1% Mean travel time to work (minutes) Source: American Community Survey Rural Transit Fact Book

9 Despite the heavy reliance on automobiles, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on rural roads has actually been slowly declining over the past decade (see Figure 1). VMT on urban roads, on the other hand, had been steadily increasing until dropping or leveling off after VMT on both urban and rural roads decreased slightly in The VMT depicted in Figure 1 includes both personal and commercial travel and is total VMT, as opposed to per capita VMT. The NHTS contains a variety of statistics on travel behavior. The NHTS is a periodic national survey sponsored by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the FHWA. The most recent NHTS was conducted in The dataset also classifies respondents as urban or rural using the same definition used by the ACS. Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled on Urban and Rural Roadways Source: Federal Highway Administration The 2011 Rural Transit Fact Book presented data from the NHTS showing that rural residents drive more, on average, than their urban counterparts; are less likely to use public transportation; and drive vehicles that tend to be a bit older with more miles and have slightly lower fuel economy. Table 5 provides additional data on differences in travel behavior between urban and rural residents by age group. Urban residents, on average, make more trips per day. The number of bicycle and walking trips is similar Table 5. Travel Behavior for Urban and Rural Residents, by Age Group Number of Trips Per Travel Day Number of Bike Trips Per Week Number of Walk Trips Per Week Used Transit on Travel Day Age Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural < % 1.1% % 1.0% % 0.7% % 0.8% % 0.4% > % 0.7% Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Rural Transit Fact Book

10 between urban and rural residents, while urban residents are significantly more likely to use transit on a given day. Although urban residents may make more trips, the distance traveled per individual trip is longer in rural areas, as shown in the 2011 Rural Transit Fact Book. The average distance per trip is 8.9 miles in urban areas and 12.5 miles in rural areas, and the median distances for urban and rural residents is 3 miles and 6 miles, respectively. As a result of longer trip distances and greater reliance on the automobile, rural residents drive more miles per year than their urban counterparts. Figure 2 shows how the percentage of trips made by public transportation increases from rural to larger urban areas. In non-metro areas, just 0.4% of trips are made by public transportation, while 4.6% of trips are made by public transportation in metro areas with a population of 3 million or more. 5% 4.6% 4% 3% 2% 1.4% 1.4% 1% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0% Not in MSA <250, , , ,000-1 million Size of Metropolitan Sta s cal Area (MSA) 1-3 million 3 million or more Figure 2. Percentage of Trips by Public Transportation, by Size of Metro Area Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Table 6 shows the general purposes for transit and non-transit trips in urban and rural areas, according to data from the NHTS. 1 For rural transit trips, the highest percentage of trips is for work or school/ church. Medical trips account for 7.4% of transit trips in rural areas, but only 2.4% of non-transit trips are for medical, indicating a higher propensity for these types of trips to be made by transit. Other reports have found a higher percentage of rural transit trips being for medical purposes. Based on a study of on-board surveys, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) found that in areas with a population below 200,000, 8.6% of transit trips are for medical purposes. These percentages vary significantly between individual transit providers depending on the type of service provided. Some rural transit systems provide a significantly higher percentage of trips for medical purposes, while others provide a higher percentage of work trips. The data indicate that work, school, and medical trips have a greater likelihood than other trips of being made by transit in both rural and urban areas, and shopping and social trips are less likely to be made by transit. 1 These numbers differ from those cited in the 2011 Rural Transit Fact Book because trips home is not considered to be a separate category and the estimates are based on different definitions for the trip purpose categories (the 1990 definitions are used). Rural Transit Fact Book

11 Table 6. Trip Purpose for Transit and Non-Transit Trips Trip Purpose Transit Trips Non-Transit Trips Urban Rural* Urban Rural Percentage Work Work-related business Shopping Other personal/business School/church Medical/dental Vacation Visit friends/relatives Other social/recreational Other *Transit in rural areas is defined to include just bus and paratransit. Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey Rural Transit Fact Book

12 Photo: Alaska DOT NATIONAL RURAL TRANSIT This section describes the characteristics of rural transit systems receiving section 5311 funding, using data submitted by these systems to the Rural NTD. The Rural NTD began collecting data in Data for 2010 are the most recent data available at the time of publication. The number of agencies providing rural transit service, as reported in the Rural NTD, increased from 1,358 in 2009 to 1,403 in 2010 (see Table 7). Table 7. Number of Rural Transit Providers Nationwide Total 1,293 1,358 1,358 1,403 Type of service offered: Total fixed-route Traditional fixed-route Deviated fixed-route Both Demand-response 1,085 1,149 1,169 1,180 Demand-response & fixed-route Van pool Other or not specified Source: Rural National Transit Database, Many of these agencies offer strictly a demand-response service, while 253 offer both demand-response and fixed-route, and some offer just fixed-route. 2 A total of 472 systems provided fixed-route service in 2010, including either a traditional fixed-route service or deviated fixed-routes. The data indicate an increase in both demandresponse and fixed-route providers since Nationwide, 77% of the counties had some level of rural transit service in 2010 (see Table 8). This is a slight increase from the 75% covered the previous year. 2 Although the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires transit agencies to provide paratransit services that complement their fixed-route services, it is not required for those that provide deviated fixed-route or commuter bus services. Many of those agencies identified as offering just fixed-route service provide these types of services, and some may actually provide demand-response paratransit but did not have the data reported. Rural Transit Fact Book

13 Table 8. Counties with Rural Transit Service Number of Counties with 5311 Service State counties in state Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Total Percentage of counties served 72.6% 73.0% 74.5% 77.1% Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

14 Operating Statistics Total annual ridership for rural transit systems increased 4% in 2010, from 116 million rides in 2009 to 121 million rides (see Table 9). The greatest increase in ridership the last two years was for fixed-route services. Fixed-route ridership increased 7% in 2010, from 71.4 million rides to 76.1 million rides, while demand-response ridership decreased 2%, from 44.0 million rides to 43.2 million rides. Table 9. Rural Transit Operating Statistics % change millions Annual Ridership Fixed-route % Demand-response % Van pool % Other % Total % Annual Vehicle Miles Fixed-route % Demand-response % Van pool % Other % Total % Annual Vehicle Hours Fixed-route % Demand-response % Van pool % Other % Total % Source: Rural National Transit Database, Vehicle miles and hours of service increased in 2010, by 10% and 8%, respectively. Rural transit agencies provided 550 million miles of service and 32 million hours of service in The greatest increase, in percentage terms, was for fixed-route service, which had a 17% increase in vehicles miles and a 13% increase in vehicle hours. The increase in ridership and service provided is partly due to increases by existing agencies and partly due to the addition of new transit providers. A small difference could also be due to measurement error, or the possibility that not all agencies reported their data in a given year. To determine the degree to which ridership and service provided has changed for existing agencies, data for individual transit providers were tracked over time. The data reveal that 51% of existing providers experienced an increase in ridership from 2009 to 2010, while 58% and 54% increased vehicle miles and hours, respectively (see Table 10). The median change from 2009 to 2010 was a 2.2% increase in vehicle miles, a 1.0% increase in vehicle hours, and a 0.4% increase in ridership. While the median change in ridership was small, some agencies experienced more significant gains. Forty percent had an increase in ridership of 5% or more, nearly a third increased ridership by 10% or more, and 22% experienced an increase of 20% or more. Some agencies also experienced significant decreases in ridership. Rural Transit Fact Book

15 Table 10. Agency Level Changes in Service Miles, Hours, and Trips, Vehicle Miles Vehicle Miles Vehicle Hours Total Trips Median Change +2.2% +1.0% +0.4% Percentage of Agencies with an Increase 58% 54% 51% Percentage of Agencies with an Increase of: 5% or more 43% 38% 40% 10% or more 31% 29% 32% 20% or more 18% 20% 22% 50% or more 7% 9% 10% 100% or more 3% 4% 5% Percentage of Agencies with an Decrease of: 5% or more 27% 30% 38% 10% or more 18% 21% 27% 20% or more 10% 14% 15% 50% or more 2% 4% 4% Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2009, 2010 Table 11 shows median and percentile rankings for vehicle miles and hours and passenger trips per agency in The data show that the median vehicle miles provided per system was 177,866, the median hours of service was 11,289, and the median number of trips provided was 26,847. For systems providing fixed-route service, the median fixed-route miles provided was 173,859, the median fixedroute hours of service was 10,556, and the median number of rides provided was 50,118. For demandresponse operations, the median values were 132,755 miles, 9,163 hours, and 18,559 rides. These median numbers all increased about 1%-5% from the previous year. However, as Table 11 shows, there is significant variation in these numbers. For example, 10% of the agencies provided 878,340 or more miles of service, and the smallest 10% provided 21,061 miles or less. Table 11. Rural Transit Operating Statistics, Median and Percentile Rankings per Agency, 2010 Vehicle Miles Vehicle Hours Regular Unlinked Trips Percentile Fixed- Route Demand- Response Total Fixed- Route Demand- Response Total Fixed- Route Demand- Response Total 10th 28,185 16,921 21,061 1,727 1,569 1,777 4,091 2,449 3,513 25th 68,941 46,477 62,033 4,190 3,285 4,150 13,913 7,402 9,612 50th 173, , ,866 10,556 9,163 11,289 50,118 18,559 26,847 75th 389, , ,455 21,940 21,286 26, ,336 42,254 72,623 90th 635, , ,340 36,064 43,524 51, ,594 89, ,967 Number of agencies reporting 460 1,168 1, ,168 1, ,114 1,352 Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

16 Financial Statistics Federal funding for capital projects more than doubled in 2010 because of spending from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (see Table 12). Meanwhile capital funding from state and local sources declined nearly 40%. Overall, capital spending rose significantly due to the influx of ARRA funds. Federal support of operating costs increased 10% in 2010, from $339 million to $372 million. State funding for operations increased 10% to $236 million and local funding increased 9% to $322 million. Transit operators also experienced a 3% increase in fare revenues in 2010 to $100 million, while contract revenues increased 23%. Meanwhile, total operating expenses increased 11%. Table 12. Rural Transit Financial Statistics Capital Funding Federal million dollars Change % % % % % % Other Federal % ARRA % Total % State % Local % Operating Federal Assistance % % % % % % Other Federal % ARRA % Total % State Assistance % Local Assistance % Fare Revenues % Contract Revenues % Total Expenses % Source: Rural National Transit Database, Note: Funding totals are for section 5311 providers only. Those receiving only section 5310 funds are not included. The numbers do not represent total federal allocations for each program. Descriptions of each program can be found in the Glossary of Terms on the back page. The failure of any transit providers to report their data would also influence the accuracy of these numbers. Rural Transit Fact Book

17 The data in Table 12 reflect the dollar amounts reported by rural transit providers to the rural NTD, but the numbers reported could differ from the actual spending totals if any agencies did not report their data. Figure 3 shows actual federal spending levels by the FTA under the section 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program, not including ARRA funding. As shown, federal funding had been steadily increasing from 2005 through 2008, before dropping in 2009 and then increasing again in At the time of publication, the breakdown of FY2010 spending for operating, capital, and other expenses was not available. $700 $600 $500 Millions $400 $300 $200 $100 FY 2010 Total RTAP Admin Capital Opera ng $ Fiscal Year Figure 3. FTA Spending under the Section 5311 Program, Source: Federal Transit Administration. Grants Data Fleet Statistics With an increase in capital funding came an increase in average fleet size. Average fleet size rose from 15.4 vehicles in 2009 to 16.5 vehicles in 2010 (see Table 13). The total number of vehicles being operated by rural transit providers followed a similar increase to 23,133 in 2010, an 11% increase from the previous year (see Table 14). Table 14. Number of Vehicles in Operation Table 13. Average Fleet Size Vehicles per Agency Source: Rural National Transit Database, Total 18,474 19,921 20,890 23,133 Buses 4,889 3,930 3,640 3,904 Cutaways 5,040 7,230 8,474 10,621 Vans 5,311 5,165 4,927 4,459 Minivans 2,437 2,827 3,025 3,422 Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Other Source: Rural National Transit Database, After decreasing the previous two years, the number of buses (excluding cutaways) rose 7% in Most of the increase in vehicles, though, consisted of cutaways. The number of cutaways in operation increased by 25% in Rural Transit Fact Book

18 Figure 4 shows the fleet composition of rural transit agencies. Cutaways comprise the largest portion (46%) of the vehicle fleet, while vans account for 19% of the vehicles, buses 17%, and minivans 15%. Eighty-two percent of these vehicles are ADA accessible, up from 77% the previous two years (see Table 15). Most buses and cutaways (94%) are ADA accessible, whereas 66% of vans and 62% of minivans were ADA accessible in The average age of the vehicles was 5.5 years in 2010, a reduction from the previous year. The average vehicle length was 22.6 feet with an average seating capacity of 15.0 (see Tables 16-18). The average bus is 30.6 feet and has a seating capacity of 27.2, while the average cutaway is 23.4 feet with a seating capacity of Average vehicle length and seating capacity increased just slightly from the previous year. The increase in size has been more significant for buses than for cutaways. Average bus length has increased 3.2 feet since 2007 and average seating capacity increased by 4. Figure 4. Fleet Composition Table 15. Percentage of Rural Transit Vehicles that are ADA Accessible Percentage Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

19 Table 16. Average Vehicle Age Years Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, Table 17. Average Vehicle Length Feet Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, Table 18. Average Seating Capacity Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

20 Seventy percent of the vehicles are owned by the transit provider, while most of the remainder are owned by a public agency for the service provider (see Table 19). Two percent of the vehicles are leased. Cutaways are most likely to be owned by the transit provider. Table 19. Vehicle Ownership, 2010 Owned by provider Leased by provider Owned by public agency Leased by public agency Percentage Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 The FTA is the primary funding source for 81% of rural transit vehicles, including 76% of buses, 86% of cutaways, and 79% of vans (see Table 20). State or local sources provide the primary funding source for 14% of the vehicles. Table 20. Primary Funding Source for Vehicles, 2010 FTA Other Federal State or Local Private Percentage Total Bus Cutaway Van Minivan Automobiles School Bus Over-the-road bus Sports utility vehicle Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

21 NATIONAL RURAL TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASURES A few performance measures can be calculated using the data from the Rural NTD. These include two measures of service effectiveness: trips per mile and trips per hour; one measure of service efficiency: cost per mile; and one measure of cost effectiveness: cost per trip. In addition, trips per vehicle, hours of service per vehicle, and miles of service per vehicle can be measured, as well as the farebox recovery ratio. Trips per mile decreased 6% to 0.22 in As Table 21 shows, trips per mile is significantly higher for fixed-route service (0.57) than it is for demand-response (0.11). Trips per hour decreased slightly to 3.8 in The number of trips per hour was 10.2 for fixed-route service and 1.8 for demand-response. Table 21. Trips per Mile and Trips per Hour Trips per Mile % change Fixed-route % Demand-response % Van pool % Total % Trips per Hour Fixed-route % Demand-response % Van pool % Total % Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

22 Table 22. Trips per Mile by Number of Miles Provided, 2010 Percentile Rank Fixed-Route Vehicle Miles Provided Average Trips per Mile 1-10 <28, ,185-68, , , , , , , >90 >636, Demand-Response 1-10 <16, ,921-46, , , , , , , >90 >734, Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 These numbers represent the industry averages, but there is some variation between individual providers. There tends to be some variation in these measures based on the size of the operation. Table 22 groups the transit systems into six categories based on the number of vehicle miles provided. Trips per mile tends to increase with vehicle miles provided for fixed-route systems, as the larger systems provide more trips per mile. For demand-response systems, on the other hand, trips per mile continually decreases with increases in vehicle miles. The smaller demand-response systems provide more trips per mile, possibly because they serve a smaller area with more concentrated service. There is a similar trend for trips per hour (see Table 23). For fixed-route systems, trips per hour is the highest for the largest systems providing the greatest number of service hours, while for demand-response systems, the number of trips per hour decreases with increases in hours of service provided. Trips per vehicle decreased 6% in 2010 to 5,227. Even though the number of trips increased in 2010, the number of vehicles in use increased by a greater percentage. Meanwhile, rural transit vehicles averaged 23,778 miles and 1,383 hours of service in 2010, small changes from 2009 (see Table 24). Operating cost per trip was $10.54 in 2010, a 6% increase from the previous year. The costs were significantly higher for demand-response service. The rural NTD does not report cost data by mode, so it is not possible to compute average fixed-route and demand-response costs. However, many providers offer just one type of service, so averages can be calculated for those systems that offer just demand-response or just fixed-route service. In 2010, 908 such systems operated just demand-response service, and 202 offered just fixed-route service. Their average costs are shown in Table 25. The average operating cost for fixed-route-only systems increased to $6.80 per trip in 2010, while that for demandresponse-only systems increased to $16.83 per trip. Operating cost per mile was nearly unchanged in 2010, at $2.93 for fixed-route-only systems, $2.02 for demand-response-only systems, and $2.32 per mile overall. Costs tend to be higher per mile for the fixed-route operators but lower per trip due to the greater number of rides provided. Fare revenues in 2010 covered 8% of the operating costs. The farebox recovery ratio has been unchanged since 2007 and is just slightly higher for fixed-route systems. Rural Transit Fact Book

23 Table 23. Trips per Hour by Number of Hours Provided, 2010 Percentile Rank Fixed-Route Vehicle Hours Provided Average Trips per Hour 1-10 <1, ,727-4, ,190-10, ,556-21, ,940-36, >90 >36, Demand-Response 1-10 <1, ,569-3, ,285-9, ,163-21, ,286-43, >90 >43, Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Table 24. Trips, Miles, and Hours per Vehicle % change Trips per Vehicle 5,881 5,580 5,572 5,227-6% Miles per Vehicle 23,558 23,243 23,857 23,778 0% Hours per Vehicle 1,237 1,462 1,418 1,383-2% Source: Rural National Transit Database, While Table 25 shows overall averages, there is significant variation in costs between transit agencies across the country. Table 26 shows percentile rankings for operating costs per trip and per mile and for farebox recovery ratio, including both demand-response and fixed-route service. Table 25. Operating Costs per Trip and per Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio % change Operating Expense per Trip Total % Fixed-Route Only % Demand-Response Only % Operating Expense per Mile Total % Fixed-Route Only % Demand-Response Only % Farebox Recovery Ratio Total % Fixed-Route Only % Demand-Response Only % Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

24 Table 26. Operating Costs per Trip and per Mile and Farebox Recovery Ratio, Percentile Rankings, 2010 Total Percentile Rank Operating Expense Per Trip Per Mile Farebox Recovery Ratio 10 th th th th th Fixed-route-only 10 th th th th th Demand-reponse-only 10 th th th th th Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Some of the variations could be explained by the size of the operations. Table 27 categorizes transit agencies based on the number of vehicle miles provided. The operating expense per mile is lower for the larger systems, but expense per trip does not appear to be influenced by the number of miles provided, as the larger systems tend to have fewer trips per mile of service. Table 27. Operating Statistics and Performance Measures by Size of Operation, 2010 Vehicle Miles Operating Expense Size of Agency Number of Agencies Min Max Total Miles Total Trips Fare revenues Operating expenses Per Trip Per Mile Thousands Farebox recovery ratio Very small , , Small ,126 2,722 5,265 28, Mediumsmall ,291 10,727 10, , Mediumlarge ,606 26,150 22, , Large ,352 35,604 25, , Very large ,118 45,099 35, , Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

25 REGIONAL AND STATE STATISTICS The data described in the previous sections are aggregate national data, but there may be some regional differences. Therefore, data in this section are presented at the regional and state levels. The regions used are based on the FTA s regional classification. The FTA divides the country into 10 regions, as shown in Figure 5. Table 28 shows how rural transit statistics vary between those regions. The greatest number of rural transit agencies is in regions 4, 5, and 7, followed by regions 8 and 6. The operators in these regions are mostly demand-response providers. The northeast and far western regions have a greater orientation toward fixed-route service. Figure 5. FTA Regions Rural Transit Fact Book

26 Annual ridership in 2010 was highest in regions 5 (17.2 million rides) and 8 (16.9 million rides). Region 4 provided the highest level of service, by a significant margin, with 153 million vehicle miles and 9.7 million vehicle hours of service, most of it being demand-response. Region 4 also had the greatest number of vehicles in service, nearly half of them being vans. Trips per mile and per hour were highest in region 8, according to the data, and region 9 provided the most rides per vehicle. Operating cost per trip was the highest in region 4. For the fixed-route-only agencies, cost per trip was highest in region 6 at $18.32 and lowest in region 1 at $4.66. The lowest cost for demand-response-only providers was $8.63 per trip in region 7. State-level statistics are shown in Tables Table 28. Regional Data, 2010 FTA Region Number of Agencies Fixed-route Demand-response Van pool Total Counties Served 84% 71% 53% 82% 69% 82% 91% 71% 85% 74% Annual Ridership (million rides) Fixed-route Demand-response Total Annual Vehicle Miles (million miles) Fixed-route Demand-response Total Annual Vehicle Hours (million hours) Fixed-route Demand-response Total Number of Vehicles Total ,768 5,655 3,939 3,447 2,553 1,586 1,294 1,398 Bus Cutaway ,963 1,821 1,887 1, Van , Minivan Other Vehicles ADA Accessible 91% 97% 94% 72% 85% 80% 83% 76% 90% 81% Rural Transit Fact Book

27 Table 28. Regional Data, 2010 (continued) FTA Region Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Length Average Vehicle Capacity Trips Per Mile Total Fixed-route Demand-response Trips Per Hour Total Fixed-route Demand-response Trips Per Vehicle 8,812 7,266 7,097 2,735 4,362 2,398 4, ,087 10,328 Miles Per Vehicle 33,549 27,536 19,936 27,091 21,229 17,562 18,686 17,044 24,721 22,692 Hours Per Vehicle 1,685 1,620 1,203 1,709 1,344 1,007 1,155 1,202 1,362 1,202 Operating Expense Per Trip Total Fixed-route only Demand-response only Operating Expense Per Mile Total Fixed-route only Demand-response only Farebox Recovery Ratio Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

28 Table 29. Rural Transit Vehicle Revenue Miles of Service by State, (million miles) Total Fixed-Route Service Demand-Response Service Other Service Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Source: Rural National Transit Database, Rural Transit Fact Book

29 Table 30. State Operating Statistics, 2010 Number of Agencies Counties Served (%) Total Annual Ridership Annual Vehicle Miles Annual Vehicle Hours Fixed- Route Demand- Response Total Fixed- Route Demand- Response Total Fixed- Route Demand- Response thousand rides thousand miles thousand hours Alabama 25 75% 1, ,064 5, , Alaska 7 41% 1,791 1, ,830 1, Arizona 16 67% 1,106 1, ,202 2, Arkansas 6 56% , , California 59 97% 7,928 6,588 1,340 19,999 15,195 4,804 1, Colorado 27 59% 9,989 9, ,984 8,294 2, Connecticut 4 100% , Delaware 0 33% Florida 22 93% 1, ,545 2,976 11, Georgia 85 69% 1, ,131 15, , Hawaii 3 75% 4,129 4, ,966 4, Idaho 24 98% 1,281 1, ,790 1, Illinois 34 72% 3,998 2,188 1,810 12,769 1,022 11, Indiana 45 72% 2, ,952 14, , Iowa % 5, ,030 15, ,089 1, ,038 Kansas 91 83% 1, ,437 6, , Kentucky 24 86% 1, ,193 30, ,556 2, ,600 Louisiana 32 50% , , Maine % 1, ,294 1,007 17,094 1, Maryland 12 83% 6,169 5, ,355 5,449 3, Massachusetts 3 71% 1,509 1, ,987 1, Michigan 60 87% 2, ,618 23, ,808 1, ,387 Minnesota 55 84% 3,860 1,358 2,502 12,643 3,019 9, Mississippi 19 57% 1,259 1, ,626 8, Missouri 25 99% 2, ,557 23, ,229 1, ,302 Montana 30 70% 1, ,324 1,290 1, Nebraska 61 80% , , Nevada 15 65% , New Hampshire 6 60% 1, ,391 1, New Jersey 8 71% 1, ,285 1,392 5, New Mexico 25 73% 1,808 1, ,243 4,473 1, New York 45 71% 4,526 4, ,697 13, North Carolina 78 97% 4,722 2,972 1,751 44,432 3,193 41,239 2, ,175 North Dakota % , , Ohio 35 41% 1, ,421 10, , Oklahoma 19 87% 2, ,635 17,106 1,443 15, Oregon 32 86% 3,480 2, ,787 4,997 3, Pennsylvania 17 43% 3,342 3, ,219 4,887 8, Rhode Island 0 40% South Carolina 14 80% 1,948 1, ,410 2,280 5, South Dakota 20 89% 1, ,099 4, , Tennessee % 2,552 1,469 1,082 26,272 1,297 24,975 1, ,578 Texas 29 97% 2, ,506 21, ,175 1, ,221 Utah 4 14% 1,882 1, ,346 1, Vermont % 1,431 1, ,561 2,794 8, Virginia 20 58% 2,035 1, ,548 5,430 3, Washington 26 62% 7,598 6, ,043 8,575 4, West Virginia 11 45% 1,003 1, ,124 4, Wisconsin 52 61% 2, ,415 7,480 2,404 5, Wyoming 18 57% 1,973 1, ,402 1,373 1, Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

30 Table 31. State Financial Statistics, 2010 Capital Funding Operating Funding Local State Federal Local State Federal thousand dollars Alabama , ,605 Alaska ,829 4, ,423 Arizona ,202 2,735 1,115 6,218 Arkansas 0 9 5,181 3,038 1,678 5,776 California 2,202 6,387 8,554 40,240 11,196 14,797 Colorado 1, ,155 31, ,956 Connecticut ,584 1,713 Delaware Florida ,380 3,805 6,072 6,517 Georgia ,214 5, ,358 Hawaii ,733 15, ,961 Idaho ,240 2, ,183 Illinois 0 0 5,743 2,557 18,820 8,639 Indiana ,282 8,706 4,988 13,197 Iowa ,230 4,286 5,585 9,378 Kansas ,924 2,453 1,842 5,068 Kentucky ,869 4, ,154 Louisiana ,488 Maine ,365 2,401 8,574 Maryland ,150 5,474 3,491 Massachusetts ,255 1,486 2,194 2,236 Michigan 31 3,201 25,428 15,958 23,573 12,714 Minnesota , ,357 7,553 Mississippi ,425 1, ,479 Missouri 1, ,454 20,741 1,034 11,047 Montana ,182 2, ,570 Nebraska 9 0 1,825 1,345 1,298 2,802 Nevada , ,587 New Hampshire ,858 1, ,424 New Jersey ,189 10,465 6,785 2,352 New Mexico ,385 5,434 4,234 6,858 New York 1 1 7,755 6,559 13,033 4,246 North Carolina 745 1,177 6,737 13,660 17,793 17,516 North Dakota ,000 2,848 Ohio ,628 4,516 3,855 13,123 Oklahoma ,758 2,430 2,233 12,115 Oregon ,536 8,004 5,098 9,429 Pennsylvania 414 3,742 26,828 1,655 26,216 7,470 Rhode Island South Carolina ,417 2,408 1,468 4,939 South Dakota ,593 2, ,661 Tennessee 406 1,038 15,335 2,786 9,085 13,058 Texas ,705 2,220 13,318 19,857 Utah ,412 2, ,324 Vermont ,750 1,323 4,449 17,489 Virginia 262 1,415 8,757 5,347 2,441 9,053 Washington 2,405 1,249 9,796 32,453 8,322 7,814 West Virginia ,337 3,163 1,244 3,678 Wisconsin ,228 2,793 5,399 7,412 Wyoming ,831 2,366 1,304 2,884 Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

31 Table 32. State Fleet Statistics, 2010 Number of Vehicles ADA Vehicles (%) Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Length Average Vehicle Capacity Trips Per Vehicle Miles Per Vehicle Hours Per Vehicle thousands Alabama % Alaska 86 91% Arizona % Arkansas % California % Colorado % Connecticut % Delaware Florida % Georgia % Hawaii % Idaho % Illinois % Indiana % Iowa % Kansas % Kentucky % Louisiana % Maine % NA NA NA Maryland % Massachusetts % Michigan % Minnesota % Mississippi % Missouri % Montana % Nebraska % Nevada 98 88% New Hampshire % New Jersey % New Mexico % New York % North Carolina % North Dakota % Ohio % Oklahoma % Oregon % Pennsylvania % Rhode Island South Carolina % South Dakota % Tennessee % Texas % Utah % Vermont % Virginia % Washington % West Virginia % Wisconsin % Wyoming % Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

32 Table 33. State Performance Measures, 2010 Trips Per Mile Trips Per Hour Operating Operating Farebox Total Fixed- Demand- Fixed- Demand- Expense Expense Recovery Total Route Response Route Response Per Trip Per Mile Ratio Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Source: Rural National Transit Database, 2010 Rural Transit Fact Book

33 Photo: Alaska DOT TRIBAL TRANSIT The number of tribal transit providers has grown significantly over the past decade (Mielke 2011). A SURTC report published in 2011, titled, 5311(c) Tribal Transit Funding: Assessing Impacts and Determining Future Program Needs, provides information about existing tribal transit services and funding and discusses transportation needs of Native American and Alaska Native communities. As the report notes, there are several geographic and demographic indicators that suggest that the provision of transit services should be a high priority on many reservations. These indicators include low population densities, long travel distances, and a higher percentage of older adults and low-income households (see Table 34). Table 34. Mobility Needs Indicators for Native American and Alaska Native Communities Need Indicator Standard National Average Tribal Finding Age 60+ Percent of population age 60 & 16.3% 31 reservations at 16.3% or higher over Youth Percent of population age % 33 reservations at 33-38% Disabilities Percent of population with a 7.7% no significant difference disability Income Percent of population considered 12.2% 33.2% low income No vehicle Percent of population with no 10.3% 28 reservations at 15-30% vehicle in household Spent on fuel Percent of annual income spent 7.8% 29 Native counties at 14.8% on fuel Population density Residents per square mile 19.6 residents per square (c) recipients average 15.5 residents per square mile mile in nonurban areas Remoteness Frontier designation (c) recipients have fewer than 6 residents per square mile, many of which are located miles Source: Mielke 2011 Rural Transit Fact Book