1 FIXED ROUTE OVERVIEW

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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1-1

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 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1-2

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) Annual Service Hours per Capita (2012) Annual Passenger Trips per Capita (2012) Change in Revenue Vehicle Hours (2008-2012) Change in Ridership (2008-2012) Large Fixed Route (5) Source: Nelson\Nygaard adapted from data provided by ODOT Medium Fixed Route (5) Small Fixed Route (14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 22.4 6.5 2.8 2.2-3% -9% -11% -2% -14% -5% -26% 10% 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 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1-3

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) Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost per Passenger Passengers per Vehicle Hour Large Fixed Route (5) Source: Nelson\Nygaard adapted from data provided by ODOT Capital Resources/Fleet Management Medium Fixed Route (5) Small Fixed Route (14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) $10.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $123.00 $84.00 $79.00 $49.00 $5.00 $5.00 $11.00 $11.00 27 17 9 9 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1-4

Figure 1-4: Percentage of Fleet beyond Useful Life and Rate of Road calls per 100,000 miles Averages by Category Percent of Fleet Beyond Useful Life Road Calls per 100,000 miles Large Fixed Route (5) Source: Nelson\Nygaard adapted from data provided by ODOT Medium Fixed Route (5) Small Fixed Route (14) Deviated Fixed Route (6) 14% 24% 24% 20% 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 Source: Nelson\Nygaard adapted from data provided by ODOT Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1-5

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 (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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-1

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 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-2

Figure 2-2: Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours (All modes including rail) per Capita (Service Area Population) Annual Vehicle Hours per Capita Average 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Cleveland Cincinnati Dayton Columbus Akron 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) Annual Passengers per Capita Average 40 35 34.6 30 25 22.4 20 15 10 19.2 15.4 10.1 5 0 Cleveland Cincinnati Dayton Columbus Akron Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-3

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) Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Akron 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-4

Figure 2-5: Five Year (2008-2012) Trend in Total Ridership (All modes including Rail) 70,000,000 Cleveland Cincinnati Columbus Dayton Akron Annual Passenger Boardings 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-5

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) 80% 70% 76% 2+ trips per hour: AM Peak 4+ trips per hour: AM Peak 69% 65% Percent of All Routes 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 30% 48% 29% 10% 3% 7% 6% 0% Cincinnati Cleveland Akron Columbus Dayton 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) 2+ trips per hour: Midday 4+ trips per hour: Midday 50% Percent of All Routes 40% 41% 38% 36% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% 11% 12% 9% 4% 0% 0% Cleveland Akron Columbus Cincinnati Dayton Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-6

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) Percent of All Routes 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Weekday Evenings Saturday Sunday Cleveland Akron Cincinnati Dayton Columbus Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-7

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 Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on interviews with transit agencies. Implement in 2014 Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency X X X 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-8

Figure 2-10: Operating Cost per Revenue Vehicle Mile (Fixed Route Bus Only) Operating Cost per Vehicle Mile Average $14.00 $12.00 $11.58 $11.03 $10.00 $8.00 $8.86 $8.78 $8.69 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $0.00 Cleveland Akron Cincinnati Dayton Columbus 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) Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour Average $160.00 $140.00 $120.00 $134.75 $134.74 $127.73 $114.02 $107.43 $100.00 $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $0.00 Akron Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-9

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) Operating Cost per Passenger Average $8.00 $7.47 $7.00 $6.00 $5.10 $5.00 $4.71 $4.61 $4.00 $3.88 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 Akron Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-10

Figure 2-13: Riders per Revenue Vehicle Hour (Fixed Route Bus Only) Passengers per Vehicle Hour Average 40 35 34.7 30 25 20 15 10 5 25.0 24.2 23.3 18.0 0 Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-11

Figure 2-14: Percent of Bus Fleet Beyond Useful Life (All rubber tired vehicles, excluding rail vehicles) % Vehicles Beyond Useful Life Average 25% 23% 20% 19% 15% 15% 10% 5% 7% 4% 0% Akron Cincinnati Dayton Cleveland Columbus 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) Road calls per 100k miles Average 45 41.4 40 36.2 35 30 27.7 25 22.9 20 15 12.6 10 5 0 Dayton Columbus Akron Cleveland Cincinnati Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-12

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) 100% 80% 60% Federal 40% State 20% Local 0% Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron 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 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-13

(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) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Federal State Other Contract Farebox Local 0% Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Columbus Akron 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 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-14

Figure 2-19: Average Fare Revenue per Rider (Fixed Route Bus Only) Fare Revenue per Passenger Average $1.60 $1.48 $1.40 $1.20 $1.05 $1.04 $1.00 $0.80 $0.87 $0.85 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 Cincinnati Columbus Cleveland Akron Dayton Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2-15

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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-1

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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-2

Figure 3-2: Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours (All Modes) per Capita (Service Area Population) Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours per Capita Average 1.2 1.0 0.98 0.8 0.6 0.64 0.56 0.52 0.4 0.2 0.26 0.0 Riders per Capita Toledo Portage County Laketran Stark County Western Reserve 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) Annual Passengers per Capita Average 10 9.5 9 8.4 8 7.1 7 6 5 4.5 4 3.1 3 2 1 0 Portage County Toledo Stark County Western Reserve Laketran Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-3

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)* Annual Revenue Vehicle Hours 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 Toledo Stark Co. Portage Co. Western Reserve Laketran 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-4

Figure 3-5: Five Year (2008-2012) Trend in Systemwide Total Ridership (All Modes) 5,000,000 Toledo Stark Co. Portage Co. Western Reserve Laketran Annual Passenger Boardings 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-5

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) 2+ trips per hour: AM Peak 4+ trips per hour: AM Peak 70% 64% 60% Percent of All Routes 50% 40% 30% 20% 43% 21% 21% 10% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Western Reserve Portage County Toledo Laketran Stark County Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-6

Figure 3-7: Service Frequency by System in the Midday (Shown as Percent of Routes) 2+ trips per hour: Midday 4+ trips per hour: Midday 60% 50% 50% Percent of All Routes 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 29% 32% Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014 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. 18% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Portage County Western Reserve Toledo Laketran Stark County Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-7

Figure 3-8: Transit Agency Service During Off Peak Periods (Shown as a Percentage of All Routes) Weekday Evenings Saturday Sunday 100% 90% Percent of All Routes 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Stark County Portage County Toledo Laketran Western Reserve Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on data collected from individual agency websites, January 2014 Availability of Specific Technologies The availability of seven specific transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies was also considered (see Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-8

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. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-9

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 Toledo X X X X Planned X Stark County Western Reserve Portage County X X X X Laketran X X Source: Nelson\Nygaard based on interviews with transit agencies. Service and Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency X Implement in 2014 Registering Fareboxes Implement in 2014 X X X Implement in 2014 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. X X X X Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 3-10