Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 46
CHAPTER 6
Performance Data from
Representative Systems
This chapter presents performance data from the representative rural DRT systems that par-
ticipated in the research project. These data provide benchmarks, allowing comparisons among
similar types of DRT systems.
6.1 Rural Systems Participating
as Representative Systems
To assist DRT systems in comparing their performance against other systems, the Guidebook
provides data on key performance measures for a representative number of rural DRT systems,
categorized by the typology defined in Chapter 5.
Finding Representative DRT Systems
To find representative DRT systems within the categories of the typology, various DRT sys-
tems of different types and in different parts of the country were contacted for participation in
this research project. The objective was to provide valid reference points for each category, not
to provide a statistically balanced sample of systems. There was an attempt made to provide geo-
graphic diversity of representative DRT systems, but no attempt to find high performers or low
performers to frame the data.
Collecting Data from Representative DRT Systems
Once representative DRT systems agreed to participate, the researchers asked for the key per-
formance data, with Fiscal Year 2007 as the target year (although the specific months defining a
fiscal year varied), using both on-site visits and telephone interviews. Information about the sys-
tem, its service, and its operating environment was also collected to develop an understanding
of the factors and circumstances affecting each system's performance. It was agreed with the par-
ticipating systems that the research report would not relate specific performance data to individ-
ual systems. The 24 participating systems are listed in Table 6-1, and their locations are shown
in Figure 6-1.
The data elements requested from the participating DRT systems include passenger trips;
vehicle-miles; vehicle-hours; operating costs and safety incidents, as defined by Rural NTD; and
on-time performance. Data for passenger trips, miles, operating costs, and usually hours were
readily available from the participating systems; however, there was very limited data on NTD-
defined safety incidents. This is not to say that all the systems had perfect safety records, but not
all the participating systems collect safety data conforming to Rural NTD definitions and for
those that do, there was little data to collect.
46
OCR for page 47
Performance Data from Representative Systems 47
Table 6-1. Rural DRT systems participating in the research project.
DRT System Location Provider and Service Area
Albert Lea Transit Albert Lea, MN Private non-profit agency serving developmentally
disabled adults, serving primarily a single city
ALTRAN Munising, MI County, serving primarily a single county
Atomic City Transit Dial-A-Ride Los Alamos, NM City, serving primarily a single city
Bay Transit Urbanna,VA Private non-profit senior agency, serving
10 counties in eastern Virgin ia
B.C. Country Rural Dial-A-Ride Vestal, NY County, serving primarily a single county
Central Florida Regional Planning Council (RPC) Bartow, FL Regional planning organization, with a contracted
Transportation Disadvantaged Program private service operator, serving 3 counties in central
Florida
City of Cleburne Transportation Cleburne, TX City, serving primarily a single city
Columbia Area Transit (CAT) Hood River, OR Transit district, serving primarily a single county
Dial-A-BATS Bullhead City, AZ City, serving primarily a single city
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency (FCRTA) Fresno, CA Joint powers transit agency created by
agreement between participating cities and
county, serving the county
Garrett Transit Service Oakland, MD Private non-profit community action agency, serving
primarily a single county
Hancock Area Transportation Services (HATS) Findlay, OH Private non-profit community action agency, serving
primarily a single county
Hill Country Transit District San Saba, TX Transit district, affiliated with non-profit community
action agency, serving 8 counties in central Texas
Inter-County Public Transportation Authority Elizabeth City, NC Private non-profit health services agency, serving 5
counties in northeastern North Carolina
Intracity Transit Paratransit System Hot Springs, AR City, serving primarily a single city
Johnson County Transportation Cleburne, TX Provided through City of Cleburne, serving primarily a
single county
McIntosh Trail Transit System Griffin, GA Regional planning organization, with service operated
by a non-profit contractor, serving
5 counties in central Georgia
Monroe County Shared Ride Scotrun, PA Transit district, serving primarily a single county
Moscow Valley Dial-A-Ride and Paratransit Moscow, ID Private non-profit transp ortation agency, serving
primarily a single city
Paul Bunyan Transit Bemidji, MN Private non-profit transit organization created by joint
agreement between participating city and county,
serving primarily a single county
Pulaski Area Transit Pulaski, VA Private non-profit senior agency, serving primarily a
single city
Regional Coordinated Area Transportation System Asheboro, NC Private non-profit senior agency, serving
2 counties in central North Carolina
River Cities Public Transit (RCPT) Pierre, SD Private non-profit transportation agency, serving 10
counties in central South Dakota
VTA Paratransit Edgartown, MA Transit authority, with service operated by a private
contractor, serving primarily a single county
Regarding on-time performance, again, there was little data to collect from the participat-
ing systems. The majority of the DRT systems report that pick-up and drop-off times are recorded,
usually with vehicle operators writing arrival times at their stops on their manifests. However,
these data are not summarized from the manifests for any operating reports on a routine basis.
Typically, the DRT manager stated that the data were available should there be a question or
complaint about vehicle timeliness, and they check the applicable operator manifest for the
data should an issue arise. Only one of the participating systems had formal on-time perfor-
mance percentages to report. Rural DRT systems, however, should be encouraged to collect and
report on-time performance statistics for service monitoring and performance assessment.
Timeliness at both the pick-up end and drop-off end are important and critical for evaluating
DRT service reliability.
OCR for page 48
WA
WA
Hood River
ME
ME
Moscow MT Bemidji
MT ND
ND
OR
OR MN
MN Munising VT
VT NH
NH
ID
ID
Pierre NY
NY MA
MAEdgartown
SD
SD WI
WI
MI
MI Vestal RI
RI
Albert Lea CT
CT
WY
WY
PA
PA Scotrun
IA
IA
NE Findlay NJ
NJ
NE
NV
NV OH Oakland
OH MD
MD DE
DE
UT
UT IN
IN DC
DC
IL
IL
CA
CA WV
WV
CO
CO Urbanna
VA
VA
Fresno KS
KS MO
MO Elizabeth City
KY
KY Pulaski
NC
NC
Bullhead City Los Alamos
TN
TN Asheboro
OK
OK
AZ
AZ
NM
NM AR
AR SC
SC
Griffin
Hot Springs
AL
AL GA
GA
MS
MS
Cleburne
TX
TX
LA
LA
San Saba
FL
FL
Bartow
LEGEND
Serving Primarily a Single City
Serving Primarily a Single County
Serving Multi-Counties
Figure 6-1. Representative rural DRT systems participating in research project.
