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.