Home

2005 National Transit Summaries and Trends

Table of Contents

Introduction

Introduces the transit modes discussed throughout the NTST.

Transit in the United States

National statistics and trends in ridership, miles of service and number of transit systems by mode.

Operating Costs and Performance Measures

Trends in operating costs by mode and measures of cost efficiency and effectiveness.

Quality of Transit Service

National trends for safety, maintenance reliability and lift equipped bus fleet.

Reliability

Trends in miles between major system failures.

ADA Compliance – Bus

Trends in the percentage of buses that are ADA lift- or ramp-equipped.

Funding Transit Operations

Funding sources used in transit, trends in recovery ratio and subsidy per passenger.

Capital Investment in Transit

Funding sources used in capital projects and capital expenditures by mode.

Bus Fleet

Trends in the average fleet age of the national bus fleet.

Fixed Guideway Mileage

Trends in fixed guideway mileage for bus and rail systems.

Alternative Fuel Usage

Trends in the percentage of the national bus fleet using alternative fuels and the share of fuel type used by non-electric transit vehicles.

National Transit Profile

Aggregate data for capital, operating funding and expenses, and characteristics for all modes operated in the nation.

Transit Data by 2000 U. S. Census Urbanized Area

Aggregate data grouped by urbanized area. Items include operating expense, vehicle revenue miles, fixed-guideway directional route miles, passenger miles as reflected in the 2005 apportionment and recovery ratio.

Aggregate Data by Form

Aggregate data reported to the NTD.

Data Used to Compile Graphics

Data used to develop graphics for data not presented with graphic.

Appendix

Key characteristics and uses of capital by transit agencies.

Performance Measures for the Top 150 Transit Agencies

Introduction

General Information

Welcome to the National Transit Summaries and Trends (NTST), a portion of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) annual report. The goal of the NTST is to summarize transit data in an easy to read format. The 2005 NTST discusses data covering the period 1996 to 2005.

On an average weekday, the nation’s transit systems carry over 30 million riders (unlinked passenger trips). There were 9.2 billion riders in 2005.

Transit Modes

The NTST presents aggregate transit operating statistics by mode. Fifteen transit modes are included in the National Transit Database; for this publication statistics are presented for the predominant modes: bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, demand response and vanpool.

Bus

The most common form of mass transit service provided throughout the United States. Buses operate on fixed routes and schedules over existing roadways. Buses must be in compliance with mass transit rules including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions.

Photo of a bus.

Commuter Rail

Local (short-distance) travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service is provided on regular schedules, moving commuters within urbanized areas or between urbanized areas and outlying areas. Multi-trip tickets and specific station-to-station fares characterize commuter rail service, with one or two stations in the central business district.

Photograph Commuter Rail

Heavy Rail

Heavy rail service is characterized by high-speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed electric rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other traffic is excluded; sophisticated signaling, high platform loading and a heavy passenger volume.

Photograph Heavy Rail

Demand Response

Service (passenger cars, vans or small buses) provided upon request to pick up and transport passengers to and from their destinations. Typically, a vehicle may be dispatched to pick up several passengers at different pick-up points before taking them to their respective destinations and may be interrupted en route to these destinations to pick up other passengers.

Photograph Demand Response

Light Rail

Light rail is an electric railway with a lighter passenger volume compared to heavy rail. Passenger cars operating singly (or in short, two-car trains) on fixed rails in shared or exclusive right-of-way, low or high platform loading characterizes light rail service. The vehicle’s power is drawn from an overhead electric wire.

Photograph Light Rail

Vanpool

Service operating under a ride sharing arrangement providing transportation to individuals traveling directly between their homes and a regular destination. The vehicles (vans, small buses, and other vehicles) must have a minimum seating capacity of seven. Vanpool(s) must also be in compliance with mass transit rules including Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions, be open to the public, availability must be advertised and the service must be operated by a public entity or a public entity must own, purchase or lease the vehicle(s).

Photograph Vanpool

These modes provided the most transit service and change over the time frame considered, 1995 through 2004. The remaining modes (aerial tramway, automated guideway, cable car, ferryboat, inclined plane, jitney, monorail, publico, trolleybus and alaska railroad) are combined in the single category “other”.

Rounding and Inflation

Rounding may lead to minor variations in total values from one table to another for similar data or may lead to instances where percentages may not add to 100. Due to rounding, percent changes may not match exactly the values calculated using the formatted figures shown in the exhibits.

All dollar amounts are the actual figures reported and have not been adjusted to reflect inflation for the timeframe considered (21.4 percent from 1996 through 2005).

Web Information

For information about National Transit Database publications and training, see FTA’s website at

http://www.fta.dot.gov

or visit the National Transit Database website at

http://www.ntdprogram.com

Transit in the United States

Total Federal Assistance (Capital and Operating) Applied to Transit and Unlinked Passenger Trips

Concepts

Federal funds applied to transit are Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Urbanized Area Formula Program funds (financial assistance used to offset operating costs and pay for capital projects).

Unlinked passenger trips are the number of patrons boarding public transportation vehicles.

Comments

Ridership increased by 10 percent from 1985 to 2005. During the same period, Federal assistance applied to transit increased by nearly 105 percent.

 

Line Chart Federal Funds Applied to Transit (Millions) 1985-2003 - 1985-3344.3, 1986-3587.8, 1987-3292.2, 1988-3152.0, 1989-3094.4, 1990-3457.8, 1991-3394.3, 1992-3449.6, 1993-3296.6, 1994-3379.6, 1995-4081.5, 1996-4059.9, 1997-4742.0, 1998-4420.8, 1999-4586.2, 2000-5267.5, 2001-6585.7, 2002-6218.9, 2003-6688.0, 2004-6954.4, 2005-6855.0

 

Line Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) 1985-2003 - 1985-8349.7, 1986-7930.3, 1987-7865.8, 1988-7812.5, 1989-8098.0, 1990-7965.6, 1991-7738.1, 1992-7696.2, 1993-7432.7, 1994-7701.6, 1995-7503.7, 1996-7564.6, 1997-7954.2, 1998-8115.1, 1999-8523.2, 2000-8719.9, 2001-9007.8, 2002-9016.7, 2003-8876.0, 2004-8937.1, 20059175.1

 

Number of Transit Agencies

Concepts

Transit agencies that receive or benefit from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Urbanized Area Formula Program funds (capital or operating) are required to report selected transit data to the National Transit Database (NTD) program. In addition, transit agencies not receiving FTA funds are encouraged to submit data, providing a more complete picture of public transit throughout the United States. These transit agencies report financial (capital and operating) data and non-financial operating statistics by transit mode. A total of 643 transit agencies reported data in 2005.

Comments

 

Bar Chart Number of Agencies Reporting Bus Mode 1996-2004  51996-392, 1997-401, 1998-427, 1999-437, 2000-433, 2001-448, 2002-456, 2003-463, 2004-471, 2005-476

(*) Does not include agencies receiving reporting waivers


Bar Chart Number of Agencies Reporting Demand Response Mode 1996-2005
1996-376, 1997-390, 1998-408, 1999-413, 2000-416, 2001-432, 2002-423, 2003-442, 2004-441, 2005-449

 

Bar Chart Number of Agencies Reporting Vanpool Mode 1996-2005
 1996-27, 1997-27, 1998-32, 1999-40, 2000-42, 2001-43, 2002-42, 2003-25, 2004-27. 2005-27

 

Bar Chart Number of Agencies Reporting Vanpool Mode 1996-2005
 1996-27, 1997-27, 1998-32, 1999-40, 2000-42, 2001-43, 2002-42, 2003-47, 2004-43, 2005-51

Number of Agencies Reporting 1996 — 2005

Year

Bus (*)

Commuter
Rail

Demand
Response (*)

Heavy
Rail

Light
Rail

Vanpool

Other

1996

392

15

376

14

20

27

28

1997

401

16

390

14

20

27

26

1998

427

16

408

14

20

32

28

1999

437

18

413

14

20

40

33

2000

433

19

416

14

21

42

31

2001

448

21

432

14

23

43

31

2002

456

19

423

14

23

42

31

2003

463

19

433

14

25

47

31

2004

471

19

441

14

27

43

31

2005

476

20

449

15

27

51

30

% Change

21%

33%

19%

7%

35%

89%

7%

(*) Bus data does not include agencies receiving reporting waivers.


Vehicle Revenue Miles

Concepts

Vehicle revenue miles are the miles a transit vehicle travels while in revenue service. A transit vehicle is in revenue service when the vehicle is available to the public with the expectation of carrying passengers. Passengers pay full fares, reduced fares (senior citizen, student, special ride fares, etc.), or provide payment through some contractual agreement.

Deadhead travel is not included in vehicle revenue miles. Deadhead mileage consists of the miles a transit vehicle travels while not in revenue service (leaving or returning to the garage or yard or changing routes).

Comments

Vehicle revenue miles increased by nearly 31 percent between 1996 and 2005. Modes showing the most significant growth are those that had an increase in the number of systems in operation during the period.

 

Line Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) 1996-2005  1996-2750.6, 1997-2853.3, 1998-2970.4, 1999-3111.4, 2000-3202.4, 2001-3319.0, 2002-3426.8, 2003-3476.0, 2004-3547.9, 2005-3602.0

 

Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) 1996 — 2005

Year

Vehicle Revenue Miles
(Millions)

Year

Vehicle Revenue Miles
(Millions)

1996

2,750.6

2001

3,319.0

1997

2,853.3

2002

3,426.8

1998

2,970.4

2003

3,476.0

1999

3,111.4

2004

3,547.9

2000

3,202.4

2005

3,602.0

   

% Change

31%

 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Bus Mode 1996-2005
1996-1577.3, 1997-1605.7, 1998-1652.5, 1999-1719.3, 2000-1763.7, 2001-1821.2, 2002-1863.8, 2003-1891.3, 2004-1884.5,  2005- 884.5


 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Demand Repsonse Mode 1996-2005 1996-307.9, 1997-350.1, 1998-388.6, 1999-418.2, 2000-452.4, 2001-490.3, 2002-525.2, 2003-544.3, 2004-561.4, 2005-589.2

 

 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Light Rail Mode 1996-2005 
1996-36.7, 1997-39.8, 1998-42.3, 1999-47.1, 2000-51.4, 2001-53.2, 2002-60.0, 2003-63.5, 2004-66.6, 2005-68.0

 

 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Heavy Rail Mode 1996-2005  1996-527.8, 1997-539.7, 1998-549.2, 1999-561.2, 2000-578.2, 2001-591.1, 2002-603.5, 2003-611.9, 2004-624.6 2005-628.5

 

 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Commuter Rail Mode 1996-2005  1996-221.4, 1997-229.6, 1998-238.3, 1999-243.4, 2000-247.9, 2001-253.1, 2002-259.1, 2003-261.9, 2004-268.8, 2005-277.3

 

 

Bar Chart Vehicle Revenue Miles (Millions) Vanpool Mode 1996-2005 1996-32.9, 1997-40.0, 1998-53.3, 1999-59.9, 2000-61.7, 2001-65.5, 2002-70.6, 2003-72.1, 2004-78.4, 2005-94.4

 

Unlinked Passenger Trips by Mode

Comments

Ridership increased by nearly 21 percent from 1996 to 2005.

 

Line Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) 1996-2005  1996-7564.6, 1997-7954.2, 1998-8115.1, 1999-8523.2, 2000-8719.9, 2001-9007.8, 2002-9016.7, 2003-8876.0, 2004-8937.1, 2005-9175.1></p><p class=Titles> </p><p class=Titles> </p><p class=Titles align=

 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Bus Mode 1996-2005   1996-4505.6, 1997-4602.0, 1998-4753.7, 1999-4991.9, 2000-5040.2, 2001-5215.1, 2002-5267.5, 2003-5146.5, 2004-5094.4, 2005-5225.9

 

 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Demand Response Mode 1996-2005  1996-54.5, 1997-60.0, 1998-66.1, 1999-68.6, 2000-73.2, 2001-76.7, 2002-78.8, 2003-81.8, 2004-83.0, 2005-86.6

 

 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Light Rail Mode 1996-2005 1996-258.7, 1997-259.4, 1998-272.9, 1999-288.6, 2000-316.2, 2001-333.9, 2002-336.5, 2003-337.7, 2004-349.9, 2005-380.5

 

 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Heavy Rail Mode 1996-2005   1996-2156.9, 1997-2429.5, 1998-2392.8, 1999-2521.4, 2000-2632.2, 2001-2728.3, 2002-2688.0, 2003-2666.8, 2004-2747.6, 2005-2808.4


 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Commuter Rail Mode1996-2005  1996-352.2, 1997-357.2, 1998-380.6, 1999-395.7, 2000-412.8, 2001-418.1, 2002-414.1, 2003-409.7, 2004-413.9, 2005-422.9


 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) Vanpool Mode1996-2005   1996-7.9, 1997-9.3, 1998-10.5, 1999-12.0, 2000-11.8, 2001-11.9, 2002-12.2, 2003-13.5, 2004-14.9, 2005-17.2

 

Distribution of Vehicle Revenue Miles and Unlinked Passenger Trips by Mode

The share of vehicle revenue miles for demand response has steadily increased from slightly less than 11 percent in 1996 to 16 percent in 2005 while the share of vehicle revenue miles for bus decreased from 57 percent to 52 percent.

At the same time, the share of unlinked passenger trips for demand response remained below 1 percent, illustrating the low capacity nature of this service, while the share of unlinked passenger trips for bus decreased from nearly 62 percent in 1995 to 57 percent in 2004.

 

Distribution of Vehicle Revenue Miles

Pie Chart Distribution of Vehicle Revenue Miles 1996 Bus-57.4%,  Demand Response-11.2%, Light Rail-1.3%, Heavy Rail-19.2%, Commuter Rail-8.0%, Vanpool-1.2%, Other-1.7%

Pie Chart Distribution of Vehicle Revenue Miles 2005 Bus-52.3%,  Demand Response-16.4%, Light Rail-1.9%, Heavy Rail-17.4%, Commuter Rail-7.7%, Vanpool-6.2%, Other-1.7%

 

Distribution of Unlinked Passenger Trips

Pie Chart Distribution of Unlinked Passenger Trip 1996 Bus-59.6%,  Demand Response-0.7%, Light Rail-3.4%, Heavy Rail-28.5%, Commuter Rail-4.7%, Vanpool-0.1%, Other-3.0%

Pie Chart Distribution of Unlinked Passenger Trip 2005 Bus-57.1%,  Demand Response-0.9%, Light Rail-4.1%, Heavy Rail-30.6%, Commuter Rail-4.6%, Vanpool-0.2%, Other-2.5%

 

Relative Impact on Data by UZA Size Group

Concepts

Urbanized areas (as defined by the U.S. Census) are geographic areas with a population of 50,000 or more. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 465 urbanized areas. For National Transit Database purposes, the NTST groups urbanized areas by three size categories:

  1. Large urbanized areas: population of more than 1 million (38 urbanized areas, 230 agencies or 34.8 percent of all agencies reporting).
  2. Medium urbanized areas: population of more than 200,000 and less than 1 million (114 urbanized areas and 166 agencies or 25.1 percent of all agencies reporting).
  3. Small urbanized areas: population of less than 200,000 and more than 50,000 (313 urbanized areas, 265 agencies or 40 percent of all agencies reporting).

Comments

National Transit Database data are highly concentrated in large urbanized areas. The reported data most heavily concentrated in large urbanized areas are:

 

Bar Chart Relative Impact of the Data by UZA Size Group 2005 Uses of Capital - Non-rolling Stock U Z As with more than 1 million population-93.3%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-5.1%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-1.6%, Passenger Fares U Z As with more than 1 million population-93.5%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-4.7%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-1.8%, Unlinked Trips U Z As with more than 1 million population-90.3%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-7.3%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-2.4%, Operating Expense U Z As with more than 1 million population-87.6%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-9.1%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-3.3%, Uses of Capital - Revenue Vehicles, U Z As with more than 1 million population-87.7%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-8.7%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-3.6%, Vehicle Revenue Hours U Z As with more than 1 million population-79.6%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-14.3%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-6.2%, Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service U Z As with more than 1 million population-77.0%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-15.4%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-7.6%

Operating Costs and Performance Measures

Operating Expenses

Concepts

Operating expenses are those expenses incurred by transit agencies that are associated with operating mass transportation services (vehicle operations, maintenance and administration). Reconciling items are expenses where accounting practices vary in the way transit agencies handle them due to local requirements. The NTST excludes reconciling items such as depreciation, interest expenses, leases and rentals.

Comments

Operating expenses increased nearly 67 percent over the last 10 years, a rate higher than inflation over the same period (21.4 percent). The modes showing the highest increases were light rail, demand response and vanpool. These increases reflect the addition of new systems during the same period.

 

Bar Chart Total Operating Expense (Millions) 1996-2005  1996-$16,301.9, 1997-$16,962.0, 1998-$17,580.0, 1999-$18,781.2, 2000-$20,008.8, 2001-$21,528.8, 2002-$22,905.1, 2003-$21,528.8, 2004-$25,426.8, 2005-$27,237.8

 

 

Stacked Bar Chart Total Operating Expense (Millions) by Mode 1996-2005. Data found in chapter titled Data Used to Compile Graphics


Operating Expense by Function and Object Class

Concepts

Operating expense data is reported by mode, function and object class. Function refers to the activity performed or cost center of a transit agency. Object class refers to groupings of expenses on the basis of goods or services purchased.

The four functions are:

  1. Vehicle operations
  2. Vehicle maintenance
  3. Non-vehicle maintenance
  4. General administration.

Comments

The transit industry is labor intensive. Salaries, wages and fringe benefits account for nearly 80 percent of the total directly operated expenditures. Fifty-two percent of total expenditures are devoted to vehicle operations.

Operating Expense — 2005

Pie Chart Operating Expense by Function 2005
Vehicle Operations-53.5%, Vehicle Maintenance-19.7%,Non-Vehicle Maintenance-10.8%, General Administration-16.4%

Pie Chart Operation Expense by Object Class - Directly Operated Service 2005 Salaries-49.3%, Fringe Benefits-31.5%, Services-6.0%, Materials and Supplies-10.2%, Utilities-3.9%

  

 

Cost Effectiveness (Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip)

Concepts

Cost effectiveness is the relationship between service inputs and service consumption.

Service input is the quantity of resources expended to produce transit service, expressed in either monetary or non-monetary terms. Examples include operating cost (dollars expended for operations, maintenance and administration), employee hours (total operating, maintenance or administration), capital investment and energy (fuel cost or volume).

Service consumption is the amount of service used by the public expressed in either monetary or non-monetary terms. Examples include unlinked passenger trips, passenger miles and operating revenue.

Comments

Overall, operating expense per unlinked passenger trip increased 38 percent over the last 10 years, a rate nearly 16 percent greater than inflation (21.4 percent). With the exception of heavy rail all modes had increases greater than inflation.

 


Bar Chart Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip 1996-2005   1996-$2.16, 1997-$2.13, 1998-$2.17, 1999-$2.20, 2000-$2.29, 2001-$2.39, 2002-$2.54, 2003-$2.72, 2004-$2.85, 2005-$2.97

 

Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip 1996 — 2005

Year

Operating
Expense
(Millions)

Unlinked
Passenger Trips (Millions)

Operating
Expense
per Unlinked
Passenger Trip

1996

$16,301.9

7,564.6

$2.16

1997

$16,962.0

7,954.2

$2.13

1998

$17,580.0

8,115.1

$2.17

1999

$18,781.2

8,523.2

$2.20

2000

$20,008.7

8,719.9

$2.29

2001

$21,528.8

9,007.8

$2.39

2002

$22,905.1

9,016.7

$2.54

2003

$24,185.2

8,876.0

$2.72

2004

$25,426.8

8,937.1

$2.85

2005

$27,237.8

9,175.1

$2.97

% Change

67.1%

21.3%

37.8%

 


Bar Chart Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trips for Bus and Rail Modes 1996-2005 
1996 Bus-$2.0, Commuter Rail-$6.5, Heavy Rail-$1.6, Light Rail-$1.7, 1997 Bus-$2.0, Commuter Rail-$6.4, Heavy Rail-$1.4, Light Rail-$1.8, 1998 Bus-$2.0, Commuter Rail-$6.2, Heavy Rail-$1.5, Light Rail-$1.8, 1999 Bus-$2.1, Commuter Rail-$6.5, Heavy Rail-$1.5, Light Rail-$1.9, 2000 Bus-$2.2, Commuter Rail-$6.5, Heavy Rail-$1.5, Light Rail-$1.9, 2001 Bus-$2.4, Commuter Rail-$7.2, Heavy Rail-$1.6, Light Rail-$2.3, 2002 Bus-$2.4, Commuter Rail-$7.2, Heavy Rail-$1.6, Light Rail-$2.3, 2003 Bus-$2.6, Commuter Rail-$7.7, Heavy Rail-$1.7, Light Rail-$2.4, 2004 Bus-$2.7, Commuter Rail-$8.3, Heavy Rail-$1.7, Light Rail-$2.5, 2005 Bus-$2.8, Commuter Rail-$8.6, Heavy Rail-$1.8, Light Rail-$2.6

 

Cost Efficiency (Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour)

Concepts

Cost efficiency is the relationship between service inputs and service outputs.

Service output is the quantity of service produced by a transit operator, expressed in non-monetary terms. Examples include vehicle hours (total and revenue), vehicle miles (total and revenue), capacity miles (total vehicle capacity times revenue mileage), service reliability (miles between system failures) and safety (number of accidents).

Comments

Overall, operating expense per vehicle revenue hour increased by approximately 28 percent over the last 10 years (inflation not factored into the rate).

 

Bar Chart Total Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1996-2005   1996-$88.5, 1997-$89.3, 1998-$88.9, 1999-$90.8, 2000-$92.8, 2001-$96.6, 2002-$99.5, 2003-$103.2, 2004-$105.9, 2005-$113.0



Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1996 — 2005

Year

Operating Expense
(Millions)

Vehicle Revenue
Hours
(Millions)

Operating Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour

1996

$16,301.9

184.1

$88.6

1997

$16,962.0

189.9

$89.3

1998

$17,580.0

197.8

$88.9

1999

$18,781.2

206.9

$90.8

2000

$20,008.7

215.7

$92.8

2001

$21,528.8

223.0

$96.6

2002

$22,905.1

230.2

$99.5

2003

$24,185.2

234.3

$103.2

2004

$25,426.8

239.9

$105.9

2005

$27,237.8

241.0

$113.0

% Change

67.1%

30.9%

27.6%

 

 

Service Effectiveness

Concepts

Service effectiveness is the relationship between service outputs and service consumption.

Comments

Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour decreased by 7 percent from 1996 to 2005. This was due to increased service supplied for bus mode in low density urbanized areas and increased demand for low capacity modes such as demand response and vanpool.

 

Bar Chart Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1996-2005   1996-41.1, 1997-41.9, 1998-41.0, 1999-41.2, 2000-40.4, 2001-40.4, 2002-39.2, 2003-37.9, 2004-37.3, 2005-38.1


 

Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1996 — 2005

Year

Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions)

Vehicle Revenue Hours (Millions)

Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour

1996

7,564.6

184.1

41.1

1997

7,954.2

189.9

41.9

1998

8,115.1

197.8

41.0

1999

8,523.2

206.9

41.2

2000

8,719.9

215.7

40.4

2001

9,007.8

223.0

40.4

2002

9,016.7

230.2

39.2

2003

8,876.0

234.3

37.9

2004

8,937.1

239.9

37.3

2005

9,175.1

241.0

38.1

% Change

21.3%

30.9%

-7.3%

 

 

Line Chart Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour by Mode 1996-2005   1996 Bus-36.7, Commuter Rail-52.6, Demand Response-2.5, Heavy Rail-84.6, Light Rail-103.5, Vanpool-8.6, Other-54.6 1997 Bus-36.9, Commuter Rail-52.5, Demand Response-3.7, Heavy Rail-93.1, Light Rail-99.8, Vanpool-8.7, Other-47.1 1998 Bus-37.0, Commuter Rail-52.6, Demand Response-2.5, Heavy Rail-89.3, Light Rail-100.2, Vanpool-7.5, Other-50.5 1999 Bus-33.5, Commuter Rail-46.6, Demand Response-2.1, Heavy Rail-84.3, Light Rail-90.6, Vanpool-7.4, Other-42.9  2000  Bus-36.5, Commuter Rail-47.5, Demand Response-2.4, Heavy Rail-93.1, Light Rail-94.1, Vanpool-5.9, Other-50.9  2001 Bus-36.5, Commuter Rail-52.1, Demand Response-2.3, Heavy Rail-94.3, Light Rail-94.9, Vanpool-7.5, Other-52.0  2002  Bus-36.1, Commuter Rail-50.5, Demand Response-2.2, Heavy Rail-90.2, Light Rail-86.3, Vanpool-6.8, Other-46.7  2003 Bus-34.7, Commuter Rail-49.6, Demand Response-2.2, Heavy Rail-89.7, Light Rail-83.6, Vanpool-6.1, Other-49.6  2004  Bus-34.5, Commuter Rail-48.5, Demand Response-2.1, Heavy Rail-89.6, Light Rail-81.3, Vanpool-7.1, Other-30.7  2005  Bus-35.2, Commuter Rail-48.2, Demand Response-2.2 Heavy Rail-89.6, Light Rail-83.4, Vanpool-7.0, Other-44.7


Quality of Transit Service

Fatalities

Concepts

A fatality is defined as a transit-caused death confirmed within 30 days following an accident.

Individuals Involved

Fatalities are categorized according to six categories of individuals:

  1. Passengers: A person who is on board a transit vehicle or who is boarding / alighting, including those using ramps and lifts.
  2. Transit facility occupants: A person who is inside the public passenger area of transit revenue facility. Employees, other workers or trespassers are not transit facility occupants.
  3. Employees: An individual who is compensated by the transit agency.
  4. Other workers: A person who is not employed by the transit agency or a purchased transportation (PT) provider contracted to provide specific services to the transit agency.
  5. Trespassers: A person in an area of the transit property that is prohibited for public use.
  6.   Others: A person who is not a passenger, transit facility occupant, employee, other worker or trespasser.

 

Bar Chart Total Fatalities 1996-2005 1996-169, 1997-171, 1998-181, 1999-181, 2000-182, 2001-160, 2002-159, 2003-173, 2004-168, 2005-148

 

Total Fatalities 1996 — 2005

Year

Total
Fatalities

Year

Total
Fatalities

1996

169

2001

160

1997

171

2002

159

1998

181

2003

173

1999

181

2004

168

2000

182

2005

148

 


Distribution of Fatalities

Comments

Most victims in transit-related accidents are non-passengers. Passenger fatalities account for 16.1 percent of all fatalities (excluding suicides).

 

Pie Chart Distribution of Fatalities (Excluding Suicides) 2005 Passengers-20.9%, Revenue Facility Occupants-12.2%, Employees-3.4%, Other Workers-0.7%, Trespassers-16.2%, Other-46.6%

 

Reliability

Miles between Major System Failures — Bus

Concepts

A major failure is a failure of a mechanical or electrical component of a revenue vehicle that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip, starting the next revenue trip because actual movement is limited, or because of safety concerns.

Mechanical failures include, but are not limited to: the breakdown of air equipment, brakes, doors, engine cooling system, steering and front axle, rear axle and suspension and torque converters.

Vehicle miles are the total miles that a vehicle travels while in service (actual vehicle revenue miles and deadhead miles). See Transit in the United States for definitions of vehicle revenue miles and deadhead miles.

Comments

Due to changes in the definition of major and minor system failures over the years, only the years 2001 through 2005 are shown in the NTST.

 

Bar Chart Miles Between Major System Failures Bus Mode 2001-2005 2001-6454.8, 2002-7290.1, 2003-7480.2, 2004-7467.0, 2005-7026.1

 

 

Miles between Major System Failures (Directly Operated Service) 2001 — 2005

Year

Major System
Failures

Vehicle Miles
(Millions)

Vehicle Miles (Millions) Between Major System Failures

2001

296,480

1,913.4

6,453.8

2002

261,342

1,905.2

7,290.1

2003

248,968

1,862.3

7,480.2

2004

247,676

1,849.4

7,467.0

2005

261,676

1,839.4

7,026.1

% Change

-11.71%

-3.9%

8.9%

 

ADA Compliance — Bus

ADA Lift- or Ramp-equipped

Concepts

The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires transit agencies be accessible to individuals with special needs. For the NTST, buses fall into the following categories:

Comments

Historically, type “C” buses have comprised the largest percentage of lift- or ramp-equipped vehicles, currently showing a 99 percent level of compliance. This is expected due to this class’ low average fleet age.

Note: Data are not available prior to 1993.

 

Bar Chart ADA Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Buses 1996-2005  by bus size 1996 Type A-63.8, Type B-72.8, Type C-87.8  Articulated Buses-57.6  1997 Type A-65.2, Type B-80.7, Type C-90.4, Articulated Buses-61.4,  1998 Type A-72.6, Type B-86.9, Type C-91.6, Articulated Buses-68.4  1999 Type A-76.8, Type B-90.1, Type C-93.4, Articulated Buses-81.3  2000  Type A-79.9, Type B-92.9, Type C-94.5, Articulated Buses-85.5  2001  Type A-84.5, Type B-93.7, Type C-95.4, Articulated Buses-88.5  2002  Type A-92.2, Type B-98.4, Type C-99.2, Articulated Buses-97.2  2003  Type A-93.9, Type B-97.7, Type C-99.2, Articulated Buses-96.4  2004  Type A-97.4, Type B-100.0, Type C-98.5, Articulated Buses-99.8  2005  Type A-95.5, Type B-98.8, Type C-97.6, Articulated Buses-99.7



Funding Transit Operations

Operating Funding

Concepts

Operating funds are the funds transit agencies receive from Federal, state, local and directly generated sources that are applied for operating expenditures. These funds are applied in the year in which they resulted in liabilities for benefits received whether or not receipt of the funds actually took place within the report year.

Federal funds are financial assistance used to defray some of the operating costs to provide transit service.

Comments

Operating funds applied to transit operations increased 63 percent, a rate greater than inflation during the period (21.4 percent).

 

 

Bar Chart Total Operating Funding (Millions) 1996-2005  1996-$17,623.5, 1997-$17,931.4, 1998-$18,614.3, 1999-$20,030.4, 2000-$21,370.0, 2001-$22,989.4, 2002-$24,191.2, 2003-$25,375.6, 2004-$26,869.6, 2005-$28,761.0

 

 

Bar Chart Federal Operating Assistance as a Percentage of Operating Funds 1996-2005 1996-3.1%, 1997-3.4%, 1998-4.1%, 1999-4.4%, 2000-4.8%, 2001-5.1%, 2002-5.4%, 2003-6.3%, 2004-7.5%, 2005-7.8%

 

 

Federal Operating Assistance per Passenger – Total and by Urbanized Area Size

 

Bar Chart Total Federal Operating Assistance per Passenger 1996-2005  1996-$0.07, 1997-$0.08, 1998-$0.09, 1999-$0.10, 2000-$0.11, 2001-$0.12, 2002-$0.14, 2003-$0.18, 2004-$0.23, 2005-$0.24

 

 

Bar Chart Federal Operating Assistance per Passenger by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005  1996  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.05, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.17, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.37 1997 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.06, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.15, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.30 1998 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.07, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.22, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.38 1999 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.08, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.27, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.43  2000  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.08, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.31, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.52  2001  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.09, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.33, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.57  2002  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.11, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.39, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.64 2003 
U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.14, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.48, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.80  2004  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.18, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.55, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.87  2005  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$0.20, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$0.59, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$0.91


 

Bar Chart Recovery Ratio 1996-2005  1996-39.5%, 1997-39.7%, 1998-439.2%, 1999-39.4%, 2000-36.8%, 2001-35.4%, 2002-33.7%, 2003-33.3%, 2004-33.8%, 2005-33.5%

 

Recovery Ratio (Fare Revenues per Operating Expense)

Concepts

Fare revenues are funds earned carrying passengers in regularly scheduled service. It includes the base fare, zone premiums, express service premiums, extra cost transfers and quality purchase discounts applicable to the passenger’s ride.

Recovery ratio (also known as working ratio) is the percentage of operating funds applied (operating expenses) paid through fare revenues.

Comments

After a period of increase and then decrease, recovery ratio is at an all time low.

 

Bar Chart Recovery Ratio by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005 1996 U Z As with more than 1 million population-41.5%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-24.2%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-21.6%, 1997 U Z As with more than 1 million population-42.0%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-24.8%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-22.2%, 1998 U Z As with more than 1 million population-41.2%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-23.9%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-22.0%, 1999 U Z As with more than 1 million population-41.7%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-23.9%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-21.1%, 2000 U Z As with more than 1 million population-38.8%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-22.6%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-20.9%, 2001 U Z As with more than 1 million population-37.5%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-20.7%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-22.6%, 2002 U Z As with more than 1 million population-35.5%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-19.4%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-21.1%, 2003 U Z As with more than 1 million population-35.4%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-18.3%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-18.5%, 2004 U Z As with more than 1 million population-35.4%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-18.3%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-19.3%, 2005 U Z As with more than 1 million population-38.0%, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-18.0%, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-19.2%

Note: In previous editions of the NTST, recovery ratio was calculated based on operating expenses net of reconciling items. Beginning with the 2004 report year all operating funds applied are included for the 1996 – 2005 timeframe.

 

Subsidy per Passenger

Concepts

Subsidies are financial assistance received from Federal, state and local governments. Subsidies also include directly generated funds including: grants from private foundations, directly levied taxes and other funds dedicated to transit.

Comments

Subsidy per passenger increased approximately 61 percent over the last 10 years, while the rate of inflation was 21.4 percent.

Medium and small urbanized areas had a rate of increase greater than the rate for large urbanized areas. This is due in part to the expansion of fixed route service in low-density areas combined with the expansion in demand response services. Demand response service accounts for a substantial portion of the service provided in medium and small urbanized areas.

 

Bar Chart Total Operating Subsidy per Passenger 1996-2005 1996-$1.29, 1997-$1.24, 1998-$1.26, 1999-$1.33, 2000-$1.56, 2001-$1.65, 2002-$1.78, 2003-$1.91, 2004-$1.99, 2005-$2.08

 

 

Bar Chart Total Subsidy per Passenger by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005  1996  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.2, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$1.6, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$1.8, 1997 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.2, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$1.7, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$1.8, 1998  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.2, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$1.7, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$1.9, 1999 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.2, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$2.0, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$2.1, 2000  U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.5, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$1.9, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$2.3, 2001 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.6, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$2.3, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$2.5,  2002 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.7, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$2.6, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$2.7,  2003 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.8, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$2.9, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$2.9, 2004 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$1.9, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$3.0, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$3.1, 2005 U Z As with more than 1 million population-$2.0, U Z As with more than 200,000 and less than 1 million population-$3.1, U Z As with less than 200,000 population-$3.2

 

Operating Funding Sources by UZA

Concepts

Operating funding sources include:

Other funds include non-transportation funds, subsidies from other sectors of operations, auxiliary transportation funds, charter service, freight tariffs, school bus funds and directly levied taxes.

Comments

For large urbanized areas, state, local and other funding shares remained stable from 1996 to 2005.  A decrease in the share of fare revenues was compensated for by an increase in the share of Federal assistance.

Small and medium urbanized areas are more dependent upon operating subsidies than large urbanized areas. Fare revenues account for approximately 18 percent for these areas.

 

Operating Funding Sources (Millions) by Urbanized Area Size 1996 — 2005

Stacked Bar Chart Operating Funding Sources (Millions) by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005  U Z As with More than 1 Million Population 1996 Local Assistance-$3,154.7, State Assistance-$3,337.8, Federal Assistance-$353.3, Other-$2,275.8, 
Fare Revenues-$6,482.5,  1997 Local Assistance-$3,127.9, State Assistance-$3,153.4, Federal Assistance-$414.4, Other-$2,415.8, Fare Revenues-$6,558.7,  1998 Local Assistance-$3,238.4, State Assistance-$3,335.6, Federal Assistance-$494.0, Other-$2,494.2, Fare Revenues-$6,715.0, 1999 Local Assistance-$3,381.1, State Assistance-$3,809.9, Federal Assistance-$570.0, Other-$2,806.9, Fare Revenues-$6,910.0, 2000 
Local Assistance-$4,026.5, State Assistance-$3,838.3, Federal Assistance-$618.7, Other-$2,893.2, Fare Revenues-$7,205.5, 2001 Local Assistance-$4,509.4, State Assistance-$4,494.4, Federal Assistance-$714.8, Other-$2,716.0, Fare Revenues-$7,465.0,  2002 Local Assistance-$4,089.5, State Assistance-$5,498.7, Federal Assistance-$910.3, Other-$3,264.5, Fare Revenues-$7,584.0,  2003  Local Assistance-$4,254.4, State Assistance-$5,365.5, Federal Assistance-$1,111.9, Other-$3,702.3, Fare Revenues-$7,896.0, 2004 Local Assistance-$4,708.2, State Assistance-$5,334.4, Federal Assistance-$1,488.5, Other-$3,655.2, Fare Revenues-$8,496.2, 2005 Local Assistance-$5,015.0, State Assistance-$5,964.2, Federal Assistance-$1,648.1 Other-$3,694.8, Fare Revenues-$9,005.8


Stacked Bar Chart Operating Funding Sources (Millions) by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005 U Z As with More than 200,00 and less than 1 Million Population 1996 Local Assistance-$495.8, State Assistance-$221.9, Federal Assistance-$109.5, Other-$291.8, Fare Revenues-$358.2, 1997 Local Assistance-$517.7, State Assistance-$261.2, Federal Assistance-$105.2, Other-$341.0, Fare Revenues-$404.4, 1998 Local Assistance-$504.0, State Assistance-$317.8, Federal Assistance-$152.1, Other-$326.3, Fare Revenues-$415.5, 1999  Local Assistance-$503.3, State Assistance-$373.3, Federal Assistance-$194.6, Other-$297.6, Fare Revenues-$385.5, 2000 Local Assistance-$558.6, State Assistance-$439.9, Federal Assistance-$233.5, Other-$343.4, Fare Revenues-$413.3,  2001 Local Assistance-$677.9, State Assistance-$457.6, Federal Assistance-$243.9, Other-$364.2, Fare Revenues-$456.1, 2002 Local Assistance-$611.0, State Assistance-$470.6, Federal Assistance-$259.5, Other-$371.5, Fare Revenues-$413.0, 2003 Local Assistance-$631.3, State Assistance-$524.4, Federal Assistance-$316.7, Other-$401.3, Fare Revenues-$418.3, 2004 Local Assistance-$659.5, State Assistance-$533.8, Federal Assistance-$353.9, Other-$407.5, Fare Revenues-$436.7, 2005 Local Assistance-$729.4, State Assistance-$557.4, Federal Assistance-$391.6, Other-$399.9, Fare Revenues-$456.9

 

Stacked Bar Chart Operating Funding Sources (Millions) by Urbanized Area Size 1996-2005 U Z As with Less than 200,000 Population 1996 Local Assistance-$187.8, State Assistance-$144.1, Federal Assistance-$88.3, Other-$28.2, Fare Revenues-$123.9, 1997 Local Assistance-$200.4, State Assistance-$156.3, Federal Assistance-$81.3, Other-$30.1, Fare Revenues-$133.7, 1998 Local Assistance-$163.8, State Assistance-$165.8, Federal Assistance-$95.5, Other-$91.8, Fare Revenues-$146.0, 1999 Local Assistance-$175.4, State Assistance-$168.1, Federal Assistance-$109.4, Other-$92.5, Fare Revenues-$146.6, 2000  Local Assistance-$175.0, State Assistance-$167.1, Federal Assistance-$132.2, Other-$105.4, Fare Revenues-$153.0, 2001 Local Assistance-$201.9, State Assistance-$175.3, Federal Assistance-$154.6, Other-$122.3, Fare Revenues-$194.1, 2002 Local Assistance-$161.4, State Assistance-$143.4, Federal Assistance-$132.5, Other-$121.4, Fare Revenues-$126.2, 2003 Local Assistance-$117.5, State Assistance-$152.9, Federal Assistance-$167.5, Other-$117.7, Fare Revenues-$138.0, 2004 Local Assistance-$192.9, State Assistance-$167.9, Federal Assistance-$181.8, Other-$99.8, Fare Revenues-$153.4, 2005 Local Assistance-$210.2 State Assistance-$181.4, Federal Assistance-$203.4, Other-$130.6, Fare Revenues-$172.3


 

Comparison of Share Funding Sources by UZAs

UZAs with More than 1 Million Population

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with More than 1 Million Population 1996
Federal Assistance-2.3%
State Assistance-21.4%
Local Assistance-20.2%
Fare Revenues-41.5%
Other-14.6%

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with More than 1 Million Population 2005
Federal Assistance-6.5%
State Assistance-23.5%
Local Assistance-19.8%
Fare Revenues-35.6%
Other-14.6%

 

UZAs with More than 200,000 and Less than 1 Million Population

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with More than 200,000 and Less than 1 Million Population 1996
Federal Assistance-7.4%
State Assistance-15.0%
Local Assistance-33.6%
Fare Revenues-24.2%
Other-19.8%

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with More than 200,000 and Less than 1 Million Population 2005
Federal Assistance-14.8%
State Assistance-22.0%
Local Assistance-28.8%
Fare Revenues-18.0%
Other-15.8%

 

UZAs with Less than 200,000 Population

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with Less than 200,000 Population 1996
Federal Assistance-15.4%
State Assistance-25.2%
Local Assistance-32.8%
Fare Revenues-21.6%
Other-4.9%

Pie Chart Comparison of Share Funding Sources for U Z As with Less than 200,000 Population 2005
Federal Assistance-22.7%
State Assistance-20.2%
Local Assistance-23.4%
Fare Revenues-19.2%
Other-14.5%

 

Capital Investment in Transit

Concepts

Capital funds are the funds that the transit agencies receive from Federal, state, local and directly generated sources and applied to capital projects. Directly generated sources include any funds generated or donated directly to the transit agency including passenger fares, advertising revenues, donations and grants from private entities.

Comments

Capital investment increased by nearly 70 percent over the last 10 years, while inflation rose 21.4 percent. The role of the Federal government accounted on average for approximately 39percent of all capital invested in transit.

 

Bar Chart Total Capital Assistance (Millions) 1996-2005  1996-$6,954.9, 1997-$7,636.2, 1998-$7,410.5 1999-$8,443.3, 2000-$9,655.9, 2001-$10,824.6, 2002-$12,300.9, 2003-$12,775.1, 2004-$12,629.1, 2005-$11,836.7

 

 

Bar Chart Federal Share of Total Capital Assistance 1996-2005  1996-50.4%, 1997-54.2%, 1998-52.0%, 1999-47.2%, 2000-50.5%, 2001-46.7%, 2002-40.6%, 2003-39.9%, 2004-39.0%, 2005-39.0%

 

 

Federal Capital Assistance per Unlinked Passenger Trip

Comments

Federal assistance per unlinked passenger trip increased by 9 percent from 1996 — 2005.

 

Bar Chart Federal Capital Assistance per Unlinked Passenger trip 1996-2005  1996-$0.46, 1997-$0.52, 1998-$0.45, 1999-$0.44, 2000-$0.49, 2001-$0.61, 2002-$0.55, 2003-$0.57, 2004-$0.55, 2005-$0.50

 

Sources of Capital Funding by UZA

Comments

Most of capital invested in transit comes from Federal sources. Federal funds account for most of all capital invested in small and medium urbanized areas. Large urbanized areas rely primarily on Federal funds and directly levied taxes to pay for capital projects.

 

Sources of Capital Assistance by Urbanized Area Size

Pie Chart Sources of Capital Assistance by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with more than 1 Million Population
Federal Capital Funds Applied to Capital Projects-37.0%
State Captial Funds-14.0%
Local Funds-48.4%
Directly Generated Capital Funds-0.7%

Pie Chart Sources of Capital Assistance by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with more than 200,000 and Less than 1 Million Population
Federal Capital Funds Applied to Capital Projects-60.5%
State Captial Funds-16.7%
Local Funds-25.6%
Directly Generated Capital Funds-1.1%

 

Pie Chart Sources of Capital Assistance by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with less than 200,000 Population
Federal Capital Funds Applied to Capital Projects-70.0%
State Capital Funds-11.5%
Local Capital Funds-17.9%
Directly Generated Capital Funds-0.6%

   

Capital Expenditures

Concepts

Uses of capital were reported until 2001 by mode in three major categories:

  1. Rolling stock
  2. Facilities
  3. Other capital projects.

All exhibits depicting Uses of Capital show rolling stock, and combined facilities and other into a single category.

Currently, Uses of Capital include the following categories:


Bar Chart Capital Expenditures (Millions) 1996-2005  1996 Revenue Vehicles-$1,757.7, All Other Capital Categories-$5,197.2, 1997 Revenue Vehicles-$2,237.0, All Other Capital Categories-$5,399.1, 1998 Revenue Vehicles-$2,461.6, All Other Capital Categories-$4,948.9, 1999  Revenue Vehicles-$2,944.7, All Other Capital Categories-$5,498.7, 2000 Revenue Vehicles-$2,839.6, All Other Capital Categories-$6,215.1, 2001 Revenue Vehicles-$3,692.8, All Other Capital Categories-$7,130.7, 2002 Revenue Vehicles-$4,065.7, All Other Capital Categories-$8,235.0, 2003 Revenue Vehicles-$3,481.2, All Other Capital Categories-$9,275.2, 2004 Revenue Vehicles-$3,361.7, All Other Capital Categories-$9,266.5, 2005 Revenue Vehicles-$3,165.1, All Other Capital Categories-$8,665.6

 

 

Bar Chart Percent Share of Revenue Vehicles 1996-2005   1996-25.3%, 1997-29.3%, 1998-33.2%, 1999-34.9%, 2000-31.4%, 2001-34.1%, 2002-33.1%, 2003-27.3%, 2004-26.6%, 2005-26.8%

 

Uses of Capital by Urbanized Area Size

Comments

Large and medium-sized urbanized areas operate almost all rail systems in the nation and guideway and facilities account for a significant portion of the overall capital costs.

For small urbanized areas, bus and demand response are the most common modes. Thus, most uses of capital are revenue vehicles and facilities.

Pie Chart Uses of Capital by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with more than 1 Million Population
Other Capital-5.9%
Other Vehicles-0.4%
Guideway-33.9%
Systems-8.0%
Stations-16.8%
Facilities-8.4%
Administration Buildings-0.8%
Fare Equipment-1.0%

Pie Chart Uses of Capital by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with more than 200,000 and less then 1 Million Population
Other Capital-7.7%
Other Vehicles-0.7%
Guideway-18.9%
Systems-4.9%
Stations-11.3%
Facilities-10.6%
Administration Buildings-6.5%
Fare Equipment-1.0%

 

Pie Chart Uses of Capital by Urbanized Area Size for UZAs with less than 200,000 Population
Other Capital-9.8%
Other Vehicles-1.1%
Guideway-4.7%
Systems-2.9%
Stations-14.1%
Facilities-13.4%
Administration Buildings-7.9%
Fare Equipment-1.5%

 

Distribution of Capital by Mode and Category

Comments

Bus systems dedicate less capital to revenue vehicles than rail systems. Generally, rail systems are located in high-density corridors within the larger metropolitan areas of the United States. The high levels of service supplied in these areas require large investments in transit infrastructure (e.g. track, signals and communication systems, complex maintenance facilities, passenger stations, inter-modal terminals, real time data acquisition systems and other cost intensive items).

Bus systems do not require the same level of investment in infrastructure as rail. Therefore, revenue vehicles are the main use of capital for bus.

 

Bar Chart Percent of Non-Rolling Stock by Mode 1996-2005 1996 Bus-50.7%, Commuter Rail-81.3%, Heavy Rail-92.0%, Light Rail-81.4%, 1997 Bus-48.6%, Commuter Rail-79.5%, Heavy Rail-87.3%, Light Rail-75.8%, 1998 Bus-46.8%, Commuter Rail-74.5%, Heavy Rail-81.1%, Light Rail-78.4%, 1999 Bus-45.2%, Commuter Rail-65.1%, Heavy Rail-83.4%, Light Rail-75.3%, 2000 Bus-43.8%, Commuter Rail-76.0%, Heavy Rail-82.6%, Light Rail-86.0%,  2001 Bus-45.2%, Commuter Rail-78.9%, Heavy Rail-71.9%, Light Rail-83.1%, 2002 Bus-49.0%, Commuter Rail-75.1%, Heavy Rail-68.8%, Light Rail-86.9%, 2003 Bus-51.6%, Commuter Rail-71.2%, Heavy Rail-81.8%, Light Rail-85.9%, 2004 Bus-47.9%, Commuter Rail-71.8%, Heavy Rail-91.3%, Light Rail-84.4%, 2005 Bus-59.1%, Commuter Rail-61.9%, Heavy Rail-86.1%, Light Rail-87.5%

 

Bus , Fleet

Average Fleet Age by Vehicle Type

Concepts

Large, medium, small and articulated buses are rubber tired passenger vehicles powered by diesel gasoline, electric battery or other alternative fuel engines.

Comments

The average fleet age of type “C” buses have been stable over the last 10 years, while the average fleet age of large and medium buses decreased 12 percent and 18 percent respectively.

The average fleet age of articulated buses dropped significantly in the last 6 years (from 11.2 years old in 1998 to 4.6 years old in 2005).


Bar Chart Average Fleet Age (Years) by Vehicle Type 1996-2005 1996 A- Type-8.7, B- Type-6.3, C- Type-4.0, Articulated-11.3, 1997 A- Type-8.5, B- Type-5.8, C- Type-3.9, Articulated-11.7, 1998 A- Type-8.5, B- Type-5.8, C- Type-4.0, Articulated-11.2, 1999 A- Type-8.4, B- Type-5.6, C- Type-4.0, Articulated-8.5,  2000 A- Type-8.1, B- Type-5.6, C- Type-4.1, Articulated-6.6,  2001 A- Type-7.8, B- Type-5.6,C- Type-4.0, Articulated-5.9,  2002 A- Type-7.5, B- Type-5.6, C- Type-4.0, Articulated-5.8, 2003  A- Type-7.3, B- Type-5.7, C- Type-4.0, Articulated-5.8, 2004 A- Type-7.2, B- Type-5.7, C- Type-4.1, Articulated-4.6, 2005 A- Type-7.6, B- Type-5.8, C- Type-4.1, Articulated-4.9

 

Age , Distribution of Buses by Vehicle Type

Comments

The share of articulated buses 5 years old or less increased from 23.5 percent in 1998 to 63.6 percent in 2005.

 

Bar Chart Average Bus Fleet Age (Years) 1996-2005  1996-8.4, 1997-8.1, 1998-8.0, 1999-7.6, 2000-7.3, 2001-6.9, 2002-6.7, 2003-6.5, 2004-6.4, 2005-6.7


Bar Chart Percent of Bus Fleet 5 Years Old or Less by Vehicle Type 1996-2005  1996 A- Type-29.6%, B- Type-50.5%, C- Type-71.4%, Articulated-15.3%, 1997 A- Type-31.6%, B- Type-54.5%, C- Type-72.9%, Articulated-14.1%, 1998 A- Type-34.0%, B- Type-54.0%, C- Type-74.7%, Articulated-23.5%, 1999 A- Type-35.9%, B- Type-55.5%, C- Type-75.5%, Articulated-42.3%, 2000 A- Type-38.1%, B- Type-59.5%, C- Type-72.4%, Articulated-60.0%, 2001 A- Type-40.7%, B- Type-60.2%, C- Type-72.1%, Articulated-64.3%, 2002 A- Type-42.4%, B- Type-61.7%, C- Type-74.0%, Articulated-64.7%, 2003 A- Type-44.6%, B- Type-57.0%, C- Type-73.7%, Articulated-59.9%, 2004 A- Type-45.1%, B- Type-55.3%, C- Type-73.8%, Articulated-71.6%, 2005 A- Type-39.4%, B- Type-54.8%, C- Type-71.8%, Articulated-63.6%

 

Fixed Guideway Mileage

Concepts

Fixed guideway directional route miles are the miles in each direction that transit vehicles travel while in revenue service on fixed guideways (not high occupancy vehicle lanes, transit malls, bus ways, or railtrack).

Fixed guideway mileage is a measure of the route path over a facility or roadway, it does not measure the service carried on the facility. This mileage is computed with regard to direction of service and is recorded without regard to the number of traffic lanes or rail tracks existing on the right-of-way.

Comments

Bus fixed guideway directional route miles increased by nearly 100 percent over the period, while rail modes increased 18 percent.

 

Bar chart Fixed Guideway Mileage Bus Mode 1996-2005  1996-1,122.0, 1997-1,266.0, 1998-1,406.0, 1999-1,634.0, 2000-1,674.0, 2001-1,733.0, 2002-1,849.0, 2003-1,920, 2004-2,081, 2005-2,253


Bar chart Fixed Guideway Mileage Rail Modes 11996-2005  1996-8,506.0, 1997-8,604.0, 1998-8,804.0, 1999-9,139.0, 2000-9,419.0, 2001-9,410.0, 2002-9,485.0, 2003-9,525, 2004-9,781.0, 2005-10,916.0

 

Alternative Fuel Usage

Concepts

Alternative fuels are not diesel or gasoline. They include compressed natural gas, electric, battery, ethanol, methanol, liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas, kerosene, bio-diesel, grain substitute and other fuels.

Comments

The share of the national bus fleet using alternative fuels rose from 3.8 percent in 1996 to 16 percent in 2005.

 

Bar Chart Percent of National Bus Fleet Using Alternative Fuels 1996-2005  1996-3.8%, 1997-4.7%, 1998-5.0%, 1999-6.1%, 2000-7.5%, 2001-8.6%, 2002-10.2%, 2003-11.4%, 2004-13.7%, 2005-16.0%

 

 

Pie Chart Percentage of Fuel Consumption for Non-Electric Modes- 1996
Diesel-93.6%
Gas-1.5%
CNG-2.0%
Methanol-1.3%
LNG-0.5%
Other-1.2%

Pie Chart Percentage of Fuel Consumption for Non-Electric Modes- 2005
Diesel-73.3%
Gas-1.5%
CNG-14.3%
Methanol-0.0%
LNG-2.2%
Other-8.6%

 

 

Back to top