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 that vary as transit agencies have different accounting practices due to local ordinances on accounting treatments. Regarding performance measures, the NTST excludes reconciling items such as depreciation, interest expenses, leases and rentals.
Operating expenses increased nearly 38 percent over the last 10 years. The modes showing the highest increases were demand response and vanpool. These increases reflect the addition of new systems during the same period.
Figure 17: Total Operating Expenses 1999 - 2008
Figure18: Total Operating Expense by Mode — 2008
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.
The transit industry is labor intensive. Salaries and wages and fringe benefits account for nearly 75 percent of the total directly operated expenditures. Fifty-four percent of total expenditures are devoted to vehicle operations.
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.
Overall, operating expense per unlinked passenger trip increased 19 percent over the last 10 years. In addition, overall operating expense increased 38 percent during this same 10 year period.
Figure21: Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip 1999 – 2008
Table 5: Operating
Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip 1999-2008 |
|||
Year |
Operating Expense (Millions) |
Unlinked (*) Passenger Trips (Millions) |
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip |
1999 |
$19,267 |
8,849 |
$2.18 |
2000 |
$20,009 |
9,055 |
$2.21 |
2001 |
$21,037 |
9,356 |
$2.25 |
2002 |
$21,971 |
9,355 |
$2.35 |
2003 |
$22,597 |
9,216 |
$2.45 |
2004 |
$23,088 |
9,289 |
$2.49 |
2005 |
$23,878 |
9,536 |
$2.50 |
2006 |
$24,562 |
9,754 |
$2.52 |
2007 |
$25,948 |
9,948 |
$2.61 |
2008 |
$26,604 |
10,257 |
$2.59 |
% Change |
38.1% |
15.9% |
19.1% |
(*) Adjusted for all years prior to 2007 to correct a bias reported by a large heavy rail operator.
Figure 22: Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip for Bus and Rail Modes 1999 - 2008
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).
Overall, operating expense per vehicle revenue hour increased by approximately 10 percent over the last 10 years.
Figure23: Total Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1999 – 2008
Table 6: Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1999 - 2008 |
|||
Year |
Operating Expense(Millions) |
Vehicle Revenue Hours (Millions) |
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue
Hour |
1999 |
$19,267 |
207 |
$93.1 |
2000 |
$20,009 |
216 |
$92.8 |
2001 |
$21,037 |
223 |
$94.4 |
2002 |
$21,971 |
230 |
$95.4 |
2003 |
$22,597 |
234 |
$96.4 |
2004 |
$23,088 |
240 |
$96.2 |
2005 |
$23,878 |
241 |
$99.1 |
2006 |
$24,562 |
247 |
$99.6 |
2007 |
$25,948 |
254 |
$102.2 |
2008 |
$26,605 |
260.4 |
$102.2 |
% Change |
38.1% |
25.8% |
9.7% |
Service effectiveness is the relationship between service outputs and service consumption.
Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour decreased by 8.0 percent from 1999 to 2008. This was due in part 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.
Figure24: Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1999 – 2008
Table 7: Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour 1999 - 2008 |
|||
Year |
Unlinked Passenger Trips (Millions) (*) |
Vehicle Revenue Hours (Millions) |
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour |
1999 |
8,849 |
207 |
42.8 |
2000 |
9,055 |
216 |
42.0 |
2001 |
9,356 |
223 |
42.0 |
2002 |
9,356 |
230 |
40.6 |
2003 |
9,216 |
234 |
39.3 |
2004 |
9,289 |
240 |
38.7 |
2005 |
9,536 |
241 |
39.6 |
2006 |
9,754 |
247 |
39.6 |
2007 |
9,948 |
254 |
39.2 |
2008 |
10,257 |
260 |
39.4 |
% Change |
15.9% |
25.8% |
-7.9% |
(*) Adjusted for all years prior to 2007 to correct a bias reported by a large heavy rail operator.
Figure25: Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour by Mode 1999 - 2008
Average load factor is the ratio of passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile.
Figure26: Load Factor by Mode 1999 - 2008
Average service utilization is defined in the NTST as the ratio vehicle revenue miles per directional route miles.
Average service utilization is inversely proportional to average headway, i.e. the higher the average service utilization, the smaller the average headway and vice-versa.
The geographical expansion of transit service may contribute to reductions in average service utilization if the average headway of expanded areas is greater than the average headway before the expansion.
Commuter Rail average service utilization increased 18 percent in the last 10 years and 3 percent in the last 3 years. 5 new systems were added in the last 10 years and one in the last 3. These facts indicate an expansion in commuter rail markets combined with an increase in service frequency to meet a higher demand for service.
Light Rail average service utilization increased in the last 10 years (5 percent), and increased 8 percent in the last 3 years. 6 new systems were added in the last 10 years, and 2 in the last 3 years. As for commuter rail, new markets were added, and in the last 3 years there was a significant increase in service frequency.
Heavy Rail average service utilization increased 11 percent in the last 10 years and 3.4 percent in the last 3. Only one system was added in the last 10 years, and no new systems were added in the last 3.
Bus average service utilization decreased approximately 3 percent in the last 10 years and remained unchanged in the last 3. 67 new systems were added in the last 10 years and 21 in the last 3. It should be noted that while new rail systems were indeed new, most bus systems added in the last 10 years have always been in operation, but not reported to the NTD for not meeting reporting requirements. The 2000 Census changed the boundaries of many urbanized areas by including areas that before the Census were rural (less than 50,000 population). It also created new urbanized areas. All transit providers in these new and expanded areas had to start reporting to the NTD.
Figure27: Motor Bus Service Utilization 1999 – 2008
Figure28: Commuter Rail Service Utilization 1999 – 2008
Figure29: Heavy Rail Service Utilization 1999 – 2008
Figure30: Light Rail Service Utilization 1999 - 2008
