JOHNSON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
7:30 a.m. September 21, 2018
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority
1200 E 18th Street, KCMO - Breen Building
Johnson County Transportation Council September 21, 2018 Regularly Scheduled Meeting
AGENDA
Item 1: Call to order – Chairman Chip Corcoran
Item 2: Comments from the General Public
Item 3: Consideration of the Meeting Summary
Item 4: Comprehensive Operations Analysis Public Outreach – Shawn Strate
Item 5: Potential Service for UPS in Lenexa – Josh Powers, Shawn Strate
Item 6: Bus on Shoulder Update – Shawn Strate
Item 7: Evening Service Update – Josh Powers
Item 8: Johnson County Ridership Report – Shawn Strate
Item 9: Johnson County Business Liaison Update – Josh Powers
Item 10: Other Business
Item 11: Tour of KCATA Facility
Adjournment
1
Johnson County Transportation Council August 17, 2018 Regular Meeting
In Attendance: Commissioner Jim Allen, Brandon Kenig, Tony Privitera, Heidi Thummel, George Lafferty, Josh Powers, Chuck Ferguson, Shawn Strate, Paul Snider.
AGENDA
Item 1: Call to order
Chip Corcoran called the meeting at 7:30am, meeting was held at the Murray L. Nolte Transit Facility in Olathe.
Item 2: Comments from the General Public
There were no comments.
Item 3: Consideration of the Meeting Summary
June Meeting Summary was motioned for approval, seconded and approved unanimously by the JCTC Council Members.
Item 4: Bus and Bus Facilities Grant – Dick Jarrold
Dick Jarrold of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) described the application from the KCATA and the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) for the Federal Transit Administration’s Bus and Bus Facilities competitive grant program. The application consisted of three regional grant applications for replacement buses, modernization of fare equipment, and a downtown multimodal transportation center enhancement.
George Lafferty inquired as to whether Johnson County was the only participant for the bus request, to which Josh Powers answered in the affirmative. Tony Privitera asked about how fareboxes work, and Dick Jarrold provided some background. Commissioner Allen asked about the production schedule for this model of buses, and George Lafferty inquired about when payment was due. Josh Powers explained that federal funding is on a reimbursement basis.
Item 5: Functionality of real time signs at Mission Transit Center, status of APC’s
Chuck Ferguson of the KCATA introduced Don Bowlin, ATA’s new Fixed Route Contract Manager, who went over the status of real time signs at the Mission Transit Center, which have been having functionality issues which required a transition from our previous software vendor. Mr. Bowlin also explained the installation of eleven Automatic Passenger Counters (APC’s) on Johnson County vehicles. Chuck Ferguson described the onerous process of submitting data to the National Transit Database (NTD), a manual data collection process that APC’s fleet wide would mitigate. Commissioner Allen asked if there were any grant opportunities for the procurement of APC’s, and Mr. Ferguson answered that there would be future opportunities to apply to. 2
Item 6: Marketing Update
Chuck Ferguson gave an update on recent changes to the KCATA marketing department, which he now heads. After a brief aside about the introduction of Bird and Lime scooters and the ability for riders to bring them aboard buses, Chuck introduced Schylon Kubic and Alex Miller of Parson & Associates, the contract vendor hired to assist with marketing services.
Parson staff provided an overview of marketing efforts and provided details on campaigns to come. George Lafferty asked about broadening marketing efforts to include entertainment districts and social activities, and the effort of getting riders on the bus for the first time.
Item 7: Freedom On Demand Update – Lewis Lowry
Lewis Lowry of the KCATA gave an update on the Freedom On Demand, which has steadily increased ridership since January of 2018. Mr. Lowry reminded the council that Freedom and Freedom On Demand would be providing service countywide beginning in September of 2018.
Adjournment – 8:50am
3
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
To: Chairman and Members of Johnson County Transportation Council From: Shawn Strate, KCATA Planning Manager Date: September 21, 2018 Subject: Comprehensive Operational Analysis Public Comment and Implementation
Item 4: Shawn Strate
Background
KCATA and Johnson County staff, with the assistance of consultants from WSP, have been working on a Comprehensive Operational Analysis for bus service in Johnson County. This process will lead to major changes to bus routes to improve operational efficiency and ridership.
Draft recommendations have been presented both to the JCTC and the Board of County Commissioners. The changes are tentatively scheduled to take place in April 2019, but requires a robust public comment process as well as a period of operational modifications and refinement based on comments.
Public Comment Process
A month-long public comment period is planned for October 2018, which will consist of:
Three public meetings at times convenient for riders and accessible by transit. Dates and locations are not yet finalized, but will consist of: o Lunchtime meeting in downtown, ideal time and location for express riders to attend o Afternoon/Evening meeting on Metcalf along the 401 Metcalf-Plaza route o Afternoon/Evening meeting in Olathe along the 403 Olathe-Antioch route Two “pop-up” meetings at high-ridership stops in the county that will be impacted by service changes o Mission Transit Center o JCCC Carlsen Center Rider bulletins distributed on buses to promote the meetings and provide information on making comments by phone, email, or mail. Website and social media information to promote the meetings and provide information on making comments by phone, email, or mail. All comments received between October 1-31 will be documented and reviewed. KCATA staff will provide an overview of these comments and seek guidance from the county and JCTC on modifications to the proposed service changes.
Next Steps and Implementation
After the public comment process, there are additional steps that need to occur to implement the changes:
4
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
November 2018: Review all comments, seek guidance from Johnson County and JCTC on modifications to the proposal. December 2018: Finalize route alignment and schedule details for each route, based on public comment and county review January 2019: Route map and schedule information posted for riders to review and comment on details. All information finalized by end of January. February 2019: Driver route picks, internal processes to prepare for operation, and creation of marketing materials. March 2019: Marketing the new service, installation/relocation of signage and kiosk/poster information, finalize and publish data for real-time information April 1, 2019: Service begins, with continued marketing efforts.
5
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
To: Chairman and Members of Johnson County Transportation Council From: Shawn Strate, KCATA Planning Manager Date: September 21, 2018 Subject: Potential Service for UPS in Lenexa
Item 5: Josh Powers, Shawn Strate
Background
UPS approached the county and the KCATA to inquire about possible service for their facilities in Lenexa in August of this year, due to the addition of approximately 500 – 800 permanent new positions at their Lenexa and Edgerton locations, beginning in October of 2018. Josh Powers and Chuck Ferguson met with UPS to discuss possible solutions utilizing existing Johnson County transit service. A condition of the consideration of any potential service offering was that UPS participate financially in support of the service.
The information below presents refined alternatives for serving the UPS facility in Lenexa, based on a detailed review of existing express bus schedules. For each option, a bus that is normally on a deadhead trip will be put into revenue service to or from UPS. Importantly, none of these options will impact the published schedule of any existing route.
Based on prior discussions, there are two buses proposed to operate both in the morning and the afternoon, each with a different alignment (Route A and Route B, see attached map). All trips also serve 10th & Main. There are multiple options for each route based on existing schedules, and assuming shift start at 10:00 a.m. and end at 4:00 p.m.
The cost is not substantially different for any of the options. For each bus, between 30 and 35 minutes is being added to the platform time. Annual cost is approximately $40,000 (range of $35,000-$45,000) for weekday service. Route details will still need First Transit review.
Morning – Route A: KCK to UPS (choose one, cannot be same bus as Route B)
7th & Minnesota UPS-Lenexa Bus 1 8:42 AM 9:12 AM Bus 2 8:46 AM 9:16 AM Bus 3 9:07 AM 9:37 AM Bus 4 9:16 AM 9:46 AM
Morning – Route B: KCMO East Side to UPS (choose one, cannot be same bus as Route A)
Indiana & 18th & Paseo UPS-Lenexa Linwood Bus 1 8:33 AM 8:44 AM 9:14 AM Bus 2 8:37 AM 8:48 AM 9:18 AM Bus 3 8:58 AM 9:09 AM 9:39 AM Bus 4 9:07 AM 9:18 AM 9:48 AM
6
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
Afternoon – Route A: UPS to KCK (choose one, cannot be same bus as Route B)
7th & UPS-Lenexa Minnesota Bus 5 4:05 PM 4:35 PM Bus 6 4:21 PM 4:51 PM Bus 7 4:33 PM 5:03 PM
Afternoon – Route B: UPS to KCMO East Side (choose one, cannot be same bus as Route A)
Indiana & UPS-Lenexa 18th & Paseo Linwood Bus 5 3:59 PM 4:31 PM 4:42 PM Bus 6 4:15 PM 4:47 PM 4:58 PM Bus 7 4:27 PM 4:59 PM 5:10 PM
Route Map
7
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
UPS Bus Stop Proposed Location
Both inbound and outbound trips will need to stop on the west side of Santa Fe Trail Drive, to avoid people standing next to the BNSF tracks on the east side of Santa Fe Trail Drive. Farside of the main entrance (with the UPS monument sign) appears to be the best location. The street widens out so that traffic could pass a stopped bus, and the stop would not be in a right turn lane.
8
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
To: Chairman and Members of Johnson County Transportation Council From: Shawn Strate, KCATA Planning Manager Date: September 21, 2018 Subject: Bus on Shoulder Update
Item 6: Shawn Strate
Background Johnson County express buses have utilized Bus on Shoulder operations on I-35 since 2012, allowing buses to bypass severe traffic congestion and better maintain on-time performance. Until now, buses were only authorized to use the shoulders within Johnson County, and specifically an approximately 8-mile segment between 95th Street and Lamar where highway modifications were made to allow for safe operations.
In 2017, the Kansas Legislature passed and the Governor signed House Bill 2096 into law, which allows Bus on Shoulder operations in Wyandotte County as well. Since then, KCATA, Johnson County and KDOT have been working to finalize plans and implement service on the new section. See the below map for the existing and future segments.
9
Transportation Council Briefing Sheet
Transit vehicles are limited to traveling no more than 10 miles faster than the traffic on the highway and won’t exceed 35 mph on the shoulder. Bus operators on the I-35 corridor go through enhanced training on how to safely use the shoulder.
Routes using the shoulder are the 519 Olathe Express, the 563 Shawnee Express, the 569 South Overland Park Express and the 595 Gardner-Overland Park Express. The expansion will also allow for routes 403 Antioch-Olathe and 404 Metcalf-Downtown to also utilize the shoulders.
Implementation
Before operations can proceed on the new segment, minor construction has to occur to allow for safe operations. This consists of guardrail relocations, drainage inlet modifications, pavement markings, and new signage. Plans for these items were finalized in the spring of 2018. The project was let by KDOT in July 2018 and construction began in August. Construction has progressed on schedule and is on track to be complete by October 1, 2018. This will expand the Bus on Shoulder eligible area by nearly 4 miles in each direction, to a total of approximately 12 miles.
First Transit is currently coordinating with the Kansas Highway Patrol for assistance with operator training on the new segment. During training, KHP officers drive in front of the buses to provide for more visibility and safety during the process. Training will occur in midday hours when traffic is light.
An effective date for operations on the new segment is not yet determined, but will be communicated to JCTC at the next meeting.
Operator Training for Bus on Shoulder operation in 2011
10
August 2018 Ridership Report 23 Weekdays (510: 10 Regular, 13 Break. 482: 9 days. 595: 27 days)
Total Ridership by Month 50,000 Month 2016 2017 2018 1yr Chg 2yr Chg
40,000 Jan 33,386 33,907 35,755 5.5% 7.1% Feb 42,378 39,105 37,099 -5.1% -12.5% 30,000 Mar 42,212 41,395 38,642 -6.7% -8.5% 20,000 Apr 40,562 38,509 40,037 4.0% -1.3%
10,000 May 34,806 36,378 35,363 -2.8% 1.6% Jun 33,908 34,089 31,507 -7.6% -7.1% 0 Jul 30,623 30,345 31,610 4.2% 3.2% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Aug 39,291 40,098 39,593 -1.3% 0.8% 2016 2017 2018 Sep 43,078 45,264 Average Daily Ridership by Month (5-Year Trend) Oct 41,748 44,160 2,800 Nov 39,066 38,464 2,600 Dec 30,269 29,052 2,400 2,200 Total 451,327 450,766 289,606 2,000 YTD 297,166 293,826 289,606 -1.4% -2.5% 1,800 Weekdays 171 171 172 1,600 1,400 1,200 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 ADR 12-Mo Avg August
Weekday Average Daily Ridership, Revenue Hours & Miles ADR - Percent Change Passengers per Pass. Pass. Aug'18 / Aug'18 / '18 / '17 Revenue Hour Route ADR Hours Miles /Hour /Mile Jul'18 Aug'17 YTD 0 5 10 15 20 401 Metcalf-Plaza 213 46.00 708 4.63 0.30 2.3% -3.6% -2.9% 402 Johnson-Quivira 72 14.99 277 4.82 0.26 11.8% -10.6% -12.1% 403 Antioch-Olathe 187 29.53 561 6.32 0.33 3.6% -2.0% -3.0% 404 Metcalf-Downtown 108 11.92 276 9.08 0.39 10.6% -10.9% -17.0% 405 Nall 29 3.87 63 7.52 0.46 9.7% -6.2% -3.6% 435 JoCo Midday 22 2.76 57 7.99 0.39 16.6% -1.9% -6.9% 475 Quivira-75th Street 149 36.93 527 4.04 0.28 2.9% -4.9% -3.6% 482 OP Flex (Tu/Fr only) 47 4.00 21 11.69 2.23 12.0% 35.8% 12.2% 495 95th Street 42 10.22 183 4.08 0.23 8.8% -4.4% 22.2% 510 K-10 Connector 335 28.68 1041 11.67 0.32 98.6% 10.3% 2.6% 519 Olathe Express 195 19.13 480 10.22 0.41 3.2% -6.1% -4.2% 563 Shawnee Express 39 4.67 123 8.38 0.32 1.1% -12.8% 0.0% 569 South OP Express 171 10.06 298 17.02 0.58 -4.1% -6.0% -1.3% 595 Gardner-OP Express 129 34.80 1037 3.70 0.12 6.2% 11.4% 6.4% 596 3-Trails-Edgerton Exp. 4 8.26 376 0.47 0.01 32.5% -- --
Key Corridor 363 82.93 1235 4.37 0.29 2.5% -4.2% -3.2% Suburban Local 478 74.86 1424 6.39 0.34 2.2% -8.8% -5.5% K-10 Connector 335 28.68 1041 11.67 0.32 98.6% 10.3% 2.6% Commuter Express 538 76.92 2313 7.00 0.23 1.5% -2.2% -0.1%
Total 1,714 263.39 6013 6.51 0.29 12.7% -2.4% -1.8%
11 Significant findings from 2018 Peer Cities Transit Report
he 2018 Peer Cities Transit Report serves as a benchmark for our regional transit PEER & ASPIRATIONAL REGIONS Tsystem and how it compares to peer transit systems in terms of funding, ridership, Peer transit agency — a transit agency similar in size and landlocked service area and density. The majority of data was collected from the National Transit geography to Kansas City’s primary transit agency, KCATA. Database, the 5-year American Community Survey and a custom survey sent to the Primary transit agency Urbanized area transit providers included in the report. It strives to provide insight into the factors that affect transit agencies around the country. Capital Metro Transportation Authority (CapMetro) Austin Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Charlotte Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) Cincinnati Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) Columbus Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation Indianapolis ! Minneapolis- (IndyGo) St. Paul Transit Authority of River City (TARC) Louisville ! Milwaukee Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) Memphis ! ! Pittsburgh Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) Milwaukee ! ! Columbus Indianapolis ! Denver Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Nashville _^ ! ! Cincinnati Kansas City St. Louis Louisville Metro Transit/Bi-State Development (Metro) St. Louis
! Aspirational transit agency — an agency that generates the degree ! Nashville of ridership, funding and transit-supportive culture that the Kansas ! Charlotte Memphis ! City area would like to see in the future. Atlanta Primary transit agency Urbanized area Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta (MARTA) ! Austin Regional Transportation District (RTD) Denver Metro Transit Minneapolis- St. Paul Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) Pittsburgh
12 Funding • Kansas City’s transit • Kansas City’s transit agencies spent $50.15 in state and local funding per capita. When agencies are one of compared to our peers, we are 20 percent below average; compared to the average of the first to merge aspirational regions, this gap increases to 60 percent. together under a singular brand and • When compared to peer and aspirational regions, the Kansas City urbanized area received: funding structure. • 95 percent less state operating funding compared to the average. Other regions such as • 73 percent less state operating funding than the median. Atlanta are following a • Kansas contributed $1.9 million in operating funding. Missouri contributed $610,000. similar path. • Per capita local investment is highest in Kansas City, Missouri and North Kansas City. All other • The 2014 version jurisdictions are significantly lower. of this report was released before Fares the creation of the Regional Transit • KCATA (and the RideKC system as a whole) charges the second-lowest fare rate of any Coordinating Council. primary transit agency. The purpose of the • KCATA generated the second-lowest fare revenues and the second-lowest farebox recovery report was to compare ratio out of both peer and aspirational agencies. various aspects of peer transit agencies Service to the Kansas City • KCATA’s service area density ranks 12th out of all 15 primary transit agencies. region to see where we were succeeding as • KCATA’s operating expense per passenger trip is $6.60. This is 84 cents above the average of a transit agency and all peer and aspirational primary agencies. areas of improvement. • KCATA ranked seventh in transit ridership out of 11 peer primary agencies, and 11th out of all 15 agencies. • The Kansas City region’s public transportation ridership-to-work rate is 1.3 percent. This percentage ties with Memphis for second lowest.
All findings are based on 2016 data. Find the summary report at marc.org/peertransit. Look for a full report in early 2019.
13 Peer Cities Transit Report Summary September 2018
14 his report serves as a benchmark for our regional transit PEER & ASPIRATIONAL REGIONS Tsystem and how it compares to peer transit systems in Peer transit agency — a transit agency similar in size and landlocked terms of funding, ridership, service area and density. The geography to Kansas City’s primary transit agency, KCATA. These agencies majority of data was collected from the National Transit are color-coded in green throughout the report. Database, the 5-year American Community Survey and a Primary transit agency Urbanized area custom survey sent to the transit providers included in the report. It strives to provide insight into the factors that affect Capital Metro Transporation Authority (CapMetro) Austin transit agencies around the country. Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Charlotte Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) Cincinnati The Peer Cities Transit Research Report was first created in Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) Columbus 2011 to support work by Johnson County’s Transit Funding Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation Indianapolis Task Force (START), as well as to aid in ongoing discussions (IndyGo) regarding the development of a strategy for regional transit Transit Authority of River City (TARC) Louisville investment in Kansas City. The report was updated in 2014 to serve as a resource for MARC’s transportation committees. Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) Memphis Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) Milwaukee Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Nashville Metro Transit/Bi-State Development (Metro) St. Louis
! Minneapolis- Aspirational transit agency — an agency that generates the degree of St. Paul ! ridership, funding and transit-supportive culture that the Kansas City area Milwaukee would like to see in the future. These agencies are color-coded in blue ! ! Pittsburgh throughout the report. ! ! Columbus Indianapolis ! Denver Primary transit agency Urbanized area _^ ! ! Cincinnati Kansas City St. Louis Louisville Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta ! (MARTA) ! ! Nashville Charlotte Regional Transportation District (RTD) Denver Memphis ! Atlanta Metro Transit Minneapolis-St. Paul Port Authority of Allegheny County (Port Authority) Pittsburg ! Austin Home transit agency — color-coded in red throughout the report. Kansas City Area Transit Authority (KCATA) Kansas City
2 Peer Transit Analysis 15 Summary of Significant Findings
State and Local Spending Per Capita State Operating Funding Kansas City transit agencies spent $50.15 per capita in state and local In 2016, the Kansas City UZA received $2.5 million in state operating operating funds in 2016, ranking 12th out of 15 UZAs. This falls below both funding, ranking 10th out of 15 peer and aspirational UZAs. Kansas spent $1.9 peer and aspirational agency averages in this measure. Population of the million of this total, while Missouri spent $610,000. Kansas City’s total state urbanized area was used to figure the per capita rate. operating funding is well below the peer and aspirational UZA average of $49.4 million. Minneapolis, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee significantly drove up State and local operating funding per capita this average, with state operating funding levels at or above $80.6 million. 2016 National Transit Database, 2016 5-year American Community Survey
Pittsburgh 1 9.02 22.44 1 1.4 Total state operating funding 2016 National Transit Database Denver 0.1 141. 1 141.9 Minneapolis-St. Paul 11.04 12 .44 1 4.4 Minneapolis-St. Paul 41, ,0 241, 94,0 Austin 0.01 10 . 0 10 . 2 Pittsburgh Milwaukee 0,5 1, 55 St. ouis .14 9 .51 104. 5 St. ouis 1 ,5 9,229 Charlotte 9. 5 .41 .1 Charlotte 1 ,4 2, 0 Milwaukee 5 .05 1 . 0 4. 5 Atlanta 1 ,405,1 0 Columbus 0.4 .2 . 1 Indianapolis 10, 95,240 Atlanta 2. . 9 .5 Nashville , 0,211 ouisville 1.5 50.10 51. Memphis , 0,9 2 Nashville .4 4 .14 50. 1 Kansas City 2,5 4, 5 Kansas City 1. 2 4 .5 50.15 ouisville 1,52 ,250 Cincinnati 0. 5 41. 2 42. 1,2 ,199 Peer average 2. 4 Aspirational Cincinnati Indianapolis 21.94 .91 2 . average 12 .12 Columbus ,199 Memphis 21. 9 . 2 2 .51 Denver 45 ,000 Austin ,41 State funding per capita ocal funding per capita
• The average combined state and local per capita funding for peer UZAs, including Kansas City, is $62.74. • The average combined state and local per capita funding for aspirational Urbanized area or UZA — an incorporated area with a UZAs is $126.12. population of 50,000 or more as defined by the U.S. Census • Many UZAs receive the majority of their operating funding from local Bureau. The urbanized areas used for this report are from sources. The Minneapolis-St. Paul, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee UZAs all the 2010 Decennial Census. receive the majority of their operating funding from their respective states.
Mid-America Regional Council 3 16 Transit Funding in the Kansas City Metro Area Other models for sales taxation from peer and aspirational transit agencies are based on a combination of city and county sales taxes or service area Transit funding varies widely across the Kansas City region. In 2016, the sales taxes, including: contributing jurisdictions in the Kansas City region averaged $25.97 per capita on transit services. Locally, Kansas City, Missouri, had the highest • Austin: 1 percent sales tax on service area members. contribution with $114.31 in local investment per capita. North Kansas City, • Columbus, Ohio: 1/4 percent sales and use tax on voters in the COTA Missouri, contributed $98.63 in local investment per capita, while Kansas service area. City, Kansas, rounded out the top three with $30.99 in local investment per • St. Louis: one cent total sales tax in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and 1 capita. The top three cities are unchanged from the previous version of this 1/4 cent sales tax in St. Louis County, Missouri. report. These top-ranking municipalities averaged more local per capita contributions than both peer and aspirational agencies, while jurisdictions • Atlanta: 1 1/2 percent in the City of Atlanta, Georgia, and 1 percent in totaling over 49 percent of the metro’s population (Independence, Lee’s Fulton, Clayton and DeKalb Counties in Georgia. Summit and Johnson County) fell significantly below the regional average. • Denver: 1 percent sales and use tax in the regional transportation district. Per capita investment by jurisdiction Fare Comparison KCATA and 2016 National Transit Database KCATA (and the RideKC system as a whole) charges the second-lowest 140 fare rate of any primary transit agency. Only CapMetro in Austin charges less, at $1.25. 120 114. 1 9 . 100 Cost of single ride bus fare 0
0 .00 2. 5 2. 5 2. 0 40 2.50 2.50 0.99 Jurisdictional average 25.9 2.50 2.25 20 2.20 9. 9.2 2 2 2 5. 9 . 0 1.9 1. 5 1.05 0.95 2.00 0 1. 0 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1.50 iberty 1.50 Riverside ladstone Raytown Blue Springs 1.25 Independence ee’s Summit North Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri Kansas City, Kansas 1.00 Johnson County, Kansas
.50 Sales Taxes 0 Sales taxes are a common local funding method used by several large primary transit agencies. KCATA is funded in part by two sales taxes totaling 7/8 cent from the City of Kansas City, Missouri. Among primary agencies, RTD (Denver) MTA (Nashville) TARC ( ouisville)MATA (Memphis)C TA (Columbus)Metro (St. ouis) CATS (Charlotte) MARTA (Atlanta) CapMetroKCATA (Austin) (Kansas City) S RTA (Cincinnati) MCTS (Milwaukee) this municipality-based transit tax structure is most similar to the City of Indy o (Indianapolis) Cincinnati, where SORTA receives a 0.3 percent income tax. Fare Rush our Fare Port Authority (Pittsburgh) Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
4 Peer Transit Analysis 17 Fare Revenues Service Area Density Across all modes, KCATA generated the second-lowest fare revenue, $10.8 KCATA ranks 12th out of 15 in service area density at 1,730 persons per square million, and the second-lowest farebox recovery ratio, 12 percent, of any mile. Rank in service area density did not correspond closely with rank in primary transit agency in 2016. The National Transit Database defines farebox ridership, as shown on page 7. recovery ratio as the proportion of operating expenses that are paid for by fare revenues. Only Memphis generated less fare revenue, and only Austin had a Service area density lower farebox recovery ratio. 2016 National Transit Database 4,500 Fare revenues 4,041 2016 National Transit Database 4,000 ,500 ,2 9 MARTA (Atlanta) 1 ,24 ,555 ,22 ,000 2, 1 2, 0 RTD (Denver) 1 ,1 1,10 2, 22 2,500 2, 44 2, 2,2 0 Port Authority (Pittsburgh) 101, ,4 2,1 4 2,000 1, 2 1, 0 Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 9 , 9 , 42 1,59 1,500 1, 55 1,24 Metro (St. ouis) 4 ,9 ,1 1 1,000 MCTS (Milwaukee) , 2 , 0
People per s uare mile in service area mile in service People per s uare 500 CATS (Charlotte) 0, , 0 S RTA (Cincinnati) 2 , 5 , 9 CapMetro (Austin) 2 ,552,51 RTD (Denver) C TA (Columbus) 19,525, 95 C TA (Columbus) Metro (St. ouis)MARTA (Atlanta) MATA (Memphis)TARC ( ouisville) CATS (Charlotte)MTA (Nashville) MCTS (Milwaukee) S RTA (Cincinnati) CapMetro (Austin) KCATA (Kansas City) TARC ( ouisville) 12, 29, Indy o (Indianapolis) Port Authority (Pittsburgh) MTA (Nashville) 11, 2 , 5 Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) Indy o (Indianapolis) 11,051, 0 KCATA (Kansas City) 10, 1 ,125 • Milwaukee has the highest service area density out of all primary agencies, MATA (Memphis) , 4 ,404 at 4,041 persons per square mile. It also ranks highly in terms of ridership (40.7 million trips), operating expense per bus trip ($3.32) and trips per Farebox recovery ratio revenue hour (30.4). The Milwaukee UZA has a public transit ridership to 2016 National Transit Database work rate of 4.1 percent, compared to the Kansas City UZA at 1.3 percent. 5 • Denver has the lowest service area density out of all primary agencies, 0 0 2 1,247 persons per square mile, yet experienced the second-highest 2 2 2 25 ridership, at 103.3 million trips. The Denver UZA has a 4.5 percent 25 2 public transit ridership to work rate, compared to the Kansas City 19 20 UZA at 1.3 percent. 1 1 1 1 1 15 12 11 10 5 Operating expenses — the expenses associated with the operation of the 0 transit agency, and classified by function or activity, and the goods and services purchased.
RTD (Denver) MARTA (Atlanta) CATS (Charlotte) Metro (St. ouis)MTA (Nashville) TARC ( ouisville)C TA (Columbus)MATA (Memphis) S RTA (Cincinnati) MCTS (Milwaukee) KCATA (KansasCapMetro City) (Austin) Indy o (Indianapolis) Port Authority (Pittsburgh) 18 Mid-America Regional Council 5 Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) Level of Service • KCATA ranked 5th out of 11 peer agencies and 9th out of all primary agencies in terms of unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue Out of all 15 primary transit agencies in 2016, KCATA ranked 12th in most hour at 18.0. vehicle revenue hours with 790,000 hours, and 11th in most vehicle revenue miles at 11.6 million miles. Unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour 2016 National Transit Database 45 Branding 40. 40 Of the UZAs compared, the Kansas City UZA is currently the only one to unify 5 .2 its regional transit agencies under one brand — RideKC. However, in May of 0 2018, the Georgia state government created the Atlanta-region Transit Link 2 . 2 .5 25 24.2 2 .9 22. Authority (The ATL) to bring the metro area transit under one branding and 20 1 . 1 1 . 1 . governing body. The branding will begin to take effect in 2019. 15. 15. 15. 15 1 . Performance Measures 10 5 Primary transit agencies were ranked on two performance measures, applied 0 across all of an agency’s modes: • KCATA ranked 7th out of 11 peer agencies and 11th out of all primary RTD (Denver) agencies in terms of operating expense per passenger trip at $6.60. MARTA (Atlanta) CATS (Charlotte)Metro (St. ouis) MATA (Memphis)C TA (Columbus)TARC ( ouisville)MTA (Nashville) MCTS (Milwaukee) S RTA (Cincinnati)KCATA (KansasCapMetro City) (Austin) Indy o (Indianapolis) Operating expense per unlinked passenger trip Port Authority (Pittsburgh) 2016 National Transit Database Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) .9 .11 .21 Milwaukee was the only peer agency to outperform aspirational agencies in .51 . 0 . 2 5.94 .10 .2 both of the above performance measures. This is indicative of a system that is 5. 4 5.04 both cost and service effective. 5 4.54 4. 2 4 . 1 . 0 Relationships with Ride-hailing Services In a survey to the peer and aspirational agencies included in this report, no 2 respondent agency had established a formal agreement with a ride-hailing 1 service provider, such as Uber or Lyft. 0 Unlinked passenger trips — the number of passengers who board public transportation RTD (Denver) MARTA (Atlanta)CATS (Charlotte) TARC ( ouisville)Metro (St. ouis) MATA (Memphis) C TA (Columbus) MTA (Nashville) MCTS (Milwaukee) S RTA (Cincinnati) KCATA (Kansas City) CapMetro (Austin) vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many Indy o (Indianapolis) Port Authority (Pittsburgh) vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination.
Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) Vehicle revenue hour — the number of hours vehicles are scheduled or actually travel while in revenue service. Vehicle revenue mile — distance vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel while in revenue service.
6 Peer Transit Analysis 19 Aspirational Systems Ridership to Work A survey of our peer and aspriational transit agencies indicated that they The Kansas City UZA tied with the Memphis UZA for the second-lowest transit consider Sound Transit in Seattle, Tri-Met in Portland and RTD in Denver ridership-to-work rate at 1.3 percent. Out of the included UZAs, the Pittsburgh exemplary transit systems. UZA had the highest ridership-to-work rate at 7 percent. Ridership Percent of public transit ridership to work In 2016, KCATA delivered the seventh-highest transit system ridership out of 11 2016 5-year American Community Survey - peer primary agencies, and 11th out of all 15 agencies. Annual ridership is the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles every year. Passengers are counted each time they board a vehicle, no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination. 5. Annual ridership 5 4.5 2016 National Transit Database 4.1 MARTA (Atlanta) 1 , ,10 4 .4 .2 RTD (Denver) 10 , 40, 9 2. 2.5 2.4 Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 2, 24, 19 2.2 2.2 2 1. Port Authority (Pittsburgh) , 2 ,51 1. 1. 1.2 Metro (St. ouis) 44,04 ,9 0 1 MCTS (Milwaukee) 40, 09, 50 0 CapMetro (Austin) 1,04 , 0 Austin Denver Atlanta St. ouis Pittsburgh Charlotte Cincinnati Columbus ouisville Nashville Memphis CATS (Charlotte) 2 ,24 ,940 Milwaukee Kansas City Indianapolis
C TA (Columbus) 1 , 2 , 15 Minneapolis-St. Paul S RTA (Cincinnati) 15,5 , 1 KCATA (Kansas City) 14,220, 99 TARC ( ouisville) 14,0 ,2 MTA (Nashville) 9,915,9 4 Indy o (Indianapolis) 9,494, 4 MATA (Memphis) , 2,4
This summary report offers a look at significant findings. Visit marc.org/peertransit for a full report in early 2019.
20 Mid-America Regional Council 7