Skip to main content.
Regional Service Planning (RSP) Home

Regional Service Planning (RSP)

Texas Regions

Transit Resources Inventory

Summary Report

Background

In 2003, the Texas Legislature created Chapter 461 in the Texas Transportation Code which mandated the coordination of public transportation services to achieve the following:

In order to meet the mandates of Chapter 461, relating to the coordination of public transportation and to implement the legislative intent of §461.001, Transportation Code, the Texas legislature directed the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) "to engage the services of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), or any entity the department deems appropriate, to conduct an inventory of all public transportation providers in the state to determine the types and levels of services being provided by each of them and the extent to which those providers can assist the state in meeting the mandates of the statute." (SB 1, 79th Regular Session, General Appropriations Act, TxDOT Rider 25)

The Public Transportation Division (PTN) of TxDOT retained TTI in 2006 to conduct the initial inventory pursuant to the legislative mandate. This effort was conducted at the same time that stakeholders in each state planning region were developing their regional coordination plans. Data was collected and summarized for this first inventory on a state planning region basis to assist in planning efforts.

This document reflects the first update to the Texas public transportation inventory, as mandated by the General Appropriations Act for the 2010-11 biennium. Beginning with this update, data are summarized on a TxDOT district basis. Agencies are aligned with districts and planning regions based on their administrative headquarters location. Many rural transit agencies have service areas that cover parts of two or more districts/ planning regions.

Table 1 identifies the TxDOT district and the state planning region for each provider. Figure 1 displays TxDOT district areas and Figure 2 displays Texas planning regions. Table 1 also classifies the public transportation provider as one of four types:

Table 1. Urban and Rural Public Transportation Providers
Transit Providers Type TxDOT District State Planning Region
Abilene U ABL 7
Alamo Area Council of Governments R SAT 18
Amarillo U AMA 1
Ark-Tex Council of Governments R ATL 3
Arlington LEP FTW 4
Aspermont Small Business Development R ABL 7
Beaumont U BMT 15
Bee Community Action Council R CRP 20
Brazos Transit District R BRY 13, 16
Brownsville U PHR 21
Capital Area Rural Transportation System R AUS 12
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority M AUS 12
Caprock Community Action Association R LBB 2
Central Texas Rural Transit District R BWD 7
Cleburne R FTW 4
College Station U BRY 13
Collin County Committee on Aging R DAL 4
Colorado Valley R YKM 16
Community Action Council of South Texas R PHR 20, 19
Community Council of Southwest Texas R SAT 24
Community Transit Services R DAL 4
Concho Valley R SJT 10
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Auth. M CRP 20
Dallas Area Rapid Transit M DAL 4
Del Rio R LRD 24
Denton County Transportation Authority M DAL 4
East Texas Council of Governments R TYL 6
El Paso County R ELP 8
Fort Bend County R HOU 16
Fort Worth Transportation Authority M FTW 4
Galveston U HOU 16
Golden Crescent Reg. Planning Commission R YKM 17
Grand Prairie LEP DAL 4
Gulf Coast Center R HOU 16
Harlingen U PHR 21
Heart of Texas Council of Governments R WAC 11
Hill Country Transit R BWD 12
Kaufman Area Rural Transportation R DAL 4
Killeen U WAC 11
Kleberg County R CRP 20
Lake Jackson/ Angleton U HOU 16
Laredo U LRD 19
Longview U TYL 6
Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Corp. R PHR 21
Lubbock U LBB 2
McAllen* U PHR 21
McKinney U DAL 4
Mesquite LEP DAL 4
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County M HOU 16
Midland-Odessa U ODA 9
NETS LEP FTW 4
Panhandle Transit R AMA 1
Port Arthur U BMT 15
Public Transit Services R FTW 4
Rolling Plains Management Corporation R CHS 3
Rural Economic Assistance League R CRP 20
San Angelo U SJT 10
Sr. Center Resources and Public Transit Service R PAR 4
Sherman-Denison U PAR 22
Southeast Texas Region. Planning Commission R BMT 15
South Padre Island R PHR 21
South Plains Community Action Association R LBB 7, 2
Special Programs for Aging Needs R DAL 4
Sun Metro M ELP 8
Temple U WAC 11
Texarkana U ATL 3
Texas City/ LaMarque U HOU 16
Texoma Area Paratransit System R PAR 3, 4, 22
The Transit System R FTW 4
The Woodlands U BRY 16
Tyler U TYL 6
VIA Metropolitan Transit M SAT 18
Victoria U YKM 17
Waco U WAC 11
Webb County Community Action Agency R LRD 19
West Texas Opportunities R ODA 9
Wichita Falls U WFS 3

*combined information from McAllen Express and Rio Metro (Lower Rio Grande Development Corporation), representing all services in McAllen urbanized area

Figure 1: TxDOT Districts

Texas District Map

Map Code District
ABL Abilene
AMA Amarillo
ATL Atlanta
AUS Austin
BMT Beaumont
BWD Brownwood
BRY Bryan
CHS Childress
CRP Corpus Christi
DAL Dallas
ELP El Paso
FTW Fort Worth
HOU Houston
LRD Laredo
LBB Lubbock
LFK Lufkin
ODA Odessa
PAR Paris
PHR Pharr
SJT San Angelo
SAT San Antonio
TYL Tyler
WAC Waco
WFS Wichita Falls
YKM Yoakum

Figure 2: Texas Planning Regions

map of Texas planning regions

Region Map Number
Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) 18
Ark-Tex Council of Governments (Ark-Tex) 5
Brazos Valley Council of Governments (BSCOG) 13
Capital Area Council of Governments (CAPCOG) 12
Coastal Bend Council of Governments (CBCOG) 20
Concho Valley Council of Governments (CVCOG) 10
Deep East Texas Council of Governments (DETCOG) 14
East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) 6
Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission (GCRPC) 17
Heart of Texas Council of Governments (HOTCOG) 11
Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) 16
Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council (LRGVDC) 21
Middle Rio Grande Development Council (MRGDC) 24
Nortex Regional Planning Commission (NORTEX) 3
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 4
Panhandle Regional Planning Commission (PRPC) 1
Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission (PBRPC) 9
Rio Grande Council of Governments (RGCOG) 8
South East Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) 15
South Plains Association of Governments (SPAG) 2
South Texas Development Council (STDC) 19
Texoma Council of Governments (TEXOMA) 22
West Central Texas Council of Governments (WCTCOG) 7
Data Collection Instrument Development and Distribution

TxDOT PTN staff distributed the 2006 inventory document to representatives of three lead agencies for review of the data elements previously collected. These three agencies – Ark-Tex Council of Governments, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Heart of Texas Council of Governments – were selected based upon their use of inventory data in the original regional coordination planning effort. The representatives were asked to identify data elements that they believed were not useful to their planning efforts; and data elements that were not previously collected but would be useful to their planning efforts.

Based upon feedback from these reviewers and PTN, TTI implemented the following changes to the 2006 data collection instrument for the 2009 inventory update:

  1. Deleted the request for estimated percentage of elderly, mobility impaired, visually impaired and cognitively impaired passenger trips
  2. Deleted the request for information on communications, planning and service delivery technology
  3. Simplified the request regarding vehicle availability to remove repeating the question for each vehicle type in the fleet
  4. Deleted the request for information on fleet fueling
  5. Simplified the request for information on coordination opportunities to only request what type(s) of assistance agencies needed
  6. Deleted detailed questions regarding fare structure and only inquired whether the general public was charged a fare
  7. Re-structured questions about both contracted services and purchased transportation

TxDOT approved this instrument on July 10, 2009. TxDOT and TTI agreed that the client-based (non-FTA Section 5307 or non-FTA Section 5311) providers would receive a simplified version of the inventory form which would need to be developed and approved separately.

For this updated inventory, TTI directly contacted all urban and rural transit districts in Texas (including the Metropolitan Transit Authority/ Municipal Transit Department providers). TTI provided a link to the data collection instrument and requested that all responses be provided by July 31, 2009.

TxDOT then provided TTI with lists of active client-based providers that are not a part of an urban or rural transit provider. These client-based providers receive FTA Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program (Section 5310) funds, Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC Section 5316) funds, and/or FTA New Freedom Program (FTA Section 5317) funds. These lists became the core source for "Other" providers. TTI provided TxDOT a modified data collection instrument for Other providers which was approved on July 23, 2009. TTI then distributed the link to the data collection form to agencies on the list. Additionally, TTI provided the link to regional coordination lead agencies so that the lead agencies could send the link to any additional transportation provider in their region.

TTI sent reminder e-mails and made telephone contact with all agencies that received the link in order to increase the response rate. Data collection was closed at the end of September 2009. TTI summarized results in Microsoft Excel workbook format and conducted follow-up with agencies with unusual responses or missing key data. TTI posted a complete set of draft inventory workbooks to the regional transit coordination website (www.regionalserviceplanning.org) and requested that all agencies review the draft data. TTI then updated data corrections provided by the providers.

The response to the update among Section 5307 and 5311 providers was much stronger than in the original inventory. TTI received information from all Section 5307 providers, including the large METRO/Metropolitan Transit Divisions (MTDs). All but one rural transit district responded (Kleberg County). Of the 178 Section 5310/Other providers who were sent the survey, TTI received 66 responses.

Summary of Results
Fleet Data

Table 2 displays the number of responses, by TxDOT district and provider type. A total of 142 separate transportation providers responded to the inventory.

Table 2. Inventory Respondents, by TxDOT and Provider Type
TxDOT District M U LEP R Other Total
Abilene 1 1 2
Amarillo 1 1 4 6
Atlanta 1 1 2 4
Austin 1 1 7 9
Beaumont 2 1 3
Brownwood 2 2
Bryan 2 1 3
Childress 1 1 2
Corpus Christi 1 3 4
Dallas 2 1 2 4 9 18
El Paso 1 1 5 7
Fort Worth 1 2 3 3 9
Houston 1 3 2 4 10
Laredo 1 2 3
Lubbock 1 2 4 7
Lufkin 2 2
Odessa 1 1 4 6
Paris 1 2 3
Pharr 3 3 2 8
San Angelo 1 1 2 4
San Antonio 1 2 12 15
Tyler 2 1 2 5
Waco 2 1 1 4
Wichita Falls 1 2 3
Yoakum 1 2 3
TOTAL Responses 8 25 4 39 66 142
Total Sent 8 25 4 39 117 193

The size and composition of service fleets is displayed in Table 3. Data in Table 3 is separated by provider type.

Table 3. Size and Composition of Service Fleets by Provider Type
Provider Type Sedan Van Minibus Standard Bus Coach Other(a) Total
M 61 691 274 2,347 336 183 3,892
U 23 192 233 276 0 16 740
LEP 8 13 46 0 0 0 67
R 57 473 723 231 0 24 1,508
Other 176 273 79 31 1 0 560
Total 325 1,642 1,355 2,885 337 223 6,767

(a) Other includes articulated buses, specialty vehicles and any other miscellaneous vehicles.

While METRO/MTDs represented only 5.6 percent of all respondents, they own 57.7 percent of the total reported fleet and 81.4 percent of standard buses. The fleet for all rural providers is about double the size of the state-funded urban fleet. In fact, the portion of Other providers that responded have a total fleet that approaches the size of the state-funded urban systems.

The total fleet reported in the first inventory was 7753. However, in the first inventory, some planning areas included many fleets from organizations that did not receive FTA funding. Although regional planning lead agencies were invited to distribute this update to agencies that do not receive FTA funds, none were received. In this updated survey, 66 Other providers responded, while in the original survey, 260 Other providers were included.

Operational Costs

All cost data for Section 5307 and 5311 agencies contained in this inventory reflect FY08 expenses consistent with data contained on the PTN-128 reports gathered by TxDOT. The PTN-128 is an internet-based data collection form used by each transit district to report monthly operating and financial data, including revenue miles and hours of service; ridership; revenue, by source; and expenses, by category. The data for the Section 5310/Other agencies that responded is as they reported in this survey rather than the PTN-128 since Section 5310 reporting on PTN-128 is not consistent.

Providers were asked to estimate the percentage breakdown of their total operational costs into four categories – operation, maintenance, planning/ administration and purchased transportation. Table 4 displays total operational cost and the breakdown of expenses, by provider type.

Table 4. Operational Cost (FY08) and Cost Breakdown by Provider Type
Provider Type FY09 Operational Cost Percent of Total Operating Cost (%) Maintenance Cost (%) Planning/ Admin. Cost (%) Purchased Transport. Cost (%)
M $1,178,689,183 87.5% 50.2% 22.2% 16.9% 10.6%
U $77,351,556 5.7% 65.7% 22.1% 9.6% 2.6%
LEP $4,118,791 0.3% 57.3% 2.7% 10.8% 29.2%
R $67,144,105 5.0% 64.5% 8.6% 15.9% 11.0%
Other $20,481,170 1.5% 44.6% 12.3% 28.8% 14.3%
Total $1,347,784,805

Total operational expenses for FY08 numbered $1,347,784,805. The largest agencies, the METRO/MTDs, incurred a significant majority of all reported expenses, at 87.5 percent of the total. Urban system, excluding the LEPs, spent a larger percentage of their expenses on maintenance (22%) than did LEP, rural and other providers. The urban systems have the majority of standard buses, coaches and articulated buses; this likely contributes to the higher percentage investment in vehicle maintenance.

The LEPs use purchased transportation to the greatest percentage of their total operational costs. The agencies, by definition, focus on paratransit services for senior and disabled populations. This type of service is frequently purchased from private providers.

State-funded urban systems purchase very little transportation. However, several of these urban systems contract for management services (Waco, Brownsville, Sherman-Dennison.) These dollars spent with private sector firms are not reflected in the purchased transportation expenses.

Interest in Assistance

The inventory included a question regarding each agency's need for assistance in 14 technical areas. The results, by provider type, are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5. Areas of Interest for Obtaining Assistance by Provider Type
Provider Type A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
M 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
U 6 5 8 8 5 4 5 2 2 6 8 1 10 4
LEP 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 7 6 10 14 9 6 7 7 5 11 13 3 16 6
Other 1 3 3 19 14 11 4 3 1 9 3 0 2 6
Total 16 16 24 42 29 22 17 13 9 27 26 5 29 18
  1. Routing/Scheduling
  2. Dispatching
  3. Routing/Dispatch Training
  4. Driver Training
  5. Preventive Maintenance
  6. Routine Repairs
  7. Major Repair/Component Rebuilding
  8. Part Purchasing
  9. Inventory Management
  10. Customer Information/Referrals
  11. Information Technology Support
  12. Billing
  13. Marketing
  14. Planning and Programming

The area with the largest response is driver training. This suggests the opportunity for cooperative training among agencies. Other areas of high interest are marketing, preventive maintenance, customer information and information technology support. Billing and inventory management created the least interest.

Updating Inventory Information

Since conducting the initial inventory, the PTN-128 system has been improved and the data collected within the system has been reviewed thoroughly. Greater confidence in that data should simplify the updating process. For future update, the following are recommended:

  1. Time each update to coincide with the completion of data scrubbing for the prior fiscal year. For example, FY10 data will be completing review by the end of January 2011. The inventory update, to reflect FY10, should then commence in February 2011.
  2. The update should reflect conditions at the end of that previous fiscal year. In February 2011, update data should reflect each operator's position at the end of FY10.
  3. Instead of using SurveyMonkey for data collection, the Excel workbook should become the basis for updating. Financial and ridership information can be inserted into each provider's workbook, leaving relatively few items to enter.
  4. Updates should be performed beginning the February of each even-numbered year so that data is available for each legislative cycle. An update should also be planned to reflect conditions in each decennial census year.
Individual Provider Information

The following section presents a series of tables that summarize the inventory information for each responding public transportation provider in each planning region. The series of tables is as follows: