Peer Transit Analysis
April 2014
2
Peer Transit Analysis
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................1
Regional Comparisons.............................................................................................44
Contents............................................................................................................................1
Population.....................................................................................................................44
Significant Findings......................................................................................................3
Density...........................................................................................................................45
Public Transit Ridership...........................................................................................46
Regional Perspective.................................................................................................. 6
Transportation Providers Characteristics.....................................................7
Transit Provider Comparisons............................................................................... 47
Transportation Providers Finances............................................................... 13
Service Area................................................................................................................. 47
Local Funding Overview........................................................................................... 16
Ridership........................................................................................................................48
Travel-to-Work Characteristics.............................................................................. 19
Finances.........................................................................................................................49
Performance Measures.............................................................................................54
Peer Transit Provider Analysis............................................................................... 28
Peer Transit Provider Locations............................................................................ 28
Transportation Provider Services......................................................................... 29
Transportation Provider Funding.........................................................................30
Kansas City, Missouri.................................................................................................. 31
Kansas City, Kansas................................................................................................... 32
Johnson County, Kansas.......................................................................................... 33
Atlanta............................................................................................................................34
Cincinnati....................................................................................................................... 35
Denver............................................................................................................................36
Indianapolis................................................................................................................... 37
Louisville, Kentucky................................................................................................... 38
Milwaukee...................................................................................................................... 39
Minneapolis.................................................................................................................. 40
Oklahoma City.............................................................................................................. 41
Salt Lake City...............................................................................................................42
St. Louis..........................................................................................................................43
Mid-America Regional Council
3
Executive Summary
For a number of years, the Kansas City region has struggled to define and advance a
long-term strategy to support the development, expansion and financial support of
regional transit. Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) first developed the Peer Transit
Providers Research report in 2011 (originally titled the Peer Cities Report) to support work
by Johnson County’s Transit Funding Task Force (START) committee and to aid ongoing
discussions about strategic regional transit investment in the Kansas City region. This
2014 update will serve as a resource for MARC’s transportation committees that deal
with transit, such as the Total Transportation Policy Committee and the Regional Transit
Coordinating Council.
Following is a brief overview of transportation services in the city of Kansas City, Missouri, and
Johnson and Wyandotte counties in Kansas. Data from the 2012 National Transit Database (NTD),
the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), Unified Government Transit (UGT) and
Johnson County Transit (The JO) was used to evaluate the Kansas City region’s transit system.
Additional data was obtained from the 2010 U.S. Census, 2012 American Community Survey (ACS)
1-Year Estimates, and 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and the annual
financial and strategic reports of each transit agency.
Note: Transit service in the city of Independence, Missouri (IndeBus) was not included as an
autonomous provider in this report as it was not included in the NTD data. For this report, IndeBus
data is part of KCATA statistics.
The second part of this report provides a comparison of metro area transit services — combining
data from KCATA, UGT and The JO — and the services of selected peer cities. This section also uses
the data sources listed above. Statistical comparisons in the report include:
• Transit services/modes provided
• Population
• Density and per-capita transit investment
• Service area
• Ridership
• Expenses
• Sources of revenue and funding
• Service efficiency
The report compares the Kansas City region and its three largest transit agencies (in terms of
service area and annual ridership) to 10 urbanized areas around the country and their primary transit
4
Peer Transit Analysis
agencies to provide a better frame of comparison between regional
transit investment, ridership and modes of service.
Peer Regions
Peer Urbanized Area
Name of Transit Authority
Percent of Metro/Regional Service
Atlanta
MARTA
93%
Cincinnati
SORTA
65%
RTD
84%
Indianapolis
INDYGO
91%
Louisville, Ky.
TARC
70%
Milwaukee
MCTS
91%
Minneapolis
METRO
100%
Oklahoma City
COPTA
100%
Salt Lake City
UTA
100%
METRO
83%
Denver
St. Louis
Significant Findings
The Kansas City UZA continues to be dependent
on automobiles.
• Of the 566,614 workers in Kansas City, Missouri, 92 percent commute
by vehicle (82 percent drive alone and 10 percent carpool) and
2 percent travel by public transit.
• Similarly in Kansas City, Kansas, of 419,029 workers traveling to
work, 93 percent commute by vehicle (84 percent drive alone and 9
percent carpool) and 1 percent travel by public transit.
• The same trends continue in Johnson County, Kansas, where 92
percent of the 287,206 workers use vehicles (85 percent drive alone
and 7 percent carpool) with only 0.4 percent using public transit.
2011 Commuting to work by
mode (MARC region)
Drive alone:
83%
Carpooled: 9%
Urbanized Areas (UZA)
Each region is analyzed as an Urbanized Area, as opposed to a
metropolitan area, to maintain consistency with source data. An
urbanized area is an area consisting of a densely developed territory
that contains a minimum residential population of 50,000 people.
The census definition also includes:
Public transit: 1%
Walked: 1%
Other: 1%
Worked at home:5%
• One or more incorporated cities, villages and towns (central place).
• Adjacent, densely settled surrounding territory (urban fringe) that
generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least
1,000 persons per square mile.
Urbanized areas do not conform to congressional districts or any other
political boundaries.
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates; Vehicle
occupancy data from the ACS is for work-related trips and doesn’t account for
other trips (e.g., trips for recreational purposes)
Mid-America Regional Council
5
—KCATA had a ridership of 22.07 riders per capita, UGT had 1.04
riders per capita, and The JO had 1.6 riders per capita.
• Transit funding is unequal across the region; some cities provide
significant funding, some a small amount, and some no transit
funding at all.
Kansas City regional transit investment by city or county
Kansas City, Mo.: 82%
Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kan.: 7%
Blue Springs and
Gladstone, Mo.: <1%
Independence, Mo.: 2%
Johnson County, Kan.: 8%
Lee’s Summit and Liberty, Mo.: <1%
North Kansas
City, Mo.: 1%
Raytown and
Riverside, Mo.: <1%
6
Peer Transit Analysis
Johnson County
Riverside
Raytown
North Kansas City
Liberty
Lee's Summit
Kansas City, MO
Kansas City, KS
Independence
– Financially, the Kansas City region accounted for $14 million in fare
revenues, with KCATA earning $12.349 million in fare revenue; UGT
earning $89,225; and the JO earning $1.56 million. The combined
operating funds expended for the region totaled $94.55 million,
with KCATA accounting for $79.64 million; UGT, $4.45 million; and
The JO, $10.46 million. The total capital funds expended for the
region equaled $23.79 million, with KCATA accounting for
$11 million; UGT at $10.83; and The JO at $1.94 million.
—Locally, Kansas City, Missouri, has the highest local contribution,
with $99.98 in capital investment per capita. North Kansas City
contributed $86.16 in capital investment per capita, while Kansas
City, Kansas, rounded out the top three with $24.81 in capital
investment per capita.
Gladstone
• KCATA and the city of Kansas City, Missouri, provide most of the
transit funding in the Kansas City UZA.
• The JO services the most densely populated area, with 2,624 people
per square mile. KCATA is a close second, with 2,254 people per
square mile. The UGT service area is the most spread out, with 994
people per square mile.
Blue Springs
In 2012, KCATA provided transit services across 332 square miles with
a ridership of 16,517,706 passengers and 64,872,418 annual passenger
miles. Unified Government Transit (UGT) provided services over 156
square miles with a ridership of 161,219 passengers and 347,306 annual
passenger miles. The JO covered 162 square miles with a ridership of
671,121 passengers and 11,204,794 annual passenger miles. The region
as a whole (excluding IndeBus) had public transit services covering
650 square miles with a ridership of 17,350,046 and 76,424,518 annual
passenger miles.
• Demand for public transportation in Kansas City has steadily increased
over the years, as indicated by an increase in annual ridership (9 percent),
vehicle revenue miles (9 percent), and vehicle revenue hours (17 percent)
over a 12-year period from 2000–2012. Despite this, Kansas City, Missouri,
and its urbanized area ranks 10th out of 12 in ridership per capita compared
to its peer regions. Additionally, Kansas City provides fewer modes of
transportation services than a majority of the peer regions.
• Both the low ridership levels and comparatively fewer transportation options
in Kansas City can be explained by the region’s residential density patterns.
Combined, Kansas City, Missouri, Kansas City, Kansas, and Johnson County,
Kansas ranked 11th out of 12 in density per square mile. This is important
because public transportation relies upon specific density thresholds to
support higher modes of transit services, as well as for route location. Density
levels can explain why both KCATA and The JO have higher operating
expenses per passenger trip and lower service efficiencies compared to
transit agencies in the peer regions.
• Lastly, the report indicates a correlation between regional transit investment
and ridership. KCATA, UGT and The JO all rank below average in terms
of total operating funding compared to the peer region transit agencies;
consequently, the Kansas City region’s annual ridership levels rank below
average. The Kansas City region invests $71 per capita in annual transit
operations compared to the average $164 per capita investment in the peer
regions. Also, the Kansas City region collects $11 per capita in fare revenues
compared to an average $37 per capita in the peer regions. While the Kansas
City UZA has improved in many areas, its public transit system still ranks near
the bottom compared to peer regions.
Mid-America Regional Council
7
Regional Perspective
The Regional Perspective summarizes the
general transit outlook for the Kansas City
Urbanized Area (UZA), comparing the largest
transportation providers to one another and
measuring the region’s performance as a whole.
Statistical comparisons in this section include:
• Transportation Provider Characteristics
• Transportation Provider Finances
• Local Funding Overview
• Travel-to-work Characteristics
Transportation Providers
The three largest transit service agencies in the
Kansas City UZA and reviews are the Kansas
City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA),
Unified Government Transit (UGT) and Johnson
County Transit (The JO).
Provider Characteristics
KCATA is a public transit operator and bistate
agency that was created by a compact between
Kansas and Missouri in 1965. The transit
agency’s jurisdiction includes seven Kansas City
Metropolitan Area counties — Cass, Clay, Jackson
and Platte in Missouri and Johnson, Leavenworth,
and Wyandotte in Kansas. KCATA is the only
transportation authority in the Kansas City UZA.
The original Unified Government Transit service
in Wyandotte County operated as a private
venture through the 1960s and in 1972, became
part of KCATA. In 1981, Wyandotte County
started its own transit service separate from
services provided by the city of Kansas City,
Kansas; however, in 1997, the governments
of Wyandotte County and the city of Kansas
City, Kansas, consolidated into the Unified
8
Peer Transit Analysis
Government of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The
city and county transit departments merged into
one transportation unit the Unified Government
Transit (UGT) and continues to provide transit
services for local connecting routes. The KCATA
provides routes into Kansas City, Missouri, and
additional connections across the region. Note:
The National Transit Database began analyzing
data for Unified Government Transit as its own
entity in 2011.
The Johnson County Transit started in 1982 as
a public transit operator of Johnson County,
Kansas. The JCT started operations that same
year, originally named Commuteride and began
operating as “The JO” in 1986. The JO assumed
service from KCATA, which provided transit
service in Johnson County until 1981. The JO
operates 15 routes with a total of 46 vehicles
during peak service, primarily in Johnson County,
Kansas, with additional service to Wyandotte
and Douglas counties in Kansas and in Jackson
County, Missouri.
IndeBus transit service operates fixed routes
within the city limits of Independence, Missouri,
from Monday through Saturday; it began service
in 2011. IndeBus has seven routes primarily
designed to provide circulation throughout the
city and connections to KCATA commuter routes
that serve downtown Kansas City, Missouri.
Note: IndeBus is not represented in the study, as
its data was included under KCATA.
Kansas City Transportation Authority
• The Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority (KCATA) is a public transit
operator and bistate transit agency created
by a compact between the states of Missouri
and Kansas and approved by the United
States Congress in 1965. It began operations
in 1969. KCATA is the only transportation
authority in the Kansas City UZA.
• The KCATA jurisdiction contains seven
counties in the Kansas City UZA including
Cass, Clay, Jackson Platte counties in
Missouri and Johnson, Leavenworth and
Wyandotte counties in Kansas.
• KCATA operates 265 vehicles, including 28
MAX (Metro Express) buses serving more
than 10 routes. Its district includes 35 parkand-ride locations and three MetroCenter
transit centers.
Body/entity
Funding source
City of Kansas City, Missouri
Sales tax
Amount
$46,420,642
• The city of Kansas City, Missouri, provides
66 percent of all transit funding for KCATA
services. In 1971, the city initiated a halfcent transportation sales tax. In 2004,
the city implemented an additional threeeighth cent sales tax for KCATA services.
In 2013, Kansas City, Missouri, dedicated
$46,420,642 toward transit services,
making it the largest funder of transit in the
Kansas City UZA.
• The state of Missouri provides an annual
allotment of $767,710 to KCATA, an amount
that has steadily declined in recent years.
• In 2010, the Kansas City region received
$50 million in TIGER (Transportation
Improvements Generating Economic
Recovery) grant funds from the U.S.
Department of Transportation to make
transportation infrastructure improvements
along several regional transit corridors
and in the urban core of Kansas City,
Missouri; KCATA was a lead agency in this
competitive grant.
Type of fund
Dedication
1/2 cent
Transit services
3/8 cent
State of Missouri
Allotment
$767,710
Lump sum
Transit services
Source: KCATA.org
Mid-America Regional Council
9
Unified Government Transit
• The original transit service in Wyandotte
County operated as a private venture
through the 1960s and was absorbed by
KCATA in 1972. In 1981, Wyandotte County
started its own transit service, separate
from services provided by the city of
Kansas City, Kansas. In 1997, the city and
county governments were consolidated
to create the Unified Government of
Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas.
The city and county transit departments
merged into one transportation unit, the
Unified Government Transit (UGT), which
continues to provide transit services for
local connecting routes within the county.
KCATA provides routes into Kansas City,
Missouri, and additional connections across
the region. UGT data has been reported
separately in the National Transit Database
since 2011.
• Most of the funding for UGT is provided
locally (80 percent) with more than
$3 million generated through a general
mill levy.
• The state of Kansas provides an annual
allotment of $460,462 in transit funding.
• In partnership with KCATA, UGT received
federal TIGER funding in 2010 for
improvements to local transit stations.
The agencies made transit improvements
along the State Avenue corridor that
begins at the 10th Street/Main MetroCenter
in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, and
ends at Village West at 109th and Parallel
Parkway in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The
route serves various activity centers and
neighborhoods along State Avenue and
Minnesota Avenue. State Avenue Connex
improvements were completed in 2013.
• The UGT has five local bus routes, with
additional routes under development.
Body/entity
Funding source
Wyandotte County and
Kansas City, Kansas
Wyandotte County/
Kansas City, Kansas
State of Kansas
Amount
$3,908,285
Type of fund
Dedication
General mill levy
Transit services
$460,462
Allotment
Source: wycokck.org
10
Peer Transit Analysis
Johnson County, Kansas
• Johnson County Transit, generally called
The JO, was created in 1982 as a public
transit operator in Johnson County, Kansas,
assuming service from KCATA, which
provided transit service in Johnson County
until 1981. The JO started operations as
Commuteride and began operating as
The JO in 1986.
• Johnson County provides the majority of
funding for JCT, from general revenues.
• The Kansas Department of Transportation
(KDOT) provides state funding through the
Comprehensive Transportation Program
(CTP), roughly $1.3 million annually.
• The JO operates 15 routes with a total of
46 vehicles during peak service, primarily
in Johnson County, Kansas, with additional
connections to Wyandotte and Douglas
counties in Kansas and Jackson County
in Missouri.
• Johnson County was also a partner in the
region’s TIGER grant, which funded the
creation of the Mission Transit Center in
Mission, Kansas, along with transit stations
and rider amenities along the Metcalf
Avenue/Shawnee Mission Parkway corridor.
Body/entity
Funding source
Amount
Type of fund
Dedication
Johnson County, Kansas
General revenues
$4,482,879
Local investment
Transit services
Kansas Department of
Transportation (KDOT) state grant
Comprehensive Transit
Program (CTP) annual
allotment
$1,337,893
Allotment
Transit services
Source: 2010 Johnson County Transit Strategic Plan
Mid-America Regional Council
11
Kansas City Metropolitan Area
Annual Passenger
Miles
Square Miles
Population
Ridership
Passenger Miles
per Capita
Ridership per
Capita
KCATA
UGT
The JO
Regional Totals:
64,872,418
347,306
11,204,794
76,424,518
332
156
162
650
748,415
155,085
425,067
1,328,564
16,517,706
161,219
671,121
17,350,046
193,399
2,226
69,165
266,791
22.07
1.04
1.58
13.06 (average)
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
12
Peer Transit Analysis
Map of Kansas City regional
transit
Regional Map for Kansas City UZA
Within the Kansas City Urbanized Area (UZA),
each transit provider operates its own set of
routes. This region-wide map includes routes for
all four agencies.
•
•
•
•
KCATA
IndeBus
The JO
UG Transit
Source: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, IPC,
MRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China/Hong Kong,
Esri Thailand, TomTom 2013.
Mid-America Regional Council
13
Transportation Provider Finances
This table displays financial information for KCATA, UGT and The JO and includes funds from
local, state, and federal sources (defined in sidebar).
Kansas City Metropolitan Area
Fare revenues earned
Density — Population per square mile.
KCATA
UGT
The JO
Regional
$12,348,596
$89,225
$1,562,727
$14,000,548
Operating funds expended
Fare
$12,348,596
16%
$89,225
2%
$1,562,727
15%
$14,000,548
15%
Local
$52,292,680
66%
$3,577,012
80%
$4,482,879
43%
$60,352,571
64%
State
$197,784
0%
$460,462
10%
$1,282,715
12%
$1,940,961
2%
Federal
$13,168,985
17%
$327,797
8%
$2,941,335
28%
$16,438,117
17%
Other
$1,634,462
1%
$0
0%
$188,249
2%
$1,822,711
2%
Total
$79,642,507
100%
$10,457,905
100%
$23,792,007
100%
$4,454,496
100%
Capital funds expended
Local
$929,866
8%
$16,130
2%
$434,021
22%
$1,380,017
6%
State
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$10,069,589
92%
$10,837,502
98%
$1,504,899
78%
$22,411,990
94%
Other
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
$0
0%
Total
$10,999,455
Federal
100%
$10,853,632
100%
$1,938,920
100%
$23,792,007
2,254
994
2,624
2,044
22.0702
1.04
1.58
13.06
Fare revenues per capita
$16
$1
$4
$11
Total operating funds per
capita
$106
$29
$24
$71
Density per square mile
Ridership per capita
100%
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
14
Peer Transit Analysis
Fare revenues — All income received directly
from passengers, paid either in cash or through
pre-paid tickets, passes, etc. It includes donations
from passengers and reduced fares paid by
passengers in a user-side subsidy arrangement.
Operating funds — Funds provided to help cover
the operating costs of transit services.
Capital funds — Funds provided for the costs
of equipment and infrastructure necessary to
support transit services.
Local — Financial assistance from local city and
county governments or other local entities.
State — Financial assistance from any state
agency or state government.
Federal — Financial assistance received from
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or any
other federal agency.
Other — Any funds dedicated to transit at their
source other than income, sales, property,
gasoline and other taxes and bridge, tunnel
and highway tolls. “Other” funds may include
vehicle licensing and registration fees, lottery
and casino proceeds or the sale of property
and assets.
The following displays local investment data
for KCATA, UGT and The JO. KCATA provided
MARC with detailed data for per capita
statistics from a local perspective, not included
in the previous reports. This section lists the
cities and counties that contributed to local
transit funding, along with investment amounts
for each.
Johnson County
Riverside
Raytown
North Kansas City
Liberty
Lee's Summit
Kansas City, MO
Kansas City, KS
Independence
Local investment by city or county
Gladstone
Blue Springs
Local Transit Funding
Kansas City, Mo.: 82%
Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kan.: 7%
Kansas City, Mo.: 82%
Independence, Mo.: 2%
Blue Springs and
Gladstone, Mo.: <1%
Johnson County, Kan.: 8%
Lee’s Summit and Liberty, Mo.: <1%
North Kansas
City, Mo.: 1%
Raytown and
Riverside, Mo.: <1%
Local Municipalities
Local Share (KCATA)
Local Share (Other)
Total Local Share
Blue Springs, Mo.
$99,094.00
$99,094.00
Gladstone, Mo.
$88,850.00
$88,850.00
Independence, Mo.
$129,377.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,129,377.00
Kansas City, Kan.
$3,360,285.00
$1,008,000.00
$4,368,285.00
Kansas City, Mo.
$46,420,642.00
$46,420,642.00
$162,042.00
$162,042.00
$41,000.00
$41,000.00
$362,546.00
$362,546.00
Raytown, Mo.
$55,876.00
$55,876.00
Riverside, Mo.
$27,905.00
$27,905.00
Lee's Summit, Mo.
Liberty, Mo.
North Kansas City, Mo.
Johnson County , Kan.
Totals
$50,747,617.00
$4,482,879.00
$4,482,879.00
$6,490,879.00
$57,238,496.00
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Mid-America Regional Council
15
o
nC
Other: 2%
Local:
66%
KCATA
y
o
ns
Joh rside
y
e
Cit
Riv
wn
as
o
s
t
n
y
Ka
Ra
rt h
o
N
t
y
mi
ert
u m , MO
Lib
S
y
e's
S
Cit
Le
,K
as
s
ity
n
a
C
K
ce
as
en
ns
d
a
n
K
e
ep
ne
In d
sto ngs
d
a
ri
Gl
Sp
e
u
Kansas City,
Bl Kan.: 10%
Percentage of population of the metro area
Regional operating expenses
by funding source
Federal: 17%
t
un
Lee’s Summit, Mo.: 6%
Kansas City, Mo.: 31%
Liberty, Mo.: 2%
North Kansas City, Mo.: <1%
Raytown, Mo.: 2%
Fares: 15%
State: 0%
Riverside, Mo.: <1%
Independence, MO.: 10%
Johnson County, Kan.: 36%
Blue Springs, MO.: 3%
Fares: 15%
Local:
43%
Other: 2%
Federal: 15%
The JO
State: 12%
Fares: 2%
Federal: 8%
UGT
Local:
80%
State: 10%
Other: 0%
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012
National Transit Database
16
Gladstone, MO.: 2%
Peer Transit Analysis
Local Municipalities
Population
Percent of Metro Area
Blue Springs, Mo.
52,575
3%
Gladstone, Mo.
25,410
2%
Independence, Mo.
116,830
8%
Kansas City, Kan.
157,505
10%
Kansas City, Mo.
464,310
31%
Lee's Summit, Mo.
91,364
6%
Liberty, Mo.
29,149
2%
North Kansas City, Mo.
4,208
less than 1%
Raytown, Mo.
29,526
2%
Riverside, Mo.
2,937
less than 1%
544,179
36%
1,517,993
100%
Johnson County , Kan.
Totals
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Per capita transit investments within the
Kansas City UZA
Local Municipalities
Per capita transit investment
Blue Springs, Mo.
$1.88
Gladstone, Mo.
$3.50
Independence, Mo.
$9.67
Kansas City, Kan.
$24.81
Kansas City, Mo.
$99.98
Lee's Summit, Mo.
$1.77
Liberty, Mo.
$1.41
North Kansas City, Mo.
$86.16
Raytown, Mo.
$1.89
Riverside, Mo.
$9.50
Johnson County , Kan.
$8.24
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Mid-America Regional Council
17
Travel-to-work characteristics
The chart and diagram on this page show travel-to-work characteristics for the Kansas City
metropolitan area. Note: the term “public transit” encompasses several forms of public
transportation including bus, trolley bus, streetcar/trolley car, subway or elevated train, railroad,
ferryboat or taxicab. The term “other” is used to identify working at home, motorcycling, bicycling,
walking or other means of travel to work excluding car, truck, van or public transportation.
Kansas City, Missouri
Johnson County, Kansas
Total workers: 566,614
Total workers: 287,206
Carpooling: 10%
Drive alone:
82%
Drive alone:
82%
Carpooling: 9%
Public transit: 2%
Public transit: 1%
Other: 6%
Other: 7%
Drive alone:
85%
Other: 6%
Public transit: 2%
Kansas City, Kansas
Total workers: 419,029
18
Peer Transit Analysis
Carpooling: 10%
Source: census.gov, 2010 sample data
Mode sharing
Multimodal options reflect the variety of
transportation options available for people
to move about the region. A well-rounded
transportation network includes a mix of
options to suit the needs of the region’s
residents. This typically involves economically
resilient alternative transportation modes that
are not solely dependent on people owning
automobiles. These alternative modes include
carpooling, biking, walking and using public
transportation (bus, trolley bus, streetcar,
trolley car, subway, elevated train, railroad,
ferryboat and taxicab).
The following graphics from MARC’s
Transportation Outlook 2040 2013 Annual
Performance Measures Progress Report
help illustrate the region’s travel-to-work
characteristics.
Commuting to work, by mode (as a percentage of the MARC region)
120
Drove alone
Alternative of transportation
Adoption of
Transportation Outlook 2040
100
16.4%
16.1%
17.5%
16.4%
15.8%
17.0%
83.6%
83.9%
82.5%
83.6%
84.2%
83.0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
80
60
40
20
0
Drive alone:
83%
2011 Commuting to work by mode
(MARC region)
Carpooled: 9%
Public transit: 1%
Walked: 1%
Other: 1%
Worked at home:5%
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates; Vehicle
occupancy data from the ACS is for work-related trips and doesn’t account for
other trips (e.g., trips for recreational purposes)
Mid-America Regional Council
19
Ridership characteristics
Annual Ridership
The items display service area and ridership
characteristics for KCATA, UGT and The JO,
as well as ridership, vehicle revenue mile
and vehicle revenue hour characteristics
over a 12-year timeframe from 2000–2012.
Passenger mile — Distance, in miles,
traveled by each passenger while on board
a revenue transit vehicle.
Annual ridership — Number of annual
unlinked passenger trips. This 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).
14,000,000
12,000,000
KCATA
10,000,000
The JO
8,000,000
KC Region
6,000,000
4,000,000
The Unified
Government
Transit (UG)
(UGT)
2,000,000
0
2000
2001
Year
KCATA
Vehicle Revenue Mile (VRM) — Distance
vehicles are scheduled to or actually travel
while in revenue service.
2000
15,193,040
Vehicle Revenue Hour (VRH) — The number
of hours vehicles are scheduled or actually
travel while in revenue service.
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
20
16,000,000
Annual Ridership
Service area — Area in which a transit
agency provides services, in square miles.
18,000,000
Peer Transit Analysis
2002
2003
2004
2005
UGT
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
The JO
Kansas City Region
392,332
15,585,372
2001
15,587,211
433,950
16,021,161
2002
14,754,933
415,926
15,170,859
2003
13,551,201
419,819
13,971,020
2004
13,385,922
368,348
13,754,270
2005
14,095,890
410,275
14,506,165
2006
14,806,456
396,216
15,202,672
2007
15,417,134
490,092
15,907,226
2008
17,194,797
625,986
17,820,783
2009
15,514,263
578,968
16,093,231
2010
15,121,683
603,056
15,724,739
2011
15,953,372
136,689
701,746
16,791,807
2012
16,517,706
161,219
671,121
17,350,046
Fare Revenues
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
Fare Revenues
$10,000,000
KCATA
$8,000,000
The JO
$6,000,000
KC Region
$4,000,000
The Unified
Government
(UGT)
Transit (UG)
$2,000,000
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
KCATA
2000
UGT
The JO
Kansas City Region
$8,092,230
$553,211
$8,645,441
2001
$8,651,704
$603,599
$9,255,303
2002
$8,026,878
$549,141
$8,576,019
2003
$7,269,758
$592,970
$7,862,728
2004
$7,448,172
$618,317
$8,066,489
2005
$7,713,408
$680,932
$8,394,340
2006
$9,326,273
$775,855
$10,102,128
2007
$10,132,628
$919,747
$11,052,375
2008
$11,365,250
$1,195,992
$12,561,242
2009
$11,693,288
$1,295,339
$12,988,627
2010
$11,505,545
$1,429,935
$12,935,480
2011
$12,030,920
$80,350
$1,562,727
$13,673,997
2012
$12,348,596
$89,225
$1,616,866
$14,054,687
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Mid-America Regional Council
21
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
16,000,000
Annual Vehicle Revenue Miles
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
KCATA
8,000,000
The JO
6,000,000
KC Region
4,000,000
The Unified
Government
(UGT)
Transit (UG)
2,000,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
22
Peer Transit Analysis
Year
KCATA
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
UGT
The JO
Kansas City Region
11,178,695
1,395,718
12,574,413
11,185,576
1,426,138
12,611,714
10,490,651
1,393,371
11,884,022
10,157,006
1,380,215
11,537,221
10,574,941
1,371,769
11,946,710
11,100,692
1,486,993
12,587,685
11,666,385
1,422,527
13,088,912
11,997,645
1,666,672
13,664,317
11,921,419
1,725,531
13,646,950
12,551,631
1,910,778
14,462,409
12,083,145
2,045,399
14,128,544
12,272,326
347,306
2,030,526
14,650,158
12,214,176
353,551
2,035,285
14,603,012
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
1,000,000
Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
KCATA
500,000
The JO
400,000
300,000
KC Region
200,000
100,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
KCATA
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
UGT
The Unified
Government
(UGT)
Transit (UG)
The JO
Kansas City Region
690,264
80,328
770,592
700,923
78,761
779,684
650,264
72,433
722,697
614,804
76,646
691,450
632,164
76,409
708,573
747,208
77,666
824,874
781,737
79,451
861,188
791,583
90,984
882,567
797,028
92,733
889,761
858,091
95,292
953,383
809,558
95,292
904,850
819,801
35,964
104,674
960,439
808,664
17,330
100,064
926,058
Source: KCATA.org and ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Mid-America Regional Council
23
24
Peer Transit Analysis
Peer Transit Provider Analysis
Transit providers were selected for comparison to the Kansas City UZA and
its transit services, based on regional size and population density. Each peer
transit provider delivers the majority of service within its respective region.
Atlanta..........................Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)
Oklahoma City..............Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA)
Cincinnati......................Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA/Metro)
Salt Lake City................Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
Denver..........................Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)
St. Louis........................Bi-State Development Agency (Metro)
Indianapolis..................Indianapolis and Marion County Public Transportation (IndyGo)
Louisville, Ky.................Transit Authority of River City (TARC)
Kansas City, Missouri................................... Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA)
Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas.....Unified Government Transit (UGT)
Milwaukee....................Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS)
Johnson County, Kansas...............................Johnson County Transit (The JO)
Minneapolis..................Metro Transit
Minneapolis
Salt Lake City
Denver
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Indianapolis
St. Loius
Oklahoma City
Cincinnati
Louisville
Atlanta
Mid-America Regional Council
25
Transportation Provider Services
Transit agencies provide a variety of modes of transportation to residents in cities and
urbanized areas; these modes, defined below, may include bus, paratransit, light rail,
commuter rail, commuter bus or heavy rail services.
Regional Transportation Authority Services
26
Region
Bus
Vans/Paratransit
Light rail
Commuter rail
Atlanta
X
X
Cincinnati
X
X
X
Denver
X
X
X
X
Indianapolis
X
X
Louisville
X
X
Milwaukee
X
X
Minneapolis
X
X
X
Oklahoma City
X
X
Salt Lake City
X
X
St. Louis
X
X
Kansas City (KCATA/UGT/The JO)
X
X
Ferryboat
Heavy rail
X
X
X
X
Bus — Rubber-tired passenger vehicles that operate on fixed
routes and schedules over roadways.
Light rail — Typically an electric railway with a light-volume
traffic capacity.
Paratransit — Passenger transportation that is more flexible
than conventional fixed-route transit but more structured than
private automobiles. Paratransit includes demand response
(DR) services, shared-ride taxis, carpooling and vanpooling
(VP), and jitney (JT) services. Note: Most DR services via
paratransit are wheelchair-accessible.
Commuter rail — An electric or diesel propelled railway for
urban passenger train service that is primarily designed to
manage local short-distance travel, operating between a central
city and adjacent suburbs. Service must operate on a regular
basis with a transit operator (directly or under contract) for
the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized
areas (UZAs) or between urbanized areas and outlying areas.
Peer Transit Analysis
Commuter bus
X
Commuter bus — Fixed-route bus service characterized by
service that runs primarily in one direction during peak periods,
limited stops, use of multi-ride tickets and routes of extended
length. This type of route typically runs between a central
business district and outlying suburbs. Commuter bus service
may include other service, characterized with a limited-route
structure, limited stops and a coordinated relationship to
another mode of transportation.
Heavy rail — An electric railway with capacity for a heavy
volume of traffic and passengers.
Transportation Authority
Funding
The following pages include financial
information and sources of funding for
the primary transit agencies serving the
peer regions for comparison. Funding
information for KCATA, UGT and The JO
can be found on pages 9–12 of this report.
Note: The data includes the particular
transit agencies listed earlier in this
report; the sources of funding do not
include revenues from local passenger
fares or funds through federal assistance
(ARRA funds, FTA funds, capital grants
or other operating funds). There may be
other transit providers for each region.
Region
Body
Source
Amount
Dedication
Atlanta
City of Atlanta, Ga.
Fulton County, Ga.
DeKalb County, Ga.
Sales and use tax
1%
MARTA transit services
Cincinnati
City of Cincinnati, Ohio
Hamilton County
City earnings tax
0.3%
Metro transit services
Denver
Eight-county district
(40 cities)
Sales and use tax
Indianapolis
Marion County
municipalities
Property, excise and local option
income and state sales tax
Louisville, Ky.
Jefferson County, Ky.
Occupational Tax
Milwaukee
Milwaukee County, Wi.
Property taxes
$17,136,000
Motor vehicle sales tax
$3,063,012
State general fund
$4,170,000
Local funding partners
$978,806
Metropolitan Council
Minneapolis
State of Minnesota
Risk Allocation Matrix
Counties transit improvements
1%
$27,029,782
(2012)
0.2%
Light rail expansion — 0.6% RTD base tax and 0.4% FasTracks
sales and use tax
IndyGo transit services
TARC transit services via the Mass Transit Trust Fund (MTTF)
Transit, parks and emergency medical services
Metro transit services
$21,699,017
Local tax revenue (general fund)
Oklahoma City Oklahoma City
$24,561,131
(2013)
State grant
Metro Transit and Capital Improvement Program
MAPS — Metropolitan Area Projects
Salt Lake County
0.6875%
Davis County
Salt Lake City
Weber County
Utah County
A larger chart of each region’s funding
is included on the following pages.
Local options sales tax
0.55%
0.526%
Box Elder County
0.55%
Tooele County
0.30%
City of St. Louis, Mo.
St. Louis
0.55%
Sales tax
1% (2010)
Metro transit services
1% (2010)
Metro transit services and road/bridge repair within
the county
St. Louis County, Mo.
St. Clair County, Ill.
UTA transit services
Metro transit services
Sales tax
0.75% (2010)
MetroLink light rail — capital projects, operating and
maintenance costs
Mid-America Regional Council
27
Atlanta — MARTA
• The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit
Authority (MARTA) was formed in 1971.
It was originally proposed as a rapid transit
agency for the five largest metropolitan
Atlanta counties (DeKalb, Fulton, Clayton,
Gwinnett and Cobb) but a referendum
by the Georgia General Assembly
authorizing participation was not passed
in Cobb County.
• MARTA began operating its bus services
in 1972 and expanded its services to heavy
rail in 1979.
• As of 2010, MARTA operated 554 diesel
and compressed natural gas buses to cover
more than 91 bus routes and 25.9 million
annual vehicle miles.
Image courtesy of clatl.com
Note: MARTA does not receive operational
funding from the state of Georgia, making
it the largest public transportation agency
in the U.S. and the second-largest transit
agency in Anglo-America (behind the
Toronto Transit Commission) that does
not receive state/provincial funding for
operational expenses.
28
Peer Transit Analysis
• The MARTA rapid rail system has 47.6
miles of railroad tracks and 38 rail stations
located on four service lines: Red Line,
Gold Line Blue Line and Green Line.
Body/entity
• In 1971, Fulton and DeKalb Counties
successfully passed a 1 percent sales tax
to pay for operations, while Clayton and
Gwinnett rejected the measure; presentday MARTA operations are almost
exclusively in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
• MARTA’s two largest revenue sources are
sales tax and fare revenue — making up
76 percent or $474 million of total revenue.
Sales tax provides 21 percent of total
revenues and fare revenue provides
55 percent.
• In 2006, MARTA partnered with the Atlanta
Regional Commission and the Georgia
Regional Transportation Authority to
create the Transit Planning Board (TPB).
The TPB’s mission is to create a regional
plan that will expand and fund public
transportation for the entire Atlanta region.
Funding source
Amount
Sales and use tax
1%
Dedication
City of Atlanta, Georgia
Fulton County, Georgia
MARTA transit
services
DeKalb County, Georgia
Source: MARTA 2012 Annual Report
Cincinnati — SORTA/Metro
• The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit
Authority (SORTA) is a government entity
and independent political subdivision of
the state of Ohio governed by a 13-member
volunteer citizen’s board of trustees; it is
the public transit agency serving Cincinnati
and its suburbs.
• Until 1973, SORTA was known as the
Cincinnati Transit Commission. It has
provided bus services since 1952.
Image courtesy UrbanCincy.com
• Metro is the name of SORTA’s fixed-route
bus service that serves Hamilton County
residents along with commuter trips from
Clermont, Warren and Butler counties into
Cincinnati. Access, the region’s paratransit
service, provides services for people whose
disabilities prevent them from riding Metro
buses. Metro’s fleet includes 392 vehicles—
346 fixed-route buses, two trolley buses
and 44 Access vehicles. All buses have bike
racks in front, nearly all have wheelchair
lifts or ramps and security camera systems.
Body/entity
• Metro is primarily funded by Cincinnati’s
city earnings tax, in contrast to other
Ohio transit agencies that receive sales
tax proceeds.
• Local tax funding is provided by threetenths of 1 percent of the earnings tax
collected by the city of Cincinnati. The
earnings tax is paid by all persons who
work or live in the city.
• Metro currently has 27 hybrid buses in its
344-bus fleet. Its first six hybrids began
service on Earth Day 2009. Another three
hybrid buses started service in August 2010
and four hybrid “mini-buses” hit the road
in December 2010. In December 2011 and
January 2012, Metro more than doubled its
hybrid fleet with 14 additional hybrid buses.
• Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ)
and Clean Fuels funds, along with a localdollar match, helped Metro acquire its six
new hybrids. The federal funding per bus
ranged from 70 to 100 percent.
Funding source
Amount
City earnings tax
0.3%
Dedication
City of Cincinnati, Ohio
Metro transit services
Hamilton, County
Source: Go-Metro.com
Mid-America Regional Council
29
Denver — RTD
• The Colorado state legislature created
the Denver Regional Transportation
District (RTD) in 1969. Today it includes
15 Director’s Districts, eight counties and
40 cities in the Denver Metropolitan Area.
• RTD currently operates 79 local, 16 express,
16 regional, 11 limited, and five SkyRide bus
routes along with some special services.
RTD operates six light-rail lines with 46
stations and 47 miles of track.
• In 1973, area voters approved a half-cent,
10-year sales tax over six of the counties
that RTD serves, with 20 percent reserved
for expanded bus service).
• In 2004, voters in the RTD passed a
FasTracks ballot initiative that raised the
sales tax rate from six-tenths of 1 percent
to 1 percent — with the provision that the
increase be used to fund the FasTracks
transit expansion program. The 1 percent
sales-and-use tax rate is levied in all eight
RTD counties.
• The state is responsible for collecting and
processing all RTD sales-tax revenues, and
it retains a small amount of the revenues
to cover its incremental costs. The statute
specifies the maximum amount the state
can retain along with a partial interest
accrual offset generated during a grace
period between receipt and disbursements
from vendors to RTD.
Image courtesy aurorasentinel.com
Body/entity
Eight-county district
(40 cities)
Funding source
Amount
Sales and use tax
1%
Risk Allocation Matrix
Dedication
Light rail expansion —
0.6% RTD base tax and
0.4% FasTracks sales and
use tax
Source: RTD 2012 Annual Financial Report
30
Peer Transit Analysis
Indianapolis — IndyGo
• Indianapolis and Marion County Public
Transportation (IndyGo) is the public
transit system operator for the city of
Indianapolis and Marion County in Indiana.
• Transit services for the area began in 1953
under the name MetroBus. In 1975, the city
of Indianapolis took control of all city-wide
public transportation and adopted the
name IndyGo in 1996.
• Today, IndyGO operates 28 fixed bus
routes with approximately 5,000 stops.
IndyGo operates 31 local bus routes in
Marion County, 27 of which converge in the
downtown area on “The Loop”— Ohio to
Capitol to Maryland to Delaware.
• IndyGo receives funds from property,
excise and local option income taxes from
the municipalities of Marion County.
Image courtesy of indystar.com
Body/entity
Funding source
Marion County
municipalities
Property, excise and local
option income and state
sales tax
Amount
$27,029,782
(2012)
Dedication
IndyGo transit
services
Source: 2012 IndyGo Annual Report
Mid-America Regional Council
31
Louisville, Ky. — TARC
• Transit Authority of the River City (TARC)
is the major public transportation provider
for the Louisville, Kentucky, metropolitan
area, including portions of southern
Indiana. TARC provides bus services
to three Kentucky counties (Jefferson,
Oldham, and Bullitt) and the Indiana
suburbs of Jeffersonville, Clarksville and
New Albany.
• In 1970, legislation authorized city and
county governments to operate mass
transit using local funding. In 1974,
Louisville voters approved an occupational
tax to fund mass transit.
• Today, TARC operates a fleet of
240 buses that provide transit services
along 52 routes.
• TARC is publicly funded through
Jefferson County’s two-tenths of 1 percent
occupational tax, which has been in
place for more than three decades. This
tax generates approximately $40 million
annually and the funds are deposited into a
Mass Transit Trust Fund (MTTF).
Image courtesy of brokensidewalk.com
Body/entity
Jefferson County,
Kentucky
Funding source
Occupational Tax
Amount
0.2%
Dedication
TARC transit services via
the Mass Transit Trust Fund
(MTTF)
Source: 2009 TARC Long Range Plan Update
32
Peer Transit Analysis
Milwaukee — MCTS
• The Milwaukee County Transit System
(MCTS) is a county-run agency formed
in 1975.
• MCTS is a partner in the Southeast
Wisconsin Transit System, a joint-venture
transit partnership with the Waukesha
Metro Transit public transit agency and five
other entities.
• Currently MCTS operates 415 buses and
a total of 59 routes that include 32 local,
three limited-stop MetroEXpress routes,
seven Freeway Flyers, four UBUS services
for the University of Wisconsin at Madison
and Milwaukee Area Technical College
and 15 limited routes with morning and
afternoon service, serving either schools
or industrial parks.
Image courtesy of jsonline.com
• MCTS receives funding for its operations
from four main sources:
—Passengers, advertising and other
related income account for 35 percent.
—The state of Wisconsin provides
43 percent.
—The federal government provides
11 percent.
—The Milwaukee County property tax
contributes about 11 percent.
—MCTS receives another one-half
percent from additional state and federal
funding sources.
• In 2008, Milwaukee County voters
approved a one percent sales tax to
support MCTS, parks and emergency
medical services.
Body/entity
Milwaukee County,
Wisconsin
Funding source
Property taxes
Amount
$17,136,000
(2011)
Dedication
Transit, parks and
emergency medical
services
Source: Milwaukee County Transit System 2011 Annual Report
Mid-America Regional Council
33
Minneapolis — Metro Transit
• In 1976, the Minnesota State Legislature
established Metro Transit as the transit
division of the Metropolitan Council, a
regional governmental agency in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.
• In 2001, the state legislature replaced a
property revenue source with the State
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) to fund
transit operations in the metro area.
• Metro Transit uses a system of color-coded
light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) lines
to provide service to the Twin Cities region.
The buses are owned by the Metropolitan
Council. Metro Transit operates both of the
region’s light rail lines — the METRO Blue
Line, and the METRO Green Line, opening
in 2014.
• Currently, Metro Transit receives the
majority of its funding from the MVST
and the state general fund.
Image courtesy of metrotransit.org
• Metro Transit operates 123 bus routes,
including 66 local routes and
51 express routes.
Funding source
Type of Funds
Amount
Motor vehicle sales tax
$3,063,012
State general fund
$4,170,000
Dedication
Metropolitan Council
Local funding partners
$978,806
Metro transit
services
State of Minnesota
Counties transit improvements
$21,699,017
Source: 2009 TARC Long Range Plan Update
34
Peer Transit Analysis
Oklahoma City — COTPA
• In 1966, Oklahoma City created the Central
Oklahoma Transportation and Parking
Authority (COTPA) to plan, develop,
build and operate a balanced parking and
transportation system (METRO Transit) in
the metropolitan area. COTPA’s Board of
Trustees governs Metro Transit, downtown
off-street public parking and Oklahoma
River Cruises.
• COTPA has more than 58 buses, three ferry
boats and 20 paratransit buses servicing
more than 40 routes.
• COTPA funding comes from a variety of
sources, including passenger fares, local
tax revenue (general fund), and state and
federal government funds. Many federal
grants require local entities to provide
matching funds.
• For the 2012–2013 fiscal year, the city of
Oklahoma City provided the majority of
transit operating funds, with $24.4 million
or 52 percent of the budget. COTPA
received additional funds from federal
and state sources, bus fares, grants and
other sources.
Image courtesy of geometro.org
Funding source
Type of Funds
Amount
Dedication
$24,561,131
(2013)
Metro Transit
and Capital
Improvement
Program
Local tax revenue (general fund)
Oklahoma City
State grant
MAPS — Metropolitan Area Projects
Source: gometro.publishpath.com/transit-funding
Mid-America Regional Council
35
Salt Lake City — UTA
• The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is the
public transit system operator for the Salt
Lake City region. UTA’s service area covers
more than 1,400 square miles and includes
six counties — Box Elder, Davis, Salt Lake,
Tooele, Utah and Weber.
• In 1970, the UTA name and transit district
publicly incorporated; however, its
origins go back to 1953 when several bus
companies in the region combined into a
single organization.
• UTA receives funds from a local-option
sales tax from each of the counties in
which it operates.
• UTA also receives revenue from several
different sources. It is part of a large
service district where communities pay
taxes to fund public transportation,
including Salt Lake, Davis, Utah and Weber
counties and select cities in Tooele and Box
Elder counties.
• Today, UTA operates a fleet of more
than 600 buses and paratransit vehicles,
400 vanpools, 146 light rail vehicles, 63
commuter rail cars and 18 locomotives,
spanning six counties, from Payson to
Brigham City.
Image courtesy of brokensidewalk.com
Body/entity
Funding source
Salt Lake County
Utah County
Dedication
0.6875%
Davis County
Weber County
Amount
0.55%
Local options sales tax
0.55%
0.526%
Box Elder County
0.55%
Tooele County
0.30%
UTA transit services
Source: UTA 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
36
Peer Transit Analysis
St. Louis, Mo. — The Metro
• In 1949, an interstate compact between
Missouri and Illinois established the
Bi-State Development Agency (BSDA),
which adopted the name “The Metro” in
2003. The BSDA was created to serve
the region on both sides of the Mississippi
and to have a regional outlook not tied to
any single municipality, county or state. As
such, BSDA has broad powers that enable it
to cross local, county and state boundaries
to enhance the development of the region.
Image courtesy of FTA.DOT.gov
• Since 1963, MetroBus has operated 75 bus
routes throughout Greater St. Louis, with
seven transit centers. Sixty normal bus
routes and 14 express bus routes operate on
the Missouri side of the Mississippi River. On
the Illinois side, Metro operates 13 normal
bus routes and four express bus routes —
the descendants of streetcar routes. The
bus services on the Illinois side of the river
are supplemented by Madison County
Transit.
• The city of St. Louis and St. Louis County
collect revenue from half-cent and quartercent local sales taxes. Note: The city of
Funding source
Type of Funds
St. Louis, Missouri, is an independent city,
not residing within the jurisdiction of or
associated with St. Louis County, Missouri.
• Both the city and the county allocate all
receipts from the quarter-cent sales tax to
Metro. The city of St. Louis appropriates
virtually all of its revenues from the halfcent sales tax to Metro. St. Louis County
splits revenue collected from the halfcent sales tax between Metro and road
and bridge projects within the county.
St. Louis County also appropriates
approximately $44 million to Metro every
year, with a minimum of 2 percent required
for transportation for developmentally
disadvantaged persons.
• In 1995, St. Clair County, Illinois, adopted
a half-cent sales tax to be dedicated
to MetroLink light rail capital projects,
operating costs and maintenance costs.
• Over the last decade, Metro and regional
leaders in Missouri have funded the system
through a series of short-term revenue
solutions and cost-cutting measures.
Amount
Dedication
1% (2010)
Metro transit services
City of St. Louis, Mo.
Sales tax
1% (2010)
St. Louis County, Missouri
St. Clair County, Illinois
Metro transit services and road/
bridge repair within the county
Metro transit services
Sales tax
0.75% (2010)
MetroLink light rail — capital projects,
operating and maintenance costs
Source: Bi-State Development Agency 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Mid-America Regional Council
37
Regional Comparisons
This section compares demographic information and public transportation ridership
characteristics of the Kansas City UZA to the selected peer transit providers.
Population
This page illustrates comparative population characteristics for the Kansas City UZA and the peer regions.
Population by Urbanized Area
Urbanized area
6,000,000
Population
Atlanta
5,442,113
Cincinnati
2,146,560
Denver
2,645,209
Indianapolis
1,798,786
Louisville, Ky.
1,302,457
Milwaukee
1,566,981
Minneapolis
3,353,724
Oklahoma City
1,256,947
Salt Lake City
1,161,715
St. Louis
2,819,381
Kansas City
2,624,209
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
Source: census.gov, 2012 ACS 1-Year Estimates
38
Peer Transit Analysis
Density
The population density characteristics are compared for the Kansas City UZA and the peer regions.
Population Density by Urbanized Area
Population density
per square mile
Atlanta
653
Cincinnati
489
Denver
317
Indianapolis
467
Louisville, Ky.
317
Milwaukee
1,078
Minneapolis
556
Oklahoma City
198
Salt Lake City
122
St. Louis
327
Kansas City
316
1,000
Density per sq mi (2010)
Urbanized area
1,200
800
600
400
200
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: factfinder2.census.gov, Census 2010 100-Percent Data
Mid-America Regional Council
39
Public Transit Ridership
Public transportation ridership levels are compared for the Kansas City UZA and the peer
regions.
5%
Public Transit Ridership
by Urbanized Area
Ridership
Atlanta
3%
Cincinnati
3%
Denver
5%
Indianapolis
1%
Louisville, Ky.
2%
Milwaukee
4%
Minneapolis
5%
Oklahoma City
1%
Salt Lake City
3%
St. Louis
3%
Kansas City
1%
4%
% Public Transit Travel to Work (2007-2011)
Urbanized area
3%
2%
1%
0%
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: census.gov, 2007-2011, 5-Year Estimates
40
Peer Transit Analysis
Transportation Provider Comparisons
This section compares the characteristics and finances of KCATA, UGT and The JO to the
primary transportation authority agencies serving peer regions.
Service area
This displays service area characteristics for KCATA, UGT, The JO and the primary transit agencies
serving peer regions.
Service area by Region
Service area in
square miles
Atlanta
5,442,113
Cincinnati
2,146,560
Denver
1,256,947
Indianapolis
2,645,209
Louisville, Ky.
1,798,786
Milwaukee
1,302,457
Minneapolis
1,566,981
Oklahoma City
3,353,724
Salt Lake City
1,161,715
St. Louis
2,819,381
Kansas City
2,624,209
2,500
2,000
Service Area (sq mi) (2012)
Region
1,500
1,000
500
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database]
Mid-America Regional Council
41
Annual ridership
The following displays ridership levels for KCATA, UGT and The JO and the primary transit
agencies serving peer regions.
Annual ridership
by Region
Ridership
Atlanta
134,889,690
Cincinnati
17,553,120
Denver
98,518,888
Indianapolis
10,248,603
Louisville, Ky.
17,186,176
Milwaukee
45,717,441
Minneapolis
81,053,506
Oklahoma City
2,902,811
Salt Lake City
42,365,346
St. Louis
46,704,766
Kansas City
17,350,046
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
Ridership (2012)
Region
160,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
42
Peer Transit Analysis
Finances
This section looks at the financial expenses for KCATA, UGT and The JO and primary transit agencies serving
the selected regions for this study, particularly funding expended from local, state and federal sources.
Fare Revenues Earned
by Region
Fare revenues
Atlanta
$130,642,970
Cincinnati
$31,292,564
Denver
$114,076,378
Indianapolis
$10,980,938
Louisville, Ky.
$11,121,110
Milwaukee
$43,892,563
Minneapolis
$91,428,299
Oklahoma City
$2,716,180
Salt Lake City
$47,301,613
St. Louis
$48,892,352
Kansas City
$14,000,548
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
Fare Revenues Earned (2012)
Region
$140,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Mid-America Regional Council
43
Local revenues by Region
Local revenues
Atlanta
$249,002,957
$300,000,000
$41,411,034
Denver
$344,880,619
Indianapolis
$21,059,820
Louisville, Ky.
$42,309,199
Milwaukee
$11,666,598
Minneapolis
$23,118,109
Oklahoma City
$11,013,745
Salt Lake City
$0
St. Louis
$168,101,440
Kansas City
$60,352,571
Local Revenues (2012)
Cincinnati
$350,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
$0
State revenues by Region
$180,000,000
Atlanta
$2,529,530
$160,000,000
Cincinnati
$807,400
$140,000,000
Denver
$954,604
$10,573,120
Louisville, Ky.
$2,762,523
Milwaukee
$67,857,827
Minneapolis
$174,479,973
Oklahoma City
$719,654
Salt Lake City
$116,235,386
Kansas City
Peer Transit Analysis
$196,670
$1,940,961
State Revenues (2012)
State revenues
Indianapolis
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
$200,000,000
Region
St. Louis
44
$250,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
Kansas City
UZA
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Region
$400,000,000
Region
Federal revenues
Atlanta
$63,515,459
Cincinnati
$13,357,126
Denver
$67,972,584
Indianapolis
$12,901,010
Louisville, Ky.
$13,171,727
Milwaukee
$27,496,719
Minneapolis
$16,067,805
Oklahoma City
$8,018,121
Salt Lake City
$49,451,436
St. Louis
$22,189,960
Kansas City
$16,438,117
Total Operating Funds Expended
by Region
Region
Operating Funds
Atlanta
$523,639,969
Cincinnati
Denver
89,064,103
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$545,056,092
Indianapolis
$56,391,734
Louisville, Ky.
$69,925,754
Milwaukee
$153,683,069
Minneapolis
$310,828,495
Oklahoma City
$22,708,548
Salt Lake City
$218,812,869
St. Louis
$245,131,595
Kansas City
$94,554,908
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma Salt Lake City St. Louis
City
Kansas City
UZA
Mid-America Regional Council
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Federal revenues by Region
45
Region
Capital funds
Atlanta
$147,771,026
Cincinnati
$23,101,174
Denver
$702,118,632
Indianapolis
$5,968,742
Louisville, Ky.
$6,379,565
Milwaukee
$18,354,072
Minneapolis
$401,331,295
Oklahoma City
$1,652,781
Salt Lake City
$307,818,940
St. Louis
$60,865,649
Kansas City
$23,792,007
$800,000,000
$700,000,000
$600,000,000
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$300,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
Atlanta
Transit Authority Service Area Densities
Service area
46
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
4500
Population density
4000
Atlanta
3,162
Cincinnati
3,226
Denver
1,126
Indianapolis
2,301
Louisville, Ky.
2,260
Milwaukee
3,967
Minneapolis
2,975
Oklahoma City
2,665
1000
Salt Lake City
2,883
500
St. Louis
2,760
Kansas City
2,044
Peer Transit Analysis
Cincinnati
Density per sq mi (2012)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis
Oklahoma Salt Lake City
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
Metro
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Capital Funds Expended by Region
100
Transit Authority ridership per capita
Ridership
90
Atlanta
86
80
Cincinnati
21
70
Denver
38
Indianapolis
11
Louisville, Ky.
21
Milwaukee
49
Minneapolis
45
30
Oklahoma City
4
20
Salt Lake City
20
St. Louis
30
Kansas City
13
Ridership per Capita (2012)
Region
$523,639,969
Cincinnati
$89,064,103
Denver
$545,056,092
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee
Minneapolis Oklahoma City Salt Lake City
St. Louis
Kansas City
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
Indianapolis
$56,391,734
Louisville, Ky.
$69,925,754
Milwaukee
$153,683,069
Minneapolis
$310,828,495
Oklahoma City
$22,708,548
Salt Lake City
$218,812,869
$10
St. Louis
$245,131,595
$0
Kansas City
$94,554,908
$40
$30
$20
Denver
Indianapolis
Louisville
Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma Salt Lake City
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
Mid-America Regional Council
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Atlanta
40
0
Fare Revenues per Capita (2012)
Operating Funds
50
10
Transit Authority Fare Revenues
Region
60
47
Transit Authority
Total Operating Funds
Ridership
Atlanta
134,889,690
Cincinnati
17,553,120
Denver
98,518,888
Indianapolis
10,248,603
Louisville, Ky.
17,186,176
Milwaukee
45,717,441
Minneapolis
81,053,506
Oklahoma City
2,902,811
Salt Lake City
42,365,346
St. Louis
46,704,766
Kansas City
17,350,046
140,000,000
120,000,000
100,000,000
Ridership (2012)
Region
160,000,000
80,000,000
60,000,000
40,000,000
20,000,000
0
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Denver
Indianapolis Louisville Milwaukee Minneapolis Oklahoma
City
Salt Lake
City
St. Louis
Kansas City
UZA
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
48
Peer Transit Analysis
Performance Measures
These tables display service efficiency, cost effectiveness and service
effectiveness characteristics for KCATA, UGT and The JO and the primary
transit agencies serving the regions selected for this study.
The performance measures of each transit agency are displayed by
mode of service and are listed side-by-side for comparison.
Note: Performance measure data is from the 2012 National Transit
Database (NTD)and is only available for transportation services that NTD
determined to be operating in maximum service and through capital funds
during the year 2012.
Data for service efficiency, cost effectiveness and service effectiveness
include operating expenses per vehicle revenue mile, vehicle revenue hour,
passenger mile and unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue mile and
vehicle revenue mile.
Mid-America Regional Council
49
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Bus
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Atlanta
$9.28
$112.72
$0.93
$3.43
2.70
32.82
Cincinnati
$8.63
$113.20
$0.93
$4.64
1.86
24.38
Denver
$9.00
$113.49
$0.75
$3.93
2.29
28.86
Indianapolis
$6.83
$98.09
$1.05
$4.47
1.53
21.93
Louisville
$8.35
$101.36
$0.87
$3.43
2.43
29.54
Milwaukee
$8.74
$108.40
$1.05
$3.00
2.92
36.17
Minneapolis
$10.94
$126.82
$0.84
$3.56
3.07
35.65
Oklahoma City
$7.41
$117.26
$1.22
$6.60
1.12
17.78
Salt Lake City
$7.68
$128.23
$1.98
$5.30
1.45
24.19
St. Louis
$7.49
$102.66
$0.92
$4.79
1.56
21.42
KCATA
$8.58
$115.48
$1.14
$4.18
2.05
27.61
UGT
$16.49
$350.53
n/a
$28.00
0.59
12.52
The JO
$4.85
$103.87
$0.60
$11.27
0.43
9.22
Average
$8.79
$130.16
$1.02
$6.66
1.85
24.78
Maximum
$16.49
$350.53
$1.98
$28.00
3.07
36.17
Minimum
$4.85
$98.09
$0.60
$3.00
0.43
9.22
Standard Deviation
$2.72
$66.84
$0.34
$6.76
0.84
8.27
Region
50
Cost Effectiveness
Peer Transit Analysis
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Demand Response
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Atlanta
$3.36
$60.03
$2.79
$37.77
0.09
1.59
Cincinnati
$5.49
$94.27
$3.80
$42.45
0.13
2.22
Denver
$4.51
$69.75
$4.43
$39.94
0.11
1.75
Indianapolis
$2.86
$48.26
$2.51
$30.64
0.09
1.57
Louisville
$2.88
$48.24
$2.89
$27.68
0.10
1.74
Milwaukee
$5.23
$68.32
$4.42
$29.08
0.18
2.35
Minneapolis
$6.36
$104.52
$8.29
$70.50
0.09
1.48
Oklahoma City
$7.37
$106.46
$3.93
$41.61
0.18
2.56
Salt Lake City
$3.97
$66.57
$3.74
$34.88
0.11
1.91
St. Louis
$3.05
$54.73
$3.08
$25.38
0.12
2.16
KCATA
$1.72
$31.60
n/a
$20.41
0.08
1.55
UGT
$5.49
$102.13
$5.69
$36.80
0.15
2.78
The JO
$4.85
$103.87
$0.60
$11.27
0.43
9.22
Average
$4.36
$71.24
$4.14
$36.43
0.12
1.97
Maximum
$7.37
$106.46
$8.29
$70.50
0.18
2.78
Minimum
$1.72
$31.60
$2.51
$20.41
0.08
1.48
Standard deviation
1.67
25.03
1.65
12.73
0.03
0.43
Region
Mid-America Regional Council
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
51
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Vanpool
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Denver
$0.50
$20.54
$0.12
$3.50
0.14
5.87
Milwaukee
$0.45
$20.20
$0.10
$3.91
0.12
5.17
Salt Lake City
$0.51
$20.09
$0.07
$2.65
0.19
7.59
KCATA
$0.77
$32.57
$0.16
$6.04
0.13
5.39
Average
$0.56
$23.35
$0.11
$4.03
0.15
6.01
Maximum
$0.77
$32.57
$0.16
$6.04
0.19
7.59
Minimum
$0.45
$20.09
$0.07
$2.65
0.12
5.17
Standard deviation
0.14
6.15
0.04
1.44
0.03
1.10
Region
52
Cost Effectiveness
Peer Transit Analysis
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Light Rail
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Denver
$8.10
$152.45
$0.39
$3.32
2.44
45.96
Minneapolis
$13.56
$192.47
$0.50
$2.66
5.10
72.46
Salt Lake City
$7.11
$90.46
$0.53
$2.42
2.93
37.32
St. Louis
$9.82
$233.65
$0.41
$3.65
2.69
61.74
Average
$9.65
$167.26
$0.46
$3.01
3.29
54.37
Maximum
$13.56
$233.65
$0.53
$3.65
5.10
72.46
Minimum
$7.11
$90.46
$0.39
$2.42
2.44
37.32
2.84
60.99
0.07
0.57
1.22
15.74
Region
Cincinnati
Standard deviation
Mid-America Regional Council
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
53
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Commuter Rail
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Minneapolis
$31.84
$1,158.52
$0.92
$23.45
1.36
49.41
Salt Lake City
$10.18
$332.17
$0.39
$10.52
0.97
31.57
Average
$21.01
$745.35
$0.66
$16.99
1.17
40.49
Maximum
$31.84
$1,158.52
$0.92
$23.45
1.36
49.41
Minimum
$10.18
$332.17
$0.39
$10.52
0.97
31.57
Standard deviation
15.32
584.32
0.37
9.14
0.28
12.61
Region
Denver
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Commuter Bus
Service Efficiency
Region
Salt Lake City
54
Peer Transit Analysis
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
$10.18
$332.17
$0.39
$10.52
0.97
31.57
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Ferryboat
Region
Oklahoma City
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
$176.13
$712.74
$26.80
$96.43
1.83
7.39
Regional Transportation Authority Service — Heavy Rail
Service Efficiency
Region
Atlanta
Cost Effectiveness
Service Effectiveness
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
Operating
Expense per
Passenger Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger Trip
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Mile
Unlinked
Passenger Trips
per Vehicle
Revenue Hour
$10.07
$263.71
$0.38
$2.45
4.12
107.84
Mid-America Regional Council
Source: ntdprogram.gov, 2012 National Transit Database
Service Efficiency
55
600 Broadway, Suite 200 • Kansas City, MO 64105-1659
Phone: 816/474-4270 • Fax: 816/421-7758
www.marc.org