TABLE 1-28b: Condition of Urban
Bus and Rail Transit Maintenance Facilities
Excel | CSV
| Bus,
number of facilitiesa |
484 |
503 |
497 |
1,219 |
1,207 |
| Excellent |
102 |
13 |
46 |
83 |
208 |
| Good |
257 |
86 |
41 |
68 |
62 |
| Adequate |
34 |
285 |
266 |
672 |
551 |
| Substandard |
29 |
93 |
121 |
387 |
379 |
| Poor |
63 |
26 |
23 |
10 |
6 |
| Rail,
number of facilities |
123 |
125 |
150 |
152 |
152 |
| Excellent |
8 |
7 |
0 |
27 |
40 |
| Good |
56 |
53 |
32 |
18 |
26 |
| Adequate |
15 |
17 |
64 |
76 |
74 |
| Substandard |
15 |
17 |
36 |
27 |
10 |
| Poor |
5 |
6 |
18 |
3 |
2 |
a These data are derived from
the Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM). TERM uses uses statistically determined
decay curves to simulate the deterioration of the Nation's transit vehicles,
facilities, and other infrastructure components. National Transit Database (NTD) data are
applied to these decay curves to estimate conditions. Only the condition of directly operated
facilities are provided for 1995, 1997 and 2000. The NTD began gathering information on
facilities owned by bus systems providing services under contract in 1999
(known as purchased transportation), however, TERM did not base condition
estimates on this full set of facilities until 2002.
NOTE
Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.
SOURCE
U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Transit
Economic Requirements Model.
|