3/3/23 - This note has been added. The total passenger mileage for buses appears abnormally inflated in the Federal Transit Database. Passenger trips rose by 19% while total passenger miles rose by 65% without expansion of the bus network. Reported total passenger miles for buses needs investigation. Potentially inflated passenger miles may unnecessarily increase bus budget sizing. 

3/2/26 - This blog has been corrected since its oriiginal publication to correct a significant calculation error. Corrected items are in bold.

Based on MATA’s recent Council Committee presentation, it’s unclear that MATA management knows how many people ride the bus. Unfortunately, no financial or route ridership data was provided in the substance lacking MATA presentation. In short, MATA has been terribly mismanaged. 

Calls for $30M more in annually recurring operational funding, as advanced by Innovate Memphis, MICAH and others are excessive. And the fact that Innovate Memphis gets $300K in City funding per year, as a transit advocate, to only sit there and watch MATA implode is even more ridiculous. To make matters worse, Innovate Memphis has never leveraged the Federal Transit Database to help size public transit expenditures. Such a waste.

Knowing how many people ride the bus is critical in sizing public transit budgets. Based on ridership, MATA has been sufficiently funded on a capital basis. Could operational funding be boosted in some areas based on ridership? Sure. This cost analysis was generated by the Taxpayer Justice Institute.  

If MATA wanted to generously aim for passenger average per mile trip costs, across all modes based on 2024 ridership data, today, recurring operating costs would need to increase by $20M per year. To compensate for net free fares, $22M per year in increased operating funds would do the job. 

However, It is important to note, that if this analysis were based on 2023 average passenger per mile costs, MATA would be adequately funded on an operational basis. 

This does not include any cost savings that would materialize by cutting known inefficient bus routes. Cut bus routes could be served with expanded on demand. With appropriately cut routes and expanded on demand, the $22M operating increase could be slashed by as much as $5M to $17M. 

Here is how it breaks down by transit mode. Increasing passenger per mile trip costs from $1.97 to $2.71 would cost $15M more per year for buses. Increasing on demand passenger per mile from $5 to $7.39 would cost $3.9M. This increased on demand cost should be partially offset by a $3 per trip fare. And increasing trolley per mile passenger cost from $10.44 to $13.11 would cost $900K.

So, the grand total increase in recuring operational costs is $22M and that is before any savings generated from cut bus routes or revenue generated by on demand. See 2024 peer evaluated operational expenses for Motor Bus and On Demand above and Trolley below:

MATA displays their historical mismanagement in this capital cost analysis. Again, the data shows that MATA is not grossly underfunded when relating capital expenses to ridership. To that extent, capital spend data dislocations are evaluated to determine the effectiveness of capital expenditures.

Generally, data dislocations can be explained for the good or bad. In this way, MATA’s data dislocations can only be explained for the bad. Ranking #1 in per rider technology, fare collection, and other vehicles spend while ranking last in passenger bus spend signals gross mismanagement. The former is especially evident when MATA is riddled with technology that does not work and an insufficient number of buses serving its network.

Data dislocations are not evident in on demand capital expenditures. When trolleys are not running, deficient data dislocations are detected regarding trolley passenger vehicle and other vehicle spend.

Overall, MATA capital spend, when related to ridership, is sufficient within the peer group. See below tables where data dislocations are shaded and capital expenditures are ranked on a per rider trip basis within the peer group.

Based on the data, MATA’s implosion was driven by overspending on nonworking technology and not sufficiently buying buses. From 2019-24, MATA spent $24M on technology and fare collection while only spending $10M on passenger buses. Had MATA capitally spent the per rider average of the peer group of $1.39 over the 2019-24 period on passenger buses, 23 more buses would have been purchased over the 2019-24 period.

MATA has been terribly mismanaged and publicly ripped off !