By: Diane Benjamin
April 28th Meeting Packet: https://connect-transit.com/file/4167/2026%2004%2028_BoT%20Meeting%20Packet.pdf
Imagine earning this much revenue in March 2026:
.
Now imagine how much that $100,000 cost you to earn:
.
$1,624,319 taxpayer dollars were spent to earn $100,211.
When that number gets to $2 million tax dollars every month will people finally realize they are being robbed? Stay tuned, it won’t take very long.
Meanwhile, the office needs a new security system. I can’t imagine why.
.
I hope everyone paid your taxes because this insanity is going on across the country.
how do you lose money on advertising ? The cost of the wrap is more than the amount charged ?
So how does Connct Transit compare with other cities/metro’s of similar size? I asked our friend Chat GPT. Can’t guarantee numbers are accurate, but this is what it spit out:
For a metro its size, Connect Transit actually performs pretty well—not exceptional like the very best college-town systems, but stronger than many comparable small-city networks, especially on ridership trends and efficiency.
Here’s how it stacks up in plain terms.
🚍 1) Size & structure — very typical for a small college metro
Bloomington–Normal is right in the “small urbanized area” category (~100k–200k population). Systems in this tier usually:
run 10–25 routes
operate mostly buses (no rail)
rely heavily on subsidies
Connect Transit fits that profile almost exactly:
~15–16 routes
~45 buses
service area ~46 square miles
👉 Compared to peers like Ames, IA or Mankato, MN, it’s middle-of-the-pack in scale.
📊 2) Ridership — above average trend, but not elite
This is where Connect Transit stands out a bit.
~2.2–2.4 million annual rides in recent years
Ridership grew ~76% since 2008 (rare among U.S. systems)
While peer systems were declining, Connect was increasing ridership
👉 That’s notable. Many small-city systems have struggled post-2000 and especially post-COVID.
But:
It’s not at the very top tier.
Systems like Champaign–Urbana MTD (University of Illinois) have higher ridership and service levels
👉 So:
Better than average trend
Below the very best college-driven systems
💰 3) Financials — very typical (low fare recovery)
This is where it looks exactly like most small U.S. systems.
Fare revenue covers only about ~10–11% of operating costs
The rest comes mostly from state + federal funding
👉 That’s actually normal (even a bit low):
Many U.S. systems: ~15–40% fare recovery
Small cities: often under 20%
So Connect Transit is:
not financially “strong” in a business sense
but completely typical for its category
🎓 4) The “college town effect” — a big advantage
Like many better-performing small systems, Connect Transit benefits from:
Illinois State University
Illinois Wesleyan
Heartland Community College
This shows up in:
younger riders (18–24 dominant group)
steady base ridership
👉 Systems without a major university usually perform worse.
⚖️ 5) Peer comparison snapshot
Compared to similar-size metros:
Category How Connect Transit compares
System size Typical
Ridership level Moderate
Ridership trend Above average (strong growth)
Financial self-sufficiency Typical (low fare recovery)
Service intensity Moderate
National recognition Strong (won APTA award)
🧭 Bottom line
If you lined up similar U.S. systems (Ames, Champaign, South Bend, Springfield MO, etc.):
Top tier: dense college towns (Champaign–Urbana)
Upper-middle: 👉 Connect Transit sits here
Lower tier: car-dependent small cities with weak ridership
🧠 The interesting takeaway
What makes Connect Transit notable isn’t profit or scale—it’s this:
👉 It’s one of the rare small-city systems that actually grew ridership while others declined.
That’s usually a sign of:
decent route design
reasonable frequency
strong university integration
They count transfers as 2 rides both ways. Champion buses are empty too.
According to your article, Connect Transit should contact https://pathcrisis.org/
City councils who fund them and say nothing should to