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
If it wasn’t for the tax dollars CT confiscates from citizens, they could not survive. This is the STUPIDIST “business” model.