Transit Efficiency

1
Transit Efficiency EffectivenessIs There
Another Way to Skin the Cat?
Commission Workshop Steve Heminger May 25, 2006
2
Why should MTC care?
3
Four Areas to Consider

1. Performance Standards
2. Service Rationalization
3. Consolidation
4. Funding

4
Performance StandardsIs a Carrot Just a Stick
Painted Orange?
5
Carrots

1. Incentive-based funding allocations
2. Reward operators that meet certain performance
   thresholds with regional discretionary funds
3. Transit example FTA capital funds (10 based on
   ridership)
4. Other example Housing Incentive Program (HIP)

6
Sticks

1. Phase out exceptions from TDA 20 and AB 1107 33
   fare box recovery standards
2. Impose new, higher standards on all operators
   with regular reporting and funding at stake
3. Transit example RM1 standard for the Harbor Bay
   Ferry
4. Other example Transit-Oriented Development
   (TOD) Policy

7
Risks

• Carrots concerns about favoritism,
  self-fulfilling prophecies
• Sticks operators fail to meet standards cycle
  of extensions and exceptions begins

8
Service Rationalization Can there be too much
of a good thing?
9
Bay Area Discount Fare Policies
Transit Operator Senior/Disabled Youth Child
AC Transit 50 50 (5-17 yrs.) 4 and under free (limit 2)
BART 75 75 (5-12 yrs.) 4 and under free
Caltrain 50 50 (5-11 yrs.) 4 and under free (limit 1)
County Connection 66 Same as adult Under 6 free
Golden Gate Transit 50 25 (6-18 yrs.) 5 and under free (limit 2)
SamTrans 52 40 (5-17 yrs.) 4 and under free (limit 1)
San Francisco Muni 72 72 (5-17 yrs.) Under 5 free
Santa Clara VTA 57 14 (5-17 yrs.) Under 5 free
WestCAT 50 Same as adult Under 6 free (limit 2)
10
Overlapping Routes Services

• Examples
• Transbay (AC, BART, ferries)
• Peninsula (BART, Caltrain, SamTrans)
• East Bay Suburban
• Marin/Sonoma

11
Possible New Directions

1. Fare Integration Study (RM 2)
2. Route Duplication Analysis
3. Consolidated Call Center (Real 511 Operators)
4. Consolidated Procurement vehicles, fuel, etc.

12
Risks

1. Redundancy has its advantages
2. Rider complaints (every route has a customer)
3. Expansion into areas beyond MTC expertise (e.g.,
   procurement)
4. Potential transit employee impacts

13
Consolidation Less is More?

14
Types of Consolidation

• Functional see prior item
• Geographic Napa example next stop Solano
  Sonoma?
• Modal RM2 Regional Rail Plan Caltrain,
  Capitols, ACE, Dumbarton Rail
• Service Area BART (trunk line) and AC Transit
  (feeder)

15
Cost Comparison
County Connection/LAVTA Consolidation
Cost/RVH Cost/RVH RVH RVH Total Cost/Separate Rates Total Cost _at_ CCCTA Rates Added Costs
CCCTA CCCTA 79.72 284,000 22,640,480 22,640,480 22,640,480 -
LAVTA LAVTA 75.94 123,000 9,340,620 9,340,620 9,805,560 464,940
Combined Combined 407,000 31,981,100 31,981,100 32,446,040 464,940
SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators SourceFY2003/04 figures Statistical Summary of Bay Area Transit Operators

• Potential Savings
• CCCTA access to maintenance facilities in LAVTA
  service area could reduce deadhead costs up to
  180,000/year.
• Service costs could be reduced with changes in
  route structure/service rationalization under
  single operation, but could be offset by labor
  agreement provisions related to service changes.
• Administration costs could be reduced by
  eliminating some duplication, but could be offset
  by costs associated with managing a larger
  transit system.

16
Other Benefits

• Streamline administration overhead
• More rational service planning resource
  allocation
• Improved hub connectivity (external connections
  become internal transfers)
• Less costly regional coordination efforts

17
Risks

1. Political friction with local transit boards and
   legislative patrons
2. Potential for higher labor costs
3. Increased employee leverage for work stoppages

18

• 4. Funding
• STA Rides to the Rescue?

19
STA Background and History

• Proposition 111 approved in 1990
• Shifted the shares of statewide STA between a
  revenue based formula and a population based
  formula
• Revenue-based and Population-based funds were
  distributed 30/70 -- Prop. 111 changed to
  50/50 statewide
• Due to significant transit ridership and
  dedicated local support to transit, the Bay Area
  receives a much larger amount of STA
  revenue-based funds than the regions share of
  statewide population.
• Consequently, Prop. 111 resulted in a 51
  increase in combined STA funds to the Bay Area.

20
STA Bay Areas Share over Time

• Before and After Prop. 111
• Population-Based
• 9.2 million to 8.0 million Decreased 13
• Revenue-Based
• 11.2 million to 22.8 million Increased 104
• Combined Change Increased 51

21
STA Policy in Response

• To address the change in state law, MTC shared
  its population based funds with the small
  operators, with the adoption of Resolution No.
  2310 in 1991. Funds distributed as follows
• Northern counties
• Small operators and Vallejo
• ADA paratransit
• Balance goes to MTC Regional Coordination Program
• Original intent was to provide small operators
  chance to grow, since Prop. 111 created big bump
  for larger operators

22
Small Operators Growth At a Glance

• Assumed feeder service from BART and expanded
  into express bus operations
• Strong overall growth in operating budgets due to
  growth in economy and gas prices (sources of
  TDA/STA funds)
• Considerable carry-over balances in TDA and STA
  for some operators

23
STA Bay Areas Share Today

• Today - FY 2007 Fund Estimate
• Population-Based
• 15.6 million
• Revenue-Based
• 44.5 million
• Outcome
• Revenue-based formula structure directs more
  to operators with larger budgets and more riders
• 7 largest operators in the region make up 97 of
  STA revenue-generated funds to the region
• 13 smaller operators generate 3 of STA revenue
  funds to the region

24
STA Policy Stay the Course for Base

• Consideration given to changed policy for base
  STA Population-Based funds
• Simplifying process
• More flexibility consolidate categories
• Standardizing growth over time to CPI
• Providing additional increment of funding for
  transit coordination/consolidation efforts
• Negative feedback from operators on any change,
  especially CPI growth standard
• Staff has withdrawn proposal

25
STA Policy Proposition 42 Increment

• Proposition 42 dedicated the sales tax on
  gasoline for transportation purposes.
• It generated new revenue for the STA program
  statewide, including 280 million in
  population-based funds for Bay Area over 25
  years.
• Commission responded to this new revenue by
  adopting a different policy for the Prop. 42
  increment in Transportation 2030.
• 104 million goes to build/operate TransLink
  program and remaining 176 million is dedicated
  to Lifeline Program.

26
STA Policy Infrastructure Bond

• Potential infusion of STA capital revenue
• 987 million in Revenue-Based funds
• 347 million in Population-Based funds
• Capital only
• Current policy does not address I-Bond generated
  funds

27
Potential Options for Infrastructure Bond STA
funding (347 million region-wide)

• Augment Existing Programs
• Lifeline- increase Transportation 2030
  commitments
• Operations (swap required for operating costs)
• Capital
• Transit Capital shortfall
• AB 664 federal match supplement
• Resolution 3434 regional funding augmentation
  for transit extensions
• TOD/TLC capital or planning funds
• Regional Express Bus augmentation
• Supporting capital facilities

28
Potential Options for Infrastructure Bond STA
funding (347 million region-wide)

• New Initiatives
• Transit consolidation incentives
• Operations costs associated with change e.g.
  13(c) labor agreements (swap required)
• Capital reward
• Start-up costs for integrated transit fare (swap
  required)
• Transit Air Quality initiatives
• Zero emission buses
• Reserve for emergency capital needs (earthquake,
  service interruptions, etc.)