2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting Linda Cherrington Texas Transportation Institute

1. TCRP Report 141 (Project G-11)A Methodology for Performance Measurement andPeer Comparison in the Public Transportation IndustryAndBenchmarking Public Transportation Systems in Texas 2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting Linda CherringtonTexas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System

2. TCRP G-11 Project Purpose • Develop and test a methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison for: • All fixed-route components of a public transit system • Motorbus (MB) mode specifically • Major rail modes specifically • Provide guidance on applying performance measurement and peer comparison to: • Improve public transit agency operations • Demonstrate public transit’s ability to meet local or regional transportation goals • This presentation highlights key findings and products from the project

3. Research Team • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. • Texas Transportation Institute,Texas A&M University System • Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)at University of South Florida • Nakanishi Research & Consulting • Lehman Center for Transportation Researchat Florida International University

4. Desired Methodology Attributes • Robust • Practical • Transparent • Uniform • Innovative • Adaptable • Accessible • Updateable • Build upon TCRP G-6 work TCRP Report 88 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System

5. Research Steps • Literature review & agency experience • Identify comparison factors, performance measures • Develop initial methodology • Small-scale test, revise methodology • Agencies chose topic and reviewed results, researchers applied method • 10 transit agencies, 5 state DOTs, Chicago RTA • Large-scale test, revise methodology • Agencies chose topic, applied method, reviewed results • 19 transit agencies, 2 state DOTs, Chicago RTA

6. Definition of ”Benchmarking” • “The continuous process of measuring products, services, and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognized as industry leaders.” • David Kearns, Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation  • “The search for industry best practices.” • Robert  C.  Camp, Best Practice Institute.   • “A process of comparing the performance and process characteristics between two or more organizations in order to learn how to improve.” • Gregory Watson,  former Vice President of Quality, Xerox Corp.  

7. Levels of Benchmarking • Adapted from European EQUIP benchmarking project • Level 1: Trend analysis • Level 2: Peer comparison • Level 3: Agency contact • Level 4: Benchmarking networks

8. TCRP Report 141 Benchmarking Methodology

9. Performance Measure Selection • TCRP Report 141 provides guidance on National Transit Database (NTD)-derivable and other commonly used measures, linked to particular topics or applications • Outcome measures that measure results • Descriptive measures that provide clues as to why the results turned out the way they did • TCRP Report 88 provides an expanded library of measures that can also be considered for benchmarking network applications

10. Peer Grouping Process • Methodology seeks to find agencies with similar characteristics • Methodology produces a ”likeness score” that indicates how similar or dissimilar two agencies are, and provides guidance on how to interpret the likeness score • Ideally, use 8–10 agencies with the smallest likeness scores as the peer group • Fewer peers may be used when likeness scores are out of the desirable range, but use at least 4 peers at a minimum

11. Service characteristics Modes operated (NTD) Service area type (G-11) Percent service purchased (NTD) Percent service demand-response (NTD) Vehicle-miles operated (NTD) Annual operating budget (NTD) Regional characteristics Urban area population (Census) Population growth (Census) Population density (Census) State capital (G-11) Percent college students (Census) Percent low-income (Census) Roadway delay (TTI) Freeway lane-miles (TTI) Distance (G-11) Peer Grouping Factors Many other factors considered and tested during project These factors provided the best differentiation between potential peers, and peer groupings that were the most acceptable to agencies participating in the research tests

12. Software Tool • Peer-grouping methodology has been incorporated into the online Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) tool • Available now • Sponsored by the Florida DOT, but provides access to the full NTD, plus data added by the TCRP G-11 project • Requires a free, one-time registration at www.ftis.org • Testing during the G-11 project found that users were able to learn about the methodology, learn how to use the tool, and perform their first analysis with 16 person-hours of work or less • Subsequent analyses can be performed very quickly

13. Software Tool • Identify peer groups for specific modes or agency as a whole

14. Software Tool • Retrieve NTD-based measures for the peer group

15. Software Tool • Analyze data within FTIS or export to a spreadsheet

16. Software Tool • Investigate performance results

17. Research Results Published as TCRP Report 141 http://onlinepubs.trb.org

18. Benchmarking and Improving Texas Rural and Small Urban Public Transportation Systems Texas Department of Transportation Research Project 6205

19. Overview of Project • Establishing peer groups (rural and state-funded urban) • 38 rural transit districts • 30 eligible state-funded urban transit districts* • Examining effectiveness and efficiency by peer group • Identifying strategies to improve performance (transferable best practices) *Does not include transit authorities in urban areas >200,0000

20. State Transit Funds 35% Eligible Urban Providers 65% Rural Providers 50% Needs 50% Performance 65% Needs 35% Performance 100% population 75% population 25% land area Transit Funding Formula

21. Urban Performance Revenue miles/ Operating expenses Passengers/ Revenue miles Local investment/ Operating expense Passengers/ Population for urbanized area Rural Performance Revenue miles/ Operating expenses Passengers/ Revenue miles Locally investment/ Operating expense Performance Measures

22. Peer Grouping Environmental Data • Population • Service area size • Service area density • Percent of service area population that is age 65 or older • Percent of households with zero automobiles • Percent of population below poverty level • Percent of population ages 21 to 64 that are disabled

23. Urban Peer Groups (4)

24. Rural Peer Groups (5)

25. Peer Group Effectiveness and Efficiency

26. Determining High Performers - Urban 1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean

27. Determining High Performers – Rural 1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean

28. Benchmarking Strategies to Improve Performance • Strategies to grow ridership and improve effectiveness • Efforts to manage cost to improve efficiency • Initiatives to maximize service and labor productivity • Projects to improve management processes

29. Why Peer Comparison and Benchmarking? • Informally, “the practice of being humble enough to admit that someone else is better at something and wise enough to try to learn how to match, and even surpass, them at it.” • American Productivity & Quality Center

30. Questions? Linda Cherrington L-Cherrington@tamu.edu 713-686-2971 ext 15140