260 likes | 432 Views
Discussion of Prince William County’s Ongoing Transit Support Fashioning a Path Forward. Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission April 3, 2014. Background. PRTC bus services unsustainable beyond FY 2016 without a Prince William supplement to its motor fuels tax
E N D
Discussion of Prince William County’s Ongoing Transit SupportFashioning a Path Forward Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission April 3, 2014
Background • PRTC bus services unsustainable beyond FY 2016 without a Prince William supplement to its motor fuels tax • Required supplement quantified in PRTC’s proposed FY 2015 budget / six year plan presented in January 2014 • More recent discussions with PRTC Board Chair and County Executive to discuss next steps – leading to today’s presentation
Presentation Aims • Furnish an explicit description of service cuts that would be required and their impacts in lieu of a supplement (based on a simplified analysis) • Describe alternative courses of action that can be taken to resolve whether a supplement will be forthcoming • Conclude -- based on the results of the simplified analysis being presented today -- that a supplement to avert service cuts is warranted and will be provided • Deferring judgment and proceeding down a path of contemplating service cuts to avert the need for a supplement
How Did We Get Here? • Prince William’s motor fuels tax yield has been less than the County’s VRE & PRTC expenses for many years, so it supplemented with a general fund appropriation until FY 2009 (avg. of $1.4 M/year) • Since the supplement ceased, the annual shortfall has been covered by the motor fuels tax fund balance, but fund balance will be fully depleted by FY 2017 • Concern about service sustainability has been raised twice before, but temporary reprieves delayed the day of reckoning • Federal stimulus legislation in 2009 • State transportation funding bill (HB 2313) in 2013 • No further temporary reprieve in sight
Simplified Analysis Parameters • VRE services / subsidy held harmless, so Prince William’s subsidy reduction is confined to bus services • Projected funding shortfall in FY 2017 is $5M, or about 36% of Prince William’s $14M annual subsidy for PRTC • Subsidy reduction for OmniRide and OmniLink assumed in same proportions as current amounts of County subsidy • OmniRide ≈ 46% of County’s bus subsidy • OmniLink ≈ 54% of County’s bus subsidy
Simplified Analysis Parameters(continued) • To lessen Prince William’s annual PRTC subsidy by 36%, revenue hours of service would have to be reduced by 39% because • Federal / state funding support reduced • Ridership / fare revenue reduced • Contract cost per revenue hour increased • By targeting least productive services for cuts, ridership and fare revenue reductions are lessened • Some riders would shift to sustained services BUT • Practical limits to shifting because of longer waits, diminished attractiveness of schedules, overcrowding
Simplified Analysis ResultsOverview of Cuts • OmniRide • 40% of revenue hours cut (to lessen County’s subsidy by $2.3M; 46% of $5.0M targeted subsidy reduction) • All routes affected • Estimated ridership loss -2,800 daily trips (28%) • OmniLink • 37% of revenue hours cut (to lessen County’s subsidy by $2.7M; 54% of $5.0M targeted subsidy reduction) • Reduced frequency, reduction in span of service day, elimination of one route • Estimated ridership loss - 700 daily trips (17%)
Simplified Analysis ResultsImpacts on a Sample Commuter Route • Percent of average daily trips with standees • 2011 – 26.5% • 2014 – 5.9% • Post service cut – 30.2% • Peak service interval increases from 12 to 21 minutes (last operated in 2008) • Longer intervals + crowding = increased wait times • 40+ minutes for those unable to board first bus due to overcrowding • Standees = safety risk • Significant decline in customer satisfaction
Simplified Analysis Results How would cuts impact OmniLink? • 2013 Survey results • 77% use Link for essential life functions - work, shopping, education, medical, and social service trips • 21% of Link riders have no other means of making trips • Reduced frequency + elimination of route + shorter hours = • Overcrowding ( Standees = safety risk) • Inability for some riders to access work, school or other essential life functions • Longer travel times and more transfers required • Increased wait times • Significant declines in customer satisfaction
When Were Service Levels As Low As They Would Be If These Cuts Happened? • Systemwide revenue hours • October 2005 (FY 2006) • OmniLink revenue hours • June 2000 (FY 2000) • OmniRide revenue hours • October 2006 (FY 2007)
Productivity Then Versus Now(Riders per Revenue Hour) • OmniLink • FY00 = 7.3 • FY13 = 17.5 • Productivity gain = 140% • OmniRide • FY07 = 19.8 • FY13 = 22.5 • Productivity gain = 14%
Service Change History • OmniLink • Last significant change - November 2006 • Reduced peak service interval from 45 minutes to 30 minutes on 3 routes; reduced Cross County interval from 2 hours to 1 hour • Since then only changes have been to lengthen trips due to increased travel times (+11 daily hours = 4.7%) • OmniRide • Since November 2006 added multiple new routes and additional trips to relieve chronic overcrowding (+84 daily hours = 26%) • Systemwide • Spring 2009 – Revenue hours reduced by ~ 5% for austerity reasons during recession • No “low hanging fruit” to pick for easy cost savings
Recent History and the Future • From fall 2009 through the current proposed 6-year planning horizon, essentially no service expansion; limited to • Saturday Metro-Direct • Contingency hours to counteract increased travel times and chronic commuter service overcrowding • Projected PWC population growth over the same period = 15.1% • Projected population growth 2015 to 2020 = 9.4%
Alternative Courses of Action-- Which Path Do We Take? Defer judgment & set in motion a public discussion about prospective service cuts Pledge the supplement based on the simplified analysis results to sustain existing services
Pledge the Supplement • Simplified analysis results demonstrate the importance of sustaining the services • Averts contentious public discussion of service cuts • Management’s strong preference • PRTC bus services are not just a “nice to have” – they’re a vital part of what makes the community an attractive place to live and work • Service stability is really important • Prince William’s continuing growth & aspirations for greater self-containment are compelling reasons for expanding service, not curtailing it
Prospective Service Cuts -- Steps • Step 1: Criteria for identifying prospective cuts • Board proposes • Public reviews and comments • Board adopts • Step 2: Prospective cuts defined using adopted criteria • Proposed cuts defined • Public reviews and comments • Board adopts • Step 3: Cuts implemented • Fleet reduction • Sale of buses • Grant paybacks • Reconstituting scope of 2nd bus maintenance facility
Criteria for Identifying Prospective Cuts -- Considerations • Title VI & environmental justice assessments required to • Measure “disparate impacts” (race / ethnicity measure) • Measure “disproportionate burdens” (low income measure) • Mitigate to the extent possible • Thus rider demographics by service type are fundamentally important
More on Criteria for Identifying Service Cuts – Demographics Matter* * 2013 survey results
More on Criteria for Identifying Service Cuts – Considerations(continued) • Demographic differences drive • How services are priced • Farebox recovery and subsidy per trip • So OmniLink services would bear the brunt of service cuts if criteria were only financial / economic measures • To temper this, criteria would need to be • Differentiated by service type • Include both financial / economic and other measures (e.g., riders per revenue hour or per scheduled trip)
What Might the Criteria Be?(differentiated by service type) • Framework • Differentiated by service type • OmniRide (discretely scheduled trips) • Individually scheduled trips can be evaluated (such that a trip identified for elimination would “thin the herd”, with altered schedule to redistribute remaining trips) • OmniLink (continuously operated service) • Frequency and/or hours of service would be lessened • Plausible Measures • Riders per revenue hour or per scheduled trip • Gross subsidy per rider • Local subsidy per rider • Presence / absence of an available alternative
Evaluation Methodology (By service type) • Calculate each evaluation measure by service type, and normalize by comparing to best performer (score becomes an index) • Sum across all evaluation measures to calculate a composite index • Array trips by composite index in ascending order (worst at the top) • Calculate PWC cost saving if trip is eliminated or frequency is diminished (i.e., gross subsidy minus lost revenue, federal and state assistance) • “Draw the line” wherever it needs to be drawn to achieve the PWC cost saving
Recap Defer judgment & set in motion a public discussion about prospective service cuts Pledge the supplement based on the simplified analysis results to sustain existing services