200 likes | 442 Views
Transit Performance Standards . Commission Workshop Alix Bockelman May 24, 2006. Overview of Performance Requirements. Transportation Development Act (TDA) State Transit Assistance (STA) AB1107 Bridge Tolls (RM1/RM2) Performance Audits Productivity Improvement Program (PIP).
E N D
Transit Performance Standards Commission Workshop Alix Bockelman May 24, 2006
Overview of Performance Requirements • Transportation Development Act (TDA) • State Transit Assistance (STA) • AB1107 • Bridge Tolls (RM1/RM2) • Performance Audits • Productivity Improvement Program (PIP)
Background and History: TDA Transportation Development Act (TDA) Background • Enacted in 1971 • ¼ cent sales tax implemented by county Board vote • Generates roughly $300 million in transit operating revenues for the Bay Area annually TDA Requirements • Operators must meet farebox standard or expenditure limitation to qualify for funds. • MTC, as allocating agency, must enforce.
TDA: Requirement Diluted Over Time • Early Requirements • 50% Expenditure Limitation • Farebox Requirement • 20% for Urban Operators • 10% for Non-Urban • Exceptions Added to Address Non-Compliance • Temporary to address service extension, and excess cost for paratransit service and insurance/liability • MTC can lower standard for areas of <500,000 population – Northern Counties • MTC may group operators in BART district for purposes of meeting farebox requirement
Bay Area Exceptions to Farebox Requirements Current Request from Fairfield Suisun to Lower Farebox Requirement to 18%
Background and History: STA State Transit Assistance (STA) Background • Enacted in 1980 • Revenues distributed 50% by Revenue Factors to Operators and 50% by Population to MTC • Generates roughly $60 million to region STA Requirements • STA seeks to limit annual cost per hour increase to CPI • Exception allowed in MTC region: • If operator has made a reasonable effort to implement productivity improvements • If operator meets MTC’s coordination policy
STA: Requirement Diluted Over Time History of STA Qualifying Criteria • 1989 Cost/hour growth limited to 90% of CPI; some exemptions for fuel, insurance • 1991 Cost per hour growth limited to CPI over a one-year or a three-year period • 1991 Exemption allows MTC operators to qualify by participating in Productivity Improvement Plan (PIP) and meeting MTC coordination requirements • 1993May exclude increases beyond the CPI for power, electricity, insurance premiums and claims, ADA service • 2003Shall exclude increases beyond the CPI for power, electricity, insurance premiums and claims, ADA service
Trend: Cost Per Hour: 2005 Dollars VTA, GGBHTD, and AC Transit cost/hour have increased in real terms since FY1991
Enforcing Requirements: STA and MTC BART Enforcement Example • In 1992, Invoked non-coordination per SB602 • BART refused to adopt a revenue sharing agreement with AC Transit • MTC withheld STA Funds – allocated to AC Transit • Subsequent to withholding, negotiated agreement with BART • Embodied in Resolution 2672 • BART’s STA funds used to pay AC Transit for transfer payments
Background and History: AB 1107 AB 1107: ½ cent sales tax in three BART counties • Enacted in 1977 • ¼ of Generations to MTC for Allocation • Roughly $64 million annually – MTC portion • Fund eligibility limited to AC Transit, BART, and S.F. MUNI AB 1107 Requirements • Mandates 33% farebox standard • Exception added in 1984 • MTC can allow an operator to count excess local support as fare revenue in this calculation (similar to TDA exemption)
Funding Distribution and AB 1107 AB 842: Financial Planning Process • 1979 Amendment to AB 1107 - Required financial management plan • 1980 Transit Finance Study • Established on-going process of financial planning with the three operators. • Introduced Coordinated Fare Principle • Coordinated budget evaluation of the 3 operators • Required coordinated fare increases to fund vital transit services • Resulted in annual allocation recommendations for regional funds Current Practice • Since 1987 - Policy splits funds 50/50 to AC Transit and Muni • Addressed annually through the Fund Estimate
Performance Measures: Regional Measure 1 Regional Measure 1 – portion devoted to Ferry Operations • Approximately $2.8 million annually • Claimants: Vallejo, Alameda Oakland Ferry, and Harbor Bay • Commission could use for other congestion relieving projects RM1 and Performance Requirement • In 2002, Commission adopted 40% Farebox requirement • Provided three years to meet standard • Harbor Bay did not meet standard at 29% and was given one-year extension or risk losing funding • City implemented a plan to increase revenues and reduce costs • In FY06, Harbor Bay farebox ratio projected to be 43%
Regional Measure 2 • Approved by voters in 2004 • Operating support for 14 projects – bus, ferry, rail • MTC was required to adopt performance standards for operating support projects. • Basic measures • Farebox recovery • Change in passengers per hour – must be positive • Must be achieved by third full year of operation Farebox Requirements
Background and History: Performance Audits • Background - Audit • TDA statute requires MTC to hire an outside auditor to conduct performance audits of operators on a 3-year cycle. • Audit looks at 6-year trend in 5 measures mandated by TDA • Audit approach also assesses an operator’s performance relative to the operator’s adopted Goals, Objectives, and Standards. MTC History • 1977-79: Allowed three types of audits: key issues, goals and objectives, and functional area • 1985: Adopted goals and objectives approach • 1997: Eliminated NTD, MTC, and state controller data comparison.
Examples – Recommendations from 2005 Performance Audits BART • Continue to focus efforts on improving on-time performance. • Ensure that SRTP remains a relevant source of policy direction for the transit system. • Take measures to reduce the call abandonment rate. AC Transit • Finalize the integration of the District goals, Critical Business Outcomes (CBOs), and performance monitoring into one cohesive program. • Continue efforts to generate reliable schedule adherence data and improve on-time performance. • Continue to focus on strategies for reducing operator absences.
Background and History: PIP • Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) was amended into TDA law in 1977 • Require transportation planning agencies, such as MTC, to: • Annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements that could lower transit operating costs; • Include in its program recommendations related to productivity made in the performance audits; • May form a committee for the purpose of providing advice on productivity improvements; and • Review and evaluate the efforts made by the operators to implement the recommended improvements prior to determining allocations.
Experience with the PIP • Initial PIP covered the six major operators • Number of projects (65 in the regional program) too cumbersome - Regional Transit Productivity Committee asked that it be limited to 6 per operator • Types of projects frequently required extensive resources – examples: • Deploy articulated buses on Transbay routes • Improve BART system access • Construct 2 Park and Ride lots to be served by Golden Gate buses. • Results were disappointing due to lack of operator commitment/resources • By FY 1986-87, PIP process was redesigned to encourage coordination and cooperation among operators to address common concerns, rather than monitoring individual agency efforts.
The PIP Today Current Efforts • Projects are developed to address recommendations in performance audits • Fairly limited in scope – examples: • Analyze fixed route headways to improve on-time performance • Review the increasing incidences of preventable accidents • As noted by Mundle & Associates, most operators do not assign a high priority to this requirement