Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
60 CHAPTER FOUR CASE EXAMPLES INTRODUCTION The literature review and the survey results provide an over- view of the major activities transit agencies are engaged in to maintain effectiveness under tight fi nancial constraints. After a review of all returned surveys, four agencies were chosen as case example sites. The case examples allow an opportunity to focus on the range of actions taken by specifi c transit agencies. This provides a better perspective on the challenges they have faced and continue to face, and how they are dealing with them. It also provides details on how they engaged their communities in determining the appropri- ate actions to take in the face of substantial fi scal challenges, and the choices necessary to deal with those challenges. The case example sites were selected on the following basis. First, it seems appropriate to include transit agencies of different sizes, because they have different conditions in which they operate and different resources available to them. A mix of transit agencies of different sizes responded to the survey. Therefore, two large (more than 500 vehicles) and two medium (100 to 500 vehicles) agencies are featured in the case examples. The fi nal determination was based on the completeness of their surveys and their clear com- mitment to managing as effectively as possible under dif- fi cult circumstances. The four sites for the case examples are King County Metro in Seattle, Washington; Commu- nity Transit in Snohomish County, Washington; the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority in Cleveland, Ohio; and the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority in Tampa, Florida. KING COUNTY METRO, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON King County Metro is a large transit system serving the greater Seattle, Washington, area. Metro provides a broad range of public transportation services across King County, with a service area of more than 2,000 square miles that is home to 1.9 million people (Figure 29). Metro is the 10th largest bus transit agency in the nation. Metro operates about 220 bus and trolley routes that provided 116.4 million passenger trips in 2012. RapidRide bus rapid transit is a growing part of Metro service; six RapidRide lines will be in place by fall 2013. Metro also operates the South Lake Union Streetcar. Other services include dial-a-ride transit (DART), door-to-door Access van service for people with disabilities who canât use reg- ular buses, and a taxi script program. Metro operates the largest publicly owned vanpool program in the country, with more than 1,200 vans providing more than 3 million trips per year. In 2012, Metroâs overall ridership for all fi xed-route, DART, Access, and vanpool services was 120 million passenger trips. Metro maintains 130 park-and-ride lots that are used by almost 20,000 commuters daily. The Metro fl eet has about 1,450 vehicles, including standard and articulated coaches, electric trolleys, dual-powered buses, hybrid diesel-electric buses, and streetcars. All Metro buses have wheelchair lifts and are equipped with bicycle racks. The information provided here is taken directly from the survey Metro staff completed for this synthesis, with their permission. FIGURE 29 Map of King County, Washington (Source: Wikipedia). Metro defi nes âtransit effectivenessâ as follows: âUnder the policy guidance of our 2011â2021 Strategic Plan, Metro strives to create a system of public transportation services that emphasizes productivity (measured by rides/ platform hour and passenger miles/platform mile) while ensuring social equity and providing geographic value throughout King County. The objectives in this area are to emphasize planning and delivery of productive services; to control costs through effi ciencies; to appropriate capital assets to support effi cient and effective service delivery; to provide services to match the markets; and to]seek to establish a sustainable funding structure to support short- and long-term public transportation needs.â
61 Metroâs goals, objectives, and strategies are articulated in the strategic plan and refl ected in service guidelines. The plan and guidelines were adopted by the King County Council, the governing body for Metro. The strategic plan specifi cally directs Metro to manage the public transportation system through service guidelines and performance measures. The guidelines are used to actively manage the system and have been the basis for service planning decisions since they were adopted in 2011. Annually, Metro provides a ser- vice guidelines report outlining the potential investment and reductions. Metro uses information from the guidelines to help inform service changes three times a year. Metro staff believe that a system that is fi nancially sus- tainable is one that can continue to deliver its products and services within the available revenue. The framework for determining Metroâs fi nancial sustainability is provided by Metroâs adopted fund management policies, which ensure that any services that are added can be supported from exist- ing, predicted revenue sources. A fi nancial model is used to determine program fi nancial sustainability. This model is constantly modifi ed to refl ect changing economic and other conditions. Maintaining target fund balance levels identifi ed in the adopted fund management policies ensures program sustainability. Metro faced the specter of reduced services with the onset of the national recession that became evident in calendar year 2008. Between 2008 and 2012, Metro took a number of actions to deal with the need to reduce service to stay within its reduced budget authority. On many routes, the agency decreased the span of service, decreased weekend service, decreased the frequency of service, and reduced service on low-demand routes. It eliminated some routes to address the fi nancial challenges. Metro also improved system productiv- ity through improvements in bus scheduling effi ciency. Public Input King County Metro Transit is part of a general purpose gov- ernment. Policy decisions are made by a publicly elected county council consisting of nine members. All proposals get intensive public scrutiny. Public involvement was a criti- cal part of the adoption of the strategic plan and the ser- vice guidelines, and the passing of the congestion reduction charge (CRC). In 2011, when the county council was autho- rized to implement the CRC, it held public meetings that were fi lled beyond capacity with supporters of transit. To fi ght congestion and preserve transit, King County residents began paying a $20 CRC in June 2012 when registering or renewing their car license tags. The charge will be collected through May 2014 and is expected to generate approximately $50 million over a 2-year time span to help make up King County Metroâs revenue defi cit caused by the great reces- sion. When county residents register their vehicles, their registration includes an invitation to obtain eight tickets for free bus trips on Metro as an incentive to use Metro transit services and thereby help reduce congestion. Metro offers the option of donating the value of the tickets to a fund to support low-income residents who rely on the bus. A nine-point plan was developed in 2009 to address the agencyâs fi nancial situation. This plan was developed and approved by the King County Council through the budget adoption process, which included public comment. Metro as an agency is committed to public engagement and trans- parency. The agency upholds this commitment by involving the community in its planning process and making public engagement a part of every major service change or new ser- vice initiative. Metro reaches out to customers and the public through a variety of forums and media channels. Information about Metro Transitâs current fi nancial situ- ation is included in communications materials for specifi c service planning projects. People are also engaged to deter- mine their preferences and priorities for service allocation by means of project surveys. For example, Metro included the following question in a targeted survey to riders of the recently launched RapidRide C line: Metro has experienced a revenue shortfall in recent years. To maintain transit service levels Metro has cut costs and focused on making the best use of our resources to serve the most riders. Given limited resources, added service in one area means service must be cut somewhere else. How confi dent are you that Metro is providing the best service it can with the resources it has? In a more recent survey, respondents were asked to provide feedback on where Metro should focus its scarce resources to address service concerns in the I-90 corridor: providing greater frequency, addressing overcrowding, or investing in faster trips. Community feedback is reviewed on a project- by-project basis and helps shape Metroâs decision-making process for service changes. For instance, community mem- bers might indicate that span of service is more important than frequency on a given route, which guides Metroâs plan- ning efforts. The agency fi nds this is critical in an era of scarce resources, when tough choices have to be made. Nine-Point Plan to Deal with the Impact of the Recession In 2009, Metro staff developed the following plan after exhaustive communications with the public. This action plan addressed what would otherwise have been a 17% reduction of transit service and was approved by the King County Council. Action 1âDeferred bus service expansion by fi rst scal- ing back growth, with the exception of the RapidRide pro- gram and already approved service partnership agreements. The revenue gap assumes growth in bus service, primarily
62 associated with the implementation of Transit Now. Delay- ing that expansion closes the gap. This effectively leverages funding from other agencies and saves $36 million over the next 4 years. Action 2âSubstantially cutting the capital program by reprioritizing the Metro Transit capital program, mainly by purchasing fewer buses. With service cuts and delayed expansion, fewer investments are needed. This saves $83 million over the next 4 years. Action 3âNon-service-related cuts. The plan calls for reducing programs not associated with basic service by roughly 10%. Programs include reorganizations and effi - ciencies, fewer new transit police, eliminating much of the agencyâs printed materials, reductions in customer service and park and ride landscaping, and an expanded cleaning cycles for buses. These cuts were selected to enable Metro to minimize impacts to its service and save $27 million over the next 4 years. Action 4âRaising new revenue through a property tax swap. This would be accomplished by reprioritizing transportation dollars now spent on passenger ferries to buses by using 5.5 cents of the new property tax author- ity granted by the 2009 legislature. By law, the fi rst 1 cent of this must be dedicated to expanded bus service across SR-520, while the remaining 4.5 cents will be used to pre- serve planned new RapidRide service around the county. This would be offset by rolling back 4.5 cents of the Ferry District levy and 1 cent of the Automated Fingerprint Iden- tifi cation System (AFIS) levy. The 5.5 cent new property tax levy for Metro would raise $58 million over the next 4 years. More important, using the property tax in this way will cre- ate dedicated, sustainable service for more than 16 million riders annually on crucial transportation corridors that link urban centers and jobs. Action 5âTapping into operating reserves to help sta- bilize service levels. Current county fi nancial policies call for maintaining a 30-day operating reserve of $50 million. Although some reserves are needed, it makes little sense to be adding money to reserves while cutting service. During this fi nancial emergency, lowering this amount to roughly 2 weeks of operating reserves will help in 2009 and beyond by stabilizing service levels and offsetting additional fare increases, freeing up $40 million over the next 4 years. Action 6âIncreasing fares by 25 cents in 2011. Bus riders must also be part of the solution. This increase is in addition to an already planned 25 cent fare increase in 2010 and increases in 2008 and 2009. This will improve Metroâs estimated operating revenue to operating expense ratio to 28%. It is also a more modest approach to increasing fares than the council has proposed and is intended to balance cost recovery with affordability to transit riders rather than driv- ing them away when they need transit most. This will result in $35 million more in net revenue over the next 4 years. Action 7âUsing fl eet replacement reserves to help stabilize the revenue base and signifi cantly help with the defi cit during this crisis. Using the one-time excess fl eet replacement reserves recently identifi ed by the county audi- tor and spending them over the next 4 years will provide $100 million over that time to support existing service levels. Action 8âImplementing operating effi ciencies from the forthcoming transit performance audit recommenda- tions. There is a Metro performance audit currently under way that is likely to identify operating effi ciencies that the auditor and Metro staff believe will help the agency achieve some of the effi ciencies indicated, particularly in how service is planned and scheduled. To the extent Metro can achieve these effi ciencies over the next few years, these savings are likely to offset or buy back a portion of the anticipated ser- vice reductions. However, it is premature to assign a dollar savings to these effi ciencies today. Action 9âAnd the fi nal and most diffi cult action: reducing bus service. Despite all the actions outlined previ- ously, there is a remaining defi cit of about $30 million over the biennium and $90 million over the next 4 years. This amount equates to a bus system that will need to shrink by 310,000 hours of annual service over the next 2 yearsâ roughly 9% of the overall bus system. As of 2013, Metro has been able to defer major system cuts. Through scheduling effi ciencies, service restructures to improve systemwide productivity, and the use of one-time resourcesâcombined with the 2-year CRC, which will sun- set in June 2014âthe agency has been able to essentially maintain service levels with less revenue as the region con- tinues to discuss revenue solutions for transit and transporta- tion funding. Managing Through the Use of Better Data King County is dedicated to continually improving perfor- mance, and a number of resources and tools are available to support these efforts. These tools include formal ones such as Lean (a systematic, customer-centric approach to identify- ing and eliminating waste through continuous improvement, originally developed by Toyota to describe the philosophy and approach demonstrated in the Toyota production sys- tem) and less formal ones such as process mapping. Many of the improvements in this area were identifi ed in the 2009 performance audit, which stressed the importance of data- based decisions. A Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) was convened in 2010 to consider a new policy framework for Metro as the agency faced both a growing demand for transit services and a
63 worsening fi nancial outlook. The task force represented many areas of the county and many points of view. Recommenda- tions that emerged from the process included the importance of emphasizing productivity, ensuring that bus services are available for those most dependent on transit, and providing value to communities throughout King County. The RTTF also emphasized the importance of transparency, effi ciency, and performance-based decision making. These recommen- dations infl uenced the strategic plan and guidelines. Since 2009 Metro has made strides to improve the use of planning, strategic approaches, and systematic, effective data analysis to inform and drive organizational choices. In gen- eral, the agency increased its use of data and commitment to transparency while clarifying its performance measurement. From an internal perspective, Metroâs various sections are now required to align work group goals with Metroâs strategic plan. This has allowed the agency to focus on fewer goals and specifi cally on the goals of the strategic plan. Improvements include the following: ⢠Increased transparency. Creation of an accountability website on which an array of monthly and annual data are posted (http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/accountability/ performance.html). ⢠Development and application of service guidelines. These guidelines identify quantifi able measures to assess service and inform service planning decision making. Metro used these guidelines to restructure or reduce 100,000 hours of low-performing service throughout King County in 2012, redeploying those hours to address service quality needs and underserved corridors. The hours reduced and the investments made were based on data analysis of the transit system from the service guidelines. ⢠Reporting. A service guidelines report is published annually, and a progress report on the strategic plan and goals is published biennially. ⢠Enhanced business planning. A business plan is sub- mitted annually with the budget that outlines how ini- tiatives align with work group goals. Metro recently incorporated near-term actions as part of its business planning; these actions provide a way to measure accomplishments and identify potential new initiatives. ⢠Enhanced tools. Software was upgraded to improve fi xed asset management. ⢠Environmental sustainability management system. The implementation of an environmental sustainability management system to obtain ISO 14001certifi cation is still in progress. ⢠Creation of a new work group dedicated to planning and performance measurement. The strategic planning and analysis workgroup manages the updates and report- ing for the Strategic Plan for Public Transportation and service guidelines, conducts long-range planning, manages interdepartmental project teams, compiles and analyzes data, and prepares Metroâs primary per- formance management reports. Many factors led to Metroâs implementation of more data- driven processes. As an agency, King County adopted the new strategic plan as part of the county executiveâs effort to reform county government by focusing on customer service, partnerships, and ways to bring down the cost of government. This agencywide effort was complemented by the Regional Transit Task Force, the performance audit, and adoption of a new Metro strategic plan and guidelines, which have led to a more transparent, objective process and Metroâs commitment to continuous improvement. The entire agency is involved. Metroâs goal is to make it part of how everyone does their job. No special incentives were offered to employees to accomplish these goals. Collective Bargaining Agreement Modifi cations In an industry as labor intensive as public transportation, it is diffi cult to achieve all savings that are necessary without addressing represented employeesâ wages or work rules. Metro eliminated the 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the ATU bargaining unit and the 2% fl oor for other units. A wage freeze was also instituted for 1 year. Work rules were changed to allow part-time operators to do open work before it was offered to full-time operators at overtime or off the extra board. These changes produced an estimated annual savings of $500,000. Spurred by a performance audit in 2009, Metro also removed more than 20% of time allotted to layover (recovery time when operators get some break/rest) in 2010 and 2011. This helped save roughly $12 million annually in operating costs and removed the need for about 50 peak coaches. However, Metro also saw its on-time performance slip below its target of 80% to about 75%. During the same period the percentage of time that operators did not get a 5-minute break (a contractual guar- antee) increased from about 7% to about 17%. Metro met routinely with Local 587 union representatives throughout this time. This effort has become a primary issue for the union in the upcoming labor negotiations. Metro continues to monitor key scheduling/performance metrics and took actions in 2011 and 2012 that have helped improve on-time performance and eased the impacts drivers felt during the 2010â11 period. King County modifi ed its health care benefi t plans, which required an increase in annual deductibles and co-pays for employees instead of having premium share. The county as a whole bargained a healthy incentives system for medi- cal benefi ts, through which employees and spouses could engage in self-directed programs lasting 10 weeks a year related to weight loss, stress, exercise, and other health- related factors to achieve the most effi cient levels of co-pay and deductibles.
64 In the area of workersâ compensation and attendance, King County Metro sped up the process for injury forms to get to the claims section, with a median of 2 days. Metro established a large number of alternative work assignments (light duty) for employees while they are off on job injury. Employees are notifi ed of when their family medical leave and other protected leave will run out so they know when they might be subject to medical termination. Metro does not grant extended and unlimited leaves, nor does the agency let employees pick work shifts or routes if they donât have a full medical release for the time of the service change. Chiefs contact employees weekly to check on progress and remind them of the agency and their work. Metro did not contract out fi xed-route service as part of its effi ciency plans. However, the agency addressed different methods of service delivery in areas of lower demand. The strategic plan and guidelines and the CRC ordinance called for the right-sizing of targeted fi xed-route services to reduce operating costs. The primary objective is to provide more effi cient and appropriate levels of service that will con- tinue to meet a communityâs mobility needs. Metro recog- nizes that a one-size-fi ts-all approach to bus service may not meet every communityâs needs and is seeking cost-effective and innovative transit options for rural King County. Metro created a report that explores when and where alternative service delivery should be used and engaged communities in a discussion about how to implement alternative service strategies. That report includes case studies and potential tools for right-sizing service in rural areas. Consistent with this direction, Metro has converted selected routes to dial-a- ride transit service. Metro is also in the process of developing some pilot projects that are likely to use contracted services. One major goal of right-sizing is to save money. The proj- ects are still in the early stages, and some have not yet been implemented. Cost savings have yet to be determined. Service Planning Initiatives to Reduce Costs and Increase Effi ciencies Metro engaged in almost every activity possible to improve its operational effi ciencies, including a comprehensive oper- ations analysis, service design changes, use of automated vehicle location (AVL) and automated passenger counter (APC) data, run-cutting software, the use of service stan- dards, and techniques to reduce dwell time at stops. ⢠Scheduling effi ciencies. Schedulers made use of more advanced scheduling techniques that were possible through Metroâs HASTUS scheduling software. This required additional training and tool âtuningâ but played a key role in trimming roughly $12 million in annual operating costs from system schedules without cutting service to customers. This effort was primarily executed in 2010 and 2011, but the skills and tools added then con- tinue to provide ongoing benefi ts. Scheduling effi cien- cies in 2010/2011 also helped reduce peak coach needs by more than 50 vehicles. There were trade-offs, how- ever, with respect to reliability. On-time performance fell roughly about 5 percentage points, from 80% to 75%, during 2010â11. The agency has slowly started to rebuild on-time performance above 76% in 2012 as it makes new investments to address service reliability issues. ⢠Use of service guidelines, APC data, and quantita- tive analysis. King County Metro has collected data by means of APC for years, but the data have become more important as the agency implements new service guidelines. APC and AVL data help track route perfor- mance, which is an important part of service planning decision making under the adopted service guidelines. ⢠Service design. Lower performing services were reduced either in span or by removing less productive portions of the route, or were eliminated altogether. Routes were only eliminated if there were adequate service alternatives. Metroâs customer complaints increased; however, much of the service cut from such routes was reinvested into routes experiencing over- crowding and reliability issues. As noted previously, service was redesigned in rural areas of the county. ⢠Elimination of the ride-free area: For years, Metro provided a fare-free zone in much of its downtown area to encourage the use of transit for short trips, but this policy was discontinued. The travel time, farebox recovery, and ridership impacts of the elimination of the ride-free area are undetermined at this point. Initial estimates suggested that Metro could increase revenue by $2.2 million in 2013 and 2014, and $2.7 million in 2014, but this is not yet proven. ⢠Stop consolidation. Metro has been implementing stop consolidation efforts in recent years, but with the threat of budget shortages, Metro was able to streamline the process and implement stop consolidation projects more quickly. Metro has experienced an increase in passengers per hour, passengers per mile, and passengers per capita, largely because of the service changes described previously. Rider- ship productivity has also increased as a result of partner- ships that have been formed with universities, local schools, local governments, and hospitals. Metro has long used part- nerships as part of its business model, and they were in place before the 2008 fi nancial challenges. However, Metro scaled back some of the partnerships as a result of the national recession, as some partners were not able to provide their share of funding. The agency will continue to explore part- nership opportunities with other jurisdictions as a way to promote transit-supportive actions. The most prominent partnership is the one with the Uni- versity of Washington (UW) that resulted in the establish- ment of the U-PASS program. The initial partnership included
65 maintaining existing pass revenue levels but providing access to 100% of the student population and 50-50 partnership for new service hours. Increasing access throughout the popu- lation resulted in substantial ridership increases. UW made payments for additional service hours for 6 years, after which Metro absorbed them. UW has partnered for additional ser- vice on an as-needed basis since then, usually for 2 or 3 years. The current UW contract for transit access (U-PASS) gener- ates approximately $19 million for King County Metro. While not considered long-term partnerships, King County Metro does contract with outside organizations to provide public transit service to support special events and major league sports events. Under these contracts, 100% of King County Metroâs costs are paid for by the event sponsor and/or farebox revenue. Using Capital Funds to Maintain Transit Effectiveness Metro has achieved substantial savings through the use of capital funds in the following areas: ⢠Upgraded scheduling software has saved $12 million to date and continues to support more effi cient scheduling. ⢠Energy-saving components of capital projects have provided a reduction in utility costs of approximately $200,000 annually, with other projects still in progress. ⢠Timely replacement of fi xed assets at the end of their ser- viceable life will reduce operating and maintenance costs. Investments in projects to promote speed and reliability improve service quality, which is extremely important, but they are often neutral in terms of actual savings in operating costs. The diversion of capital funds to support operations has led to the deferral of purchasing new buses, which in turn has led to higher operating costs as older vehicles are kept longer. While Metro has made capital investments that have made the agency more effi cient, almost all of those sys- tems now require resources to maintain them that were not required before, and some of the investments pay off only under certain conditions. For example, bus hybrid technol- ogy reduces operating costs compared with diesel when the price of diesel fuel is higher; otherwise, Metro believes hybrid buses have a higher life cycle cost. The use of capital funds to support operations in the past few years has allowed Metro to defer signifi cant system reductions; however, the agency believes this is not sustainable. The primary goal of the capital program is the preservation of system infrastruc- ture in a state of good repair. Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Through New Revenue and Greater Effi ciencies King County Metro identifi ed a number of actions that have helped generate new revenues or reduce costs through better management, some of which have already been mentioned. These actions are described here: ⢠Metro recently entered an agreement with the Public Stadium Authority to allow parking at an employee- only lot for sporting events, which resulted in approxi- mately $11 million. ⢠Advertising opportunities in downtown Seattle transit tunnel stations resulted in average annual ad revenue of $519,506 from 2009 through 2012. ⢠Metro has been able to reduce the number of reserve pool operators who fi ll in when other operators are absent through closer monitoring of staffi ng needs, strategic hiring practices, more fl exible use of part- time staff, and the creation of a system board (opera- tors who can fi ll in for absentees at any base). ⢠Based on analysis of staffi ng effi ciencies, Metro elimi- nated a total of 125 back-up operator positions. Part- time drivers or drivers working overtime are now used to fi ll more of the planned and unplanned absences. Savings are estimated at $1.45 million annually. ⢠Preventive maintenance targets were broadened to extend the intervals for inspections, saving approxi- mately $400,000 annually. ⢠The implementation of new service guidelines as part of the service planning process helps manage the sys- tem for increased productivity, while balancing social equity and geographic value Using the guidelines fol- lowing council direction, Metro reinvested roughly 100,000 annual service hours from lower productivity services into services that were overcrowded, unreli- able, or below target service levels. ⢠The marketing and service information budget has been reduced signifi cantly since 2004, resulting in layoffs and reduced services, such as fewer printed timetables, less signage, and decreases in marketing and promotions. In the past 2 years, Metro has had dollars added for emergency adverse weather commu- nications, and the marketing group has also been for- tunate to have grant dollars available for other transit projects. However, much work has to be jobbed out to accomplish the tasks. The growing acceptance of the web as a tool to access transit information has helped offset the printing costs, but there is still a baseline of timetable printing needed to meet the demands from the portion of the market that is not totally connected through the Internet. Metro has stopped printing sys- tem maps altogether. ⢠Revenue generation is through a transit advertising contract with an outside vendor. That contract had a minimum annual guarantee that was renegotiated lower as a result of the recession, which resulted in slightly less net revenue to Metro because of lower sales volume. However, Metro added new products that could be marketed, most notably advertising in the downtown Seattle transit tunnel.
66 ⢠The Transit Finance and Budget offi ce has helped the entire organization reduce costs by providing support. This group has been responsible for communicating all the actions taken and working with other areas of King County government to reduce costs. This group assisted in completing the recommendations from the 2009 performance audit and provides the fi nancial framework for decision making. The group consists of six staff and has not been reduced. Accounting ser- vices are purchased from central King County govern- ment agencies. ⢠Upgrading HVAC systems with more energy-effi cient equipment has resulted in the following savings. (1) Replacing HVAC systems at four transit bases, reducing planned energy use on average by approximately 25% to 30%. (2) Conducting 25 energy upgrade projects that will save a total of 11,700 million BTUs (British thermal units) each year and produce an annual cost savings of $184,000 with the help of $784,000 in con- tracted utility rebates. (3) Replacement of bus garage ventilation fans and related equipment at North Base is projected to save nearly 2 million kilowatt hours per year, resulting in an annual savings of $116,483. Nearly half of the projectâs equipment cost is being covered by incentive payments from Seattle City Light. ⢠For paratransit cost savings, Metro has instituted con- ditional eligibility for riders, focused on fare enforce- ment that has increased revenues and had an impact on ridership, and developed competitive bids for contracted services. Proposed cost-saving measures include limiting service hours to parallel fi xed-route services in specifi ed areas. Metro utilizes travel train- ing to help customers who might otherwise rely on Access use regular fi xed-route service. The savings for 2012 due to travel training was roughly $1.2 million. Metro has also studied the effects of moving closer to providing ADA minimum levels of service, which could save money. There has been no action on this option to date. All the actions that have been taken have allowed King County Metro to preserve service levels for several years longer than originally projected. Had these actions not been taken, the level of service cut required to reach a sustain- able service level would be higher than the 17% that is cur- rently planned should new revenues not be authorized by the state legislature. COMMUNITY TRANSITâSNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Community Transit is a mid-sized transit agency serving the public transportation needs of Snohomish County, Wash- ington, which is located east of Puget Sound and north of King County (see Figure 30). Community Transitâs Public Transportation Benefi t Area has a population of about a half million people. Community Transit operates buses in Sno- homish County and to downtown Seattle, the University of Washington, and Seattleâs eastside suburbs in King County. Community Transit operates local and commuter bus routes (including a bus rapid transit service called Swift), vanpools, and paratransit services. The fl eet is composed of 268 fi xed- route and paratransit vehicles. FIGURE 30 Map of Snohomish County, Washington (Source: Wikipedia). The national recession had a substantial impact on Com- munity Transit. The total operating budget was reduced from $102,070,615 in FY 2008 to $84,574,691 in FY 2012. Service hours provided were reduced from 694,621 in FY 2008 to 596,456 in FY 2012. Ridership decreased from 11,918,776 in FY 2008 to 9,107,632 in FY 2012. Few transit agencies in the country experienced as painful a level of service reductions as Community Transit over the past 5 years. The information provided here is taken directly from the survey Community Transit staff completed for this synthesis. Community Transit defi nes âtransit effectivenessâ as follows: ⢠Meeting mobility needs in a cost-effective manner ⢠A sustainable balance between the goals of maximiz- ing service productivity and providing geographic coverage ⢠Matching service levels to their markets ⢠A connective network that promotes a âthink transit fi rstâ philosophy. The agencyâs idea of transit effectiveness is expressed in its vision, Think Transit First: We will provide fast, frequent, reliable, and affordable public transportation connecting all major destinations in Snohomish County. People will enjoy the ease and comfort of being transported on buses in priority lanes rather than driving in traffi c. Transit will be the fi rst choice, not just for commuting to work but for all travel. Effi cient bus service will allow communities to grow
67 in ways that are economically and environmentally sustainable. People will be healthy while saving time and money. We will all Think Transit First. The vision requires frequent bus service on a con- nected network of transit emphasis corridors. Service along these corridors must be supported by high-intensity land use to provide a strong transit market. Priority lanes and other infrastructure will be needed to keep buses moving as congestion increases. Appropriately scaled transit service in lower-demand markets will connect with and feed transit emphasis corridors. This vision is documented in the Long-Range Transit Plan adopted in 2011 and the Six-Year Transit Development Plan, which is updated and adopted annually. The agency has also been guided by short-term shared outcomes: ⢠Increase ridership to 12 million boardings by 2017 within existing resources (goal will be updated if new revenue stream is secured) ⢠Reduce or maintain average cost per rider. Community Transit annually tracks and reports the fol- lowing board-adopted measures: ⢠Boardings per capita ⢠Boardings per revenue hour ⢠Customer commendations per 100,000 boardings ⢠Customer complaints per 100,000 boardings ⢠Voluntary employee turnover ⢠Cost per passenger mile ⢠Cost per revenue hour ⢠Farebox recovery ⢠Revenue hours per employee. The agency also has board-adopted service design guide- lines that require an appropriate match between market demand and service level. As described in the Long-Range Transit Plan, service guidelines prioritize frequent service on transit emphasis corridors with high travel demand. A key element of the overall travel demand management/travel systems management (TDM/TSM) program is ongoing monitoring of travel demand, community development, and infrastructure investment to ensure that service levels keep pace with overall corridor development. Community Transit has worked extensively with land use authorities to affect the transit operating environment. Sno- homish County and partner cities are changing development regulations to focus activity around transit emphasis corridors and provide incentives for transit-oriented development and infrastructure improvements that will enhance transit pro- ductivity and speed. The prioritization of frequent service on transit emphasis corridors has resulted in the system carrying a record number of passengers per service hour. Community Transitâs near-term priority is improving the performance of current routes and preventing any further service cuts. Swift and other core routes in Community Transitâs system generally provide direct, frequent service between major destinations. In addition to Swift, core trunk lines in the local service network provide the fastest way to get between major destinations on the bus. As described in the Long-Range Transit Plan, over time some of these corri- dors will transition to Swift service. Timing of future Swift implementation will depend on agency fi nancial capacity, development of market demand, and construction of transit- priority infrastructure such as bus lanes. Community Transitâs service is more effi cient than at any time in the agencyâs 36-year history. The network restructure implemented in 2012 was modeled on the Long-Range Tran- sit Plan, concentrating frequent service on transit empha- sis corridors to more effectively meet demand. New transit technologies will allow further refi nement of this network and deploy service in the most productive way possible. The focus on refi nement and optimization of the fi xed- route network will continue as better data on system per- formance is obtained and progress is made on the ridership goal of 12 million passenger boardings by 2017 without sig- nifi cant expansion of service. Public Input Given the substantial cuts in revenue, Community Transit found it vital to engage the public in discussing the options available to the community. The agency conducted the fol- lowing activities: ⢠Conducted a transit values exercise with multiple con- stituencies both internal and external to the agency. This exercise presented a zero sum choice to par- ticipants, forcing values-based choices that identifi ed their priorities when they were faced with reducing/ constraining the service and service quality avail- able to them. This exercise informed decision makers about customersâ views regarding service frequency, geographic coverage, span, cost, service to transit- dependent populations, service to âchoiceâ riders, and so on. As reported in the 2012 edition of Passenger Transportâs Annual Meeting, âThe Transit Values Exercise was designed as a game to a certain extent that involved small groups working to cut 20% of their âcost pointsâ as managers of a fi ctional public transit agency. Each group received profi le cards of fi ctional bus riders that told their stories and gave certain values to their transit use. The most important value was cost, which was tied to the relative cost of providing service to that rider. Groups achieved their objectives by eliminating enough riders to cut their cost
68 points by 20%. The key to success was for a group to reach consensus on its values. For instance, a table that valued geographic coverage often sacrifi ced effi ciency and ridership. If maintaining ridership was important, coverage was usually reduced. At the end of the exercise, each tableâs results were shown to the larger group and participants were surprised at how different they were. A discussion followed on what the real-world impacts of these decisions would be on real people.â ⢠Conducted multiple outreach events in the community with riders, business leaders, elected offi cials, opinion leaders, and the media. ⢠Presented three options for system redesign to the board of directors, and ended up with one that was a hybrid, refl ecting input from the board, public, and staff on how best to reestablish a sustainable cost structure while pre- serving as much service as possible and refl ecting what was learned about our customersâ transit values. ⢠The result was that Community Transit reestablished an affordable cost structure while achieving more effi - cient service as measured by an increased number of riders per hour, despite service levels being greatly reduced from prerecession levels. However, because of lack of funding, service levels remain at only a fraction of the level needed to satisfy customer demand. Given the substantial nature of required budget reduc- tions, it is no surprise that the organization was changed dramatically. Community Transit ultimately ⢠Commissioned an independent organizational assess- ment (performance audit) to identify areas where cost effi ciencies could be found ⢠Consolidated business functions, resulting in staff reductions (e.g., combining public affairs, customer relations, marketing, and communications) ⢠Eliminated staff functions deemed to be unaffordable (e.g., maintenance instructor, public records specialist, and facilities maintenance technical staff.) ⢠Adopted a 2-year strategy in 2011â12 to resize the agency to an affordable cost structure, reducing ser- vice levels by 37% and staff positions by 29% ⢠Eliminated administrative positions at all levels in the organization, beginning with executive positions, including laying off the deputy CEO and the director of marketing ⢠Reduced total FTEs by 206 positions or roughly 29% of the workforce ⢠Revised delegation of authority to achieve more effi - cient administrative processes. This level of change did not occur without negative effects, and the agency reported what it had learned from the experience that might benefi t other agencies: ⢠A comprehensive after-action review was conducted involving 40 to 50 key staff members to identify what was done well that could be built upon and where there were opportunities for improvement if faced with simi- lar circumstances in the future. There were many les- sons learned and reported to the board of directors. ⢠There was a deep sense of grieving during the layoff period and thereafter. There were increased levels of stress, lowered morale, risk avoidance, and withdrawal. ⢠Giving employees ample notice of layoff was helpful in transitioning the workload to remaining employ- ees, and it allowed employees to remain in their jobs while they looked for other employment. However, it also contributed to âsurvivor guilt syndromeâ among employees who retained their jobs. ⢠The general feeling was that the workload was higher for remaining staff in the immediate aftermath of lay- ing off 29% of the workforce. Employees believed they were working harder but accomplishing less. ⢠High-seniority coach operators who were accustomed to bidding preferred work assignments now had lower seniority and had to bid undesirable assignments, which has been generally demoralizing. ⢠With regard to core product (service hours), the agency is doing less with less. ⢠With regard to primary outcome (ridership productiv- ity), the agency is doing more with less. ⢠With regard to many administrative staff functions, the agency is doing the same or more with less. Managing Through the Use of Better Data Even before the recession, it had become clear that in order to meet the transit demands identifi ed in its regionâs Metropoli- tan Transportation Plan, Community Transit would need to identify new revenues and focus the network to carry more people per dollar. The recession forced faster action in order to survive. The goal was to retain as many riders as possible in the process. The policy framework provided by the board was to maxi- mize productivity (boardings per hour) while retaining a basic level of geographic coverage in the service area. Extensive data were compiled that allowed a hard look at the cost and performance of all services. The agency focused heavily on measures of ridership, cost per hour, and subsidy per passen- ger. These data helped inform discussions with the board and the general public, and drove changes in service planning and in the format and content of system performance reporting. Community Transit is developing a transit technology program that will use the most advanced technology avail- able to keep buses and DART vehicles on schedule, provide real-time information to passengers, and provide data to enable improved operational management and service plan- ning. The program will ⢠Track each vehicleâs location with GPS
69 ⢠Provide passengers with an estimated time of arrival at any given stop ⢠Automatically count passengers ⢠Automatically announce stops ⢠Use computer-aided dispatch ⢠Give coach operators and dispatchers more communi- cation and sophisticated tools. The system was implemented for DART service in 2010. Community Transit has seen signifi cant improvement in the productivity of this service since the introduction of the technology. Even before full implementation, Community Transit embarked on a program to collect and analyze an unprecedented quantity and scope of data in preparation for major service cuts/system redesign because of the eco- nomic downturn. The data were organized, analyzed, and presented using new formats. Data included ⢠Systemwide on-board customer survey (origin-desti- nation, trip purpose, demographics) ⢠A comprehensive operational audit, including com- plete stop-level boarding, deboarding, on-time per- formance, and a travel time survey of all routes for a complete service day ⢠Automated farebox data ⢠NTD Section 15 survey data ⢠Productivity and cost-per-rider data for all services ⢠Public input on service alternatives through Survey Monkey ⢠Spatial (GIS) and cost-benefi t analysis of all of the above ⢠Development of a transit values exercise (described earlier). This effort has driven a change in how Community Tran- sit formats and reports data and also in how data are dis- cussed with the board, riders, stakeholders, and employees. Agency leaders note that data do not drive or make deci- sions. Data inform choices that are made based on the goals and values of the organization. The result has been that a 37% service cut resulted in weekday ridership reduction of only 4% and a total ridership reduction of 12%. To develop this enhanced ability to analyze service, new resources were required that cost the agency money but obviously provided a high return on investment. Planning Resources ⢠Created a data program manager staff position to lead data collection, processing, and analysis efforts ⢠Training and mentoring of service planning staff in the use of Geographic Information Systems, Excel, and other data analysis tools and techniques ⢠Consultant support for systemwide survey efforts ⢠Modifi cation of various business processes ⢠The transit values exercise was developed with a team of employees (no consultant support) over the course of approximately 2 months. Information Technology Resources ⢠Created project manager staff positions (1.5 FTEs) to implement the Advanced Public Transportation System (APTS) ⢠Created application support staff positions (1.5 FTEs) to provide ongoing application support and mainte- nance (for APTSâthe CAD AVL system) ⢠Built out a network operations center (NOC) to allow the APTS to run in a premium environment for high availability, high security, and high capacity/ performance ⢠Training and mentoring of operations staff in the use of proactive system monitoring tools and business intel- ligence and other data analysis tools and techniques. Community Transit offered different forms of incentives to solicit ideas from employees and to identify options that would save the agency money: ⢠Established a voluntary separation incentive for top wage-earning employees. ⢠Established a voluntary unpaid leave program. ⢠Developed a cost-saving incentive program called Dollars and Sense to encourage employees to make suggestions on how to curb costs. The winner was announced at an all-employee meeting. ⢠Increased use of an existing performance-based cash incentive program to reward exemplary performance. ⢠Established a Buy Local for Transit program aimed primarily at local residents, encouraging retail buying in the local area to generate sales tax revenue for local transit. The agency relies on local sales tax revenues to support public transportation, and the more people buy their goods and services in Snohomish County (rather than over the Internet or in neighboring counties), the more revenue will be available for transit service pro- vided by Community Transit. ⢠As part of the organizational assessment, employees were given the opportunity to complete a survey about the agency and make suggestions about cost cutting and communication. ⢠A staff organizational development specialist conducted employee focus groups to generate cost-saving ideas. Community Transit reported that the results of these efforts were as follows: ⢠Some savings from the voluntary separation program ⢠Modest savings in everyday expenses ⢠Increased employee awareness and sensitivity about the priority to curb costs wherever possible.
70 Other Employee Contributions to Dealing with the Defi cit Community Transit employees participated in dealing with the fi nancial defi cit in the following ways: ⢠Three of four union bargaining units accepted wage concessions to help out. A zero percent wage increase was agreed to for 2011. ⢠Administrative staff had severely constrained market- and merit-based wage growth for 4 years. ⢠Initiated a dollar contribution from non-union employ- ees to employer-paid medical insurance for the fi rst time. Community Transit experienced chronic unscheduled absences among coach operators that had an adverse effect on service in the form of missed trips. The union strongly resisted efforts to improve attendance among employees who were frequently absent. This led to a strain that spilled over to other aspects of the labor/management relationship. Community Transitâs principal outsourcing efforts are contracts for the operation of a small portion of fi xed-route bus service and all paratransit service. The contracted fi xed- route service is comparable to the agencyâs directly oper- ated service and costs about 70% of what it costs the agency to deliver the same service. The difference is in the cost of employment; for example, wages, benefi ts, work rules, and labor laws. A Request for Proposals for paratransit services resulted in an award that was about 15% less than the preced- ing contract. Project teams are routinely used to help improve the effi ciency and effectiveness of operations and services. It is diffi cult to quantify the results of some of these teams, but examples of various project teams and their impacts are provided here: ⢠A project team composed of operational and procure- ment staff was formed to implement a new uniform contract for ATU bargaining employees. The uniform procurement team saved the agency approximately $64,000 and procured better quality products through the process. ⢠The service recovery team found new and innovative ways to replace a defunct fi eld report position that was used to recover services when they were interrupted for various reasons. The old fi eld report program was extremely costly to the agency. Previously, the fi eld report positions cost the agency more than $300,000 per year. By using existing resources differently, Community Transit was able to provide similar ser- vices to those of the old fi eld report position for less than $3,000 per year. ⢠A project team completed a sleep room for bus opera- tors. Many operators have long splits and live some distance from their work base. Rather than having to spend gas money driving home to rest between shifts, they can rest in the sleep room. This project has proved popular with the bus operators. Service Planning Initiatives to Reduce Costs and Increase Effi ciencies Many of the data collection techniques used by Community Transit have been described. The agency engaged in a com- prehensive operations analysis; service design changes; use of APCs, AVL, run-cutting software, and service standards; and participation in long-range land use planning. Generally, the effects of these initiatives are to develop effective and effi cient schedules, and to operate the system on time and at an affordable cost. Since the start of the great recession, productivity, as measured by boardings per hour, improved more than 25%. Service levels were reduced by 37%, including eliminating service on Sundays and major holidays. Overall service productivity increased more than 27%; more than 50% on some routes. Ridership overall decreased only 12%, and average weekday ridership has remained at 96% of prerecession service levels. Community Transit entered into a partnership with the city of Everett/Everett Transit to implement and sustain a bus rapid transit line that spans the two service areas. Com- munity Transit led the design and construction and oper- ates the line, named Swift. The service is partially fi nanced through a partnership agreement with the city of Everett whereby a fraction of the cityâs transit sales tax revenue is allocated to Community Transit. The city of Everett also fi nanced construction of Swift stations within the city and the north terminal at Everett Station. The result is that constituents are served in an integrated fashion along an important transit emphasis corridor, result- ing in the highest ridership in the Community Transit net- work. Today Swift BRT carries one in seven Community Transit riders and is attracting new people to transit every day. Local jurisdictions have embraced Swift, recognizing its potential to reshape their communities. Lynnwood, Ever- ett, Mukilteo, and Snohomish County have either adopted or are considering land-use changes that would incentivize transit-oriented development around Swift stations. Using Capital Funds and Technology to Enhance Transit Effectiveness Community Transit has taken advantage of capital funding to help improve service quality and reduce operating costs in the following ways: ⢠Smart Card (ORCA) and off-board ticket machines on BRT: These systems speed passenger boarding time,
71 which reduces dwell time at stops for more effi cient operation. ⢠Installation of AVL/APC systems is expected to reduce the cost of fi eld data collection. Data from the systems will result in less unproductive running time. ⢠Implementation of CAD/AVL on paratransit, paired with more active use of Trapeze, has resulted in pro- ductivity improving from 2.15 passengers per hour to 2.3 passengers per hour. This translates into serving the same number of riders with fewer service hours. ⢠Purchase of double-deck buses allows the agency to carry more passengers with a single driver. Demand can be met with fewer drivers during peak hours. ⢠Signal priority throughout the corridor can provide a shortened red light or an extended green light to keep Swift moving quickly. ⢠Queue jumps are another element of on-street tech- nology that help buses maintain speed and reliability. Swift buses now get a head start with a queue jump light. All of these technologies contribute to faster run- ning times, allowing buses to carry more people per service hour. Since the great recession, new capital funding has been directed principally at preservation of infrastructure. Proj- ects have included replacing aged buses and other rolling stock, failing roofs, failing paving systems, failing under- ground storage facilities and related systems, stormwater collection and treatment systems, and security and video surveillance systems. It is generally accepted that if left unaddressed, failing capital infrastructure will lead to unnecessarily higher operating costs. By properly maintain- ing or replacing aged capital assets, unnecessary increases in operating cost are avoided. Other improvements to managing the agency that result in improved service to the public include ⢠The Trapeze OPS Sign-in Terminal in Transportation has improved effi ciencies in the window dispatcherâs work. Dispatchers no longer spend their time monitor- ing the sign-in sheet and can focus on covering work and other duties. ⢠Online reporting for the 360 vanpool groups managed by Community Transit provides time savings and bet- ter accuracy on reports for area vanpool fl eet coor- dinators. The time savings allow the coordinators to concentrate on other necessary duties. ⢠In marketing, Facebook has allowed two-way commu- nication with customers to discuss issues and solutions to transit operations and other questions. Community Transit video programs can now reach a larger audience. This also provides savings on print material. WebEx allows the agency to communicate with its employer audience and helps save money in travel and the cost of fi nding a meeting location. Ning allows the agency to provide information electronically and allows custom- ers to share ideas electronically and instantaneously. FlickR allows staff to photo share with other staff in the agency. This saves staff time by having all photo resources in one easy-to-access location. Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Through Operations Effi ciencies Community Transit has been extremely active in fi nding ways to reduce costs and improve service to the public. The agency reported the following actions: ⢠Developed an ISO-compliant environmental manage- ment system (EMS). This has reduced the frequency and severity of adverse environmental events, resulting in reduced costs for remedial and corrective response. Improved performance has also qualifi ed the agency for less stringent oversight schedules from regulatory agencies, resulting in reduced permit fees and charges for oversight inspections and audits. ⢠Modernized and expanded video surveillance systems for operational facilities. This has led to an undeter- mined amount of deterred illegal and malicious activ- ity. More important, video surveillance recordings are useful in investigating and prosecuting illegal and malicious activity. ⢠A âbait carâ program has helped reduce vehicle theft at park-and-ride facilities. ⢠A special emphasis training program that focused on avoiding bus/pedestrian accidents contributed to a record of no pedestrian accidents in 2012. ⢠Community Transit is implementing a workforce management (scheduling) module for its Trapeze OPS software that will automate several processes, such as requests for time off and coach operator bids. The software is expected to reduce costly scheduling errors and signifi cantly reduce manual data processing with regard to coach operator requests for time off. ⢠Management made changes to the coach operator bids in 2011 and in 2012. There are three bids a year. Before 2011, bids were held for 10 hours on Saturday and 6 hours on Sunday, which meant that about of 28 senior operators had to be road-relieved to bid. In 2011, the bid was held for 6 hours on Saturday and 10 hours on Sunday, reduc- ing the need for road coverage to 12 senior operators. Since 2012, because of a reduction in staff, the bid has been held entirely on Sunday. Because no service is cur- rently being provided on Sunday, there is no need for road reliefs. The cost of the bidding process has been reduced from $18,018 to $1,894 (for supervisor overtime). ⢠With the reduction in staff, cell phone services for managers and supervisors were renegotiated, saving approximately $8,000 a year. ⢠Outside resources have been used to analyze staff- ing and look for ways to improve internal processes.
72 For example, an extra board study was recently com- pleted to ensure that report and extra boards that support coach operator absences are properly sized. Community Transit is also using outside resources to analyze family medical leave and workers compensa- tion processes. Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Through Other Agency Effi ciencies Community Transit has taken many other steps to main- tain transit effectiveness by identifying savings that are ultimately used to pay for service to the public. The agency reported the following: ⢠Warranty recovery efforts remain strong and effi cient, resulting in a return of $126,000 in 2012. ⢠Advertising was broadened to include a wider range of the bus fl eet, with additional and unique products such as the Double Tall and Swift BRT fl eet. ⢠The BusPlus book budget was cut based on deliver- ing bus schedule information to customers through the Internet and other electronic media (e.g., blog, Facebook, and govdelivery alerts). This saved the agency up to $200,000. ⢠Advertising self-promotion was cut dramatically from $200,000 at its peak to $15,000. Social media channels are now used to communicate to passengers and the public. ⢠The bike map was totally sponsored by an outside part- ner, saving $5,000. ⢠Negotiated with vendors who have multiyear contracts with price escalation clauses to voluntarily reduce or forgo their contractually provided price increases. ⢠Refi nanced debt in 2010 to obtain lower interest rates and to defer payment on principal to improve cash fl ow and defer service cuts as long as possible. ⢠Provided new programs, such as Go to You refresher training and video route training, to deliver training more effi ciently and cost-effectively. ⢠Deferral of the paid time off cashout program. ⢠Changed vendors for life and disability coverage and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to achieve cost savings. ⢠Successful lobbying of the state resulted in new tempo- rary revenue (slightly more than $500,000 annually). ⢠VanGo allowed Community Transit to provide vehicles to groups or organizations that were affected by ser- vice cuts. The vans provide service to customers who lost essential bus service during the downturn. In spite of all ways Community Transit is trying to main- tain effectiveness, the agencyâs 6-year transit development plan does not include any new service. While modest growth in revenues is forecast, so are modest increases in the cost structure owing to infl ation and new unfunded mandates. Continuing investment in infrastructure preservation is also competing for resources. Community Transit states that if the economy improves at a faster rate than forecast, perhaps new service could be added. GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, CLEVELAND, OHIO The Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority (GCRTA) is a large transit agency serving the public trans- portation needs of Cleveland and the surrounding suburbs of Cuyahoga County in northeastern Ohio. The service area, shown in Figure 31, has a population of approxi- mately 1.2 million. FIGURE 31 Map of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Source: Wikipedia). GCRTA operates one heavy rail line and two interurban light rail lines, as well as a fl eet of almost 500 buses that features a prominent bus rapid transit line (the Healthline). The agency also provides paratransit service, with a fl eet of more than 80 vehicles. The great recession had a substantial impact on the Cleveland area and GCRTA. The authorityâs total operat- ing budget was reduced from $240 million in FY 2008 to $223 million in FY 2012. Service hours were reduced from 2,240,000 in FY 2008 to 1,790,000 in FY 2012. Ridership decreased from 57,900,000 passenger trips in FY 2008 to 48,200,000 in FY 2012. From 2008 to 2011, GCRTA reduced its span of service hours and weekend service, reduced its frequency of service and level of service on low-demand routes, eliminated some routes, and raised fares three times. The information provided here is taken from the survey the
73 agency completed for this synthesis, as well as follow-up e-mails with the general manager. GCTRA defi ned the âtransit effectivenessâ it pursued as follows: With our motto of âQuality Service, Every Passenger, Every Day,â RTA took signifi cant and aggressive steps to reduce overhead and expenses while, at the same time, improving the quality of our product. All employees are evaluated and compensated on the basis of key performance indicators that measure the agencyâs effectiveness. GCRTA defi nes a âfi nancially sustainableâ transit system as one that has fi nancial resources to enable the agency to provide sustainable levels of service to the public in good economic times and to provide reserve funds to allow an orderly and well-planned reduction of service levels in times of deep and sustained economic downturn. The agency experienced signifi cant loss of operating revenue and rider- ship during the recession. Through a series of public meetings in many different venues, passengers made it very clear that they would prefer fare increases over reductions in service whenever possible. The public also provided excellent sug- gestions on how to modify service cuts to reduce the negative impact any cuts would make on their mobility needs. GCRTA improved its passengers per mile from 31 in 2008 to 33 in 2012. With a slightly improved economy and through a series of effi ciency measures, GCRTA began to increase the number of service hours provided to the public in FY 2012 and expects to be able to continue to offer small increases in the future. Managing Through the Use of Better Data GCRTA has been an industry leader in pursuing improve- ments in effi ciency through more careful analysis of perfor- mance made possible not only by improved data collection but by having managers from different functional areas work together as a team to identify solutions throughout the agency. The agency developed the TransitStat monitoring system, patterned after the New York Police Departmentâs CompStat and Baltimore, Marylandâs CitiStat. The system entails frequent gathering, reviewing, analyzing, and moni- toring of the agencyâs critical success measures (CSMs), and links the data systems to performance and accountability. GCRTA believes that the most important factor in obtain- ing breakthrough performance is data-driven management. TransitStat requires the agencyâs management to use infor- mation systems to defi ne, measure, analyze, improve, and control their operations and link the performance to the authorityâs business strategies and goals. TransitStat is regarded as a philosophy as well as a data analysis program. Weekly and biweekly performance moni- toring forums are attended by the agencyâs entire executive management team, the budget/performance analyst, and relevant department directors. This ensures that the people who can address issues are at the table, thereby eliminat- ing excuses. Everyone at the meeting is encouraged to sug- gest solutions, no matter what functional area of the agency they work in. Results are measured weekly as opposed to monthly, quarterly, or yearly. Since 2008, TransitStat has helped to ⢠Encourage data-driven decision making ⢠Identify cross-functional gaps ⢠Identify latent operation issues ⢠Identify negative trends early ⢠Create a solutions-based culture in the organization. TransitStat has helped identify cost-saving measures totaling more than $25 million between 2008 and 2011, including these: ⢠Paratransit operator overtime reduction $76,722 ⢠Inventory reduction $750,000 ⢠Disputed electrical meter charges $523,750 ⢠Engineering retrofi t of substation $216,000 ⢠Lighting retrofi ts $499,912 ⢠Towing reduction $252,000 (60% reduction) ⢠Fuel hedging program $15,261,726 ⢠Electrical savings $7,000,000 ⢠Health care audit $1,000,000 ⢠2009 overtime savings $2,086,792 (30% reduction) There have been other effi ciency gains through the use of TransitStat. By analyzing road calls and breakdowns, changes were made in the resources dedicated to differ- ent shift times that resulted in increased effi ciency, fewer mechanical problems, and fewer road calls and tow truck requirements. An analysis of employee performance in the customer call center led to improvements that enabled the same staff to take 20% more calls. GCRTA notes that the data analysis software it uses is part of the Microsoft Offi ce suite of programs and is avail- able to virtually anyone. The agency dedicates a budget analyst to develop the reports, charts, and graphs that help managers track the performance of the agency from week to week. The time spent by the managers in such meetings is not insignifi cant, but the agency says it is a worthwhile investment to make for the results it has achieved. Consistent with the value GCRTA places on data-driven management, the agency also participates in the American Bus Benchmarking Group (ABBG). The agency believes that this group helps GCRTA determine how well it is doing in comparison with others who believe they are doing things ârelatively well,â and enables the agency to learn and share
74 best practices with others. The following description of the ABBG is taken directly from the website developed for this effort (74). The American Bus Benchmarking Group was established in 2011 to provide a confi dential forum for mid-sized bus organizations in America to learn from each other by comparing performance, sharing experiences, and identifying best practices. Benchmarking is defi ned by the ABBG as A systematic process of continuously measuring, comparing and understanding organizationsâ performance and changes in performance of a diversity of key business processes against comparable peers to gain information which will help the participating organizations to improve their performance. The objectives of the American Bus Benchmarking Group are: ⢠To develop a concise, well-balanced, and comparable key performance indicator system for performance measurement for use by American bus agencies that will determine strengths and weaknesses, prioritize areas for improvement, and support dialogue with stakeholders (e.g., senior management, board, government). ⢠To provide benefi ts to all members by understanding the reasons for performance levels and trends and by identifying best practices. ⢠To facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best or otherwise interesting practices in a confi dential environment. ⢠To establish an ongoing benchmarking process that considers the fi nancial and labor resources available to participating mid-sized agencies. Cooperation, independence, speed, and confi dentiality are the guiding principles of the group and are central to its success. The group is administered and facilitated by the Railway and Transport Strategy Centre (RTSC) at Imperial College London, a world leader in public transport benchmarking. The RTSC was set up in 1992 as a center of excellence serving the transport industry on strategic, technology, economic, and policy issues, and as a research and teaching unit within the Centre for Transport Studies. The ABBG builds upon years of experience in the CoMET and Nova metro benchmarking groups and the International Bus Benchmarking Group, facilitated by RTSC since 1994, 1998, and 2004, respectively. The ABBG currently has 16 members from throughout the United States who pay a fee to have their performance data objectively reviewed by the RTSC, and members ben- efi t by working collaboratively and measuring each other against uniform performance defi nitions and measures. The ultimate result of the groupâs work is intended to be improved effi ciencies and cost savings. GCRTA strongly believes that organizational change requires leadership and training. In addition to inventing TransitStat and joining the ABBG, GCRTA has trained many staff in the Six Sigma Process and is now embark- ing on the Partnership for Excellence and moving toward the Malcolm Baldrige Award. The Baldrige program oversees the nationâs only presidential award for performance excel- lence, while offering criteria, assessments, tools, training, and a community for those dedicated to helping organiza- tions improve (75). Other Employee Contributions to Dealing with the Defi cit GCRTA has established an incentive program that rewards employees for achieving established goals in areas such as safety, attendance, customer satisfaction, on-time perfor- mance, ridership, revenue, and attendance. An agreement reached with the local ATU ties pay increases to increases in revenue the agency collects, if there are any. The agency also increased co-pays and deductibles for health care, though credits are provided to those who have annual physicals and can verify that they are nonsmokers. GCRTA put a stronger focus on reducing workersâ com- pensation costs through more supervisory accountability to stay in touch with those who were out of work because of injury, and by providing more alternative work duties to those who are collecting workersâ compensation as an incen- tive to return to their regular duties as soon as they are able. The agency also put more emphasis on monitoring sick leave and absenteeism, resulting in a reduction in absentee- ism from 7% to 5%. GCRTA contracted out paratransit vehi- cle operations and the inventory management of paratransit to save additional dollars. Operations and Service Planning Initiatives to Reduce Costs and Increase Effi ciencies GCRTA has been active in using as many tools as possible to optimize its service planning, including the completion of a comprehensive operations analysis; using run-cutting software, APCs, and an AVL system; and instituting ser- vice design changes, including the provision of circulators in areas of relatively low demand. The establishment of the Healthline BRT corridor on Euclid Avenue employs numer- ous techniques to speed up service, including a reduction in the number of bus stops, traffi c signal priority, all-door boarding, and off-board fare payments. While the agency has lost ridership over the past 5 years, it has improved its metrics in terms of passengers per hour and passengers per mile, and is beginning to regain the lost ridership caused by service reductions and the poor economy. GCRTA also con- solidated bus districts, which reduced overhead and utility costs by more than $3 million annually. Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Through Partnerships GCRTA has entered into partnerships with various entitles to help generate additional revenue and establish new ser- vice. The agency has an agreement with the major health
75 institutions in the city, which paid for the naming rights to the BRT service along the Euclid corridor, resulting in $250,000 in revenue each year for 10 years. In addition, a number of companiesâsuch as Huntington Bank, PNC Bank, and Cleveland State Universityâhave agreed to pay $30,000 per year for 10 years for the naming rights at sta- tions near their locations. Several agreements have been reached with area colleges (the largest being Cleveland State University and Case Western) that pay GCRTA a fee per enrolled student for unlimited access to all transit services. GCRTA also has had agreements with several dozen school districts to allow them to purchase transit passes to provide to their students for transportation at a reduced rate ($1.50 compared to the regular adult rate of $2.25). The agreements allow the school districts to sell passes at cost to students who may not be eligible for free passes from the schools. For example, a school policy might be to provide passes only to those students who live at least 3 miles from school, but students who live closer might want to use public transit and can purchase the passes directly from the school. As of Octo- ber 2012, GCRTA started allowing students under age 18 to purchase the lower-priced passes, as well as all-day passes, directly on the buses or at ticket vending machines with a valid school ID. Fourteen different entities have partnered with GCRTA in the amount of $3.6 million over 3 years to support an expanded downtown rubber-tired trolley service. On a smaller scale, the Rib Cookoff has partnered with GCRTA for enhanced rail service to its 4-day (Labor Day weekend) event. GCRTA receives a piece of the gate (50 cents per ticket sold), with a minimum of $10,000. Finally, the Cleveland Film Festival is paying GCRTA to operate additional rail service after normal service ends to benefi t festival attend- ees. The last regularly scheduled trains leave Tower City at 1:00 a.m., but the festival funds four additional trains that leave at 1:35 a.m. HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TAMPA, FLORIDA The Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) is a mid-sized transit agency serving the public transporta- tion needs of the greater Tampa area in Hillsborough County, Florida (shown in Figure 32). The service area has a popu- lation of approximately 1.2 million. HART provides fi xed- route local and express bus service, door-to-door paratransit service, and fl ex-route neighborhood connector service. It recently implemented a bus rapid transit line and manages the TECO streetcar in downtown Tampa. The great recession had a negative effect on HART, though not as severe an impact as that experienced by Com- munity Transit or the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. HARTâs total operating budget increased only slightly from $58.4 million in FY 2008 to $60.7 million in FY 2012. Given the effects of higher costs for fuel and health insurance, hours of service were decreased from 677,380 in FY 2008 to 651,504 in FY 2012. However, rider- ship increased substantially from 12,587,000 passenger trips in FY 2008 to 14,654,000 in FY 2012 (16.5%), resulting in some of the most impressive effi ciency gains in the country. The information provided here is taken from the survey the agency completed for this synthesis and through follow-up e-mail communications with Philip Hale, the General Man- ager of HART. FIGURE 32 Map of Hillsborough County, Florida (Source: Wikipedia). HART defi nes âtransit effectivenessâ as follows: For HART, âtransit effectivenessâ is defi ned as the agencyâs ability to maintain current service levels, both in fi xed-route and paratransit, in a fashion that meets not only the needs of the passengers, but also delivering that service in an economical, cost-effective manner. HART focuses on enhancing service on existing routes to make the service more attractive and a competitive option for transportation. While doing so, HART focuses on the fundamentals; that is, providing high-quality bus service and ADA-compliant paratransit service, operating within its fi nancial means by providing service that is sustainable over the long term while continuing to implement cost effi ciency improvements in the delivery of service, the development of capital projects, and supporting regulatory administrative programs. To support transit effectiveness, HART ensures suffi cient resources are directed at capital projects by maintaining assets in a state of good repair, completing accessibility improvements at all bus stops and other transit facilities, and looking for opportunities to secure funding for projects that enhance access to transit, maintain assets, improve service reliability, and address environmental and sustainability initiatives. HART also routinely evaluates current service to ensure that it meets demand as projected, and that the
76 agency is investing taxpayer resources in the county in an equitable as well as effective fashion. HART defi nes a âfi nancially sustainableâ system as follows: A âfi nancially sustainableâ transit system is one that lives within its means, balancing service levels with available revenues, and develops a ârainy dayâ approach to establishing reserves for the future in case of revenue shortfalls, emerging infrastructure needs, or service expansion or enhancement. It could be argued that the real tools needed for fi scal sustainability are more corporate philosophy in the arena of strategic planning than tangible tools. A strong edict on strategic planning, both for service and fi nancial management, provides a baseline by which all decisions, short and long term, can be measured, analyzed, and evaluated. Without clear strategic focus, a transit organization can spin its wheels, consistently providing funding for underperforming routes, expansion that doesnât meet the needs of the community, or investing in capital or the next hot topical project that doesnât align with the core strategic goals of the organization. Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Through Administrative Actions Addressing Health Care Costs and Employee Availability HART negotiated with its workforce to require employees to collectively pay an additional $750,000 toward health care benefi ts. The agency also decided to change from a fully insured health care plan to a self-insured health care plan and realized a savings of $1.3 million a year. HART established an employee wellness committee composed of representa- tives from both bargaining and no-bargaining staff to col- laboratively develop and implement programs and activities targeted at producing a healthier workforce, thereby reduc- ing health care costs. Employees can participate for free in the wellness program, and they receive incentives to par- ticipate, including grocery gift cards and eligibility for prize drawings at wellness program events. The responsibility for administering the Family Medical Leave Act was out- sourced to a third party with specifi c expertise, resulting in a decline in unplanned/unscheduled leave and reduced over- time expenses associated with such leave. HART is also con- sidering establishing a modifi ed duty program for employees absent as a result of workersâ compensation issues. Operations and Service Planning Initiatives to Reduce Costs and Increase Effi ciencies HART did not report establishing any new process beyond public meetings to collect input from the public as it made changes to service hours throughout the system. However, it engaged in considerable analysis of system performance through a comprehensive operations analysis, automatic pas- senger counters, and an automated vehicle location system. Information gathered from these sources allowed the agency to identify how service hours could be redistributed from routes without strong ridership to those that needed more capacity in a way that not only avoided losing passengers but resulted in substantial increases in ridership. Reduced frequency in low-productivity areas and the elimination or merger of low-density routes saved approximately $4 mil- lion annually. HART reduced deadhead mileage and operator travel times through creative scheduling, thereby further reducing unproductive operations expenses. The agency also selec- tively consolidated bus stops to make service slightly faster and more attractive. This careful reallocation of resources from nonproductive to productive routes resulted in an increase in passengers per hour from 21 in FY 2008 to 25 in FY 2012, as well as increases in passengers per mile and per capita. HARTâs operations staff engaged in a number of other activities to help reduce costs, including the following: ⢠Conducting safety and security activities, such as threat and vulnerability assessments, safety reviews, and training in-house to save on consultant/contractor fees ⢠Creating several committees to review safety processes and procedures to mitigate issues that arise so as to not have costly repairs or incidents ⢠Instituting a risk assessment for environmental compliance. Maintenance Initiatives to Reduce Costs and Increase Effi ciencies HART maintenance managers reported saving money in the following ways: ⢠LED lighting installed at the University Area Transit Center (estimated annual savings of $2,040) ⢠Installed larger trash compactor to reduce the number of trash compactor pulls (estimated annual savings of $8,000) ⢠Recycling used oil (estimated annual revenue of $15,600) ⢠Recycling scrap metal (estimated annual revenue of $6,000) ⢠Purchased 19 cost-effi cient paratransit minivans instead of cutaways (estimated one-time savings of $950,000) ⢠Better fuel economy with new paratransit minivans (estimated annual savings of $52,478). Improving Transit Effectiveness Through Marketing of Advertising Opportunities As most transit agencies have done, HART has sold adver- tising on buses and shelters for many years. In March 2011, when the contract for selling advertising space came up for renewal, HART entered into an agreement for transit
77 advertising revenue on its bus fl eet with a different com- pany, Direct Media USA. During its fi rst year, the company surpassed its guaranteed revenue goal of $375,000 by 53%. Actual revenue to HART was $575,000. As noted in the lit- erature review, HART awarded a new advertising generat- ing contract in December 2012 to Commuter Advertising through which the existing on-board annunciation system is used to sell 10- to 15-second advertising announcements that can be scheduled systemwide, multiroute, individual route, by bus stop, by time of day, or even by language. This system will be installed at no cost to HART. The contract terms are 3 years with two 1-year options. While the guaranteed revenue per year is $12,000 ($60,000 over 5 years), projected revenue for HART over the 5-year period is $459,900. In addition, in 2012 HART and Tampa Historic Streetcar, Inc., amended their advertising policy to include alcohol and cigar advertis- ing on the streetcar only. As a result, more than $96,000 in new advertising revenue will be earned on an annual basis. Improving Transit Effectiveness Through Strategic Use of Capital Funds HARTâs capital program includes revitalization and build- out of many outdated facilities that will result in reduced operating costs, including the following improvements: 1. The 21st Avenue Operations Building will be LEED- certifi ed. Coupled with consolidation of staff into the new building from separate temporary facilities, this will produce projected operations and utilities cost savings up to 25% over baseline before the projectâs completion. 2. Build-out of the Ybor Streetcar Facility (which houses HARTâs administrative staff) will include replac- ing an ineffi cient HVAC system and insulation, and upgrading access control systems and lighting, with projected savings of 10% in energy costs. 3. The impending construction of a CNG fueling sta- tion will allow HART to replace its diesel vehicle fl eet with more effi cient and cost-effective CNG-powered vehicles. Current pricing of CNG is approximately $1.50â$2.00 less per gallon equivalency than diesel fuel. HART believes CNG will emit fewer pollutants and lower the cost of engine maintenance, and will provide a minimum savings of $16,000 per day in fuel costs alone when the full fl eet is converted. 4. Upgrades to the heavy maintenance/preventive main- tenance facilityâs heating, ventilation, and lighting systems clearly reduced energy costs. In addition, HART reports that the increased lighting and the installation of radiant heating systems have resulted in a major upgrade in working conditions for the maintenance staff that services and maintains buses, vans, and other vehicles in these structures. Produc- tivity and the quality of work have increased, and reductions in employee health issues have resulted in cost savings. 5. The Yukon transfer center was renovated, which included demolishing and replacing the existing driver break room. It now includes a new public rest- room facility with low-fl ow toilet fi xtures, LED light- ing and high-effi ciency split-system air conditioning, and four additional bus bays. The bus canopy system was reroofed and all canopy lighting was replaced with energy-effi cient LED lights. Operating costs are estimated to be reduced by 10% to 15%.
