Performance Measurement of Transportation Systems: Summary of the Fourth International Conference (2013)

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.

78 BREAKOUT SESSION 5-C State-of-Good-Repair Data, Performance Measures, and Capital Program Decision Making Keith Gates, Federal Transit Administration (Moderator) Michael S. Tanner, Bay Area Rapid Transit Naomi Renek, New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority CaPital Programming at the bay area raPid transit Michael S. Tanner discussed capital programming at the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which services four counties in the San Francisco Bay Area. His presentation covered the following points: • BART, which is 40 years old, encompasses dense, urban cities such as San Francisco and Oakland as well as suburban and rural areas. The transbay tunnel is a key link connecting San Francisco and Oakland. BART is composed of 100 miles of track that carries 350,000 riders per day, and it has an annual budget of $600 mil- lion. Its capital program has a funding shortfall. • The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the designated recipient of federal funding for the Bay Area. As result, all 20 transit operators in the Bay Area, including BART, go through MTC for fed- eral funding. MTC has established a set of priorities for transit capital investments in the region. Maintain- ing the existing system, including the purchase of new transit vehicles to operate current service, is the top pri- ority. Rail and track, stations, and related facilities all fall within this high-priority category. Because of the capital needs of other operators in the region, it will take approximately 20 years to replace BART’s existing 669 rail cars. BART’s use of a wide-gauge rail requires a unique rail car design, which is more expensive than standard rail cars. The estimated cost to replace one rail car is $3 million. The rail cars are 40 years old, and a midlife overhaul of all the rail cars was completed 15 years ago at a cost of $1 million per rail car. Funding for system expansion has not been identified. • Evaluating the condition of BART’s assets is impor- tant. Maintaining other elements of the BART infra- structure is key to meeting the state-of-good-repair goal. Maintaining the system to ensure safety, reliability, and attractiveness is critical. Public input is being obtained on the design, seating, and other features of the new rail cars. BART also has a major earthquake safety program that is funded locally through a property tax increase. • There is a concern that service extensions will come at the expense of maintaining the existing core system. There are plans to extend service to San Jose, the Liver- more Valley, and other areas. CaPital Program and PerformanCe measurement at the neW york metroPolitan transPortation authority Naomi Renek discussed capital program planning, fund- ing, and performance measurement at the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). She provided background to MTA’s capital program and described issues associated with prioritizing proj- ects. Renek’s presentation covered the following points: • MTA is composed of several agencies that operate subway, bus, and commuter rail service in the greater New York metropolitan area. The headquarters office is responsible for managing certain centralized func- tions, including capital programming, legal services, real

79STATE OF GOOD REPAIR estate, and grants management. The MTA service area covers 500 square miles. • MTA serves 14 counties in two states; it carries approximately 8.5 million riders a day, including 7.4 million riders on the New York City subway and bus system. There are three metropolitan planning organiza- tions (MPOs) in the MTA service area. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is the largest MPO and includes three smaller working areas (Figure 11). NYMTC suballocates funds from the Urban- ized Area Formula Program (5307) to transit operators according to the 5307 formula; transit operators priori- tize their own projects, thus providing predictability in capital planning. • In considering both capital programs and perfor- mance measurement, it is important to remember that one size does not fit all. There is a great deal of varia- tion among states, MPOs, regional planning groups, and local jurisdictions throughout the country. In addition, prioritizing investments is a multifaceted and compli- cated process that takes time. Furthermore, agency pri- orities may not always match funding criteria. • Approximately $70 billion has been invested in MTA’s capital program since 1982. Numerous benefits have been realized from this investment. For example, annual subway delays fell by 59 percent, the mean dis- tance between failures for subway cars increased by 1,800 percent, and the mean distance between failures for buses increased by 670 percent. In addition, the sys- tem is experiencing the highest ridership levels since the early 1950s. Even with these investments, there is still a substantial state-of-good-repair backlog. • Establishing priorities for a capital program is a multifaceted process. Conducting an assessment of the condition of the facilities, vehicles, and other assets is a good place to begin. Many factors may be considered in determining the condition of assets. The age of vehicles, rolling stock, and facilities may be considered. Inspec- Metropolitan Transportation Authority 3 FIGURE 11 NYMTC comprises three working areas: the Mid-Hudson Transportation Coordinating Committee (MHTCC), the Nassau–Suffolk Transportation Coordinating Committee (NSTCC), and the New York City Transportation Coordinating Committee (NYCTCC). The other two MPOs in the New York metropolitan area are the Poughkeepsie–Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC) and the Orange County Transportation Council (OCTC).

80 performance measurement of transportation systems tions of structures and bridges are typically undertaken. The performance of ventilation and electric systems may be examined. A numerical rating is not enough to pri- oritize projects, however. Some key inputs are difficult to quantify. Other factors to consider in the prioritiza- tion process include emergent safety issues, the ability to maintain rather than replace, mobility, and customer service. • In some cases, agency priorities do not match fund- ing criteria. For example, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program addresses a clear national objective. Eligible projects must dem- onstrate air quality benefits; however, many transit state-of-good-repair projects do not qualify for CMAQ funding because, although these projects retain exist- ing riders by providing more reliable or more frequent service or improving the transit environment, these ben- efits are not considered in the CMAQ criteria. The liv- ability programs Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) are other examples of programs whose funding criteria may not correspond to agency priorities. Transit state- of-good-repair projects may not show the desired ben- efits. The measures of additionally requiring increased economic activity, denser land use, and more riders is a poor match for big cities. • The experience at MTA demonstrates three things: measures should be established locally, transit providers are best positioned to prioritize projects, and outcome- based measures generally do not support system preser- vation projects.