National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Case Studies

« Previous: Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Case Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 30

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.

20 OVERVIEW Five transit agencies were selected for case studies. Selection criteria included whether the agency has a comprehensive process or one that is noteworthy in some way, whether it is believed to be a beneficial process for the agency, and whether the agency has been relatively effective at implementing the plan. In addition, the size of the agency was considered so that small, medium, and large agencies would all be represented. The five agencies selected were: 1. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) (small) (www.theride.org). 2. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) (large) (www. dart.org). 3. LACMTA (large) (www.mta.net). 4. MTA New York City Transit (large) (www.mta.nyc. ny.us/nyct/index.html). 5. Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, KY) (medium) (www.ridetarc.org). The case study agencies share a number of common fea- tures that serve to make their strategic planning process effec- tive. For example, all of them use a very collaborative and par- ticipative process, often involving teams of employees. Team building is therefore an important ingredient in their strategic planning efforts. Most of the agencies involve not just internal management and staff but key external stakeholders as well. Most of the agencies also regularly use management and/or board retreats as part of the process. All of them in some way link their strategic plan to their budgeting and capital pro- gramming processes. In addition, all of the agencies incorpo- rate performance measures and regular progress reporting. There were also a number of particularly noteworthy or distinctive features used by some agencies. • Two agencies, DART (Dallas) and LACMTA (Los Angeles), use a “balanced scorecard” approach. This is an approach used by many private-sector companies (described earlier in the literature review) (4). • Dallas has adopted a very global strategic plan that has been reduced to 1 page. The heart of its strategic planning process is instead its annual business plan, which is based on the strategic plan. Dallas has also developed a com- prehensive “Leadership System and Strategic Alignment Process” that involves board policy and direction, man- agement action plans and performance measurements, and individual performance plans for management and employees. • As with Dallas, Los Angeles has developed a very com- prehensive process for driving its strategic plan down- ward from its vision and mission through management and into individual performance appraisals. It also uses a sophisticated “Leadership Model,” which is used to “cascade and communicate” the strategic plan agency- wide. This has included use of a video presentation by the CEO that was made available for use at all-hands meetings used to discuss the plan. • In New York, strategic planning is required by state law. The regional transit agency for the New York City region, the MTA, then prescribes certain overall goals and performance indicators to be used by each of its subsidiary agencies. The subsidiary agencies (e.g., MTA/ NYC Transit) then annually develop their own strate- gies and targets for each indicator. ANN ARBOR TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Agency Description AATA serves the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti urbanized areas and portions of Ypsilanti, Pittsfield, and Superior townships in Michigan. Fixed routes in Ann Arbor are within one-quarter mile of 95% of all residences, and paratransit services are provided within three-quarters of a mile of all AATA routes. AATA also operates an interurban express bus service between Ann Arbor, Chelsea, and Dexter. The population of the service area is approximately 190,000 (1990 census). The agency operates approximately 60 regular buses on 25 routes. It also operates 5 paratransit vehicles, and an addi- tional 30 are operated by contractors. Riders make 4.4 mil- lion unlinked passenger trips on the system each year, with a total operating expense of $19.4 million. Strategic Plan Document AATA’s strategic plan, Destination 2010, was adopted in 1999 and contains the following key elements: CHAPTER FOUR CASE STUDIES

21 helping employees balance the various elements of the model and understanding their interrelationships. The strategic plan was adopted in October 1999 after approximately a 1-year effort. It covers a 10-year period and is updated annually. Retreats are used to flesh out annual goals and objectives that are based on the plan. Quarterly reports are then used to track the progress of the annual goals and objectives. The CEO believes that the strategic plan has been “extremely useful” (a rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 5) in terms of making it easier to get the board to agree to the annual goals and objectives, and in giving the entire agency a sense of direction. Plan Implementation The chief executive officer also believes that AATA has been “extremely effective” (a rating of 5) at implementing strate- gic plan recommendations. Annual goals and objectives with quarterly reviews and presentations to the board are used to ensure that the plan moves from paper to implementation. Also, the planning process is linked to other key organiza- tional processes such as budgeting, capital programming, ser- vice planning, and performance measurement. As with sev- eral other transit agencies, the board’s evaluation of the CEO is based on the progress of the strategic plan. Significant Benefits Among the important benefits cited from the strategic plan- ning process were better budgeting, workforce unity, and community buy-in. • Mission, vision, and values; • A description of the planning process, who was involved, and the Strategic Issues Model that was used in its development; • A description and analysis of the agency’s internal and external environments; • A discussion of future challenges; and • A plan for the future—“where, who, and what” (where service will be provided, who will be served, and what products or services will be offered). Plan Development The AATA Board initiated the strategic plan in 1998 in response to the challenges that were anticipated over the next 10 years. What ensued was a collaborative effort involving the board, management, staff, outside consultants, and exter- nal stakeholders. A core team of representatives from all lev- els of the agency was used to oversee the process. In addition to the core team, a number of other teams were formed to assist with the effort as described here: • Leadership alignment—to initiate dialogue and build consensus throughout the organization so that everyone would be working toward the same goals. • Research—to identify and analyze key demographic, development, traffic, legal, political and fiscal trends and issues. • Strategic issues and opportunities—to design and coor- dinate strategies for involving the workforce in the plan- ning effort. • Communications—to keep everyone informed about the strategic planning process. • Internal culture—to ensure that organizational values were expressed in the AATA mission and in its internal activities. More than 40 individuals were involved in the internal process including board members, senior management, and union and nonunion staff. In addition, a special Stakeholder Council Design Team was created to identify and involve important external stakeholders with an interest in public transit. Four facilitated sessions were held, with a total of 45 stakeholders participating. Integral to AATA’s strategic plan was the development of a Strategic Issues Model. This conceptual planning frame- work is shown in Figure 1. The purpose of the model was to illustrate how AATA’s core issues (who, what, and where) are surrounded by its core values, and how these in turn are affected by the agency’s various constraints and opportunities. All employees were trained in the use of this model, which was used both in the development of the plan and in subsequent implementation efforts. The CEO believes that the model was very useful in FIGURE 1 AATA strategic issues model [Source: AATA Strategic Plan—Destination 2010 (October 1999)].

Keys to Success and Lessons Learned Good communication and wide involvement are believed to have been crucial to the success of the strategic planning process. In addition to involving agency personnel, the CEO believes that it was important to involve the whole community. DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT Agency Description DART is a regional transportation authority that was created in 1983 to serve the Dallas metropolitan area. It operates more than 700 buses and 95 light-rail vehicles, and serves an area of 700 square miles and 2.1 million people. It also oper- ates commuter rail service between Dallas and Ft. Worth in conjunction with the Ft. Worth Transportation Authority. Strategic Plan Document DART’s strategic plan is a 1-page document that provides a framework for annual business planning, budgeting, and cap- ital programming (see Figure 2). It is considered to be a 5-year plan that is reviewed annually and updated as necessary. 22 The plan is organized around three target groups identi- fied in the board goals: Customers, Employees, and Stake- holders. Under each target group, there are “outcomes to be achieved,” “management objectives,” and “strategies.” For example, under the Customer target group, there are two pri- mary outcomes to be achieved: • Increase Effectiveness (optimize ridership) and • Increase Efficiency (improve subsidy per passenger). Under Increase Effectiveness, there are two management objectives: • Improve Customer Satisfaction and • Manage System Growth. Under Improve Customer Satisfaction, there are four strategies: • Improve service reliability, • Provide a customer friendly environment, • Provide a safe/secure service, and • Provide effective customer communication. FIGURE 2 DART’s strategic plan (Source: DART FY 2004 business plan).

23 DART’s strategic plan identifies what needs to be accom- plished and is the basis for what is at the heart of DART’s annual business planning process. The business plan defines how management intends to achieve the initiatives outlined in the strategic plan and provides DART’s performance projec- tions and commitments for the organization as a whole and for each of its strategic business units (bus, light-rail, com- muter rail, and paratransit modes). The plan includes 2-year scorecards of key operating, financial, and quality measures, and identifies the work program initiatives that are needed to achieve them. In addition, the plan includes the annual bud- get and a 20-year financial plan. Other examples of the scorecard concept are presented in Tables 17 and 18. Each scorecard includes 2 years of actual data, an estimate for the current fiscal year, and a projection for the subsequent 3 fiscal years. Plan Development Initially, management retreats were used in the strategic plan development process. The agency’s mission, vision, and board goals drove the development process. More recently, the plan is reviewed in a team format with representation from each department. It is then reviewed by management each Janu- ary, at the beginning of the annual business planning process. Factors considered in the review include • An analysis of business results; • The results of employee, customer, and climate surveys; • External events (such as issues being considered by the state legislature); and • Benchmark comparisons with other transit agencies and private-sector companies. KPI Measure Goals FY01A FY02A FY03B FY03 Q3 FY04B FY05B Ridership Total ridership (millions) 95.7 93.8 96.2 94.8 95.3 96.5 Fixed route (millions) 60.7 58.7 61.2 60.2 60.2 61.4 Efficiency Subsidy per passenger $2.34 $2.76 $2.65 $2.81 $2.50 $2.55 Fixed-route subsidy per passenger $3.24 $3.93 $3.73 $3.74 $3.43 $3.48 Administrative ratio 11.5% 11.2% 11.7% 10.6% 9.1% 10.0% Service Quality On-time performance—bus 92.8% 92.8% 91.0% 92.4% 91.0% 91.0% On-time performance—LRT 95.2% 97.0% 97.0% 97.4% 97.0% 97.0% On-time performance—TRE 97.9% 97.2% 96.0% 97.5% 96.0% 96.0% Customer Satisfaction Complaints per 100,000 passengers 24.7 34.8 31.0 42.6 32.5 32.1 Managed Growth Sales tax for operations 59.6% 77.5% 75.4% 84.4% 76.1% 72.9% Notes: KPI = key performance indicators; LRT = light-rail transit; TRE = Trinity Railway Express. Source: DART FY 2004 business plan. Indicators FY01A FY02A FY03B FY03 Q3 FY04B FY05B Customer/Quality Indicators Fixed-route bus ridership (millions) 47.5 42.4 41.4 40.4 39.8 40.7 Charter ridership (millions) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 Revenue miles (millions) 30.3 31.2 30.9 30.9 27.9 27.9 Passengers per mile 1.58 1.37 1.35 1.32 1.43 1.46 On-time performance 92.8% 92.8% 91.0% 92.4% 91.0% 91.0% Mean distance between roadcalls 3,783 3,827 4,200 4,124 4,200 4,200 Vehicle accidents per 100,000 miles (all service) 2.87 2.40 2.80 2.20 2.80 2.80 Avg. no. of operator unscheduled absences (days) 25.1 22.5 20.0 16.3 23.0 22.0 Financial/Efficiency Indicators Revenues (millions) $29.2 $27.2 $28.0 $25.6 $28.8 $29.1 Expenses—fully allocated (millions) $183.3 $205.1 $192.0 $191.3 $174.5 $178.3 Net subsidy (millions) $154.1 $177.9 $164.0 $165.7 $145.7 $149.1 Subsidy per passenger $3.22 $4.12 $3.92 $4.06 $3.63 $3.64 Cost per revenue mile $6.05 $6.57 $6.22 $6.20 $6.25 $6.39 Pay-to-platform ratio (hours) N/A N/A 1.29 1.29 1.28 1.28 Note: N/A = not available. Source: DART FY 2004 business plan. TABLE 17 DART SCORECARD OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS TABLE 18 BUS SCORECARD—KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

24 Changes to the plan’s strategies and targets that are identified are brought to executive management for approval. Plan Implementation For implementation, DART uses a “Leadership System” based on the concept of strategic alignment; a process designed to ensure that employee jobs and performance are aligned with the agency’s mission, direction and board goals, and policies. This system is illustrated in Figure 3. The annual budget and capital program are directly linked to the strategic plan. The agency rates itself as “fairly effective” in terms of implementation (a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5). Significant Benefits The strategic planning process is considered to be “very use- ful” (a rating of 4 out of 5) as a management tool for holding departments accountable for results based on performance metrics that are linked to strategies. One specific benefit cited was its use during a major cost-cutting effort, when staff was able to show the board the impacts on the plan if cost-cutting measures the board was recommending were to be adopted. More generally, the plan has provided a tool for prioritizing projects and making management decisions based on their impact on the plan. Keys to Success and Lessons Learned The agency’s mission, vision, and strategic plan are clearly understood by all levels of management and employees. The budget and the long-range business plan are linked to the strate- gic plan. Strategies are viewed from a cross-functional team basis and are measurable and driven through the organization. DART’s initial effort in developing the strategic plan was much more detailed—more of an action plan. It had to be changed more often than desired as projects were completed. DART therefore created a more “global,” usable plan that would serve the agency for a longer term. Originally DART’s major challenge was in being able to obtain all the necessary information on a timely basis from the numerous individuals involved. Currently, deadlines are set and individuals are designated with oversight responsibility to provide the required information within the time frame. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Agency Description LACMTA is one of the biggest transit systems in the coun- try. It serves one of the largest and most populous metropol- itan counties—9.6 million people and 1,433 square miles. It operates more than 1,900 buses and 60 miles of rail service, and employs more than 9,000 individuals. * Performance Management Plan ** Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Board Policy and Direction Management Action Plans and Performance Measurements Employee Performance Mission Statement DART's Purpose Board Goals Broad Agency-wide Objectives System Plan Commitments on Future System Build-out Financial Standards Expected Business Results and Debt Limits Board Policies Broad Direction on Certain Issues Vision Statement and Values Vision of Success and How We Treat Each Other Strategic Plan Management's Strategies to Achieve Board Direction Other Strategic Input Ext. Climate Review Surveys Texas Quality Feedback Business Results Benchmark Studies FY Business Plan Projected Operational and Financial Performance FY Budget Revenues & Expenses Variance Explanations Financial Plan 20-year Projections Sources/Uses of Cash Affordability of Plans Sr. Mgt's PMP* Agency/Modal Scorecards Departmental Scorecoards Work Program Initiatives Competencies/KSAs** Organizational Values Employee PMP* Regular Assignments (Section Scorecards) Work Program Initiatives Competencies/KSAs Organizational Values FIGURE 3 DART’s leadership system and strategic alignment process (Source: DART FY 2004 business plan).

25 In addition to operating an extensive transit system, LACMTA also funds 16 municipal bus operators and a wide array of transportation projects that include bicycle and pedes- trian facilities, local road and highway improvements, goods movement, and the Freeway Service Patrol and call boxes. The agency is unusual in that it also serves as the federally required MPO for the region. Strategic Plan Document LACMTA developed its first strategic plan (called a Strate- gic Business Plan) for the FY 01–03 period. It included a mission, vision, and goals. The goals were organized in a bal- anced scorecard framework with each supported by more detailed goals and objectives. The strategic plan (now called a Strategic Performance Program) was redone for FY 03–07. It retained much of the structure of the previous strategic plan; that is, a mission, vision, and goals; detailed objectives; and KPIs. However, a new element was the inclusion of agency “core values.” In addition, it began to move the organizational goals and objectives down to the departmental and individual levels. LACMTA regards its strategic plan as a “living docu- ment” and “evolving plan,” not as a rigid or fixed document. The plan is updated on an annual basis. Plan Development Development of the most recent plan began in January 2002 when the CEO initiated an internal process that involved a cross section of 70 team leaders. This group met on six dif- ferent occasions to discuss the agency’s services, programs, possible strategic approaches, and how the success of the agency’s efforts could be measured. The following seven organization-wide strategic goals were developed: 1. Create a “safety” conscious culture throughout the MTA and its customers and business partners. 2. Improve transit systems. 3. Attract, develop, and retain employees. 4. Create a positive image of the MTA. 5. Deliver quality capital projects on time and within budget. 6. Provide leadership for the region’s mobility agenda through responsive planning and resource allocation. 7. Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. Specific objectives were identified for each goal, and implementation strategies, action plans, and KPIs were then developed that assigned responsibility to key “management owners” and “team support partners.” A consultant was used during the planning process to help facilitate the strategic plan- ning meetings. The process is shown graphically in Figure 4. Plan Implementation To help move from planning into implementation, the agency used several noteworthy strategies: • The CEO held an all-hands meeting of key management and staff to communicate the details and importance of the strategic plan. Television monitors were used for staff who could not physically attend. • Each business unit was also asked to hold an all-hands meeting to communicate the strategic plan. Each unit was given a video presentation in which the CEO empha- sized the importance of achieving the strategic business goals of the agency. • The strategic goal teams met monthly or bi-monthly with facilitators from the Organizational Development and Training Department, who coached them in regard to goal attainment. • Executive management held quarterly review sessions where goal team members were recognized for their accomplishments and for meeting their milestones. Developed by Management, Approved by CEO Developed by Management, Approved by CEO Implementation & Accountability Vision Mission Core Values Goals Objectives Strategies Actions Key Performance Indicators Service Delivery and Evaluation Managers and Supervisors Individual Performance FIGURE 4 LACMTA strategic planning process (Source: MTA Strategic Performance Program, FY 2003–2007).

26 • Provision of a foundation for how the agency will meet Los Angeles County’s transportation needs. • Identification of the goals, objectives, strategies, and action steps required for the agency to be successful. • A description of where the agency wishes to be, what it does, and how it will conduct day-to-day business. More specific benefits described were: • Introduction of “Safety First” as a new program initia- tive to reduce accidents and injuries by 51% (an out- growth of Strategic Goal 1). • Development of a Return-to-Work Program for former LACMTA employees (an outgrowth of Strategic Goal 3). • Creation of a more positive image for the agency, includ- ing a Metro logo and a new brand marketing approach to improve the public’s perception of the agency (an outgrowth of Strategic Goal 4). • Improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency including streamlining of the top internal processes (e.g., payment of bills, procurement, and employee recruitment and selection) (an outgrowth of Strategic Goal 7). Keys to Success and Lessons Learned Part of the success of the agency’s strategic planning process is attributed to its collaborative and cross-functional nature. • The KPIs are reported to the chief financial officer on a quarterly basis as part of the operating management and budget process. This process is depicted by the Leadership Model that LACMTA uses to “cascade and communicate” the strategic plan agency-wide (see Figure 5). Its purpose is to help ensure that the strategic plan is understood at every level and across all transit modes, and to encourage the commitment, energy, and hard work of all agency employees. It shows how the agency-wide vision, mission, and values are used to provide a framework for strategic goals and objectives, and these are in turn integrated with the budget and performance manage- ment processes. This includes a linkage to each employee’s role and responsibilities and to his or her compensation. The agency has recently developed performance appraisal forms that are directly tied to the strategic plan goals. Each year the agency reassesses its performance, goals, and objec- tives in view of its budget appropriations. The respondent rated the agency as “very effective” in terms of implement- ing the strategic plan (a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5). Significant Benefits The survey respondent believes that strategic planning has been “extremely useful” at the agency (a rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 5). Key benefits cited included: Employees—First Point of Contact with Clients and Customers Communication and Reinforcement Teamwork and Accountability Teamwork Teamwork Responsibilities Goal Achievements Identification of Every Employee's Individual Roles & Responsibilities Responsible for Implementing Goals Performance-based Compensation Assessment of Individual Contributions and Attainment towards Supporting Agency Goals and Objectives Planning Oversight and Monitoring Communicate Agency-wide Vision, Mission & Values Cascade to Middle Management & Frontline Supervisors Integrate Strategic Goals and Objectives into Budget and Performance Management Process Produce an Integrated Strategic Plan for Agency Linkage to Performance-based Compensation Oversight & Monitoring—Develop and Coordinate Action Plans to Support Goals & Objectives FIGURE 5 LACMTA leadership model (Source: MTA Strategic Performance Program, FY 2003–2007).

27 This included the involvement of various levels of manage- ment, individuals from a variety of functional areas, and the use of retreats where everyone could be heard. The Leadership Communication Model was cited as important in both com- municating the plan and in getting buy-in from participants. Finally, the importance of presenting the strategic plan to the board of directors was emphasized. This helps the board to articulate the goals of the agency externally and to work in support of the agency’s vision and mission. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT Agency Description MTA/NYC Transit is one of several subsidiaries under the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). (Other subsidiaries include Metro–North Railroad, Long Island Rail Road, and Long Island Bus.) The agency operates the largest subway car fleet in the world (more than 6,000 cars), and more buses than any other transit provider in North America (more than 4,400). Its annual operating budget is approximately $4 billion and its 5-year capital program exceeds $10 billion. It employs more than 48,000 people. Strategic Plan Document The framework for the agency’s strategic plan is established both by state law and by the MTA. The plan is developed annually and covers a period of 5 years. In its 2004–2008 Strategic Business Plan, the MTA set out three broad goals for the regional public transportation system: 1. Improve safety for employees and customers. 2. Improve customer satisfaction. 3. Improve cost-effectiveness. Under each goal, the MTA developed more detailed inter- agency strategies and tactics. Under each tactic, more specific targets are described, a status report is provided, the responsi- ble department is identified, and a cost (revenue or savings) impact is estimated. Each of its subsidiary agencies developed its own Strategic Business Plan based on this structure. Spe- cific performance indicators are chosen by the MTA; each agency then sets its own targets related to each indicator. As an example of this structure, the following was pro- vided in NYC Transit’s Strategic Business Plan under the goal of Improve Customer Satisfaction: • Current view—This section provided a short discussion of historical and current efforts to improve customer satisfaction. • Anticipated results—This section provided quantified information on performance, as shown in Table 19. Similar targets were provided for the bus system. The fol- lowing seven strategies that will help lead to attainment of the overall goal were included: 1. Improve subway service reliability. 2. Improve bus service reliability. 3. Implement new services and improve service man- agement. 4. Provide a cleaner and more attractive station envi- ronment. 5. Improve air quality and environmental management. 6. Enhance access to service information and Metro- Card sales. 7. Provide transportation service for persons with dis- abilities. All of these strategies has several more detailed tactics, each with its own specific targets, status, responsible depart- ment(s), and associated cost, revenue, or savings. As required by state law, the plan also included an appendix that focuses on operating and financial statistics. Indicator Actual 2002 Goal 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wait assessment* 88.8% 89.0% 89.2% 89.4% 89.6% 89.8% 90.0% Enroute schedule adherence 77.5% 81.0% 81.2% 81.4% 81.6% 81.8% 82.0% Mean distance between failures 114,619 132,000 133,000 134,000 135,000 136,000 136,000 Overall customer rating (0–10) 6.4 6.2** 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 *A measure of the evenness of service from the customers’ perspective. It is defined as the percentage of service intervals that are no more than the scheduled interval plus a specified number of minutes (depending on whether it is bus or rail service and whether it is peak or off-peak). **Actual results from 2003. Decrease attributed to a fare increase in 2003. TABLE 19 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDICATORS—SUBWAY SYSTEM

The plan document and planning process were streamlined in 1996 to focus on the key strategic issues within the MTA and its agencies. Some of the information that was previously included in the strategic plan (e.g., ridership trends and financial results) is now documented in the agencies’ operat- ing budget. Other information that was previously included (major studies and their implications, changing technology, and emerging issues) is discussed in separate, more specific reports on an as-needed basis. Plan Development Each year, at the beginning of the strategic planning process, the MTA distributes a schedule for the plan’s development and approval. Soon after, NYC Transit’s president distrib- utes a “guidance” memo that identifies the specific areas in which he wants to see more programmatic emphasis. The president also reviews the draft plan before it is submitted to the MTA board to ensure that it includes appropriate pro- grams and performance targets. A similar review function is performed at a lower staff level by strategic planning staff. Issues that cannot be resolved at this level are then raised to the president. Plan Implementation NYC Transit’s Manager of Strategic Transportation Plan- ning has described strategic planning at the agency as “the confluence of customers, operations, and budgets.” He rates the agency as “very effective” (a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5) in implementing its strategic plan. The reason for this is that the programs included in the plan must be included in either the operating or capital budgets. In ad- dition, the capital planning process uses the goals of the strategic plan in establishing priorities among competing project proposals. Another reason is that when the plan is updated each year, departments report on their progress. Progress reports are also made through other mechanisms outside the strategic planning framework. Significant Benefits NYC Transit’s experience with strategic planning was rated as being “very useful” (a rating of 4 out of 5), and the establish- ment of goals and objectives for programs and performance indicators as an important means of measuring progress. Three specific benefits were cited: 1. The focus on safety for employees and customers begun in the 1997–2001 strategic plan has led to a substantial 28 reduction in customer injuries and employee lost-time accidents. 2. It has led to a reordering of priorities within the cus- tomer satisfaction goal. The late 1990s saw a stronger emphasis on programs to increase service levels to meet growing demand. This has now shifted to pro- grams to increase service reliability. 3. Even though the agency had a relatively flush period in the late 1990s, it was able to stay focused on initiatives to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Keys to Success and Lessons Learned A critical review of strategies and programs to ensure that they are the best means of achieving the agency’s goals was cited as one key to success. Another is a review of perfor- mance targets to ensure that they reflect the continuous, incremental improvement that takes recent and planned activ- ities into account. NYC Transit has found that departments are sometimes reluctant to include programmatic activities in the strategic plan or to set ambitious targets for their performance indica- tors, in case these activities are not achieved. In part, the involvement of the president mentioned previously under Plan Implementation has helped to overcome this problem. The respondent noted that to be effective, buy-in by the agency president and throughout the organization is required. Staff at all levels need to recognize the importance of meet- ing the program and performance targets that are established in the plan. TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF RIVER CITY Agency Description TARC serves the greater Louisville, Kentucky region, which includes service in Jefferson and Bullitt counties in Kentucky and Clark and Floyd counties in Indiana. The population of the service area is estimated to be approximately one million. The system also serves the University of Louisville. The agency operates approximately 285 regular buses and an additional 8 buses are operated by contractors. It also operates 9 paratransit vehicles, with an additional 74 oper- ated by contractors. Riders make 16.5 million unlinked pas- senger trips on the system each year, with a total operating expense of $41 million. A proposed light-rail service is cur- rently in the preliminary engineering stage. Strategic Plan Document TARC’s strategic plan, TARC Strategic Plan FY2003–2004, was adopted at the end of FY 2002. It is interesting to note that

29 the TARC strategic plan uses a more informal and conversa- tional style than most strategic plans, making it more engag- ing to readers. For example, the strategic plan is described as “our ‘owner’s manual’ reminding us to regularly check the pulse of our customers and team members alike and to peri- odically fine-tune our performance.” The plan contains the following key elements: • Mission, vision, and critical success factors (an exten- sion of the vision statement). • Departmental objectives and strategies. • A description and analysis of the agency’s internal and external environments, including a list of factors, then a discussion of them using “a better Louisville would look like . . .” type of model. • A Long-Range Advanced Transit Plan, which is a detailed 5-year plan with a 15–20-year horizon. • A capital improvement program. • A Performance Plan that details the current year’s departmental performance objectives. • A customer service analysis, a comprehensive study that includes input from riders, the general public, TARC board and staff, etc., and designed to identify the most “cost-effective, operationally sound, and customer- friendly” system of transit services possible. Plan Development The TARC board initiated the current long-range strategic plan in 1994, with the creation of a new mission statement, critical success factors, goals, and strategies. Management quickly supported the idea. TARC has embraced strategic planning by implementing multiple outside stakeholder meet- ings and involvement regarding its future. The executive director believes that strategic planning has been “very use- ful” at the agency (a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5). TARC is currently placing special emphasis on customer focus, regionalism (by expanding service borders), new part- nerships with the community, and new technology (e.g., by providing instantly available trip planning and scheduling information on their website). In 2004, TARC initiated a Comprehensive Customer Service Analysis called Project Gobility, which is a broad survey and public involvement ini- tiative that will help identify TARC’s future direction. This project will update the last customer service analysis com- pleted in 1996 and will involve union and nonunion employees in its implementation strategies. TARC’s strategic planning and implementation process is overseen by the director of strategic management. The plan, which is updated annually, covers 5 years in detail with a broader 15- to 20-year horizon. Each year, the board and man- agement have a 1-day retreat where they focus on a SWOT analysis and environmental assessment. This lays the ground- work for development of the year’s specific performance plan. From there, TARC involves several community mem- bers—from grass roots organizations and average citizens to elected officials and local businessmen. During the major 5-year planning effort, all the current processes are called into question, including taking all the routes off the board and deciding where they should be redrawn. Plan Implementation The agency reports that it has been “fairly effective” at imple- menting the strategic plan (a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5), and that it provides a good framework for the staff to work within. There is recognition that a plan is only effective if it is actually used by the organization. Therefore, in various ways, the agency focuses on it throughout the year. The annual goals and objectives for each department are worked into employee performance appraisals and budget components to make sure the plan is implemented and con- tinuously used. In addition, the board’s evaluation of the executive director is based on achievement of strategic plan objectives. The planning process is linked with all key orga- nizational processes such as budgeting, capital programming, service planning, and performance measurement. Performance objectives and milestones are jointly devel- oped by department heads, the director of strategic manage- ment, and the executive director, and are monitored monthly. TARC compiles a monthly report highlighting progress in key performance areas (e.g., customer service, transporta- tion, and maintenance). The performance report provides year-to-date performance data and comparison data for the previous calendar year. TARC’s management team reports progress toward overall performance objectives on a quar- terly basis. Significant Benefits TARC has experienced several significant benefits from its strategic planning efforts. First, in 2003, the agency won the Kentucky Psychology Association’s Psychological Healthy Workplace award for the second consecutive year, and the 2004 Labor–Management Award recognizing out- standing joint achievements of labor and management in the commonwealth of Kentucky. They are currently viewed as the “go-to solution leaders on public transportation issues in their region,” and according to the executive direc- tor, they are “clearly identified as part of the solution, not the problem.”

Keys to Success and Lessons Learned The keys to success for TARC have been engagement and involvement—the executive director’s goal is to “get every- one’s thumb on the blade.” Another key was to make sure to “carve out time for strategic planning and then make it sacred,” a sentiment that is often echoed by other organiza- tions. The executive director also provided the following observations: 30 • Look at the future with and without monetary con- straints—“you have to be able to dream, but you also have to be real.” • Keep checking and rechecking who is engaging and who is not engaging in the process. • Celebrate accomplishments.

Next: Chapter Five - Conclusions »
Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 59: Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies examines the value and benefits of strategic planning and management in transit agencies. The report also provides case studies from five transit agencies based on the comprehensiveness of process or presence of innovative or noteworthy practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!