Click for next page ( 28

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
27 This included the involvement of various levels of manage- Under each goal, the MTA developed more detailed inter- ment, individuals from a variety of functional areas, and the agency strategies and tactics. Under each tactic, more specific use of retreats where everyone could be heard. The Leadership targets are described, a status report is provided, the responsi- Communication Model was cited as important in both com- ble department is identified, and a cost (revenue or savings) municating the plan and in getting buy-in from participants. impact is estimated. Each of its subsidiary agencies developed its own Strategic Business Plan based on this structure. Spe- Finally, the importance of presenting the strategic plan to cific performance indicators are chosen by the MTA; each the board of directors was emphasized. This helps the board agency then sets its own targets related to each indicator. to articulate the goals of the agency externally and to work in support of the agency's vision and mission. 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: MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT Current view--This section provided a short discussion Agency Description of historical and current efforts to improve customer satisfaction. MTA/NYC Transit is one of several subsidiaries under the Anticipated results--This section provided quantified New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). information on performance, as shown in Table 19. (Other subsidiaries include MetroNorth Railroad, Long Island Rail Road, and Long Island Bus.) Similar targets were provided for the bus system. The fol- lowing seven strategies that will help lead to attainment of The agency operates the largest subway car fleet in the the overall goal were included: world (more than 6,000 cars), and more buses than any other transit provider in North America (more than 4,400). Its 1. Improve subway service reliability. annual operating budget is approximately $4 billion and its 2. Improve bus service reliability. 5-year capital program exceeds $10 billion. It employs more 3. Implement new services and improve service man- than 48,000 people. agement. 4. Provide a cleaner and more attractive station envi- ronment. Strategic Plan Document 5. Improve air quality and environmental management. 6. Enhance access to service information and Metro- The framework for the agency's strategic plan is established Card sales. both by state law and by the MTA. The plan is developed 7. Provide transportation service for persons with dis- annually and covers a period of 5 years. In its 20042008 abilities. Strategic Business Plan, the MTA set out three broad goals for the regional public transportation system: All of these strategies has several more detailed tactics, each with its own specific targets, status, responsible depart- 1. Improve safety for employees and customers. ment(s), and associated cost, revenue, or savings. As required 2. Improve customer satisfaction. by state law, the plan also included an appendix that focuses 3. Improve cost-effectiveness. on operating and financial statistics. TABLE 19 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDICATORS--SUBWAY SYSTEM Actual Goal Indicator 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Wait 88.8% 89.0% 89.2% 89.4% 89.6% 89.8% 90.0% assessment* Enroute schedule 77.5% 81.0% 81.2% 81.4% 81.6% 81.8% 82.0% adherence Mean distance 114,619 132,000 133,000 134,000 135,000 136,000 136,000 between failures Overall customer 6.4 6.2** 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 rating (010) *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.