The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 44-68

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 44... ... As a result, applying the final peer-grouping methodology described in this report and implemented in FTIS may not result in exactly the same peer group members or likeness scores presented in this chapter. The focus here is on the process of conducting a peer comparison. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Performance Results FTIS was used to retrieve the desired performance data from the NTD. All of the desired performance measures are ratios of NTD measures, and three of the four are provided directly by FTIS as part of its set of Florida Standard Variables (these are labeled as operating expense per revenue hour, operating expense per passenger trip, and passenger trips per revenue hour in FTIS) Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... Data available on NTD form F-30, relating to agency expenses, can be used to dig deeper into possible causes for the higher costs, particularly when the data are normalized by revenue hours. Here, fleet maintenance costs also stand out in terms of maintenance wage cost per revenue hour (highest) Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... ACS population estimates include university students based on a "2-month rule" -- if they are staying in their university residence for at least 2 months at the time of survey contact, they 47 Agency City State Likeness Score Winston-Salem Transit Authority Winston-Salem NC 0.25 South Bend Public Transportation Corporation South Bend IN 0.36 Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority Birmingham AL 0.36 Connecticut Transit - New Haven Division New Haven CT 0.39 Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation Fort Wayne IN 0.41 Transit Authority of Omaha Omaha NE 0.41 Chatham Area Transit Authority Savannah GA 0.42 Stark Area Regional Transit Authority Canton OH 0.44 The Wave Transit System Mobile AL 0.46 Capital Area Transit Raleigh NC 0.48 Capital Area Transit Harrisburg PA 0.48 Shreveport Area Transit System Shreveport LA 0.49 Rockford Mass Transit District Rockford IL 0.50 Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Erie PA 0.52 Capital Area Transit System Baton Rouge LA 0.52 Western Reserve Transit Authority Youngstown OH 0.53 Table 17. Knoxville peer group candidates. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... reasonably accounts for Knoxville's student population, as well as the student populations of other communities in the peer group, such as South Bend. Operating funding per capita is a ratio of total operating expenses (a Florida Standard Variable) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Performance Measures The following measures are derived from the tables in Chapter 3 relating to labor administration and resource utilization, using data specific to operating employees: • Operator wages as a percent of total operating expenses, • Operator wages and fringe benefits as a percent of total operating expenses, • Pay-to-platform hours, • Premium hours as a percent of total operating hours, • Vehicle revenue hours per operating employee full-time equivalent, and • Boardings per operating employee full-time equivalent. Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... Boardings per Revenue Hour (c) Cost per Boarding (d) Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... UTA light rail peer group candidates. Agency Name Location State Total Likeness Score Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority San Jose CA 0.58 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento CA 0.63 Denver Regional Transportation District Denver CO 0.68 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Portland OR 0.74 North County Transit District Oceanside CA Charlotte Area Transit System Charlotte NC 0.80 Bi-State Development Agency St. Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... Operator Wages and Benefits as a Percent of Total Operating Expense UTA Denver Portland Sacramento San Jose St. Louis Light Rail 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Op er at or W ag es & B en ef its / To ta l O pe ra tin g Ex pe ns e 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072007 peer group median 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072007 peer group median Figure 13. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Revenue Hours per Vehicle Hours (f) Cost per Boarding UTA Denver Portland Sacramento San Jose St. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... Operator Wages and Benefits as a Percent of Total Operating Expense (c) Revenue Hours per Operating Employee Full-Time Equivalent (d) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... There was a fairly narrow range of values among the peer group for revenue hours per operating employee FTE; Portland and Denver stand out for trips per operating employee FTE, with the other agencies in a relatively narrow range. UTA's performance in both categories is improving. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... The candidate peers that were identified are shown in Table 20. Five of the potential peers have likeness scores over 0.75, which suggests the need for a closer look at the suitability of the peers. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... As described in Chapter 3, it is possible to drill down into the BLS wage database to get more-specific data -- for example, average wages for 57 Agency City State Likeness Score Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority San Jose CA 0.50 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT 0.59 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Portland OR 0.66 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas Houston TX 0.77 Metro Transit Minneapolis MN 0.88 Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas TX 0.88 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento CA 0.88 Bi-State Development Agency St. Louis MO 0.93 Table 20. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... Region-wide wages are something that is out of the control of a transit agency, whereas one objective of performing a peer comparison is to find things that are under an agency's control that can be improved. Using adjusted costs as a basis of comparison helps 58 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Dallas 1.096 1.081 1.046 1.016 1.000 Denver 1.081 1.080 1.058 1.022 1.000 Houston 1.123 1.084 1.047 1.018 1.000 Minneapolis 1.101 1.071 1.042 1.025 1.000 Portland 1.120 1.092 1.064 1.037 1.000 Sacramento 1.125 1.099 1.067 1.032 1.000 Salt Lake City 1.125 1.099 1.067 1.032 1.000 San Jose 1.100 1.087 1.066 1.033 1.000 St. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... VTA directly operates light rail and motorbus service and purchases about 3% of its motorbus revenue hours and all of its demand response service. VTA operated 25 million vehicle miles in 2007 and had an operating budget of $282 million. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... (e) Boardings per Revenue Hour Agency-wide $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 Denver Dallas Houston Minneapolis Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Jose St. Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... in 2007, which is a separate NTD reporter from the former San Diego Trolley, Inc., which reported in earlier years. Some key variables 61 Agency City State Likeness Score Denver Regional Transportation District Denver CO 0.49 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento CA 0.55 Maryland Transit Administration Baltimore MD 0.57 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City UT 0.58 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Portland OR 0.61 San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... . Maintenance costs make up slightly more than half of total operating costs [Figure 16(h) Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... Average Fleet Age (b) Track Miles 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% San Jose Baltimore Denver Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco San Jose Baltimore Denver Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco San Jose Baltimore Denver Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco San Jose Baltimore Denver Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Diego San Francisco La bo r a s % o f M ain te na nc e C os ts (c) Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... [FTIS divides directional route miles by average speed (revenue miles per revenue hours) to give the average time for a train to make a round-trip, then divides this result by the number of trains operated in peak service to give an average peak headway in hours, and finally multiplies the result by 60 to give a value in minutes.] Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... (Note that both Tri-Rail and South Shore report the population of the entire Miami and Chicago urban areas, respectively, as their service area populations, even though those lines serve only relatively small portions of their urban areas. Because the other peers all operate single lines or a trunk with two branches, the portion of the urban area served by each commuter rail line should 65 Agency City State Likeness Score South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail) Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... Weekday Service Span (d) Average Peak Headway Commuter Rail Tri-Rail Caltrain Coaster Sounder South Shore TRE VRE 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 An nu al Re ve nu e M ile s p er C ap ita 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072007 peer group median 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072007 peer group median Commuter Rail 0 4 8 12 16 24 20 Tri-Rail Caltrain Coaster Sounder South Shore TRE VRE W ee kd ay S er vic e S pa n ( ho urs ) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... Adjusted Cost per Passenger Mile 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072007 peer group median Commuter Rail $0 $20 $15 $10 $5 $25 $35 $30 Tri-Rail Caltrain Coaster Sounder South Shore TRE VRE Ad jus ted Co st pe r R ev en ue M ile (f) Adjusted Cost per Revenue Mile Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series52007 peer group Commuter Rail 0 500 3,000 3,500 2,000 2,500 1,000 1,500 Tri-Rail Caltrain Coaster Sounder South Shore TRE VRE Ad jus ted Co st pe r R ev en ue Ho ur (c) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... Tri-Rail gets good utilization out of its vehicles (in terms of vehicle hours per vehicle operated in maximum service) , although it dropped sharply in 2007 from being consistently the best in this category to third in the peer group, opposite the peer group trend [Figure 18(c) Read the entire page →

From page 44...

... As a result, applying the final peer-grouping methodology described in this report and implemented in FTIS may not result in exactly the same peer group members or likeness scores presented in this chapter. The focus here is on the process of conducting a peer comparison.