A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix B - Peer-Grouping Methodology Details
Appendix B - Peer-Grouping Methodology Details
Pages 86-96
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 86... ...
Their feedback on the peer groups was incorporated into the final version of the peer-grouping methodology presented here. The remainder of this appendix describes the development of the peer-grouping methodology, including aspects of the methodology that were considered but discarded during the process, and provides the calculation details for the "likeness scores" used in the peer-grouping process.
|
From page 87... ...
. The TCRP Project G-11 methodology will not directly produce the peer groups those two large busonly operators are used to seeing since it screens out rail operators as potential peers even when doing a motorbus-specific mode comparison.
|
From page 88... ...
-- for consistency in the types of routes operated and markets served. Agencies had to exactly match service types to continue as potential peers.
|
From page 89... ...
The measure was based on Urban Mobility Report data and was used for all applications, except financial, for agencies located in urban areas with at least 1 million population. • Total Vehicle Miles Operated.
|
From page 90... ...
The Urban Mobility Report provides freeway miles data (B-4) , albeit for a smaller set of urban areas.
|
From page 91... ...
This allowed more extensive testing of the initial methodology than had previously been possible. An initial research team observation was that the portion of the screening process that screened out potential peers based on modes operated, service area type, and proximity of comparably sized or larger urbanized areas did too good a job of screening and left too small a pool of potential peers.
|
From page 92... ...
) • MARTA, Atlanta, GA • Metrolink, Los Angeles, CA • North County Transit District, Oceanside, CA • Oahu Transit Service, Honolulu, HI • Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange, CA • Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA (*
|
From page 93... ...
Other changes relating to the guidance related to the interpretation of likeness scores and how to address special cases. One special case involved a transit operator in Hawaii, where some additional spreadsheet work was needed to adjust the likeness scores to account for the long distances between the target agency and any potential peer.
|
From page 94... ...
• The definition of a rail operator was adjusted to count only those operating more than 150,000 vehicle miles annually since a downtown streetcar operator approached 100,000 vehicle miles in the 2007 NTD. Likeness Score Calculation Total Likeness Score The heart of the peer-grouping methodology is the calculation of a total likeness score that indicates the degree of similarity between a target agency and a potential peer, based on a variety of factors that account for many of the differences between agencies and regions that can impact performance results.
|
From page 95... ...
Typically this occurs when a value was not reported to the NTD for vehicle miles operated or annual operating budget, but it can also occur for some mid-sized agencies in urban areas that lack Urban Mobility Report congestion data. In cases where the target agency has data for a peergrouping factor and a potential peer does not, the potential peer is assigned a factor likeness score of 1,000 for that factor.
|
From page 96... ...
5. Agency provides service into an urban area's central city, but its primary service area does not include a central city.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.