A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C - Task 10 Working Paper
Appendix C - Task 10 Working Paper
Pages 97-110
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 97... ...
This working paper presents key examples from the Task 8 and 9 peer comparisons that serve to highlight lessons learned and methods for dealing with common challenges. It also provides recommendations on modifications to existing performance measures that would help support the peer-grouping and performance-measurement methodology.
|
From page 98... ...
GBTA, King County Metro, Oahu Transit Step 3b: Form an Initial Peer Group Interpreting likeness scores and choosing a peer group. North County Transit District Step 3c: Perform Secondary Screening Applying the thresholds identified in Step 2c.
|
From page 99... ...
The Florida Transit Information System software tool allows users to complete basic peer comparisons in a matter of hours when only NTD data and other standardized data provided by FTIS are required. However, the process for collecting non-NTD data is much more time-consuming.
|
From page 100... ...
Use Descriptive Measures to Provide Context In addition to the outcome measures that form the core of a peer comparison, it is often beneficial to collect data for descriptive measures as well. Descriptive measures are measures that do not directly address the performance question at hand, but provide context as to why a particular result occurs.
|
From page 101... ...
Maintenance expenditures as percent of operating expense Operating cost per passenger mile Actual car miles per malfunction Operating cost per passenger hour Maintenance labor as percent of total maintenance cost Revenue hours as percent of vehicle hours Maintenance costs per actual car mile Salaries/wages/benefits as percent of operating expenses Vehicle materials and supplies cost per actual car mile Operating wages as percent of operating expenses Vehicle maintenance labor cost per actual car mile Vehicle revenue hours per operating FTE Non-vehicle maintenance costs per station Passenger trips per operating FTE Non-vehicle materials and supplies cost per station Non-operating time as percent of total operatingtime Non-vehicle maintenance labor per station Breaks and allowances as percent of total operatingtime Premium hours as percent of operating hours Table C3. Outcome measures used in the VTA and UTA case studies.
|
From page 102... ...
Percent low-income population Not typically used for secondary screening but can be used when evaluating a marginal candidate peer (i.e., one with a total likeness score >0.74)
|
From page 103... ...
Two large bus-only agencies, King County Metro and Orange County Transit Authority, however, expressed no problem with including rail agencies in their peer group, while a third (PACE in suburban Chicago) preferred a busonly group.
|
From page 104... ...
1.52 8 Rhode Island Transit Authority 1.01 9 King County Metro (Seattle, WA) 1.62 9 Milwaukee County Transit 1.03 10 San Mateo County Transit 1.62 10 Omnitrans (San Bernandino, CA)
|
From page 105... ...
Of the seven peer agencies, four were able to provide data, and the peer comparison was able to proceed. In general, these experiences suggest several recommendations for using non-NTD data: • Agencies wishing to use non-NTD data for peer comparisons will need to invest significant time and resources to be successful, • Agencies may wish to select unusually large peer groups, knowing that a large percentage of peers will be unable to provide information, and • Forming benchmarking networks may be the most effective means to gather non-NTD data over the long term.
|
From page 106... ...
Motorbus (MB) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 20 06 P ee r A ve ra ge 2002 1.11 1.04 0.75 0.79 0.75 0.77 0.34 0.64 0.32 2003 1.02 1.04 0.80 0.86 0.82 0.76 0.31 0.71 0.31 2004 1.19 1.05 0.90 0.86 0.78 0.29 0.75 0.31 2005 1.15 1.09 0.85 0.98 0.80 0.79 0.64 0.69 0.31 2006 1.14 1.18 0.85 1.09 0.75 0.77 0.44 0.67 0.32 Rank 2006 2 1 4 3 6 5 8 7 9 Lane Transit District Spokane Transit Authority Ben Franklin Transit (Kennewick)
|
From page 107... ...
Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, Utah)
|
From page 108... ...
Because of the volume of data already reported to the NTD and because there is not yet widespread acceptance of the quality of NTD data or the value of NTD reporting, no new NTD measures are recommended. Rather, the NTD-related recommendations focus on better reporting of certain existing NTD measures that would be valuable for peer comparisons.
|
From page 109... ...
At the same time, many agencies collect some form of service-quality data, for example by tracking complaints, conducting customersatisfaction surveys, and measuring reliability and passenger loads. These data could be of great use in conducting peer comparisons related to service quality.
|
From page 110... ...
The first recommendation addresses data-definition needs, the second would lead to more widespread internal agency data collection for a variety of needs, and the third would allow agencies to voluntarily and confidentially share their standardized non-NTD data with other agencies, for the betterment of the public transportation industry. Reference C-1.
|
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.