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.
TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2010 www.TRB.org T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP REPORT 141 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subscriber Categories Public Transportation ⢠Administration and Management ⢠Planning and Forecasting A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry Paul Ryus Kathryn Coffel Jamie Parks KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Portland, Oregon Victoria Perk CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA Tampa, Florida Linda Cherrington Jeffrey Arndt TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Houston, Texas Yuko Nakanishi NAKANISHI RESEARCH & CONSULTING, LLC New York, New York Albert Gan LEHMAN CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida
TCRP REPORT 141 Project G-11 ISSN 1073-4872 ISBN 978-0-309-15482-6 Library of Congress Control Number 2010930498 © 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nationâs growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213âResearch for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administrationânow the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 141 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Dianne Schwager, Senior Program Officer Sagar Gurung, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Doug English, Editor TCRP PROJECT G-11 PANEL Field of Administration Jeanne Krieg, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority, Antioch, CA (Chair) Mark R. Aesch, Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Rochester, NY Jerry R. Benson, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT John Dockendorf, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA Fred M. Gilliam, Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX Ronald Kilcoyne, Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority, Bridgeport, CT Anthony M. Kouneski, AMK & Associates, Kensington, MD William Lyons, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Cambridge, MA Clarence W. âCalâ Marsella, Denver Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO Theodore H. Poister, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Atlanta, GA Alan M. Warde, New York State DOT, Albany, NY Nigel H. M. Wilson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA Fred L. Williams, FTA Liaison Martine A. Micozzi, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project G-11 by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (prime contractor), assisted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida; Texas Transportation Institute, the Texas A&M University System; Nakanishi Research & Con- sulting, LLC; and the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University. Paul Ryus of Kittelson & Associates, Inc., was the principal investigator. Victoria Perk of the Center for Urban Transportation Research led the projectâs agency outreach efforts and coordinated the projectâs domestic literature review, assisted by Mark Mistretta. Dr. Steve Polzin and Dr. Xuehao Chu of the Center for Urban Transportation Research provided review comments on early versions of the peer-grouping and performance-measurement methodology. Linda Cherrington and Jeffrey Arndt of the Texas Transportation Institute developed performance measures and applications relating to small urban transit agencies and state departments of transporta- tion (DOTs), coordinated the testing of the methodology by state DOTs, and contributed review com- ments throughout the project. Dr. Yuko Nakanishi of Nakanishi Research & Consulting, LLC, prepared the sections on benchmark- ing in the private and public sectors, coordinated the testing of the methodology by several transit agen- cies in the northeastern United States, and contributed review comments throughout the project. A number of staff from Kittelson & Associates, Inc., and Kittelson & Associates, LLC (Australia) con- tributed to the project. Kathryn Coffel coordinated the work activities of project team members, led the development of peer-comparison applications, and provided review comments throughout the project. Jamie Parks tested a variety of performance measures being considered for the peer-grouping methodol- ogy, helped develop a spreadsheet version of the methodology used for initial testing (with assistance from Jean Doig), prepared examples of transit agency reporting techniques, and coordinated some of transit agency tests of the methodology. Dr. Miranda Blogg coordinated the projectâs international literature review. Adam Vest, Severine Marechal, and Conor Semler coordinated some of the transit agency tests. The Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University integrated the peer-grouping methodology into the online Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) software. Dr. Albert Gan led this effort, with Dr. Feng Gui performing the programming. Dr. Fabian Cevallos provided review comments on early versions of the methodology. The research team thanks the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation, which sponsors the FTIS software, for the partnership that allowed the projectâs peer-grouping methodology to be added to FTIS. The project team thanks the numerous organizations and persons that participated in the projectâs out- reach efforts, and particularly those who participated in the two rounds of testing of the projectâs peer- grouping and performance-measurement methodology. The project team also thanks Kjetil Vrenne, BEST Project Manager, Enable and Michael Skov, Senior Consultant, Movia for facilitating access to the Benchmarking in European Service of public Transport (BEST) database. Finally, the feedback provided by the TCRP Project G-11 panel throughout the project is gratefully acknowledged.
TCRP Report 141: A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry is an important resource that will be of interest to transit man- agers, decision-makers, and others interested in using performance measurement and bench- marking as tools to (1) identify the strengths and weaknesses of their organization, (2) set goals or performance targets, and (3) identify best practices to improve performance. This research developed and tested a methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison for (a) all fixed-route components of a public transit system, (b) the motor- bus mode specifically, and (c) major rail modes specifically (i.e., light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail). This report complements TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System, which describes how to implement and use per- formance measurement on an ongoing basis at a transit agency. This report describes eight steps for conducting a benchmarking effort. The steps are: 1. Understand the context of the benchmarking exercise, 2. Identify standardized performance measures appropriate to the performance question being asked, 3. Establish a peer group, 4. Compare performance within the peer group, 5. Contact best-practices peers in areas where oneâs performance can be improved, 6. Develop a strategy for improving performance based on what one learns from the best- practices peers, 7. Implement the strategy, and 8. Monitor changes in performance over time, repeating the process if the desired results are not achieved within the desired time frame. The performance-measurement and peer-comparison methodology described in this report incorporates a variety of nationally available, standardized factors into the peer-selection process and describes ways for also incorporating policy objectives and other factors into the process. The methodology has been incorporated into a freely available, online software tool (the Florida Transit Information System, FTIS) that provides access to the full National Tran- sit Database (NTD), allowing users to quickly identify a group of potential peer transit agen- cies, retrieve standardized performance data for them, and perform a variety of comparisons. During the research the methodology was tested by transit agencies, which were typically able to learn how to use the software, create a peer group, and perform an analysis with 16 person- hours of effort or less. This projectâs testing efforts found that, for the most part, the NTD data used in analyses were reliable and that what errors did exist were readily spotted. F O R E W O R D By Dianne Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
This report provides guidance on selecting performance measures appropriate to a particu- lar performance question but does not prescribe a particular set of measures. This approach requires some thoughtfulness on the part of transit agencies in selecting measures, but also pro- vides much-needed flexibility that allows the methodology to be applied to a wide variety of transit modes, transit agency sizes, and performance questions. The methodology was not designed as a means of ranking transit agencies to determine the âbestâ agencies overall on a national basis or the best at a particular aspect of service. Rather, this reportâs approach is that peer-grouping and performance measurement should serve as a starting point for a transit agency to ask questions about performance, identify areas of possi- ble improvement, and contact top-performing peers. That courseâa true benchmarking processâholds the greatest potential for producing long-term performance improvement. A full-color PDF version of this report is available on the TRB website (www.trb.org) by searching for âTCRP Report 141.â
C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Introduction 4 Research Problem Statement 4 Research Objective and Scope 5 Research Approach 5 How to Use This Report 6 Chapter 2 Performance Measurement, Peer Comparison, and Benchmarking 7 Benchmarking in the Private Sector 7 Benchmarking in the Public Sector 8 Benchmarking in the Public Transit Industry 16 Levels of Benchmarking 17 Benchmarking Success Factors 19 Benefits of and Challenges with Transit Peer Comparisons 20 Lessons Learned 22 Chapter 3 Applications and Performance Measures 22 Applications 23 Performance Measures 30 Chapter 4 Benchmarking Methodology 30 Introduction 31 Step 1: Understand the Context of the Benchmarking Exercise 31 Step 2: Develop Performance Measures 34 Step 3: Establish a Peer Group 36 Step 4: Compare Performance 42 Step 5: Contact Best-Practices Peers 42 Step 6: Develop an Implementation Strategy 43 Step 7: Implement the Strategy 43 Step 8: Monitor Performance 44 Chapter 5 Case Studies 44 Overview 44 Altoona, Pennsylvania 46 Knoxville, Tennessee 49 Salt Lake City, Utah 56 Denver, Colorado 59 San Jose, California 62 South Florida
69 Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks 69 Value of Peer Comparison and Benchmarking 69 Key Findings and Conclusions 71 Accomplishment of Research Objectives 72 References 74 Appendix A FTIS Instructions 86 Appendix B Peer-Grouping Methodology Details 97 Appendix C Task 10 Working Paper Note: Many of the figures in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.