1 transit performance review balancing transit service with travel demand and available resources

1

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE

REVIEWBalancing Transit Service with Travel Demand and Available

Resources

2

Identify Transit Services Reductions that will:

Decrease Transit Expenses in an amount called for in the District’s Financial Plan; and

Minimize negative impacts on: transit customers fare revenue non-District subsidies.

What is the Objective of the Transit Performance Review?

3

How is Transit Service Performance Determined?

By using Measures of service performance:– Service efficiency - Passengers per trip

– Service productivity - Passengers per hour

– Service financial effectiveness - Subsidy per passenger

– Fare equity - Fare recovery

– Financial equity - Subsidy per passenger mile

Focus on Financial Measures to Achieve Financial Objective of Reducing Transit Expenses.

4

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE REVIEW

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

BUS TRANSIT

5


Measure: Patrons Per Trip

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

13

33

31

41

67

51

63

19

9 30

23

11

93

90

39

27

43

44

34

32

38

18

75

56

26

4 54

72

20

80

Route

Av

era

ge

Pa

tro

ns

Pe

r T

rip

20 Patrons Per Trip Standard

COMMUTE

BASIC

LOCAL

FEEDER

If applied, then cancel …

•Basic Routes: 10, 30, 40, 90, 63, 65

•Commute Routes: 71, 78

•Ferry Feeder Routes: ALL

•Local Routes: 17, 21, 23, 27, 33, 39, 45,

31 routes affected with low patronage but uncertain expense savings

6


DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICE HOURS

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

AM Off Peak AM Peak Mid Day PM Peak PM Off Peak Sat Sun/Holiday

Se

rvic

e H

ou

rs

Misc

Feeder

Local

Basic

Commute 34%

50%

1%

3%

12%

Commute + Basic account for 84% of service hours

7

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

8.5%

16.5

%

18.4

%

22.2

%

22.4

%

22.7

%

23.2

%

23.6

%

25.6

%

26.6

%

28.1

%

29.9

%

32.1

%

33.9

%

39.0

%

42.9

%

Farebox Recovery

Aff

ec

ted

Pa

tro

ns

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

Ac

cu

mu

late

d S

av

ing

s

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE REVIEWAPPLICATION OF FAREBOX RECOVERY

CRITERIA(Basic and Commute Service)

Accumulated Savings

Accumulated Savings

Affected PatronsAffected Patrons 33

% F

a reb

ox

Rec

ove

ry

$23.4 M Savings

Significant savings, but big impact on customers

3.5 M Patrons

8

Factors to Consider in Reducing Service

• How bus route contributes to System Productivity (ferry shuttle/LFT parking for example)

• Incremental cost of route (likely lower than the formula cost)

• External (non-District) funding of route

• Route connectivity to system (transfers between routes)

• Geographic coverage (availability of alternative services)

• Special circumstances (impact on transit dependent for example)

• Patronage trends including shifts from auto to transit resulting from a GGB toll increase (Option G could increase transbay transit patronage by over 10%).

9

Golden Gate Transit Service Funding• $23 million in passenger fares provides 30% cost recovery.

• $2 million in advertising, fees and other operating revenues.

• $2.2 million in direct STA subsidy for transit operations

• District receives $17 million of external subsidy to support specific transit services:– $11 million Marin TDA, $600,000 STA and $70,000 from schools for

GGT local and regional bus, paratransit and ferry routes serving Marin County.

– $4.5 million Sonoma TDA and $20,000 STA for GGT regional bus and paratransit routes serving Sonoma County

– $800,000 regional STA from MTC and Eastbay agencies for GGT Route 40 Richmond Bridge service

– $70,000 FTA rural transit grants support weekend west marin bus routes.

• District toll revenue provides the remaining $33 million to support transit services

10

Transit Operating Expense

GGT Bus Operating Cost About $230,000 per bus per year Over $100 per hour of service

GG Ferry Operating Cost About $1,000 per ferry crossing Over $1,000 per hour of service

A significant portion of this expense may not be saved as a result of a service reduction

11


SUMMARY OF BUS PERFORMANCE MEASURES

TOP 10 POORLY PERFORMING ROUTES*

MEASURE BASIC SERVICE COMMUTE SERVICE

PATRONSBUS TRI P

10, 30, 40, 60, 63, 65,90

71, 78, 93

PATRONSBUS SVC HOUR

30, 63, 65, 90 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78

SUBSI DYPATRON

65, 9044, 48, 71, 72, 74, 75,

76, 78

FAREBOXRECOVERY

63, 6524, 34, 38, 44, 71, 75,

78, 93

* Out of 32 total basic and commute bus routes

12

patrons patrons subsidy fare average

Route per bus per hour per patron recovery rank patrons subsidy

65 1 1 3 3 2 3,096 $58,602

71 5 3 2 2 3 31,573 $704,782

78 7 2 1 4 4 61,565 $1,421,218

63 2 5 12 6 6 75,219 $1,539,825

90 6 4 7 17 9 96,094 $1,759,655

75 20 8 5 5 10 152,556 $2,475,503

76 16 7 4 12 10 314,507 $4,666,219

44 11 13 9 7 10 369,921 $5,202,693

30 3 6 21 16 12 436,480 $5,645,652

48 14 11 10 14 12 475,226 $6,007,321

93 9 24 15 1 12 517,676 $6,345,594

38 17 17 14 10 15 624,452 $7,203,401

34 12 22 17 8 15 668,071 $7,541,340

74 24 9 6 20 15 907,200 $10,331,653

10 8 14 26 13 15 1,295,547 $12,005,266

24 21 18 16 9 16 1,601,537 $14,407,693

72 27 10 8 26 18 1,781,725 $16,187,152

60 10 16 27 27 20 1,819,672 $16,311,819

40 4 25 29 30 22 2,083,759 $17,039,073

Accumulative

Poorly Performing Bus RoutesWorst to Best

Rank by Performance Measure

Candidate Bus Routes for Reduction

13


PERFORMANCE MEASURESFERRY SERVICE

(a different approach than bus)

14


FERRY SERVICE Two Routes

Sausalito-Heavy Tourist influence and seasonality

Larkspur - Predominantly commuter service.

Financial Performance. Available at System Level: 93 patrons per trip, 123 patrons per hour, $5.04 subsidy per patron, 34% fare recovery.

Measures. Patrons by month, time period and by ferry trip.

15


SAUSALITO FERRY SEASONALITY(a definite seasonal pattern)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Av

era

ge

Pa

tro

ns

Weekend

Weekday(Mid Day)

Weekday(AM+PM)

Data: Avg for FY97 - FY01

16


LARKSPUR FERRY SEASONALITY(not seasonal)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Av

era

ge

Pa

tro

ns

Weekend

Weekday(Mid Day)

Weekday(AM+PM)

Data: Avg for 9/98 - FY01; not include SF Giants

17


LARKSPUR FERRY WEEKDAY TRENDS(commute use dominates)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Se

p-9

8

No

v-9

8

Jan-

99

Ma

r-9

9

Ma

y-9

9

Jul-9

9

Se

p-9

9

No

v-9

9

Jan-

00

Ma

r-0

0

Ma

y-0

0

Jul-0

0

Se

p-0

0

No

v-0

0

Jan-

01

Ma

r-0

1

Ma

y-0

1

Jul-0

1

Se

p-0

1

Av

era

ge

Pa

tro

ns

Pe

r D

ay

Average AM and PM Commute Patrons Per

Day

Average Mid Day Patrons Per Day

Average Reverse Peak Patrons Per

Day

18


SUMMARY OF FERRY PERFORMANCE REVIEW

POORLY PERFORMING SERVICES

Based on patterns of low patronage per ferry trip, the following ferry services could be

reduced:

•Sausalito Midday and Weekend Ferry Service During the Winter Season,

•Larkspur Midday Weekday Ferry Service Throughout the Year;

however the affect on the nearly $11 million annual ferry service operating subsidy has not

yet been determined.

1 transit performance review balancing transit service with travel demand and available resources

Documents