Transcript SFMTA Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Historic Car number 1 and 162 on Embarcadero Muni Performance and System Needs San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land.

SFMTA Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Historic Car number 1 and 162 on Embarcadero
Muni Performance and
System Needs
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Land Use and Economic Development
Committee
5 | 28 | 2013
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Who We Are
Performance Metric Areas
The SFMTA measures Muni service in the following
key areas:
A. Overall Performance
B. Maintenance
C. Vehicle Availability
D. Labor
E. Service Disruptions
3
Muni Today
How are we doing?
Performance Metric
On-Time Performance
Gaps
Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered
Bus Crowding
(over 100% capacity)
Vehicle Availability
(Percentage of Weekdays with Sufficient Vehicles
to Deliver Scheduled Peak Service)
Mean Distance Between Failure (MDBF)
Average Daily Hold Count
(Vehicles unavailable for revenue service)
Line delays
(over 10 minutes)
FY 2013 To Date
April 2013
April 2012
58.7%
61.3%
60.5%
19.1%
15.9%
20.5%
96.6%
99.2%
95.1%
7.7% (AM inbound)
7.0% (AM inbound)
5.9% (AM inbound)
7.7% (PM outbound) 7.6% (PM outbound) 8.2% (PM outbound)
100.0% (Motor Coach) 100.0% (Motor Coach) 100.0% (Motor Coach)
64.0% (Trolley Coach) 50.0% (Trolley Coach) 66.7% (Trolley Coach)
33.1% (Train)
9.1% (Train)
9.5% (Train)
4,602 (Motor Coach) 5,064 (Motor Coach) 6,749 (Motor Coach)
1,892 (Trolley Coach) 1,917 (Trolley Coach) 1,578 (Trolley Coach)
3,796 (Train)
3,765 (Train)
3,655 (Train)
181
189
195
216
200
242
151,263
(Maintenance-related)
Estimated Customer Delay Hours
N/A
20,932
N/A
(Other Operationsrelated)
Better than last year
Worse than last year
4
Muni Today
What affects Muni’s Performance Today?
• Under-investment in the system
– Aging fleet and infrastructure
– Outdated technology
• Insufficient operator, maintenance, and
supervision staffing
– Not filling scheduled service
– Crowded vehicles
– Longer customer waits
Crowding
Crowding
• Operating in mixed flow traffic
– Delays, service gaps, slow speeds
Traffic Delays
5
Muni Today
Initiatives to Improve Performance
• Reducing travel times
– All-Door Boarding
– J Church priority lanes
All Door Boarding
Dynamic Supervision
Transit
Only
Scheduling Efficiencies
Lanes
• Increasing system efficiency
– Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP)
– Customer First initiatives
• Supervision
– Line Management Center
– Use of modern technology
• Schedules
– More frequent and demand-based schedule
6
adjustments
Muni Today
Initiatives to Improve Performance
•
Realignment of capital program to address
aging Transit fleet and infrastructure
•
Fleet and infrastructure rehabilitation and
replacement
– Bus fleet replaced in next five years
– Rail replacements (Duboce, Sunset, etc.)
•
Focus on maintenance
– More comprehensive preventive
maintenance
– Targeted component rehabilitation
•
Reduced subway delays
– Replacing worn infrastructure
– Clearing disabled trains faster
Fleet Replacement
Reduce Subway Delays
Infrastructure Rehabilitation
7
Muni Today
Improving Customer Communications
Improved Communications
•
Communications
– Real-time customer communication via Twitter,
NextBus and audio announcements
– New website
•
Customer Outreach
– Rider alerts
– New subway signage and audio system
– Pilot electronic signage
8
Muni Today
Investment Needed to Meet Today’s Needs
• The SFMTA faces a $320M annual structural budget deficit
– $70M in unfunded operating needs ($50M for transit alone)
– $260M in State of Good Repair needs
• Decades of under-investment have contributed to a system that
does not meet Proposition E standards
• Service levels have
not kept up with
recent population
growth
• Quality of service
compromised
9
Muni Today
Transit System – State of Good Repair
• The SFMTA has total assets
of $12.35 billion
• Assets classified as
“Transit Service Dependent”
ASSET CLASS
TOTAL
VALUE
%
Deferred
2010
Light Rail
Vehicles
$1,006 M
2%
Motor Coach
Vehicles
$1,168 M
5%
Train Control and
Communications
$876 M
11%
– Total Transit Service
Dependent Assets =
$6.69 billion
Trolley Coach
Vehicles
$742 M
17%
$2,177 M
17%
– Deferrals =
$680 million
as of 2010
Track/Rail
$724 M
22%
$6,693 M
10%
– Assets that directly impact
the provision of transit
services; reduce day-today maintenance and/or
operating costs
Overhead Lines
TOTAL
10
Muni Tomorrow
City’s 2035 Population & Job Growth
Requires More Transit
People = 920,230
(+15%)
Jobs = 625,000
(+25%)
Source: SF City Planning
11
Muni Tomorrow
Quality of Life Depends on Mode Shifts to
Sustainable Transportation
2010
61% auto/39% non-auto
2018 Goal
50% auto/50% non-auto
Muni Tomorrow
Residents Make Choices Based on the
Quality of the Transportation System
• Where to Live?
• Where to Work?
• Where to Shop?
• How to Travel?
• Willingness to pay for housing?
13
Muni’s Economic Value
“Quality” Means Different Things
Speed
Cost of
Time
Reliability
Quality
Out-ofPocket
Costs
Comfort
Enjoyment
Travel
Productivity
Access to
jobs and
shopping
Poor quality transportation reduces the quality of life in
14
San Francisco
Muni’s Economic Value
Economic Impacts of Low Quality
Transportation
Lower
Quality of
Life for
Residents
Smaller
Labor Pool
for
Businesses
• Higher Labor Costs
• Lower Property
Values
• Less Access to Skills
• Higher Labor Costs
• Weaker
Competitiveness
15
Muni’s Economic Value
Muni Delays, April 2013:
Impact on Commuters
• 86,000 customer-hours* lost in peak-hour delays due to
maintenance or other Muni-related reason.
• Increased commute time for San Franciscans by 1.5%
• Caused economic loss of $4.2 million ($50 million** annualized),
due to higher costs and lower competitiveness.
* Total customer-hours in peak period estimated at 1,900,000
** Excludes the impacts of reduced shopping access and off-peak delays
16
Muni’s Economic Value
Implications
• Reducing transit delays creates economic benefits.
• Improving transit performance can create additional economic
benefits.
• Investment in Muni and other city transportation infrastructure
can create economic benefits that exceed their cost.
• Economic analysis of these benefits can help identify
investments with the greatest potential return on investment.
17
Muni’s Economic Value
Additional Funding Yields a Return on
Investment
Economic impact of delays is estimated at $50 million annually
•
With a $50 million recurring annual investment, here are
examples of how the SFMTA could improve Muni service:
Replace 10 trains per
year
or
Increase service by
8%
or
or
Meet service delivery goals
Improve on-time performance
Reduce gaps
Reduce crowding
Rehabilitate 170
buses per year
or
Replace 64 buses per
year
Improve service frequency
Improve vehicle reliability
18
Questions?
19
Reference Slides
20
Muni Performance Metrics
• The following major performance metrics help illustrate
how Muni performance impacts customer service
• In support of Proposition E and the SFMTA Strategic
Plan
Performance Metric
On-Time Performance
Gaps
Percentage of Scheduled
Service Delivered
Bus Crowding
Mean Distance Between
Failure (MDBF)
Unscheduled Operator
Absenteeism
Line delays
Est. Customer Delay Hours
Methodology
Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of
schedule
Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least
5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway
Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered
Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load point
Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type
Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or
other reasons
Number of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the
SFMTA's Central Control Log
Estimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a)
maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays
21
related to Muni, such as accidents
Performance Metrics Methodology
Performance Metric
Overall Performance
On-Time Performance
Gaps
Bunches
Methodology
Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of
schedule
Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least
5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway
Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint that are within 2
minutes of the previous vehicle on the same route
Percentage of Scheduled
Service Delivered
Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered
Average speed
Vehicle Revenue Miles/Vehicle Revenue Hours
Average weekday ridership
Bus Crowding
Maintenance and Vehicle
Availability
Mean Distance Between
Failure (MDBF)
Maintenance Staffing
Number of Active Vehicles
Bus - Average ridership by route
Rail - Average Muni Metro subway station faregate entries
Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load point
Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type
Vehicles per Maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE)
The current number of active light rail vehicles, diesel coaches, and
electric trolleys available on the property
22
Performance Metrics Methodology
Performance Metric
Methodology
Maintenance and Vehicle Availability (continued)
Number of Vehicle
Number of breakdowns, as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control
Breakdowns
Log
Percentage of weekdays in which there are sufficient vehicles available
Vehicle Availability
to meet scheduled service requirements by vehicle mode
The average daily number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of
Hold count
service for all maintenance activities
The number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of service for over
Long term holds
30 days
Operator Absenteeism
Unscheduled Operator
Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or
Absenteeism
other reasons
Service Disruptions
Number of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the
Line delays
SFMTA's Central Control Log
Estimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a)
Estimated Customer Delay
maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays
Hours
related to Muni, such as accidents
23
Sample Report
Metric
Overall Performance Statistics
Percentage of on-time performance
Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps
Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps on Rapid Network
Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching
Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching on Rapid
Network
Average Number of Missed Runs
Percentage of service delivered
Average Muni System Speed (mph)
Ridership (rubber tire, average weekday)
Ridership (Clipper rail station entries, average weekday)
Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (8 am hour, inbound)
Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (5 pm hour, outbound)
Maintenance Statistics
Mean distance between failure (Motor Coach & Trolley)
Mean distance between failure (LRV)
Mean distance between failure (Historic)
Mean distance between failure (Cable Car)
Vehicles per maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE)
Goal
FY13 Avg
Jul
2012
Aug
2012
Sep
2012
Oct
2012
Nov
2012
Dec
2012
Jan
2013
Feb
2013
Mar
2013
Apr
2013
85%
58.7%
19.1%
17.7%
4.9%
59.0%
20.4%
19.1%
4.8%
55.6%
21.4%
20.3%
5.6%
56.0%
20.0%
19.1%
5.5%
56.6%
19.7%
18.8%
5.4%
58.9%
18.1%
17.0%
4.6%
59.0%
20.4%
18.6%
4.6%
60.5%
18.8%
16.6%
4.5%
59.8%
19.1%
17.0%
4.6%
60.7%
17.5%
15.7%
4.6%
61.3%
15.9%
15.2%
4.8%
5.3%
7.0%
7.0%
8.0%
7.7%
7.6%
6.5%
6.5%
6.3%
6.5%
6.6%
6.9%
98.5%
96.6%
95.3%
94.0%
95.7%
96.2%
96.7%
96.0%
97.8%
96.7%
98.4%
99.2%
63,176
7.4%
7.0%
7.0%
7.6%
13.9%
495,716
486,497 505,630 517,674 515,379 484,545
500,121 467,267 488,616
56,151 63,561
7.1%
6.6%
7.6%
8.0%
6.4%
5.9%
7.7%
7.7%
7.5%
7.7%
7.7%
10.1%
8.5%
8.5%
9.4%
8.9%
7.8%
6.7%
3,259
3,796
2,247
3,627
2,877
4,211
2,454
4,571
3,087
3,654
6,566
6,202
2,815
3,657
2,200
4,248
2,877
3,660
2,144
2,386
3,071
3,910
1,990
4,244
3,197
3,167
1,891
2,624
3,631
3,927
1,958
2,649
3,723
4,440
2,316
2,811
4,170
3,984
1,620
4,814
0.67
3,712
3,655
2,530
5,488
0.67
1,050
687
100.0%
1,050
751
100.0%
1,050
702
100.0%
1,050
734
100.0%
1,048
868
100.0%
1,048
692
100.0%
1,036
689
100.0%
1,036
636
100.0%
1,036
548
100.0%
1,036
562
100.0%
1,036
100.0%
64.0%
33.1%
84.2%
99.0%
181
85
0.0%
40.9%
31.8%
100.0%
198
91
60.9%
8.7%
30.4%
100.0%
192
85
45.0%
55.0%
80.0%
95.0%
204
90
95.7%
47.8%
100.0%
100.0%
168
94
95.5%
31.8%
100.0%
100.0%
179
91
81.0%
0.0%
100.0%
95.2%
179
84
95.7%
30.4%
100.0%
100.0%
149
85
40.0%
55.0%
100.0%
100.0%
158
86
76.2%
52.4%
100.0%
100.0%
189
94
50.0%
9.1%
100.0%
100.0%
189
44
8.6%
9.4%
10.5%
9.3%
6.6%
7.0%
9.0%
8.9%
10.3%
8.5%
6.9%
216
209
250
197
230
229
222
220
191
Vehicle Availability Statistics
Number of active vehicles
Number of chargeable roadcalls
Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Motor
Coach)
Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Trolley)
Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (LRV)
Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Historic)
Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Cable Car)
Average daily hold count
Long term (30+ days) holds
Labor Statistics
Unscheduled absence rate by employee group (Transit
operators)
Service Disruption Statistics
Line delays greater than 10 minutes (overall)
Est. Maintenance-Related Customer Delay Hours
Est. Other Operational-Related Customer Delay Hours
Est. Economic Impact of Maintenance-Related Delays
Est. Economic Impact of Other Operational-Related Delays
207
200
88,065
130,849
23,241
20,932
$1,320,000
$349,000
24
Slow travel times frustrate customers
and increase Muni costs
Bus route…60 min running time
30 minutes
30 minutes
Round Trip Travel Time = 60 minutes
Bus every 10 minutes =
60
= 6.0 => 6 buses + 6 drivers
10
Remove congestion…reduce time, reduce
resources
25 minutes
30
30
25 minutes
Round Trip Travel Time = 60
50 minutes
Bus every 10 minutes =
50
= 5 buses + 5 drivers
10
Ridership
28
Ridership
29