1 Transit Performance Standards Commission Workshop Alix Bockelman May 24, 2006

2 Overview of Performance Requirements  Transportation Development Act (TDA)  State Transit Assistance (STA)  AB1107  Bridge Tolls (RM1/RM2)  Performance Audits  Productivity Improvement Program (PIP)

3 Background and History: TDA Transportation Development Act (TDA) Background  Enacted in 1971  ¼ cent sales tax implemented by county Board vote  Generates roughly $300 million in transit operating revenues for the Bay Area annually TDA Requirements  Operators must meet farebox standard or expenditure limitation to qualify for funds.  MTC, as allocating agency, must enforce.

4 TDA: Requirement Diluted Over Time  Early Requirements  50% Expenditure Limitation  Farebox Requirement 20% for Urban Operators 10% for Non-Urban  Exceptions Added to Address Non-Compliance  Temporary to address service extension, and excess cost for paratransit service and insurance/liability  MTC can lower standard for areas of <500,000 population – Northern Counties  MTC may group operators in BART district for purposes of meeting farebox requirement

5 Bay Area Exceptions to Farebox Requirements OperatorFarebox FY05 (Est.) BART Group Coordinated Operator ( ) County Connection17.2% Tri-Delta16.1% LAVTA17.5% Union City13.9% WestCAT18.9% RTPA Finding to Lower Farebox Requirement to 15% NCTPA17.1% Petaluma15.0% Vacaville12.3% Farebox Supplement (Local Support) Samtrans17.9% Current Request from Fairfield Suisun to Lower Farebox Requirement to 18%

6 Trend for BART Feeder Services

7 Background and History: STA State Transit Assistance (STA) Background  Enacted in 1980  Revenues distributed 50% by Revenue Factors to Operators and 50% by Population to MTC  Generates roughly $60 million to region STA Requirements  STA seeks to limit annual cost per hour increase to CPI  Exception allowed in MTC region:  If operator has made a reasonable effort to implement productivity improvements  If operator meets MTC’s coordination policy

8 STA: Requirement Diluted Over Time History of STA Qualifying Criteria 1989Cost/hour growth limited to 90% of CPI; some exemptions for fuel, insurance 1991Cost per hour growth limited to CPI over a one-year or a three-year period 1991Exemption allows MTC operators to qualify by participating in Productivity Improvement Plan (PIP) and meeting MTC coordination requirements 1993 May exclude increases beyond the CPI for power, electricity, insurance premiums and claims, ADA service 2003 Shall exclude increases beyond the CPI for power, electricity, insurance premiums and claims, ADA service

9 Trend: Cost Per Hour: 2005 Dollars VTA, GGBHTD, and AC Transit cost/hour have increased in real terms since FY1991

10 Enforcing Requirements: STA and MTC BART Enforcement Example  In 1992, Invoked non-coordination per SB602  BART refused to adopt a revenue sharing agreement with AC Transit  MTC withheld STA Funds – allocated to AC Transit  Subsequent to withholding, negotiated agreement with BART  Embodied in Resolution 2672  BART’s STA funds used to pay AC Transit for transfer payments

11 Background and History: AB 1107 AB 1107: ½ cent sales tax in three BART counties  Enacted in 1977  ¼ of Generations to MTC for Allocation  Roughly $64 million annually – MTC portion  Fund eligibility limited to AC Transit, BART, and S.F. MUNI AB 1107 Requirements  Mandates 33% farebox standard  Exception added in 1984  MTC can allow an operator to count excess local support as fare revenue in this calculation (similar to TDA exemption)

12 Funding Distribution and AB 1107 AB 842: Financial Planning Process  1979 Amendment to AB Required financial management plan  1980 Transit Finance Study  Established on-going process of financial planning with the three operators.  Introduced Coordinated Fare Principle Coordinated budget evaluation of the 3 operators Required coordinated fare increases to fund vital transit services Resulted in annual allocation recommendations for regional funds Current Practice  Since Policy splits funds 50/50 to AC Transit and Muni  Addressed annually through the Fund Estimate

13 Farebox Trend over Time

14 Performance Measures: Regional Measure 1 Regional Measure 1 – portion devoted to Ferry Operations  Approximately $2.8 million annually  Claimants: Vallejo, Alameda Oakland Ferry, and Harbor Bay v Commission could use for other congestion relieving projects RM1 and Performance Requirement v In 2002, Commission adopted 40% Farebox requirement  Provided three years to meet standard  Harbor Bay did not meet standard at 29% and was given one-year extension or risk losing funding  City implemented a plan to increase revenues and reduce costs  In FY06, Harbor Bay farebox ratio projected to be 43%

15 Regional Measure 2  Approved by voters in 2004 v Operating support for 14 projects – bus, ferry, rail v MTC was required to adopt performance standards for operating support projects.  Basic measures  Farebox recovery  Change in passengers per hour – must be positive  Must be achieved by third full year of operation Farebox Requirements

16 Background and History: Performance Audits Background - Audit  TDA statute requires MTC to hire an outside auditor to conduct performance audits of operators on a 3-year cycle.  Audit looks at 6-year trend in 5 measures mandated by TDA  Audit approach also assesses an operator’s performance relative to the operator’s adopted Goals, Objectives, and Standards. MTC History  : Allowed three types of audits: key issues, goals and objectives, and functional area  1985: Adopted goals and objectives approach  1997: Eliminated NTD, MTC, and state controller data comparison.

17 Examples – Recommendations from 2005 Performance Audits BART  Continue to focus efforts on improving on-time performance.  Ensure that SRTP remains a relevant source of policy direction for the transit system.  Take measures to reduce the call abandonment rate. AC Transit  Finalize the integration of the District goals, Critical Business Outcomes (CBOs), and performance monitoring into one cohesive program.  Continue efforts to generate reliable schedule adherence data and improve on-time performance.  Continue to focus on strategies for reducing operator absences.

18 Background and History: PIP  Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) was amended into TDA law in 1977  Require transportation planning agencies, such as MTC, to:  Annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements that could lower transit operating costs;  Include in its program recommendations related to productivity made in the performance audits;  May form a committee for the purpose of providing advice on productivity improvements; and  Review and evaluate the efforts made by the operators to implement the recommended improvements prior to determining allocations.

19 Experience with the PIP  Initial PIP covered the six major operators  Number of projects (65 in the regional program) too cumbersome - Regional Transit Productivity Committee asked that it be limited to 6 per operator  Types of projects frequently required extensive resources – examples:  Deploy articulated buses on Transbay routes  Improve BART system access  Construct 2 Park and Ride lots to be served by Golden Gate buses.  Results were disappointing due to lack of operator commitment/resources  By FY , PIP process was redesigned to encourage coordination and cooperation among operators to address common concerns, rather than monitoring individual agency efforts.

20 The PIP Today Current Efforts  Projects are developed to address recommendations in performance audits  Fairly limited in scope – examples:  Analyze fixed route headways to improve on-time performance  Review the increasing incidences of preventable accidents  As noted by Mundle & Associates, most operators do not assign a high priority to this requirement