Thoughts on the performance audit of transit
Rodney Rutherford
transit which I had expected to find...
Instead of aiming for a specific fare recovery ratio, aim to maximize
the amount of service delivered per dollar of subsidy. The way 'amount
of service' is defined could be argued, but might be passenger miles,
passenger trips, or cars removed from the road. Different routes may
be held to different efficiency metrics based on the goal of the
service (i.e., a commuter vs express vs local service). The cost of
operating the route should include operational overhead costs
necessary to operate the route (such as the cost of deadhead hours).
(related to recommendation B1)
Identify external factors which impact route speed (traffic, passenger
loading, signals, bottlenecks). Reducing these negative impacts may
cost-effectively improve transit's performance and effectiveness.
Divide routes into performance segments to determine effectiveness per
segment. Identify "slow segments" and "unreliable segments",
especially those which impact many runs; quantify impacted corridors
in terms of inefficient hours that could be saved if the segment's
speed was increased or made more reliable. (For example, downtown
Seattle. Note that a bus which moves twice as fast costs almost 1/2 to
operate.) Quantifying the cost of problems that cause slowness and
unreliability may be used to justify capital improvements and
partnerships that reduce or eliminate these inefficiencies.
Also, I was glad to see that the exec is interested in simplifying the
fare structure and leveraging the capabilities of the ORCA system.
(Hope that this continues with the next exec, too!)
-Rodney