Regional Performance Measures

(1)

2010

The six-county public transportation system serving northeastern Illinois

Regional Performance Measures

AC Transit CTA DART Houston Metro King Co. Metro LA Metro LI Bus LIRR Madison County MARTA MBTA Metra MNCR MTA NYCT NJT OCTA Pace SamTrans SEPTA SMART WMATA

Sub-Regional Peer Report

Prepared by Department of Finance & Performance Management • February 2012

Regional

Transportation

Authority

(2)

(3)

i

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report

2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report

RTA staff has undertaken the development of a performance measurement and reporting program to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of public transit in northeastern Illinois.

Overall regional performance is a function of five major areas:

•

Service Coverage

– monitors both how much service is available to people in the region (in terms of population and square miles) and how much of that service capacity is used.

•

Service Efficiency and Effectiveness

– evaluates the level of resources spent on delivering service in relation to the level of service provided and the extent to which passengers are using that service.

•

Service Delivery

– reflects the quality of the service delivered.

•

Service Maintenance and Capital Investment

– indicates the allocation of capital funds and the replacement and maintenance of infrastructure components on a schedule consistent with their life expectancy.

•

Service Level Solvency

– assesses the system’s financial condition to ensure that there are sufficient resources to meet current and ongoing budgetary needs (both operating and capital).

Prepared by the Department of Finance and Performance Management Division of Budget, Performance & Business Analysis

February 2012

(4)

ii

iii

Pace Suburban Bus Peer Comparison ... 30

VANPOOL ... 37

Pace Vanpool Peer Comparison ... 37

DEMAND-RESPONSE/ADA ... 44

Pace Demand-Response/ADA Peer Comparison ... 44

(6)

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sub-Regional Peer Report has been developed by the RTA as part of its oversight function to support the evaluation and management of the region’s public transportation system.

Examination of each service mode and comparison of its performance to the performance of a set of meaningful peers allows for the identification of potential improvement areas. The selection of appropriate peers was carefully performed to allow for the closest possible match of operating characteristics. For each service mode operated in the RTA region – urban bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, suburban bus, vanpool, and ADA/dial-a-ride (DAR) – a peer group of five agencies has been chosen. The report is based on data from the National Transit Database (NTD) to ensure as much comparability between agencies in definition and collection of data elements as possible.

The primary selection criteria for the peer agencies included: size of metropolitan area served, urban versus suburban character of the service area, size of the transit system, and operating characteristics such as speed, trip length, and whether bus services were operated in conjunction with rapid transit service. While the urban/suburban split of service is fairly clear in the Chicago region, in other areas the split is not so well-defined. In selecting appropriate peer groups, properties that were primarily urban were considered for comparison to CTA while those that were primarily suburban were considered for comparison to Pace. Demand response service in the Chicago region is also well-defined, with ADA service having its own NTD reporting entity, but this distinction is not so clearly delineated by peers. Therefore, to allow for meaningful comparisons among those service modes, this report shows one figure for ADA paratransit service and one figure that combines ADA paratransit with dial-a-ride services.

Although much care is used in selecting meaningful peers, no two transit agencies are perfectly comparable. Each agency has unique circumstances and a unique operating environment, and those differences should be kept in mind when making comparisons. Since there are no federal or industry standards for transit performance metrics, peer comparisons provide the best way to benchmark performance and identify best practices. The goal of the performance measurement program is to point towards areas of potential improvement; further research can then be conducted to gain a better understanding of the factors contributing to observed levels of performance.

Overall, the Chicago agencies performed well in comparison to their peers. The Chicago operators consistently represent one of the largest of their peers, not surprisingly given the area’s geographic breadth and large population. As in 2009, special strengths were again noted across modes in the service efficiency and effectiveness category and in service reliability (as measured by miles between major mechanical failures). These results are indicative of the success the RTA agencies have had at running efficient, safe operations and indicate that scarce operating dollars are being used well.

(7)

2

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report The economic recession that began in 2008 continued to have a significant impact on each region and the transit agencies operating within those regions. The chart above demonstrates the significant jump in unemployment in 2009 and 2010 experienced by all of the regions in this peer analysis. In the Chicago metropolitan area, the number of jobs grew by 0.8% but Chicagoland’s average annual unemployment rate rose from 10.0% in 2009 to 10.2% in 2010.

The RTA system as a whole had ridership declines of 0.9%, with CTA experiencing a 4%

reduction in bus trips but a 4.1% gain in rail trips, Metra trips declining by 1.7%, and Pace losing an overall 0.1% in ridership as bus passenger trips remained stable and gains in dial-a-ride service (+2.5%) nearly offset losses in vanpool (-3.2%) and ADA (-0.6%).

CTA Bus continued to perform well in comparison to its peer group, rating above the peer average for ten of eleven measures. CTA bus continued to have particularly strong performance for service efficiency and effectiveness as well as for service maintenance and capital investment measures, and achieved the top rank in four of five of these measures.

CTA Rail continued to show strong performance for service efficiency, and maintained its top- ranked position for operating cost per vehicle revenue hour and again significantly outperformed the peer average for miles between major mechanical failures despite having the oldest vehicle fleet.

Metra Commuter Rail performed better than the peer average for all service coverage and service efficiency and effectiveness measures and equal to its peers for miles between major mechanical failures in spite of having the second-oldest fleet. Metra ranks below the peer average for each service level solvency measure, which will be addressed with fare increases scheduled for early 2012.

Pace Suburban Bus continued its better than average performance for both measures of service maintenance and capital investment, and for two of three service efficiency and

0%

5%

10%

15%

2008 2009 2010

(8)

3

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report effectiveness measures. The metropolitan Chicagoland population density, the lowest of its peers, has negatively influenced Pace’s service coverage measures, and will continue to do so in the future, as its riders are more dispersed, requiring Pace to offer more vehicle revenue hours and more vehicle revenue miles to capture its ridership. As one of two agencies to not raise fares in 2010, Pace bus remained below the peer average for each of the service level solvency measures related to fare revenues, although Pace did see a significant increase in capital funds expended per passenger trip compared to its peers.

Pace Vanpool outperformed the peer average for three measures: operating cost per vehicle revenue hour, operating cost per passenger trip, and fare revenue per passenger mile;

however, each of these improvements resulted from reductions in service provided and consumed. Pace vanpool and its two most comparable peers, King County Metro and Houston Metro, each experienced significant service reductions in 2010 and lost ridership and fare revenues as a result.

Pace Demand-Response/ADA programs were examined as a combined service, with dial-a-ride (DAR) and ADA paratransit taken together, as well as ADA paratransit alone. These two sets of comparisons were undertaken because most of the agencies in the peer group report their statistics to NTD for the combined services of ADA and demand-response as a result of the overlap that exists between these services. Pace is unique in having set up a separate reporting structure to NTD exclusively for ADA paratransit. As a combined service, Pace ADA/DAR continued its strong performance that mirrored 2009 rankings for the most part, with some improvements seen for operating cost per vehicle revenue hour and operating cost per vehicle revenue mile that accompanied fare increases implemented in November 2009.

(9)

4

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report 1. This analysis is based on 2010 published data from the National Transit Database (NTD), the most currently available data. The data submission by transit agencies is a requirement of receiving federal funding and thus follows guidelines and procedures established by the Federal Transit Administration.

2. The recovery ratio used in this report follows the NTD definition, which is the proportion of operating costs that are covered by fare revenues paid by passengers. The NTD recovery ratio differs from the RTA recovery ratio, which takes into account certain adjustments as enumerated in the RTA Act such as the exclusion of various costs, the treatment of depreciation, and the inclusion of in-kind services. The RTA recovery ratio also includes system-generated revenue other than fares in its formula calculation.

Furthermore, the RTA Act requires that Pace ADA paratransit costs and revenues be separated from the RTA recovery ratio and meet its own statutorily set recovery ratio.

3. Service delivery measures such as on-time performance and complaints received are not reported to the NTD and thus are not available for peer agencies.

(10)

5 PEER AGENCIES BY MODE

Agency/Mode Peer Group

Urban Bus CTA

LA Metro: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston

NYCT: Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York City Transit, New York SEPTA: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington DC Heavy Rail CTA

MARTA: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston

NYCT: Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York City Transit, New York SEPTA: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington DC

Metra Commuter Rail

LIRR: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Long Island Rail Road, New York City metropolitan area/Long Island

MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston

MNCR: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro-North Railroad, New York City metropolitan area/Connecticut

NJT: New Jersey Transit, New York City metropolitan area/New Jersey SEPTA: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia Pace

Suburban Bus

AC Transit: Alamada-Contra Costa Transit, Oakland and East Bay communities MTA LI Bus: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Long Island Bus, New York OCTA: Orange County Transportation Authority

SamTrans: San Mateo County Transit District, San Francisco Bay Area

SMART: Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, Detroit area Pace

Vanpool

DART: Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas

King County Metro: King County Metro Transit, Seattle area

LA Metro: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles Madison County: Madison County Transit, St. Louis area

Houston Metro: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston area Pace

Demand- Response/ADA

MBTA: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Boston MTA: Metropolitan Transit Authority, Baltimore

NYCT: Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York City Transit, New York SEPTA: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia WMATA: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington DC

(11)

6

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report Average Age of Fleet: the mean of the difference between year of manufacture and year under consideration for all vehicles in the active fleet.

Average Vehicle Passenger Capacity: the mean number of passengers that can be carried per revenue vehicle, computed by adding seating capacity plus standing capacity and dividing that number by the number of active vehicles in the fleet.

Average Speed: the miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service divided by the hours that vehicles travel while in revenue service.

Average Trip Length: the average distance ridden for an unlinked passenger trip.

Capital Funds Expended: the expenses related to the purchase of capital assets; it does not include capital funds transferred to cover operating expenses.

Capital Funds Expended per Passenger Trip: expenses related to the purchase of capital assets divided by the total number of unlinked passenger trips provided.

Directional Route Miles: the mileage in each direction over which public transportation vehicles travel while in revenue service.

Fare Recovery Ratio: the recovery ratio used in this report follows the NTD definition, which is the proportion of operating costs that are covered by fare revenue paid by passengers. The NTD recovery ratio differs from the RTA recovery ratio, which takes in to account other system- generated revenue and adjustments as enumerated in the RTA Act.

Fare Revenue: all income received directly from passengers, either paid in cash or through pre- paid tickets, passes, etc.

Fare Revenue per Passenger Mile: all income received from passengers divided by the total distance ridden by passengers.

Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip: all income received from passengers divided by the total number of unlinked passenger trips provided.

Miles between Major Mechanical Failures: the average number of miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service between failures of some mechanical element or a safety concern that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled trip or from starting the next scheduled trip.

Operating Cost: the expenses associated with the operation of the transit agency.

(12)

7

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report Operating Cost Components: the allocation of costs among specific categories of expenses:

• General administration: all costs associated with the general administration of the transit agency

• Vehicle maintenance: all costs associated with revenue and non-revenue service vehicle maintenance

• Non-vehicle maintenance: all costs associated with facility maintenance

• Vehicle operations: all costs associated with vehicle operations

Operating Cost per Passenger Mile: total operating cost divided by total number of miles traveled by passengers.

Operating Cost per Passenger Trip: total operating cost divided by total number of unlinked passenger trips taken on public transportation vehicles.

Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour: total operating cost divided by the total number of hours of transit service provided.

Passenger Miles: cumulative sum of the distances ridden by each passenger: average trip length multiplied by total passenger trips.

Passenger Trips: unlinked passenger trips reported as the number of passengers who board public transportation vehicles and are counted each time they board a vehicle used to travel from their origin to their destination.

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour: total number of unlinked passenger trips divided by the total number of hours of transit service provided.

Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile: total number of unlinked passenger trips divided by total miles traveled by transit vehicles while in revenue service.

Peak to Base Ratio: a comparison of how many revenue vehicles are in service during peak hours versus non-peak hours.

Population: the population of the area served by the transit agency as reported to NTD by the agency.

Population Density: the service area population divided by the service area square miles.

Revenue Components of Trip Cost: the cost of a trip viewed as the percentage and actual dollar amounts covered by fare and non-fare revenue (system-generated revenue and other subsidies).

Service Area: number of square miles served by the transit agency.

(13)

8

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report Vehicle Revenue Miles: miles that vehicles travel while in revenue service, including layover/recovery time, but excluding deadhead time.

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service: the revenue vehicle count during the peak season of the year, on the week and day that maximum service is provided; excludes atypical days or one- time special events.

(14)

9 URBAN BUS

The peers selected for urban bus are those that serve the nation’s largest urbanized areas with the most extensive, well-developed transit systems. These cities – Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC – rank within the top ten in the country for urbanized area population, number of transit trips taken, and number of transit trips taken per capita.

They each also have both urban rail and bus services, which provide coordinated service throughout the metropolitan area. New York City Transit is the most analogous to CTA bus in that it has a service area largely defined by city boundaries. The bus systems serving the other cities also serve surrounding suburban areas, but are predominantly urban systems.

CTA Bus performed better than the peer average for every measure with the exception of capital fund expenditures per passenger trip, a solvency measure that had exceeded the peer average in 2008 and 2009. Improved rankings occurred for the service coverage measures of passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour and per vehicle revenue mile, although this was primarily the result of service reductions instituted in early 2010. An improved ranking also occurred for miles between major mechanical failures, from a sixth-place rank in 2008 to first place in 2010, as a result of CTA’s bus fleet replacement program.

CTA Bus Peer Comparison

Performs better than peer average

2009 2010

Service Coverage Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour NO YES Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile EQUAL YES Service Efficiency and

Effectiveness

Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Mile YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Trip YES YES Service Maintenance

and Capital Investment Average Age YES YES

Miles Between Major Mechanical Failures NO YES

Service Level Solvency

Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip YES YES Fare Revenue per Passenger Mile YES YES

Fare Recovery Ratio YES YES

Capital Funds Expended per Passenger Trip YES NO

’Equal’ ranking denotes a value that is +/- one-tenth of one standard deviation from the peer average.

This report defines fares above the peer average as favorable based on industry standards for reporting passenger revenue effectiveness. However, regional decision makers may prefer fares lower than the peer average for public policy considerations.

(15)

10 Peer Modal Characteristics

In comparison to its peers, CTA and NYCT operate the lowest amount of directional route miles, corresponding to service areas constrained by city boundaries. Both also operate in the most densely-populated service areas. CTA ranks third, behind NYCT and LA Metro, based on miles of service provided, passenger trips, and passenger miles.

Urban Bus Overview Modal Characteristics

CTA MBTA LA

METRO NYCT SEPTA WMATA

Chicago Boston Los Angeles New York Philadelphia WashingtonDC

Population 3,527,667 4,510,400 8,626,817 8,008,278 3,338,230 3,317,169

Service Area (square miles) 322 3,244 1,513 321 869 692

Population Density 10,955 1,390 5,702 24,948 3,841 4,794

Directional Route Miles 1,358 1,809 3,853 1,749 2,485 2,638

Vehicle Revenue Miles (millions) 56.8 24.7 87.1 97.3 40.1 38.6

Passenger Trips (millions) 306 108 366 829 178 128

Passenger Miles (millions) 707 276 1,487 1,835 525 400

Operating Cost (millions) $711 $338 $946 $2,290 $550 $557

Fare Revenue (millions) $272 $78 $251 $839 $157 $109

Capital Funds Expended (millions) $39.6 $57 $251 $228 $110 $183

Average Speed (mph) 9.54 10.43 11.72 7.64 10.31 10.65

Average Trip Length (miles) 2.31 2.55 4.06 2.21 2.95 3.11

Average Vehicle Passenger Capacity 81.0 96.2 54.2 82.6 83.3 71.3

Average Vehicle Age (years) 4.3 6.7 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.7

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 1,707 795 2,234 3,885 1,222 1,280

Peak to Base Ratio 1.76 1.37 1.50 1.59 1.55 2.36

Directional Route Miles: Each agency reported fewer directional route miles for 2010 compared to 2009.

Vehicle Revenue Miles: Each agency reported fewer vehicle revenue miles for 2010 compared to 2009.

Passenger Trips: MBTA was the only agency to report increased passenger trips for 2010, with a nearly 7% increase over 2009, which MBTA attributes to an improved state economy and the implementation of ridership tools such as applications for smart phones.

(16)

11

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report Passenger Miles: as with passenger trips, only MBTA reported an increase in passenger miles for 2010.

Operating Cost: CTA was the only agency to report a reduction in annual operating costs in 2010, down over 9% from 2009 related to the implementation of service reductions in February 2010.

Fare Revenue: MBTA and NYCT saw fare revenue increases in 2010 although only NYCT had implemented a fare hike (2010 was the first full year with a 10% average fare increase).

Capital Funds Expended: Capital fund expenditures can and do vary greatly from one year to the next; CTA bus experienced an 83.9% decrease from 2009.

Average Speed: Average speeds remained largely unchanged from 2009 for each agency.

Average Trip Length: CTA was the only agency to report a slightly lower average trip length, down 0.5%, or one-hundredth of a mile. MBTA saw the largest increase, +11.4%, or 0.26 miles.

Average Vehicle Passenger Capacity: Each agency reported slightly larger average passenger capacities as compared to 2009. CTA operates the fourth-largest capacity buses, behind MBTA, SEPTA, and NYCT.

(17)

12 Service Coverage

CTA saw improved ratios for both service coverage measures, and moved up one rank position for the passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour indicator. These improvements resulted from the decreased vehicle revenue hours and vehicle revenue miles that accompanied service cuts in early 2010.

A 15% reduction in CTA’s vehicle revenue hours, combined with a 4% reduction in passenger trips, resulted in a 13% gain for passenger trips per vehicle hour ratio. This improvement in service efficiency, the largest of the group, boosted CTA’s ranking to second from its third- place rank in 2009.

CTA’s trips per vehicle revenue mile improved by 14% compared to 2009, resulting from a 16%

reduction in vehicle revenue miles and 4% loss of passenger trips.

65.1

51.4 49.2 48.2 45.8 45.7 35.4

0 20 40 60 80

NYCT CTA LA

METRO Peer

Average SEPTA MBTA WMATA PASSENGER TRIPS PER VEHICLE REVENUE

HOUR

8.52

5.39 4.97 4.44 4.38 4.20 3.32

0 2 4 6 8 10

NYCT CTA Peer

Average SEPTA MBTA LA

METROWMATA PASSENGER TRIPS PER VEHICLE REVENUE

MILE

(18)

13 URBAN BUS

Service Efficiency and Effectiveness

In 2010, CTA outperformed its peers for the service efficiency indicator of operating cost per vehicle revenue hour and the service effectiveness measure of operating cost per passenger trip, and also improved its rank position for operating cost per passenger mile. CTA was the only agency of the six to report a decrease in annual operating costs in 2010, down 10% from 2009.

Every agency reported higher operating cost per hour compared to 2009, ranging from $0.34 (MBTA) to $19.42 (WMATA). CTA’s cost rose

$7.08 per hour (up 6% from 2009) and kept CTA’s cost at nearly $30 below the average.

CTA’s cost per trip decreased by $0.15 in 2010, a 6% reduction from 2009. Only one other agency, MBTA, saw a reduction in cost per trip (also 6%), which occurred as a result of a 7%

increase in trips.

Only CTA and MBTA saw decreases in operating cost per passenger mile, down 6% and 16%, respectively, in 2010. CTA’s decrease resulted from reduced operating costs whereas MBTA’s reduction resulted from increased passenger miles, up 19%

from 2009.

Of particular note for CTA was a 14% decrease in vehicle operations expenditures and a 17%

decrease in vehicle maintenance costs compared to 2009. Compared to its peers, CTA spends the highest proportion of its operating costs on vehicle operations.

$119 $127 $141 $143 $149 $154

$180

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

CTA LA

METRO SEPTA MBTA Peer

AverageWMATA NYCT OPERATING COST PER VEHICLE REVENUE

HOUR

$2.32 $2.58 $2.76

$3.09 $3.13 $3.18 $4.34

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

CTA LA

METRO NYCT SEPTA MBTA Peer AverageWMATA OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER TRIP

$0.64

$1.01 $1.05 $1.11 $1.23 $1.25 $1.39

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

LA

METRO CTA SEPTA Peer

Average MBTA NYCT WMATA OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER MILE

$338 $550 $557 $711 $946 $2,290

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

MBTA SEPTA WMATA CTA LA

METRO NYCT OPERATING COST COMPONENTS (Total OC $

stated in millions)

VEHICLE OPERATIONS NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

(19)

14 Service Maintenance & Capital Investment

In 2010, CTA took 274 vehicles out of service and was able to reduce its average fleet age by a half year compared to 2009. CTA maintained its number one position with the youngest fleet among its peers. The elimination of older vehicles also aided CTA in increasing the miles between major mechanical failures, boosting its position for this measure from fourth in 2009 to first in 2010.

Younger vehicles are less costly to maintain;

CTA vehicle maintenance expenditures in 2010 constituted 16.9% of all operations costs, whereas LA Metro and NYCT expended 22.1%

and 23.0% of their budgets on vehicle maintenance, respectively.

CTA saw a 17.5% increase in the miles between major mechanical failures in 2010, the largest increase among its peers. This improvement is another benefit of operating a younger bus fleet.

4.3

6.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 8.0 8.4

0 2 4 6 8 10

CTA MBTA SEPTA Peer

AverageWMATA NYCT LA METRO AVERAGE AGE OF FLEET (YEARS)

9,425 9,298

8,449 8,249 8,069 7,262 7,090

0 5,000 10,000 15,000

CTA MBTA WMATA LA METRO Peer

Average NYCT SEPTA MILES BETWEEN MAJOR MECHANICAL

FAILURES

(20)

15 URBAN BUS

Service Level Solvency

Compared to 2009, CTA improved its rankings for two solvency measures: fare revenue per passenger trip and fare recovery ratio, maintained its place for fare revenue per passenger mile, and declined from second place to sixth for capital funds expended per passenger trip.

CTA Bus realized an increase of $0.02 per trip in 2010, a 2% increase from 2009. NYCT, which also ranked first in 2009, realized a 4% gain in fare revenue per trip for 2010.

CTA’s fare revenue per passenger mile stayed at the same level as 2009 at $0.38. NYCT was the only agency to see a gain for this measure in 2010, with an increase of $0.01 per passenger mile.

CTA Bus moved up one ranking from 2009’s 35.3% ratio to 38.2% in 2010, the highest fare recovery ratio and the highest year-over-year increase among its peers.

Capital fund availability varies considerably from year to year, and CTA, which had expended $0.77 per trip in 2009 for a second- place ranking, decreased to $0.13 per trip in 2010 for last place.

$1.01

$0.89 $0.88 $0.85 $0.83

$0.72 $0.69

$0.00

$0.25

$0.50

$0.75

$1.00

$1.25

NYCT CTA SEPTA WMATA Peer

Average MBTA LA METRO FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER TRIP

$0.46 $0.38

$0.30 $0.30 $0.28 $0.27 $0.17

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

NYCT CTA SEPTA Peer

Average MBTA WMATA LA METRO FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER MILE

38.2% 36.6%

28.5% 26.8% 26.5% 23.1% 19.5%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

CTA NYCT SEPTA Peer Average LA

METRO MBTA WMATA FARE RECOVERY RATIO

$1.43

$0.71 $0.69 $0.62 $0.53 $0.28

$0.13

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

WMATA Peer Average LA

METRO SEPTA MBTA NYCT CTA CAPITAL FUNDS EXPENDED PER PASSENGER

TRIP

(21)

16

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report The peers selected for CTA heavy rail were chosen from the largest rapid transit systems in the country. The number of cities with urban rail systems is much smaller than those with bus systems, limiting the group of potential peers. NYCT, MBTA, and SEPTA are all natural peers as older rail systems serving the urban center of large metropolitan areas. MARTA and WMATA, although relatively newer heavy rail systems, were added as peers due to their large size and mostly urban setting.

In 2010, CTA operated better than or equal to its peers in five of the eleven measures examined, with the most favorable comparisons occurring in the service efficiency and effectiveness area. As it had in 2009, CTA ranked in the number one position for operating cost per vehicle revenue hour and performed significantly better than the peer average for miles between major mechanical failures despite having the oldest average fleet age among its peers.

In 2010, CTA improved its ranking for fare recovery ratio, increasing by 3.2 percentage points, and now performs equal to the peer average for this measure. The largest rank change for CTA in 2010 occurred for the indicator capital funds expended per passenger trip, which lost three rank positions as expenditures fell by over $1.00 per trip.

CTA Heavy Rail Peer Comparison

2009 2010

Service Coverage Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour NO NO Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile NO NO Service Efficiency and

Effectiveness

Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Mile YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Trip NO NO Service Maintenance

and Capital Investment Average Age NO NO

Miles Between Major Mechanical Failures YES YES

Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip YES YES

Fare Revenue per Passenger Mile NO NO

Fare Recovery Ratio NO EQUAL

Capital Funds Expended per Passenger Trip YES NO

(22)

17 HEAVY RAIL

Peer Modal Characteristics

CTA operates heavy rail in the nation’s second-most densely populated area, after New York City. CTA ranks third among its peers for directional route miles, vehicle revenue miles, passenger trips, passenger miles, operating cost, fare revenue, and capital funds expended.

Heavy Rail Overview Modal Characteristics

CTA MARTA MBTA NYCT SEPTA WMATA

Chicago Atlanta Boston New York Philadelphia WashingtonDC

Population 3,527,667 1,574,600 4,510,400 8,008,278 3,338,230 3,317,169

Service Area (square miles) 322 498 3,244 321 869 692

Directional Route Miles 207.8 96.1 76.3 487.5 74.9 211.8

Passenger Trips (millions) 211 78 139 2,439 95 287

Passenger Miles (millions) 1,296 493 483 9,710 422 1,636

Operating Cost (millions) $451 $172 $306 $3,346 $166 $787

Fare Revenue (millions) $239 $59 $153 $2,398 $85 $488

Capital Funds Expended (millions) $161 $71 $130 $3,021 $110 $256

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 980 188 342 5,354 284 850

Directional Route Miles: the only change noted for 2009 was for New York, with 6.3 fewer directional route miles than in 2009.

Passenger Trips: CTA saw a gain of 4% in rail trips, the largest gain of its peers in 2010.

Vehicle Revenue Miles: One agency saw an increase in vehicle revenue miles (3%, MBTA), every other agency realized declines. CTA had 5% fewer vehicle revenue miles than it had in 2009, while WMATA and MARTA showed larger declines of -7% and -10%, respectively.

Passenger Miles: CTA was the only agency of the six to see an increase in passenger miles in 2010 and was up 8% from 2009. Other declines ranged from -0.2% (WMATA) to -15% (MBTA).

(23)

18

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report costs, both at -2%, in 2010. The other four agencies reported increases ranging from 1% (NYCT) to 5% (SEPTA).

Fare Revenue: Changes in fare revenues ranged from -5% (MBTA) to +17% (MARTA), with CTA fare revenues up 4% from 2009.

Capital Funds Expended: Each of the six peers saw double-digit percentage reductions in capital fund expenditures in 2010, from -13% (NYCT) to -58% (MARTA). CTA saw a 56% drop in capital funds, totaling $207.3 million.

Average Speed: CTA was the only agency to see an increased average speed, up 2% from 2009.

Average Trip Length: WMATA and CTA saw increases in average trip length, up 1% and 4%, respectively.

Average Vehicle Passenger Capacity: CTA cars are smaller in number of seats, length, and width than its peers due to its need to navigate tighter turns on the ‘L’ tracks. With an average passenger capacity of 90 per vehicle, CTA ranks last in capacity among the agencies under review, which have 24-151% more capacity than CTA.

(24)

19 HEAVY RAIL Service Coverage

Generally, CTA performance in the service coverage area falls below that of its peers. Smaller capacity rail cars (CTA’s average capacity is 90 vs. a peer average of 176) account for most of the variance in performance, as CTA must run more cars to serve the same number of passengers. SEPTA, which has the second-smallest size car, carries nearly twice the passengers per hour that CTA does, but SEPTA does not operate 24-hour rail service or have as extensive a network of stations as CTA. These factors may lead to more trains that run with excess capacity at the CTA.

CTA gained 6.3 passenger trips per hour in 2010, an increase of 12%, which was the largest gain of the six agencies under review. The increase comes from the 7% reduction in vehicle revenue hours and a 4% gain in passenger trips.

This measure reflects the effect of service cuts at CTA, which reduced vehicle revenue miles 5%, combined with a 4% increase in passenger trips, resulted in a 10% gain for trips per mile in 2010, the highest gain among its peers.

126.9

110.2 108.5 108.3 103.5 93.7

60.6

0 30 60 90 120 150

NYCT SEPTA Peer

AverageWMATA MBTA MARTA CTA PASSENGER TRIPS PER VEHICLE REVENUE

HOUR

6.96

6.01 5.65 5.29 4.31

3.52 3.24

0 2 4 6 8

NYCT MBTA SEPTA Peer

AverageWMATA MARTA CTA PASSENGER TRIPS PER VEHICLE REVENUE

MILE

(25)

20 Service Efficiency and Effectiveness

CTA performed well in service efficiency and effectiveness, maintaining its first place rank for lowest operating cost per vehicle revenue hour and moving up one rank position for operating cost per passenger mile and two rank positions for operating cost per passenger trip.

With a 2% reduction in operating cost and 7%

reduction in vehicle revenue hours, CTA saw a 5% increase in cost per hour in 2010. MBTA, the only agency to see an increase in vehicle revenue hours for the year, was the only agency to see a decline for operating cost per vehicle revenue hour.

CTA and NYCT were the only two agencies to realize increased passenger trips in 2010, resulting in a lower operating cost per trip for the year. CTA experienced the largest drop in cost per trip (down $0.14, or 6%), allowing CTA to move up two rank positions.

CTA was the only agency to see an increase in passenger miles traveled (up 8% in 2010) which resulted in a 10% drop in operating cost per passenger mile, $0.03 lower than in 2009.

CTA expended 13% less of its 2010 operating costs on vehicle maintenance; however, CTA spent more proportionally on vehicle maintenance than any of its peers.

$129.62

$174.05 $192.17 $206.81 $219.58 $228.18 $296.70

$0

$100

$200

$300

CTA NYCT SEPTA MARTA Peer

Average MBTA WMATA OPERATING COST PER VEHICLE REVENUE

HOUR

$1.37

$1.74 $2.05 $2.14 $2.20 $2.21 $2.74

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

NYCT SEPTA Peer

Average CTA MBTA MARTA WMATA OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER TRIP

$0.34 $0.35 $0.35 $0.39 $0.44 $0.48 $0.64

$0.00

$0.25

$0.50

$0.75

$1.00

NYCT MARTA CTA SEPTA Peer

AverageWMATA MBTA OPERATING COST PER PASSENGER MILE

$166 $172 $306 $451 $787 $3,346

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

SEPTA MARTA MBTA CTA WMATA NYCT

OPERATING COST COMPONENTS (Total OC $ stated in millions)

VEHICLE OPERATIONS NON-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

(26)

21 HEAVY RAIL

Service Maintenance & Capital Investment

With over seven hundred new rail cars to be put into service in the coming years, CTA’s fleet in 2010 was the oldest among its peers.

NYCT continued its rail replacement program, putting another 202 new rail cars into service in 2010 and lowering its average fleet age from 2009 levels, the only agency to do so. CTA’s average age went from 25.7 to 26.3, the highest average of its peers.

Despite having the oldest fleet among its peers, CTA rail cars experienced the second-highest mileage between major mechanical failures. It was outperformed only by SEPTA, which reported a 304% increase from 2009 resulting from a 75% decrease in major mechanical failures.

17.1 17.7 19.7 19.9 21.2 22.4 26.3

0 10 20 30

NYCT SEPTA Peer

AverageWMATA MARTA MBTA CTA AVERAGE AGE OF FLEET (YEARS)

417

267 177

141

44 41 25 0

100 200 300 400 500

SEPTA CTA NYCT Peer

AverageWMATA MBTA MARTA

Thousands

MILES BETWEEN MAJOR MECHANICAL FAILURES

(27)

22 Service Level Solvency

CTA’s fare structure remained stable in 2010 and passenger trips increased at the same rate as fare revenues (+4%) while passengers traveled 8% more miles compared to 2009. Thus, CTA maintained its ranking for fare revenue per trip and per passenger mile. Solvency was reduced by the decline in capital fund expenditures, with $1.06 less expended on a per-trip basis in 2010, dropping CTA to sixth rank position for this indicator. However, CTA improved its ranking for fare recovery ratio, as it lowered overall operating costs by reducing service in 2010.

CTA was the only agency to see no change in fare revenue per passenger trip in 2010; its peers ranged from -$0.01 (WMATA) to +$0.16 (MARTA).

CTA realized a $0.01 decrease in fare revenue per passenger mile due to its 8% increase in passenger miles outpacing its 4% increase in fare revenue.

CTA moved up one rank position in 2010 for this measure, gaining 3.2 percentage points and approximating the peer average.

Each agency experienced double-digit percentage reductions for this measure in 2010;

CTA’s expenditures declined 58%, moving CTA from third to sixth place for this indicator.

$1.70

$1.14 $1.10 $1.09

$0.98 $0.89 $0.76

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

WMATA CTA MBTA Peer

Average NYCT SEPTA MARTA FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER TRIP

$0.32 $0.30

$0.25 $0.24

$0.20 $0.18 $0.12

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

MBTA WMATA NYCT Peer

Average SEPTA CTA MARTA FARE REVENUE PER PASSENGER MILE

71.7%

62.0%

53.8% 53.1% 51.1% 50.0%

34.3%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

NYCT WMATA Peer

Average CTA SEPTA MBTA MARTA FARE RECOVERY RATIO

$1.24 $1.15

$1.03 $0.94 $0.91 $0.89 $0.76

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

NYCT SEPTA Peer

Average MBTA MARTA WMATA CTA CAPITAL FUNDS EXPENDED PER PASSENGER

TRIP

(28)

23 COMMUTER RAIL

The peers selected for commuter rail represent the largest commuter rail systems in the United States; all are traditional systems that can trace their roots to rail passenger services that have operated since the late 19^th century. Three of the peers provide service to New York City from the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Boston and Philadelphia are the other major cities served. There are differences in the operating environment of each railroad affecting its service delivery and cost structure. Metra operates predominantly diesel services with one electric line and contends with more intermingling with freight operations than the other railroads. It benefits from the use of bi-level cars on all trains, enabling it to carry large passenger loads more cost-effectively. It also operates with a mix between directly-operated and contracted services. The New York peers have less interference with freight traffic, but confront greater capacity constraints and less operating flexibility because of the need to operate through tunnels or over bridges to New York City’s center in Manhattan. SEPTA is unique in operating a fully electric service, which is more costly to operate than diesel.

Metra performs higher than the peer average for each of the measures in the service coverage and service efficiency and effectiveness measures. Metra also performs well in the service measure Miles between Major Mechanical Failures, where it ranks second among its peers despite having the second-oldest fleet, owing to its maintenance program and planned cycle of vehicle mid-life rehabilitations and end-of life rebuilds. As in 2009, Metra performed below the peer average for each service level solvency measure, which Metra will be addressing with a new fare schedule slated for February 2012. Overall, for each measure, Metra’s performance remained the same compared to the peer average from 2009-2010.

Metra Commuter Rail Peer Comparison

2009 2010

Service Coverage Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour YES YES Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile YES YES Service Efficiency and

Effectiveness

Operating Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Mile YES YES Operating Cost per Passenger Trip YES YES Service Maintenance

and Capital Investment Average Age NO NO

Miles Between Major Mechanical Failures EQUAL EQUAL

Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip NO NO

Fare Revenue per Passenger Mile NO NO

Fare Recovery Ratio NO NO

Capital Funds Expended per Passenger Trip NO NO

(29)

24 Peer Modal Characteristics

While Metra operates the second-largest commuter rail system in the country as measured by directional route miles, the three agencies that service the New York area each provide more vehicle revenue miles, passenger trips, and passenger miles. The New York systems also spent the most operating dollars and collect more fare revenue. LIRR and NJT spent the most in capital expenses, with Metra and MNCR even for third place. The Boston and Philadelphia systems are the smallest of the peers.

Commuter Rail Overview

Modal Characteristics

^METRA_Chicago ^MBTA_Boston ^LIRR _{New York}^MNCR ^NJT Philadelphia ^SEPTA

Population 7,261,176 4,510,400 11,720,000 6,503,894 17,799,861 3,338,230

Service Area (square miles) 3,721 3,244 2,967 527 3,353 869

Directional Route Miles 980.4 737.5 638.2 545.7 1,001.8 446.9

Passenger Trips (millions) 71 37 98 81 82 37

Passenger Miles (millions) 1,608 749 2,218 1,978 2,032 518

Operating Cost (millions) $563 $280 $1,075 $889 $839 $236

Fare Revenue (millions) $236 $133 $523 $527 $427 $122

Capital Funds Expended (millions) $265 $127 $388 $264 $601 $179

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service 1,057 418 1,014 1,075 1,291 325

Directional Route Miles: NJT added five directional route miles in 2010; the other agencies remained the same.

Passenger Trips: Three of the six agencies (Metra, MBTA, and NJT) reported fewer passenger trips in 2010.

Vehicle Revenue Miles: Half the agencies reported a 2% reduction in vehicle revenue miles (MBTA, LIRR, MNCR), while Metra’s was virtually unchanged from 2009. SEPTA and NJT saw increases of 3% and 8%, respectively.

(30)

25

Regional Transportation Authority 2010 Sub-Regional Peer Report Passenger Miles: Changes from 2009 ranged from -13% (NJT) to +13% (LIRR), with four of the six agencies reporting decreases.

Operating Cost: Only one agency, LIRR, reported decreased operating cost for 2010. Metra reported a 3% increase.

Fare Revenue: Metra’s fare revenue remained stable in 2010, while its peers reported changes of -3% (MBTA) to +5% (MNCR).

Capital Funds Expended: Metra reported a 52% gain in this indicator, the second-largest increase from 2009. NJT had the largest increase at 56%.

Average Speed: Metra maintained its position with the second-highest average speed, at 30.8 miles per hour, 0.1 mile per hour faster than in 2009.

Average Trip Length: With an average trip length of 22.8 miles, Metra has the third-longest average trip length of the six agencies, and was 1% lower in 2010.

Average Vehicle Passenger Capacity: For the commuter rail mode, this comparison excludes standing passenger capacity to conform to industry standards and the expected provision of one seat per passenger. Metra, with its full fleet of double-decker cars, offers the highest average passenger capacity of its peers, with 10% more capacity than its closest peer.

Regional Performance Measures

2010

The six-county public transportation system serving northeastern Illinois