A Comprehensive Process for Evaluating Existing and New Transit Services at the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board

(1)

Title: A Comprehensive Process for Evaluating Existing and New Transit Services at the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board

Author: Conan Cheung

Metropolitan Transit Development Board 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 (619) 557-4582

(619) 744-5982 (fax) [email protected] Co-Author: Michael Daney

Metropolitan Transit Development Board 1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101-7490 (619) 557-4541

(619) 744-5941 (fax) [email protected] Date Submitted: original August 1, 2002,

revised November 15, 2002

(Submitted for Presentation at the 82nd Annual Meeting

of the Transportation Research Board – January 2003, and consideration for inclusion in the TRB journal)

Word Count: 6,397 – Text

1,000 – Tables/Figures 7,397 – Total

(2)

ABSTRACT

Just as public transit services must be adjusted periodically to efficiently and efficiently respond to the opportunities and constraints of changing operating environments, so do the policies and procedures that govern service planning and development. MTDB’s Policy No. 43, originally adopted by the MTD Board in 1993, outlines methodologies for evaluating existing services and new service proposals. This policy was most recently revised in 2002 to reflect regional transportation goals and objectives, provide flexibility in prioritizing new services for implementation, and position MTDB for developing service reductions during times of fiscal constraints.

The revision changed the process for evaluating service proposals, and established a Lifeline Service Plan. The original process for evaluating service proposals was limited to a quantitative evaluation based on calculated measures of productivity that did not account for qualitative merits of the proposals. Therefore, the process was revised to include qualitative criteria and the adoption of an annual

investment strategy to help prioritize new services for implementation. The revised process results in a more comprehensive evaluation of service proposals, and adjusts to the constantly evolving service development goals and objectives.

Due to the current budget deficit faced by all MTDB area transit operators, criteria for developing a Lifeline Service Plan were also included in the policy revision. The plan provides a policy framework for service provision in years of major fiscal constraints, and establishes a “footprint” of minimum geographic coverage of transit services that would be retained in the event of major service reductions.

(3)

1: BACKGROUND

The Metropolitan Transit Development Board

The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) was established in 1975 by state legislation, [Senate Bill 101 (Mills), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 120050, et seq]. MTDB is an independent agency governed by a 15-member Board of Directors comprised of four council members from the City of San Diego, one council member each from Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee, and one supervisor from the County of San Diego. Its chairperson is selected at large by the Board, and currently constitutes the 15th member.

MTDB is responsible for planning, developing and operating transit service in central, east and south San Diego County, and serves as the policy setting and overall coordinating entity for public

transportation in the San Diego metropolitan area. With five independent transit operators within its jurisdiction, MTDB established the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) consisting of the three operating arms of MTDB, including San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI) and MTDB Contract Services, as well as two municipal operators, including Chula Vista Transit (CVT) and National City Transit (NCT). By consolidating these five transit operators into the MTS, MTDB is able to provide a unified transit system to the public.

The MTDB service area spans 570 square miles with a population of over two million people1. Within this area, the MTS provides a menu of transportation options, including fixed route bus, light rail, general public demand responsive, ferry and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complimentary paratransit services. Annual ridership on the MTS was over 84 million in FY 2001, with about 65 percent of the ridership attributed to the fixed route bus system consisting of 92 routes, and 35 percent to the two light rail lines. With an annual operating cost of $147 million and revenues totaling $64 million, the MTS maintains a relatively high farebox recovery ratio of 43 percent2.

Policy No. 43: New and Existing Service Evaluation

To help guide the development and continued operation of the MTS, MTDB established Policy No. 43, a systematic process for evaluating existing services and prioritizing new services for implementation. This policy, originally adopted by the MTD Board of Directors (MTD Board) in 1993 as the Service

Management Process3, is an important tool for adjusting transit service to meet the demands of

passengers, and to ensure that the MTS operates efficiently and effectively within current operational and financial constraints. Policy No. 43 formalized the process for evaluating existing services based on three performance measures, including: (1) Passengers per Revenue Mile; (2) Subsidy per Passenger; and (3) Passenger Mile per Seat Mile. Within each performance measure, means and standard deviations were calculated for each route to measure its relative performance based on a sliding scale of standards established by MTDB. Due to differences in operating conditions, separate standards were developed for each type of service provided, including Line-haul, Crosstown, All-day Express, Peak-only Express and Feeder service.

In 1998, MTDB conducted several studies to identify and address unmet transit needs within its jurisdictional area. These studies resulted in several recommendations for new and/or enhanced service. To address these recommendations, MTDB began developing a formal process for evaluating and prioritizing new and enhanced (i.e. frequency and service span improvements and geographic route extensions) services for implementation based on the evaluation process for existing services outlined in Policy No. 43. In doing so, the process for evaluating existing services was also refined.

In 2000, Policy No. 43 was revised to incorporate revisions to the existing service evaluation process and the process developed to evaluate and prioritize new and enhanced services for implementation4. Revisions to the existing service evaluation process were made to better reflect the goals and objectives of the MTD Board and the current operating environment. A new performance measure, Passengers per Revenue Hour, was added to address the concerns of suburban operators where service operates at higher speeds due to lower passenger densities. The Feeder service category was divided into Urban

(4)

Feeder and Suburban Feeder to address the disparity between more productive urban service and less productive suburban and rural services. Finally, a methodology was established to provide a more meaningful evaluation of service proposals by analyzing their benefits relative to other similar services, not to absolute and/or arbitrary standards.

The process for evaluating new and enhanced services, based on the revisions to the existing service evaluation process, incorporated the use of an index score that reflected the productivity of each service proposal relative to the average productivity of similar services in its service category (e.g. Line-haul, Crosstown, All-day Express, etc.). The index score calculated for each service proposal was used to objectively rank service proposals for implementation based on their calculated productivity. Consistent with the evaluation process for existing services, the three measures of productivity used to evaluate new and enhanced services included: (1) Passengers per Revenue Mile; (2) Passengers per Revenue Hour; and (3) Subsidy per Passenger.

The update to Policy No. 43 met its original objectives, and was widely accepted by the MTD Board as well as MTDB area transit operators. The process provided an aggregate and more meaningful measure of productivity used to evaluate existing and new services, and addressed the disparity between different types of services.

Despite these merits, MTDB understood that, similar to the transit services provided, this policy must be evaluated and adjusted periodically to ensure applicability and consistency within the current operating environment. Therefore, after two years of implementation, the processes for evaluating existing and new services, as outlined in Policy No. 43, were evaluated. The evaluation identified three primary areas for improvement, including:

• Measuring Qualitative Benefits of New and Enhanced Service Proposals. The process for evaluating new and enhanced services was initially developed to provide a simple and objective evaluation of service proposals based on quantitative measures of productivity. However, this process did not address other qualitative merits of service proposals, such as support of transit oriented development or support of major transit capital investments.

• Providing Flexibility in Prioritizing Service Proposals. Again, the process for evaluating new and enhanced services was meant to result in a clear and objective prioritization of new services for the MTD Board to consider during the annual budget process. However, the rigid evaluation process resulted in a lack of flexibility for adjusting to changes in operating conditions and MTD Board priorities.

• The Need for a Lifeline Service Plan. The original Policy No. 43 adopted in 1993 included guidelines for lifeline service provision. Although the 2000 revision of the policy did not address lifeline service provision, the current operating deficit faced by MTDB transit operators warranted an evaluation and revision of these guidelines.

2: APPROACH

In late 2001, MTDB further refined Policy No. 43 to address the areas of improvement identified through the policy evaluation. During the 2000 policy revision, a review was conducted to learn about the criteria and approaches that other transit agencies use to evaluate new services. The agencies reviewed included:

• Port Authority Transit – Pittsburgh, PA • Tri-Met – Portland, OR

• Calgary Transit – Calgary, ALB

• Toronto Transit Commission – Toronto, ONT • Houston Metro – Houston, TX

(5)

• VIA Metropolitan Transit – San Antonio, TX • Translink – Vancouver, BC

All of the transit agencies consider cost and ridership when evaluating new services for implementation. It is easy to understand why cost and ridership are important factors to consider, however, caution should be taken in understanding how they are estimated. Most transit agencies routinely estimate operating costs for new services by calculating the annual or daily revenue miles or hours of a new service and applying a unit cost to calculate the annual or daily cost to provide the service. However, depending on the type of new service (e.g. new route, routing extension, improved frequencies, increased span of service), either a marginal cost or a fully burdened cost should be used. For example, a routing extension that does not require an additional vehicle and driver may only result in an

incremental cost in fuel and maintenance, while a completely new route or new weekend service would result in a fully burdened cost increase due to the need for additional vehicles and drivers, administrative support, field supervision, not to mention possible capital costs for new bus stop facilities. Using the wrong per unit cost to calculate the annual or daily cost for the new service would result in an estimation that would be far from reason.

Since ridership estimation is a highly subjective process, none of the agencies reviewed rely on a ridership estimation model to forecast ridership. Even when ridership models are used, the model output often serves as a base estimation that is further refined through professional knowledge of the service area and overall ridership trends. The most common method for estimating ridership is to compare the new service to a similar existing service. Again, local and professional knowledge is used to subjectively develop a “best guess” for a particular new service. Due to the subjectivity inherent in estimating

ridership, the transit agencies reviewed also consider other factors in determining a new service’s success in attracting new ridership. These factors include population and employment densities, major activities centers and destinations served and network connectivity to maximize transfer opportunities and access to and from the new service.

The results of the agency review was useful in supporting the notion of adding qualitative criteria to the new service evaluation, particularly since the measures of productivity used to develop the

quantitative index score are all based on cost and ridership. However, no other “best practice” reviews were conducted on service evaluation processes because, as for ridership estimation, a service

evaluation process will only be applicable in advancing an agency’s goals and objectives if it is developed to reflect the uniqueness of the local service area, including the operational and political environment. Therefore, to ensure applicability through endorsement and approval by the MTD Board and transit operators, the policy revisions were developed according to the following guidelines:

• Apply a collaborative planning process. To ensure that the policy was regionally accepted, and all operator issues were identified and addressed, transit operator input was important throughout the policy revision process. A Policy No. 43 Working Group, comprised of MTDB, transit operator and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) staff, was established to assist in developing and reviewing proposed revisions to the evaluation process for new and enhanced services. Another project group, comprised of MTDB and transit operator staff, was established to develop a Lifeline Service Plan. Both groups were successful in building consensus on staff approval of the proposed policy revisions.

In addition, the Executive Sub-Committee of the full MTD Board was used as a sounding board to help review the various components of the policy revision. By involving MTD Board members in the revision process, and incorporating their recommendations, the final proposed policy revision was widely accepted and approved by the full MTD Board of Directors.

• Ensure that the evaluation results are simple and easily understood. One objective of developing the original evaluation process for new and enhanced services was to ensure that the evaluation results would be simple and easily understood. This objective was achieved with the development of the index score methodology. Simplifying the evaluation results provided the MTD Board with a more easily understood and clearer interpretation of the overall benefits of each service proposal, resulting

(6)

in very little disagreement over proposal prioritization. Therefore, one objective of the revised evaluation process for new and enhanced services was to maintain this simplicity and clarity in evaluation.

Following these guidelines, MTDB revised the evaluation process for new and enhanced services, and developed criteria for a Lifeline Service Plan. On April 25, 2002, the MTD Board of Directors approved the revisions to Policy No. 435, as detailed in the next section of this paper.

3: POLICY REVISIONS

The revisions made to Policy No. 43 in April 2002 addressed the areas identified for improvement, as follows:

Evaluation of New and Enhanced Services

As discussed, the original quantitative process for evaluating new and enhanced services

incorporated the use of an index score that reflected the productivity of each service proposal relative to the average productivity of similar services in its service category. The three performance measures used to calculate the index score included: (1) Passengers per Revenue Mile; (2) Passengers per Revenue Hour; and (3) Subsidy per Passenger. The ratio of a new service’s performance compared to the average of its service category was calculated for each of the performance measures. These scores were then averaged into one overall quantitative index score for each service proposal, which was then used to prioritize the proposals for implementation.

Although this quantitative evaluation process provided a clear and objective evaluation of new and enhanced services based on productivity, it did not consider other qualitative merits of the service proposals. Since some of these qualitative merits may be counter to productivity, such as improving the quality of existing services by proposing higher frequencies on a currently crowded route, ignoring these additional benefits resulted in a bias towards improving the productivity of the transit system and away from other equally important goals such as improving the quality of service or supporting regional transportation initiatives. Introducing a qualitative component to the evaluation process for new and enhanced services allowed MTDB to consider broader transportation goals and objectives when developing the transit system.

Through the collaborative approach, the MTD Board was asked to provide input into the development of a process for evaluating the qualitative merits of new and enhanced services. This process resulted in two requests:

• Ensure that service proposals prioritized for implementation meet a minimum level of productivity. This criteria would reduce the possibility of implementing potentially low performing services, resulting in the inefficient use of transit resources; and

• Reflect the qualitative evaluation results using quantitative methods to reduce the subjectivity involved in evaluating qualitative merits.

Based on the MTD Board direction, the Policy No. 43 Working Group revised the process for evaluating new and enhanced services as follows:

Develop Qualitative Evaluation Process

The group identified three measures to help gauge the qualitative merits of each service proposal, including: (1) Transit Supportive Land Use; (2) Support of Regional Transportation Priorities; and (3) Improving Quality of Service. Each of these qualitative measures is defined below along with a description of their evaluation criteria.

(7)

• Transit Supportive Land Uses. Three criteria are used to help evaluate the Transit Supportive Land Use measure, including: (1) Population and employment densities; (2) Service to major activity centers; and (3) Pedestrian orientation/integration of transit.

Guidelines were developed for each criterion to help quantify the scoring, as follows:

o Population/Employment Densities. Population and employment densities within one quarter mile of a service proposal are calculated. Services are then ranked based on the average densities per mile. A ratio score is calculated for each proposal based the proposal’s density relative to the range of densities of all proposals (e.g. the lowest density determines the bottom of the scoring scale “0.00”, while the highest density determines the top of the scoring scale “1.00”).

o Serves Major Activity Center. SANDAG, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for San Diego County, identifies nine major types of activity centers in the San Diego Region, including: (1) Major Private Employers (500 or more persons onsite); (2) Office Buildings (25,000 sq. ft. or more); (3) Industrial Parks (100,000 sq. ft. or more at a single site); (4) Government Centers (all city halls and school sites, and others with 50 or more employees); (5) Shopping Centers (75,000 sq. ft. or more of retail space); (6) Hospitals (all major hospitals in the County); (7) Major Attractors (tourist attractions and major hotels with 200 or more rooms and 100 or more employees); (8) Colleges and Universities (major public and private colleges); and (9) Public Schools (including K – 12 elementary, middle, and high schools). Major activity centers per mile within one quarter mile of the service are calculated. A ratio score is calculated for each proposal based the number of activity centers served by the proposal relative to the range in number of activity centers served (e.g. the lowest number of activity centers served determines the bottom of the scoring scale “0.00”, while the highest number of activity centers served determines the top of the scoring scale “1.00”). o Pedestrian Orientation/Integration of Transit. Three design characteristics were identified to

characterize transit supportive land uses that create a pedestrian-friendly environment. These characteristics include: (1) Interconnected street networks with minimal building setbacks from sidewalks; (2) Transit integration into community and transit priority measures; and (3) Friendly pedestrian access with mixed-use facilities that promote walking. Service proposals receive one point for each criterion met, up to three points, and the total number of points is converted to a ratio to calculate a single Transit Supportive Land Uses index score (e.g. 1 point equals a score of 0.33, 2 points equals a score of 0.67 and 3 points equals a score of 1.00).

• Regional Transportation Priorities. Service proposals receive one point for each of the three regional transportation priorities served, including: (1) Support of Transit First (MTDB’s strategic plan); (2) Support of major capital investments such as light rail lines, transit centers, and exclusive bus facilities; and (3) Serves one or more congested corridors/areas identified by the SANDAG’s

Congestion Management Program6. The total number of points is converted to a ratio to calculate a single Regional Transportation Priorities index score (e.g. 1 point equals a score of 0.33, 2 points equals a score of 0.67 and 3 points equals a score of 1.00).

• Quality of Service. Service proposals receive one point for each of the three quality of service issues served, including: (1) Operator priority; (2) Schedule adherence; and (3) Reduce overcrowding. The total number of points is converted to a ratio to calculate a single Quality of Service index score (e.g. 1 point equals a score of 0.33, 2 points equals a score of 0.67 and 3 points equals a score of 1.00). To reduce subjectivity inherent in any qualitative process, the Policy No 43 Working Group

collectively evaluates service proposals using each of the qualitative performance measures. In addition, the numeric scoring scale allows quantification of the qualitative benefits.

The scores for each of the three qualitative performance measures are compared to the averages of all proposals, and averaged together to calculate an overall qualitative evaluation index score for each proposal. Similar to the quantitative evaluation, the index score represents the relative qualitative benefit

(8)

of the proposal compared to the average benefit of all proposals. The results of the qualitative evaluation are reviewed and approved by the Executive Sub-committee of the MTD Board.

Combine Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation

Once the qualitative evaluation process was established, it was incorporated into the existing quantitative evaluation process, as follows. This process is outlined in Figure 1.

Step 1: Service proposals are evaluated through the existing quantitative evaluation process to determine their relative productivity.

Step 2: Service proposals demonstrating a quantitative index score of 0.50 (50 percent of the average productivity within their service category) or higher are evaluated through the qualitative evaluation process. Service proposals scoring less than 0.50 in the quantitative evaluation are no longer evaluated, ensuring that new and enhanced services meet a minimum level of productivity.

Step 3: The quantitative and qualitative index scores are normalized to ensure equal weighting (i.e. a 1.00 quantitative index score has the same level of importance as 1.00 qualitative index score.), and averaged together to develop a final combined index score for each proposal. These evaluation results are included in the annual Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update for MTD Board approval.

MTD Board Investment Strategy

One of the objectives of the policy revision was to allow flexibility in the prioritization of service proposals for implementation. This flexibility allows the evaluation process to adjust to changes in operating environment and MTDB goals and objectives. Therefore, the revised evaluation process requires that the MTD Board adopt an investment strategy during the annual budget development process. For example, the MTD Board may decided to focus its investment on improving the quality of the existing services, or to invest in new and enhanced routes in areas with a high degree of transit supportive land use.

This investment strategy is used to help weight the importance of the quantitative evaluation versus the qualitative evaluation, as well as the importance of each criterion within the overall qualitative index score. The service proposals are then re-evaluated using the weights assigned to the quantitative and qualitative criteria to develop a prioritized list of service proposals that reflect the investment strategy of the MTD Board. With this revision, the process for evaluating new and enhanced services continues as follows:

Step 4: The MTD Board adopts an investment strategy to provide policy direction on: (1) The importance of each qualitative criteria within the final index score; (2) The importance of the qualitative vs. quantitative evaluation; and (3) The overall service improvement strategy (e.g. develop new services vs. improve existing)

Step 5: Re-evaluate the service proposals based on the MTD Board adopted investment strategy. Prioritize service proposals based on the new index scores.

Step 6: Develop three investment packages, based on available funding, for the MTD Board to consider, including:

Overall Index Score. This package represents the highest overall-ranked service proposals that can be implemented within the funding availability, regardless of the adopted service improvement strategy.

(9)

Service Investment Strategy. This package represents the highest overall-ranked service proposals consistent with the adopted service improvements strategy and within the funding availability.

Operator Staff Recommendations. Due to the uniqueness of each service proposal, the “local knowledge” of the Policy No. 43 Working Group will help to further interpret the evaluation results. This additional intelligence will be used to develop a service investment package that is both consistent with the MTD Board adopted investment strategy, and represents a

conscious effort to maximize the benefits of limited funding. The investment package will be developed through a collaborative effort, ensuring a regional perspective.

The MTD Board adopts an investment package to implement during the upcoming fiscal year. Step 7: Implement the adopted investment package as part of regularly scheduled service changes in

January, June and September.

Table 2 provides an example of the combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation for new and enhanced services.

Lifeline Service Plan

The original Policy No. 43 adopted by the MTD Board in 1993 included a process for reducing service in the event of fiscal constraints. The intent of the lifeline service provision was to ensure that a minimum “lifeline” level of transit service would be maintained throughout the MTDB area when service reductions are required. The process of reducing service was based on route level analysis, targeting unproductive components of each route to eliminate (e.g. late night and weekend service, and poor performing geographic segments).

Although eliminating unproductive segments of routes is sufficient for achieving minor subsidy reductions, a more systemwide level of service and operational adjustments is necessary when major subsidy reductions are required. Therefore, the lifeline service provision was revised to include criteria for developing a Lifeline Service Plan (LSP) that provides a policy framework for operations budgeting and service provision in years of major fiscal constraints, and establishes a “footprint” of minimum geographic coverage of MTS services that would be retained in the event of major service reductions.

The original Policy No. 43 provided a basis for the development of the LSP by defining the lifeline transit system as geographic route segments:

1. that are no closer than one-half mile from each other; and

2. have less than twice the average subsidy per passenger (based on weekday fixed-route services). Three issues were uncovered while applying these criteria to the development of the LSP that relate to the equity of geographic coverage versus productivity of route segments.

• Segment Spacing. The original criteria stated that route segments should be no closer than one-half mile. However, this criterion does not account for the differences in densities of potential markets (e.g., population, employment, and ridership). Therefore, the project team determined and MTD Board approved that areas with higher ridership potential, as measured by population, employment, and major activity centers, should maintain a closer segment spacing, while areas with lower ridership potential should maintain a segment spacing no closer than one-half mile.

• Route Productivity. Although the original criteria stated that no route segment requiring more than twice the average subsidy should be included in the LSP, there was no discussion on highly

(10)

it is within one-half mile of another segment? Since service productivity is even more crucial during times of fiscal constraints, the project team determined and MTD Board approved that route segments that are closer than one-half mile should be included as part of the LSP if they are

productive, as measured by Policy No. 43 and bus stop activity, and operate in areas of high ridership potential.

• System Connectivity. To ensure the connectivity of the LSP, the project team determined and MTD Board approved that route segments that serve to connect the system should be included in the LSP, despite other criteria.

To address these issues, the LSP consists of a base network and an enhanced network. Since the primary purpose of the LSP is to ensure that transit coverage is maintained throughout the MTDB area, the base network is developed using the following criteria:

Base System Criteria

1. Segments must be at least a one-half mile distance from other segments AND have a Policy No. 43 quantitative index score of 1.00 or higher; or

2. Segments must be at least a one-half mile distance from other segments AND have a Policy No. 43 quantitative index score from 0.75 to 0.99; AND operate in areas of “medium” densities or serve major activity centers.

Note: Policy No. 43 quantitative index score is a standardized index ranking derived from the average of four productivity measures: subsidy/passenger, passengers/revenue hour,

passengers/revenue mile, and passenger miles/seat mile. An index score of 1.00 denotes that the route is performing at an average productivity. Routes above 1.00 are performing above average, and routes below 1.00 are performing below average.

These criteria ensure that lifeline coverage is provided to all areas of the MTDB jurisdiction, while still maintaining a minimum level of productivity. In addition to the basic lifeline coverage, it is important to maintain an enhanced level of service in areas that demonstrate a greater need for service. Therefore, the base network is augmented by an enhanced network, as defined by the following criteria:

Enhanced System Criteria

1. Segments should have a Policy No. 43 index score of 0.75 or higher; AND

2. Segments should include stops with activity equal or greater than 100 passengers per day; AND 3. Segments should operate in employment and/or population densities considered “high” or “very high”

or serve major activity centers.

These criteria ensure that the LSP serves the geographic areas with the highest proven and potential ridership, increasing the productivity of the overall system, and minimizing the subsidy per passenger. Route segments that maintain network connectivity are also included in the LSP, regardless of the criteria listed above. Together, the base and enhanced networks, along with the segments that maintain network connectivity, are combined as the LSP, ensuring that MTDB balances coverage and productivity when considering lifeline service.

4: PRACTICAL APPLICATION AND LESSONS LEARNED

This section provides a discussion on the application of the revised new and enhanced service evaluation process and Lifeline Service Plan during the FY 2003 new service evaluation and budget processes.

(11)

Evaluation of New and Enhanced Services

MTDB’s process for evaluating new and enhanced services begins with the solicitation of service proposals from transit operators in early June of each year. Service proposals submitted in June on one fiscal year (e.g. FY 2003) are considered for implementation in the following fiscal year (e.g. FY 2004) as a result of that year’s (FY 2004) budget adoption. Service proposals are developed from a variety of sources, including existing service evaluation, subregional bus studies, and input from passengers, drivers, community planning groups, and jurisdictional municipalities. In addition, MTDB planners develop proposals based on service monitoring, community contacts, and assessment of service deficiencies throughout the year. Once submitted, all proposals are reviewed and evaluated by MTDB’s service planning staff to ensure that the data and all underlying assumptions are reasonable. Any discrepancies in data or assumptions are resolved between MTDB and the proposing transit operators.

During the FY 2003 process, twenty-seven service proposals were submitted for consideration for FY 2004 implementation. Of these proposals, eight were new services, one was a route extension, 14 were improvements to frequency or span of service and four were additions of new weekend services. A description of these proposals is presented in Table 1.

Following the first step of the revised evaluation process (refer to Figure 1), all service proposals were evaluated using the quantitative criteria to determine each proposal’s quantitative index score. All

proposed services achieved the threshold quantitative index score of .50 or above, so none were eliminated from further evaluation. As expected, the most productive proposals were enhancements to existing urban services. Of the top ten quantitatively ranked services, eight were proposals for frequency or span of service improvements, while two were for adding frequency or new service on weekends. The least productive proposals were generally new routes and routes serving suburban areas

Based on the previous purely quantitative evaluation process, these service proposals would be prioritized based on the quantitative index score, resulting in a bias towards enhancing existing urban services. However, under the revised evaluation process, the service proposals were further evaluated using the qualitative criteria to develop a qualitative index score (Step 2 in Figure 1). Overall, the top five qualitatively ranked service proposals included one new weekend service, three proposals for increases in frequency or span of service, and one new route.

Although the qualitative evaluation still favored service proposals that enhance existing productive services, the qualitative criteria did neutralize the bias towards urban areas, particularly for the Transit Supportive Land Use and Regional Transportation Priority criteria. Services that scored well in transit supportive land use were ones that were proposed for dense areas with many activity centers and destinations, primarily in the older urban areas, but also ones that were proposed to serve large employment centers or new transit oriented residential developments, primarily in the newer suburban areas. In addition, since MTDB is currently developing major transit facilities, primarily located in outlying urban or suburban areas, including a new light rail extension, bus rapid transit stations and a new heavy rail station, services that scored well in the regional priorities criteria either served these new facilities or the established transfer centers within the urban areas, resulting in an even geographic distribution of high scoring services.

By combining the quantitative and qualitative index scores (Step 3 of Figure 1), highly ranked services were proposals that both increased frequency and addressed overcrowding. Services that reflected high in the quantitative evaluation, as a result of high productivity, also tended to serve areas with more urbanized development, generally resulting in a higher qualitative evaluation and ultimately a higher combined evaluation. The quantitative, qualitative and overall combined index scores for each service proposal are presented in Table 2.

At the time of this writing, the MTD Board had not yet approved an investment strategy for FY 2004 (Step 4 of Figure 1). Therefore, the index scores represented in Table 2 are unweighted (i.e. all quantitative and qualitative criteria is weighted equally). Based on these unweighted scores, service

(12)

proposals that rank highly in the quantitative evaluation also ranked highly in the overall evaluation, with the exception of Routes 905 east and 30A, which changed significantly in the rankings. Route 905 provides service between the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro border crossings between the United States and Mexico, via the Iris Avenue Trolley Station. While the western segment of this route serves a fairly dense urban environment, the eastern segment of the route operates through undeveloped industrial parks, primarily to provide access to and from the Otay Mesa border crossing and the Iris Avenue Trolley Station. As a result of this operating environment, the proposal received the lowest score for the transit supportive land use criteria within the qualitative evaluation, lowering the overall score for the service. Conversely, Route 30A provides service from the University of California, San Diego campus and the University Towne Center Shopping Center to downtown San Diego via the highly dense commercial and residential communities of La Jolla and Pacific Beach. As a result of this land use density, the proposal to add weekend service on Route 30A increased in ranking.

Table 3 illustrates the changes in ranking that may result from a Board adopted investment strategy. This example assumes that the MTD Board prioritizes services that operate within transit supportive land uses. While not much variation between the weighted and non-weighted rankings is evident among the higher ranking routes, some of the priorities for lower ranked services changed significantly. Route 864 decreases in ranking from 6 to 14, demonstrating the most significant change. Other significant changes included Route 905 east, decreasing five rankings, and Routes 875 and 916, increasing and decreasing four rankings, respectively. The result of this example support the notion that highly productive services tend to fair well in the quantitative and qualitative evaluation, since these services are expected to demonstrate high ridership and low subsidies because they operate in dense urban environments, provide access to major destinations and are generally high performing routes needing enhancements to the service. However, this example also shows that the revised evaluation process helps to better understand the merits of service proposals that may not rank highly based on traditional measures of productivity, but support other agency and regional goals, such as promoting transit oriented and compact development in the suburbs or better integrating existing services with new transportation facilities.

Adding a qualitative component to the new and enhanced service evaluation process results in a more comprehensive understanding of the merits of each service proposal. While this evaluation process requires considerably more time and staff effort, due to the increased analysis, and building consensus with the Policy No. 43 Working Group and MTD Board Executive Committee, it has proven to be a worthwhile effort. MTDB staff is more confident that the evaluation of new and enhanced services better reflects the current development goals set by the MTD Board and the high ranking services are more evenly distributed between transit operators and throughout the MTDB service area. It is expected that staff time will be minimized in future applications of this process since the supporting reporting and analytical tools will be in place, and the transit operators and MTD Board will be familiar with the process. Lifeline Service Plan

As a result of increasing operating costs and reductions in public operating subsidies, MTDB area operators were faced with a combined operating deficit of $18 million for FY 2003. The MTD Board adopted a strategy to address this funding shortfall using non-recurring revenues and contingency funds, deferral of some capital projects and reduction of service equal to $3.5 million in annualized operating subsidies (operating costs minus fare revenue). Fortunately, the $3.5 million service reduction target was achieved through improved operational efficiencies (e.g. interlining, renegotiated operating contracts, etc.), the discontinuation of duplicative services, replacement of non-productive services with more productive services and the elimination of some early morning and late night fixed route trips that demonstrate low ridership. Although the LSP was consulted to ensure that lifeline coverage was maintained, the relatively minor reductions did not impact the overall structure of the transit network. However, the LSP will play a more prominent role in protecting lifeline service should continuing budget deficits require MTDB to achieve substantive subsidy savings through systemwide overhauling and restructuring of the MTS.

(13)

As with the 2000 revision, MTDB learned that working through a collaborative process with transit operator staff and MTD Board members is crucial to the development and approval of policy revisions related to service planning and development. The 2002 revision of Policy No. 43 provides MTDB with a tool for evaluating existing and new services that addresses all transit operator concerns, and reflects the opportunities and constraints of the changing fiscal and operating environments. The process for

evaluating new and enhanced services provides a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits of each service proposal, while the Lifeline Service Plan provides a framework for service reductions. These two components of the policy, along with the process for evaluating existing services allows MTDB to efficiently and effectively adjust its service to meet the needs of its passengers.

(14)

FIGURE 1

PROPOSED NEW AND ENHANCED SERVICE EVALUATION PROCESS

1. Quantitative Evaluation based on criteria including:

(1) Passengers/Mile, (2) Passengers/Hour, (3) Subsidy/Passenger

Board

Approval

2. Qualitative Evaluation based on criteria including:

(1) Supportive Land Use, (2) Regional Priorities, (3) Service Quality

3. (1) Normalize the Qualitative and Quantitative index rating scales

to ensure equal weighting (a 1.00 qualitative score has the same

importance as a 1.00 quantitative score), (2) Average the

normalized Qualitative and Quantitative index scores to develop an

overall index score for each proposal, (3) Include evaluation results

in the Short Range Transit Plan for MTD Board adoption.

At this point, the three qualitative criteria AND

the qualitative and quantitative scores are weighted equal

4. Board adopts Investment Strategy to provide policy direction on:

• The importance of each qualitative criteria within the final score;

• The importance of qualitative vs. quantitative criteria;

•

Overall service improvement strategy (develop new services vs.

improve existing)

5. Rank proposals based on adopted investment strategy by

weighting each qualitative criteria based on Board direction to

develop a weighted qualitative index score, and weighting the

qualitative and quantitative scores based on Board direction to

develop a weighted overall index score.

At this point, the three qualitative criteria AND the qualitative and

quantitative scores are weighted based on Board direction

Board

Input

6. Develop service investment packages for Board consideration and

approval based on:

• Overall index score;

• Service improvement strategy and overall index score; and

• Operator staff recommendation consistent with adopted investment

strategy.

Operator

and Board

Input, and

Board

Approval

Operator

Input and

EC

Approval

(15)

Service

Type Route Service Proposal Description

Annual Subsidy Route

Extension 875 Extend route to College Grove Shopping Center (:30-minute frequency) $169,744

30A Add new weekeend summer service (:30-minute frequency) $111,696

905 West Add new weekend service from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM (:30-minute frequency) From San Ysidro to Iris

Avenue Trolley Station $26,717

707 Weekend New routing to serve new developments. Hour frequency Saturdays $5,710

851 Add new weekend service (10-trips) Saturdays only. $23,664

Bayview Shuttle Add :30 minute frequency peak hour express service From Bayview Naval housing to 32nds St $146,490 Cabrillo Shuttle Add :30 minute frequency peak hour express service. From Cabrillo Naval housing to 32nds St $142,740 Chesterson Shuttle Add :30 minute frequency peak hour express service. From Chesterson Naval housing to 32nd St. $143,490 Murphy Canyon shuttle Add :30 minute frequency peak hour express service. From Murphy Canyon Naval housing to NASNI $143,490

707 Weekday New routing to serve new developments. Hour frequency weekdays $28,841

711A New routing to serve Roling Hills Ranch and Eastlake (weekdays) :45-minute frequency $197,155 712A New fixed route through Otay Ranch (limited stop express) :60 minute frequency during peak hours. $100,215 CV/UTC/OTTC Add peak hour express bus service from Carmel Valley/Sorrento Valley Coaster/UTC and Old Town Tranit

Center (:30-minute frequency) $494,496

905 East Add to later AM, 2 earlier PM, and 4 later PM trips weekdays. From Otay Mesa to Iris Avenue Trolley $32,044

41 Add 8 PM peak trips to increase peak hour frequency to :15-minutes $30,294

932 North Add 15-minute frequency weekdays 10 AM - 6 PM. From E Street/Bayfront to Downtown SD $40,888

901 Add 15-minute frequency weekdays 9 AM to 12 PM $114,686

932 South Add 15-minute frequency weekends. From San Ysidro to E Street/Bayfront. $33,264

34 Reinstate weekend summer supplemental service $21,867

916 Increase frequency to :30-minutes on weekdays $56,114

933/934 Add peak trips to weekday service (:10-minute frequency) $55,202

936 Add :15-minute frequency weekdays between 6 AM - 9 AM and 2 PM - 6 PM $185,579

601 Increase route frequency to :20-minutes $119,207

602 Increase route frequency to :30-minutes $122,767

603 Add Sunday service (:30-minute frequency_ $19,310

858 Frequency increase from :60 minutes to :30 minutes - (Weekends & Holidays only) $19,302 864 Frequency increase from :60 minutes to :30 minutes - (Weekends & Holidays only) $102,030

TABLE 1

New

Weekend Service

New Fixed Route

Frequency/Span of Service

Improvement

(16)

Route Quantitative Qualitative Combined Quantitative Qualitative Combined

933/934 Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 1.00 0.76 0.88 1 2 1

41 Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.89 0.72 0.80 2 5 2

30A New Weekend Service 0.57 1.00 0.79 10 1 3

932 south Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.68 0.75 0.72 7 3 4

932 north Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.85 0.50 0.68 3 14 5

905 west New Weekend Service 0.71 0.50 0.60 5 15 10

707 weekday New Service 0.54 0.52 0.53 12 13 12

707 weekend New Weekend Service 0.44 0.52 0.48 17 12 14

905 east Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.80 0.02 0.41 4 26 17

CV/UTC/OTTC New Service 0.00 0.73 0.36 27 4 18

712A New Service 0.14 0.43 0.29 25 16 19

Chesterson Shuttle New Service 0.26 0.21 0.24 20 20 20

875 Route Extension 0.16 0.30 0.23 24 18 22

Cabrillo Shuttle New Service 0.28 0.10 0.19 19 23 23

Murphy Canyon New Service 0.26 0.09 0.18 21 25 24

851 New Weekend Service 0.18 0.10 0.14 23 24 25

Bayview Shuttle New Service 0.18 0.00 0.09 22 27 26

711A New Service 0.01 0.11 0.06 26 22 27

* Normalized and unweighted index scores

RANKINGS INDEX SCORES*

TABLE 2

Proposal Type

(17)

Sup Land Use Reg. Priorities Quality Svc. Qualitative Quantitative Total

50% 25% 25% 75% 25% 100%

Non Weighted Weighted Route Proposal Type Qualitative Quantitative Combined

3 1 30A New Weekend Service 1.00 0.57 0.89

1 2 933/934 Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.67 1.00 0.75

5 3 932 north Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.64 0.85 0.70

2 4 41 Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.62 0.89 0.69

4 5 932 south Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment 0.67 0.68 0.67

10 9 905 west New Weekend Service 0.48 0.71 0.54

12 10 707 weekday New Service 0.51 0.54 0.52

14 12 707 weekend New Weekend Service 0.51 0.44 0.49

18 15 CV/UTC/OTTC New Service 0.63 0.00 0.48

19 17 712A New Service 0.39 0.14 0.33

22 18 875 Route Extension 0.37 0.16 0.32

20 20 Chesterson Shuttle New Service 0.25 0.26 0.25

17 22 905 east Frequency/Span of Service Ajustment -0.01 0.80 0.19

23 23 Cabrillo Shuttle New Service 0.10 0.28 0.15

26 24 Bayview Shuttle New Service 0.12 0.18 0.14

24 25 Murphy Canyon New Service 0.09 0.26 0.14

25 26 851 New Weekend Service 0.10 0.18 0.12

27 27 711A New Service 0.12 0.01 0.09

Weighted Index Scores TABLE 3

WEIGHTED EVALUATION RESULTS

Qualitative Criteria Weighting Quantitative/Qualitative Weightings

(18)

REFERENCES

1

State of California, Department of Finance. Population Estimates. December 2001. 2

Metropolitan Transit Development Board. Adopted FY 2003 Operating Budget, Appendix E. Approved August 2002.

3

Metropolitan Transit Development Board Policies and Procedures No. 43: Service Management Process. Approved April 8, 1993.

4

Metropolitan Transit Development Board Policies and Procedures No. 43: New and Existing Service Evaluation. Revised and approved December 14, 2000.

5

Metropolitan Transit Development Board Policies and Procedures No. 43: New and Existing Service Evaluation. Revised and approved April 25, 2002.

6

San Diego Association of Governments. 2002 Regional Transportation Plan. Chapter 8, 1999 Congestion Management Program. Updated April 2000.