TCRP Report 141 (Project G-11) A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry And Benchmarking Public Transportation Systems in Texas 2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting Linda Cherrington Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System

TCRP G-11 Project Purpose Develop and test a methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison for: –All fixed-route components of a public transit system –Motorbus (MB) mode specifically –Major rail modes specifically Provide guidance on applying performance measurement and peer comparison to: –Improve public transit agency operations –Demonstrate public transit ’ s ability to meet local or regional transportation goals This presentation highlights key findings and products from the project

Research Team Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at University of South Florida Nakanishi Research & Consulting Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International University

Desired Methodology Attributes Robust Practical Transparent Uniform Innovative Adaptable Accessible Updateable Build upon TCRP G-6 work TCRP Report 88 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System

Research Steps Literature review & agency experience Identify comparison factors, performance measures Develop initial methodology Small-scale test, revise methodology –Agencies chose topic and reviewed results, researchers applied method –10 transit agencies, 5 state DOTs, Chicago RTA Large-scale test, revise methodology –Agencies chose topic, applied method, reviewed results –19 transit agencies, 2 state DOTs, Chicago RTA

Definition of ”Benchmarking” “The continuous process of measuring products, services, and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognized as industry leaders.” –David Kearns, Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation “The search for industry best practices.” –Robert C. Camp, Best Practice Institute. “A process of comparing the performance and process characteristics between two or more organizations in order to learn how to improve.” –Gregory Watson, former Vice President of Quality, Xerox Corp.

Levels of Benchmarking Adapted from European EQUIP benchmarking project Level 1: Trend analysis Level 2: Peer comparison Level 3: Agency contact Level 4: Benchmarking networks

TCRP Report 141 Benchmarking Methodology

Performance Measure Selection TCRP Report 141 provides guidance on National Transit Database (NTD)-derivable and other commonly used measures, linked to particular topics or applications –Outcome measures that measure results –Descriptive measures that provide clues as to why the results turned out the way they did TCRP Report 88 provides an expanded library of measures that can also be considered for benchmarking network applications

Peer Grouping Process Methodology seeks to find agencies with similar characteristics Methodology produces a ”likeness score” that indicates how similar or dissimilar two agencies are, and provides guidance on how to interpret the likeness score Ideally, use 8–10 agencies with the smallest likeness scores as the peer group –Fewer peers may be used when likeness scores are out of the desirable range, but use at least 4 peers at a minimum

Peer Grouping Factors Service characteristics –Modes operated (NTD) –Service area type (G-11) –Percent service purchased (NTD) –Percent service demand-response (NTD) –Vehicle-miles operated (NTD) –Annual operating budget (NTD) Regional characteristics – Urban area population (Census) – Population growth (Census) – Population density (Census) – State capital (G-11) – Percent college students (Census) – Percent low-income (Census) – Roadway delay (TTI) – Freeway lane-miles (TTI) – Distance (G-11) Many other factors considered and tested during project These factors provided the best differentiation between potential peers, and peer groupings that were the most acceptable to agencies participating in the research tests

Software Tool Peer-grouping methodology has been incorporated into the online Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) tool –Available now –Sponsored by the Florida DOT, but provides access to the full NTD, plus data added by the TCRP G-11 project Requires a free, one-time registration at Testing during the G-11 project found that users were able to learn about the methodology, learn how to use the tool, and perform their first analysis with 16 person-hours of work or less –Subsequent analyses can be performed very quickly

Software Tool Identify peer groups for specific modes or agency as a whole

Software Tool Retrieve NTD-based measures for the peer group

Software Tool Analyze data within FTIS or export to a spreadsheet

Software Tool Investigate performance results

Published as TCRP Report Research Results

Benchmarking and Improving Texas Rural and Small Urban Public Transportation Systems Texas Department of Transportation Research Project 6205

Overview of Project Establishing peer groups (rural and state-funded urban) ▫38 rural transit districts ▫30 eligible state-funded urban transit districts* Examining effectiveness and efficiency by peer group Identifying strategies to improve performance (transferable best practices) * Does not include transit authorities in urban areas >200,0000

20 State Transit Funds 35% Eligible Urban Providers 65% Rural Providers 50% Needs 50% Performance 65% Needs 35% Performance 75% population 25% land area 100% population Transit Funding Formula

21 Performance Measures Urban Performance Revenue miles/ Operating expenses Passengers/ Revenue miles Local investment/ Operating expense Passengers/ Population for urbanized area Rural Performance Revenue miles/ Operating expenses Passengers/ Revenue miles Locally investment/ Operating expense

Peer Grouping Environmental Data Population Service area size Service area density Percent of service area population that is age 65 or older Percent of households with zero automobiles Percent of population below poverty level Percent of population ages 21 to 64 that are disabled

Urban Peer Groups (4)

Rural Peer Groups (5)

Peer Group Effectiveness and Efficiency

Determining High Performers - Urban 1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean

Determining High Performers – Rural 1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean

Benchmarking Strategies to Improve Performance Strategies to grow ridership and improve effectiveness Efforts to manage cost to improve efficiency Initiatives to maximize service and labor productivity Projects to improve management processes

Why Peer Comparison and Benchmarking? Informally, “the practice of being humble enough to admit that someone else is better at something and wise enough to try to learn how to match, and even surpass, them at it.” –American Productivity & Quality Center

Questions? Linda Cherrington ext 15140