Muni Performance and System Needs

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee

5 | 28 | 2013 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

SFMTA Municipal Transportation Agency Image: Historic Car number 1 and 162 on Embarcadero

Who We Are

3

Performance Metric Areas

The SFMTA measures Muni service in the following key areas:

A. Overall Performance

B. Maintenance

C. Vehicle Availability

D. Labor

E. Service Disruptions

4

How are we doing?Performance Metric FY 2013 To Date April 2013 April 2012

On-Time Performance 58.7% 61.3% 60.5%

Gaps 19.1% 15.9% 20.5%

Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered 96.6% 99.2% 95.1%

Bus Crowding (over 100% capacity)

7.7% (AM inbound) 7.0% (AM inbound) 5.9% (AM inbound)7.7% (PM outbound) 7.6% (PM outbound) 8.2% (PM outbound)

Vehicle Availability(Percentage of Weekdays with Sufficient Vehicles to Deliver Scheduled Peak Service)

100.0% (Motor Coach) 100.0% (Motor Coach)100.0% (Motor Coach)64.0% (Trolley Coach) 50.0% (Trolley Coach) 66.7% (Trolley Coach)

33.1% (Train) 9.1% (Train) 9.5% (Train)

Mean Distance Between Failure (MDBF)4,602 (Motor Coach)1,892 (Trolley Coach)

3,796 (Train)

5,064 (Motor Coach) 6,749 (Motor Coach)1,578 (Trolley Coach)

3,765 (Train)1,917 (Trolley Coach)

3,655 (Train)

Average Daily Hold Count (Vehicles unavailable for revenue service)

181 189 195

Line delays (over 10 minutes)

216 200 242

Estimated Customer Delay Hours N/A

151,263 (Maintenance-related)

20,932 (Other Operations-

related)

N/A

Better than last year Worse than last year

Muni Today

5

What affects Muni’s Performance Today? • Under-investment in the system

– Aging fleet and infrastructure– Outdated technology

• Insufficient operator, maintenance, and supervision staffing– Not filling scheduled service– Crowded vehicles– Longer customer waits

• Operating in mixed flow traffic– Delays, service gaps, slow speeds

Muni Today

Crowding

Crowding

Traffic Delays

6

• Reducing travel times– All-Door Boarding – J Church priority lanes

• Increasing system efficiency– Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) – Customer First initiatives

• Supervision– Line Management Center– Use of modern technology

• Schedules– More frequent and demand-based schedule

adjustments

Initiatives to Improve Performance

All Door Boarding

Dynamic Supervision

Scheduling Efficiencies

Transit Only Lanes

Muni Today

7

Initiatives to Improve Performance • Realignment of capital program to address

aging Transit fleet and infrastructure

• Fleet and infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement– Bus fleet replaced in next five years– Rail replacements (Duboce, Sunset, etc.)

• Focus on maintenance– More comprehensive preventive

maintenance– Targeted component rehabilitation

• Reduced subway delays– Replacing worn infrastructure– Clearing disabled trains faster

Reduce Subway Delays

Fleet Replacement

Muni Today

Infrastructure Rehabilitation

8

Improving Customer Communications

• Communications – Real-time customer communication via Twitter,

NextBus and audio announcements– New website

• Customer Outreach – Rider alerts– New subway signage and audio system– Pilot electronic signage

Improved Communications

Muni Today

9

Investment Needed to Meet Today’s Needs• The SFMTA faces a $320M annual structural budget deficit

– $70M in unfunded operating needs ($50M for transit alone)– $260M in State of Good Repair needs

• Decades of under-investment have contributed to a system that does not meet Proposition E standards

Muni Today

• Service levels have not kept up with recent population growth

• Quality of service compromised

10

Transit System – State of Good Repair • The SFMTA has total assets

of $12.35 billion• Assets classified as

“Transit Service Dependent”

– Assets that directly impact the provision of transit services; reduce day-to-day maintenance and/or operating costs

– Total Transit Service Dependent Assets = $6.69 billion

– Deferrals = $680 million as of 2010

Muni Today

ASSET CLASS TOTAL VALUE

%Deferred

2010

Light Rail Vehicles

$1,006 M 2%

Motor Coach Vehicles

$1,168 M 5%

Train Control and Communications

$876 M 11%

Trolley Coach Vehicles

$742 M 17%

Overhead Lines $2,177 M 17%

Track/Rail $724 M 22%

TOTAL $6,693 M

10%

People = 920,230(+15%)

Jobs = 625,000(+25%)

Source: SF City Planning

City’s 2035 Population & Job Growth Requires More Transit

11

Muni Tomorrow

2010 2018 Goal

61% auto/39% non-auto 50% auto/50% non-auto

Quality of Life Depends on Mode Shifts to Sustainable Transportation

Muni Tomorrow

13

Residents Make Choices Based on the Quality of the Transportation System

• Where to Live?

• Where to Work?

• Where to Shop?

• How to Travel?

• Willingness to pay for housing?

Muni Tomorrow

14

“Quality” Means Different Things

Poor quality transportation reduces the quality of life in San Francisco

Quality

Speed

Cost of Time

Comfort

Enjoyment

Travel Productivity

Access to jobs and shopping

Out-of-Pocket Costs

Reliability

Muni’s Economic Value

15

Economic Impacts of Low Quality Transportation

• Higher Labor Costs• Lower Property Values

Lower Quality of

Life for Residents

• Less Access to Skills• Higher Labor Costs• Weaker

Competitiveness

Smaller Labor Pool

for Businesses

Muni’s Economic Value

16

Muni Delays, April 2013:Impact on Commuters

• 86,000 customer-hours* lost in peak-hour delays due to maintenance or other Muni-related reason.

• Increased commute time for San Franciscans by 1.5%

• Caused economic loss of $4.2 million ($50 million** annualized), due to higher costs and lower competitiveness.

* Total customer-hours in peak period estimated at 1,900,000

** Excludes the impacts of reduced shopping access and off-peak delays

Muni’s Economic Value

17

Implications

• Reducing transit delays creates economic benefits.

• Improving transit performance can create additional economic benefits.

• Investment in Muni and other city transportation infrastructure can create economic benefits that exceed their cost.

• Economic analysis of these benefits can help identify investments with the greatest potential return on investment.

Muni’s Economic Value

18

Economic impact of delays is estimated at $50 million annually

• With a $50 million recurring annual investment, here are examples of how the SFMTA could improve Muni service:

Additional Funding Yields a Return on Investment

Muni’s Economic Value

Meet service delivery goals

Improve on-time performance

Reduce gaps

Reduce crowding

Improve service frequency

Improve vehicle reliability

Replace 10 trains per year

Increase service by 8%

Rehabilitate 170 buses per year

Replace 64 buses per year

or

or

or

or

19

Questions?

20

Reference Slides

21

Muni Performance Metrics

Performance Metric Methodology

On-Time PerformancePercentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of schedule

GapsPercentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least 5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway

Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered

Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered

Bus Crowding Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load pointMean Distance Between Failure (MDBF)

Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type

Unscheduled Operator Absenteeism

Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or other reasons

Line delaysNumber of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control Log

Est. Customer Delay HoursEstimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a) maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays related to Muni, such as accidents

• The following major performance metrics help illustrate how Muni performance impacts customer service

• In support of Proposition E and the SFMTA Strategic Plan

22

Performance Metrics MethodologyPerformance Metric MethodologyOverall Performance

On-Time PerformancePercentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of schedule

GapsPercentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least 5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway

BunchesPercentage of vehicles passing each timepoint that are within 2 minutes of the previous vehicle on the same route

Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered

Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered

Average speed Vehicle Revenue Miles/Vehicle Revenue Hours

Average weekday ridershipBus - Average ridership by routeRail - Average Muni Metro subway station faregate entries

Bus Crowding Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load pointMaintenance and Vehicle AvailabilityMean Distance Between Failure (MDBF)

Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type

Maintenance Staffing Vehicles per Maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE)

Number of Active VehiclesThe current number of active light rail vehicles, diesel coaches, and electric trolleys available on the property

23

Performance Metric MethodologyMaintenance and Vehicle Availability (continued)Number of Vehicle Breakdowns

Number of breakdowns, as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control Log

Vehicle AvailabilityPercentage of weekdays in which there are sufficient vehicles available to meet scheduled service requirements by vehicle mode

Hold countThe average daily number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of service for all maintenance activities

Long term holdsThe number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of service for over 30 days

Operator AbsenteeismUnscheduled Operator Absenteeism

Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or other reasons

Service Disruptions

Line delaysNumber of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control Log

Estimated Customer Delay Hours

Estimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a) maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays related to Muni, such as accidents

Performance Metrics Methodology

24

Sample ReportMetric Goal FY13 Avg Jul

2012Aug 2012

Sep 2012

Oct 2012

Nov 2012

Dec 2012

Jan 2013

Feb 2013

Mar 2013

Apr 2013

Overall Performance StatisticsPercentage of on-time performance 85% 58.7% 59.0% 55.6% 56.0% 56.6% 58.9% 59.0% 60.5% 59.8% 60.7% 61.3%Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps 19.1% 20.4% 21.4% 20.0% 19.7% 18.1% 20.4% 18.8% 19.1% 17.5% 15.9%Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps on Rapid Network 13.9% 17.7% 19.1% 20.3% 19.1% 18.8% 17.0% 18.6% 16.6% 17.0% 15.7% 15.2%Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching 4.9% 4.8% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6% 4.8%Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching on Rapid Network

5.3% 7.0% 7.0% 8.0% 7.7% 7.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.3% 6.5% 6.6% 6.9%

Average Number of Missed RunsPercentage of service delivered 98.5% 96.6% 95.3% 94.0% 95.7% 96.2% 96.7% 96.0% 97.8% 96.7% 98.4% 99.2%Average Muni System Speed (mph)Ridership (rubber tire, average weekday) 495,716 486,497 505,630 517,674 515,379 484,545 500,121 467,267 488,616 -Ridership (Clipper rail station entries, average weekday) 56,151 63,561 63,176Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (8 am hour, inbound) 7.7% 7.5% 7.7% 8.5% 9.4% 7.8% 7.1% 6.6% 7.6% 7.4% 7.0%Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (5 pm hour, outbound) 7.7% 7.7% 10.1% 8.5% 8.9% 6.7% 8.0% 6.4% 5.9% 7.0% 7.6%Maintenance StatisticsMean distance between failure (Motor Coach & Trolley) 3,259 2,877 3,087 2,815 2,877 3,071 3,197 3,631 3,723 4,170 3,712 Mean distance between failure (LRV) 3,796 4,211 3,654 3,657 3,660 3,910 3,167 3,927 4,440 3,984 3,655 Mean distance between failure (Historic) 2,247 2,454 6,566 2,200 2,144 1,990 1,891 1,958 2,316 1,620 2,530 Mean distance between failure (Cable Car) 3,627 4,571 6,202 4,248 2,386 4,244 2,624 2,649 2,811 4,814 5,488 Vehicles per maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE) 0.67 0.67Vehicle Availability StatisticsNumber of active vehicles 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,048 1,048 1,036 1,036 1,036 1,036 1,036 Number of chargeable roadcalls 687 751 702 734 868 692 689 636 548 562Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Motor Coach)

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Trolley) 64.0% 0.0% 60.9% 45.0% 95.7% 95.5% 81.0% 95.7% 40.0% 76.2% 50.0%Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (LRV) 33.1% 40.9% 8.7% 55.0% 47.8% 31.8% 0.0% 30.4% 55.0% 52.4% 9.1%Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Historic) 84.2% 31.8% 30.4% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Cable Car) 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Average daily hold count 181 198 192 204 168 179 179 149 158 189 189Long term (30+ days) holds 85 91 85 90 94 91 84 85 86 94 44Labor StatisticsUnscheduled absence rate by employee group (Transit operators)

8.6% 9.4% 10.5% 9.3% 6.6% 7.0% 9.0% 8.9% 10.3% 8.5% 6.9%

Service Disruption StatisticsLine delays greater than 10 minutes (overall) 216 209 250 197 230 229 222 220 191 207 200Est. Maintenance-Related Customer Delay Hours 88,065 130,849Est. Other Operational-Related Customer Delay Hours 23,241 20,932Est. Economic Impact of Maintenance-Related Delays $1,320,000Est. Economic Impact of Other Operational-Related Delays $349,000

Slow travel times frustrate customers and increase Muni costs

30 minutes

30 minutes

Bus every 10 minutes = = 6.0 => 6 buses + 6 drivers60

10

Bus route…60 min running time

Round Trip Travel Time = 60 minutes

30 minutes

30 minutes

Bus every 10 minutes = = 5 buses + 5 drivers50

10

Remove congestion…reduce time, reduce resources

Round Trip Travel Time = 60 minutes

25

25

50

28

Ridership

29

Ridership