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

Muni Performance and System Needs

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee

5 | 28 | 2013 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Who We Are

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

Muni Today How are we doing?

Performance Metric On-Time Performance Gaps Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered Bus Crowding
(over 100% capacity)

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

Mean Distance Between Failure (MDBF) Average Daily Hold Count

(Vehicles unavailable for revenue service)

FY 2013 To Date April 2013 April 2012 58.7% 61.3% 60.5% 19.1% 15.9% 20.5% 96.6% 99.2% 95.1% 7.7% (AM inbound) 7.0% (AM inbound) 5.9% (AM inbound) 7.7% (PM outbound) 7.6% (PM outbound) 8.2% (PM outbound) 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) 4,602 (Motor Coach) 5,064 (Motor Coach) 6,749 (Motor Coach) 1,892 (Trolley Coach) 1,917 (Trolley Coach) 1,578 (Trolley Coach) 3,796 (Train) 3,765 (Train) 3,655 (Train) 181 216 189 200 151,263
(Maintenance-related)

195 242

Line delays
(over 10 minutes)

Estimated Customer Delay Hours

N/A

20,932
(Other Operationsrelated)

N/A

Better than last year

Worse than last year

Muni Today What affects Munis 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Under-investment in the system Aging fleet and infrastructure Outdated technology Insufficient operator, maintenance, and supervision staffing Not filling scheduled service Crowded vehicles Longer customer waits Operating in mixed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
Traffic Delays
5 Crowding

Crowding

Muni Today Initiatives to Improve Performance

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

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 6 adjustments

Dynamic Supervision

Transit Only Scheduling Efficiencies Lanes

Muni Today 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

Fleet Replacement

Reduced subway delays Replacing worn infrastructure Clearing disabled trains faster

Reduce Subway Delays

Infrastructure Rehabilitation
7

Muni Today 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 Investment Needed to Meet Todays 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

Service levels have not kept up with recent population growth Quality of service compromised

Muni Today 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-today maintenance and/or operating costs Total Transit Service Dependent Assets = $6.69 billion Deferrals = $680 million as of 2010
ASSET CLASS TOTAL VALUE

%
Deferred 2010

Light Rail Vehicles Motor Coach Vehicles Train Control and Communications Trolley Coach Vehicles Overhead Lines Track/Rail

$1,006 M $1,168 M $876 M $742 M $2,177 M $724 M

2% 5% 11% 17% 17% 22% 10%

10

TOTAL

$6,693 M

Muni Tomorrow Citys 2035 Population & Job Growth Requires More Transit
People = 920,230 (+15%) Jobs = 625,000 (+25%)

Source: SF City Planning

11

Muni Tomorrow Quality of Life Depends on Mode Shifts to Sustainable Transportation

2010 2018 Goal

61% auto/39% non-auto

50% auto/50% non-auto

Muni Tomorrow 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?

13

Munis Economic Value Quality Means Different Things

Speed Cost of Time

Reliability
Quality

Comfort Enjoyment Travel Productivity

Out-ofPocket Costs

Access to jobs and shopping

Poor quality transportation reduces the quality of life in 14 San Francisco

Munis Economic Value Economic Impacts of Low Quality Transportation

Lower Quality of Life for Residents Smaller Labor Pool for Businesses
Higher Labor Costs Lower Property Values

Less Access to Skills Higher Labor Costs Weaker Competitiveness

15

Munis Economic Value 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

16

Munis Economic Value 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.

17

Munis Economic Value Additional Funding Yields a Return on Investment

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:

Replace 10 trains per year

or

Increase service by 8%

Meet service delivery goals Improve on-time performance Reduce gaps Reduce crowding

or
Rehabilitate 170 buses per year

or
or
Replace 64 buses per year

Improve service frequency Improve vehicle reliability

18

Questions?

19

Reference Slides

20

Muni Performance Metrics

The following major performance metrics help illustrate how Muni performance impacts customer service In support of Proposition E and the SFMTA Strategic Plan
Performance Metric On-Time Performance Gaps Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered Bus Crowding Mean Distance Between Failure (MDBF) Unscheduled Operator Absenteeism Line delays Est. Customer Delay Hours Methodology Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of schedule Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least 5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load point Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or other reasons Number of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control Log Estimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a) maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays 21 related to Muni, such as accidents

Performance Metrics Methodology

Performance Metric Overall Performance On-Time Performance Gaps Bunches Percentage of Scheduled Service Delivered Average speed Average weekday ridership Bus Crowding Maintenance and Vehicle Availability Mean Distance Between Failure (MDBF) Maintenance Staffing Number of Active Vehicles Methodology Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint within -1/+4 min. of schedule Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint where gaps are at least 5 minutes longer than the route's scheduled headway Percentage of vehicles passing each timepoint that are within 2 minutes of the previous vehicle on the same route Percentage of scheduled runs that are delivered Vehicle Revenue Miles/Vehicle Revenue Hours Bus - Average ridership by route Rail - Average Muni Metro subway station faregate entries Percentage of buses that are over capacity at the maximum load point

Distance between vehicle breakdowns by vehicle type Vehicles per Maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE) The current number of active light rail vehicles, diesel coaches, and electric trolleys available on the property 22

Performance Metrics Methodology

Performance Metric Methodology Maintenance and Vehicle Availability (continued) Number of Vehicle Number of breakdowns, as reported in the SFMTA's Central Control Breakdowns Log Percentage of weekdays in which there are sufficient vehicles available Vehicle Availability to meet scheduled service requirements by vehicle mode The average daily number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of Hold count service for all maintenance activities The number of bus and rail vehicles that are kept out of service for over Long term holds 30 days Operator Absenteeism Unscheduled Operator Unscheduled absence rate for Transit Operators due to sickness or Absenteeism other reasons Service Disruptions Number of line delays (at least 10 minutes long) as reported in the Line delays SFMTA's Central Control Log Estimated number of customer-hours of delay resulting from (a) Estimated Customer Delay maintenance-related line delays and (b) non-maintenance line delays Hours related to Muni, such as accidents

23

Sample Report
Metric
Overall Performance Statistics Percentage of on-time performance Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps Percentage of transit trips with + 5 min gaps on Rapid Network Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching Percentage of transit trips with <2 min bunching on Rapid Network Average Number of Missed Runs Percentage of service delivered Average Muni System Speed (mph) Ridership (rubber tire, average weekday) Ridership (Clipper rail station entries, average weekday) Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (8 am hour, inbound) Percentage of bus trips beyond capacity (5 pm hour, outbound) Maintenance Statistics Mean distance between failure (Motor Coach & Trolley) Mean distance between failure (LRV) Mean distance between failure (Historic) Mean distance between failure (Cable Car) Vehicles per maintenance employee full-time equivalent (FTE) Vehicle Availability Statistics

Goal

FY13 Avg

Jul 2012 59.0% 20.4% 19.1% 4.8% 7.0% 95.3%

Aug 2012 55.6% 21.4% 20.3% 5.6% 8.0% 94.0%

Sep 2012 56.0% 20.0% 19.1% 5.5% 7.7% 95.7%

Oct 2012 56.6% 19.7% 18.8% 5.4% 7.6% 96.2%

Nov 2012 58.9% 18.1% 17.0% 4.6% 6.5% 96.7%

Dec 2012 59.0% 20.4% 18.6% 4.6% 6.5% 96.0%

Jan 2013 60.5% 18.8% 16.6% 4.5% 6.3% 97.8%

Feb 2013 59.8% 19.1% 17.0% 4.6% 6.5% 96.7%

Mar 2013 60.7% 17.5% 15.7% 4.6% 6.6% 98.4% 63,176 7.4% 7.0% 4,170 3,984 1,620 4,814 0.67 1,036 562 100.0% 76.2% 52.4% 100.0% 100.0% 189 94 8.5%

Apr 2013 61.3% 15.9% 15.2% 4.8% 6.9% 99.2%

85% 13.9% 5.3% 98.5%

58.7% 19.1% 17.7% 4.9%

7.0%

96.6% 495,716 7.7% 7.7% 3,259 3,796 2,247 3,627

486,497 505,630 517,674 515,379 484,545 7.5% 7.7% 2,877 4,211 2,454 4,571 7.7% 10.1% 3,087 3,654 6,566 6,202 8.5% 8.5% 2,815 3,657 2,200 4,248 9.4% 8.9% 2,877 3,660 2,144 2,386 7.8% 6.7% 3,071 3,910 1,990 4,244

500,121 467,267 488,616 56,151 63,561 7.1% 6.6% 7.6% 8.0% 6.4% 5.9% 3,197 3,167 1,891 2,624 3,631 3,927 1,958 2,649 3,723 4,440 2,316 2,811

7.0% 7.6% 3,712 3,655 2,530 5,488 0.67 1,036 100.0% 50.0% 9.1% 100.0% 100.0% 189 44 6.9%

Number of active vehicles Number of chargeable roadcalls Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Motor Coach) Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Trolley) Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (LRV) Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Historic) Percentage of weekdays with sufficient vehicles (Cable Car) Average daily hold count Long term (30+ days) holds
Labor Statistics Unscheduled absence rate by employee group (Transit operators) Service Disruption Statistics

1,050 687 100.0% 64.0% 33.1% 84.2% 99.0% 181 85 8.6%

1,050 751 100.0% 0.0% 40.9% 31.8% 100.0% 198 91 9.4%

1,050 702 100.0% 60.9% 8.7% 30.4% 100.0% 192 85 10.5%

1,050 734 100.0% 45.0% 55.0% 80.0% 95.0% 204 90 9.3%

1,048 868 100.0% 95.7% 47.8% 100.0% 100.0% 168 94 6.6%

1,048 692 100.0% 95.5% 31.8% 100.0% 100.0% 179 91 7.0%

1,036 689 100.0% 81.0% 0.0% 100.0% 95.2% 179 84 9.0%

1,036 636 100.0% 95.7% 30.4% 100.0% 100.0% 149 85 8.9%

1,036 548 100.0% 40.0% 55.0% 100.0% 100.0% 158 86 10.3%

Line delays greater than 10 minutes (overall) Est. Maintenance-Related Customer Delay Hours Est. Other Operational-Related Customer Delay Hours Est. Economic Impact of Maintenance-Related Delays Est. Economic Impact of Other Operational-Related Delays

216

209

250

197

230

229

222

220

191

207 200 88,065 130,849 23,241 20,932 $1,320,000 $349,000

24

Slow travel times frustrate customers and increase Muni costs

Bus route60 min running time

30 minutes

30 minutes

Round Trip Travel Time = 60 minutes Bus every 10 minutes =

60 = 6.0 => 6 buses + 6 drivers 10

Remove congestionreduce time, reduce resources

25 30 minutes

30 minutes 25

Round Trip Travel Time = 60 50 minutes Bus every 10 minutes =

50 = 5 buses + 5 drivers 10

Ridership

28

Ridership

29