Maryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office

Transcription

1 December 13, 2013 Maryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office Martin O'Malley Govemor Anthony G. Brown Lt. Govemor James T. Smith, Jr. Secretary The Honorable Edward J. Kasemeyer Chair, Senate Budget and Taxation Committee 3W Miller Senate Building Annapolis MD The Honorable Norman Conway Chair, House Appropriations Committee 121 House Office Building Annapolis MD The Honorable Sheila Ellis Hixson Chair, House Ways and Means Committee 13 I House Office Building Annapolis MD Dear Chairs: Pursuant to the language set forth in the Transportation Article, 7-208, Annotated Code of Maryland, the Maryland Transit Administration (MT A) is required to submit an independent management audit of the operational costs and revenues of mass transit in the Baltimore region every four years. Specifically, the language directs:.. (d) (1) The Administration shall provide for an independent management audit of the operational costs and revenues of the Administration 's mass transit services every four years. (2) The audit shall provide data on fares, cost containment measures, comparisons with other mass transit systems, and other information necessary in evaluation the operations of the Administration's mass transit system. (3) The findings from the audit shall be used as a benchmark for the annual performance reports. " Some of the information necessary to complete this report was unavailable until the first week of December Specifically, this report requires data for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 on operating costs, passenger volume, and farebox recovery from other transit systems around the country, for comparison to MTA. That information is only available from the Federal Transit Administration 's (FTA's) National Transit Database (NTD). Due to the October shutdown of the Federal government, FTA was delayed from updating the NTD with information for FY Without the FY 2012 NTD data, the comparisons of MT A and its peer systems would not be complete and therefore not responsive to the requirements of the report. MTA is mindful of the importance ofthis report in setting performance goals and benchmarks for the Agency, and thus strives to have the most complete and reliable data possible. For these reasons, Maryland Department of Transportation respectfully requests an extension on this report until January 31, My telephone number is To" Free Number TTY Users Call Via MD Relay 7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, Maryland 21076

2 The Honorable Edward J. Kasemeyer The Honorable Norman Conway The Honorable Sheila Ellis Hixson Page Two If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Robert Smith, Administrator, MTA, at Of course, you should always feel free to contact,me directly. cc: Mr. Robert Smith, Administrator, MT A

3 February 3, 2014 Maryland Department of Transportation The Secretary's Office Martin O'Malley Governor Anthony G. Brown Lt. Governor James T. Smith, Jr. Secretary The Honorable Edward J. Kasemeyer Chair, Senate Budget and Taxation Committee 3W Miller Senate Building Annapolis MD The Honorable Norman Conway Chair, House Appropriations Committee 121 House Office Building Annapolis MD The Honorable Sheila Ellis Hixson Chair, House Ways and Means Committee 131 House Office Building Annapolis MD Dear Chairs: Please see the attached report written in response to the language set forth in the Transportation Article, 7-208, Annotated Code of Maryland. The language requires the Maryland Transit Administration (MT A) to submit an independent management audit ofthe operational costs and revenues of mass transit in the Baltimore region every four years to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, House Appropriations Committee, and House Ways and Means Committee. Specifically, the language directs: "(d) (1) The Administration shall provide for an independent management audit of the operational costs and revenues of the Administration's mass transit services every four years. (2) The audit shall provide data on fares, cost containment measures, comparisons with other mass transit systems, and other information necessary in evaluation the operations of the Administration's mass transit system. (3) The findings from the audit shall be used as a benchmark for the annual performance reports. " If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Robert Smith, Administrator, MTA, at Of course, you should always feel free to contact me directly. cc: Mr. Robert Smith, Administrator, MTA My telephone number is Toll Free Number TTY Users Call Via MD Relay 7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, Maryland 21076

4 Final Report to MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION on FY09-FY12 PERFORMANCE AUDIT COMPLIANCE REVIEW Prepared by CH2M HILL January 2014

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION I-1 II. AGENCY-WIDE PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW AND PEER BENCHMARKS II-1 III. INTERVIEW SUMMARY III-1 IV. MANAGING FOR RESULTS AND STATESTAT IV-1 V. CONCLUSIONS V-1 Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) -i- CH2M HILL

6 I. INTRODUCTION

7 Introduction CH2M HILL IS CONDUCTING THE LEGISLATIVELY- MANDATED PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (MTA) Quadrennial performance audits are a requirement of Chapter 684, Acts of The legislation requires independent audits of the effectiveness and efficiency of mass transit services operated by the MTA. Specific requirements of the performance audits include assessments of: Compliance with farebox recovery goals and requirements Performance trends in key service efficiency and effectiveness indicators Comparison with similar transit systems nationwide Support for statewide initiatives (e.g. Managing For Results and StateStat) Performance against goals and objectives. This report provides the mandated assessments of the MTA for the four-year period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2012 (e.g. FY09-FY12). This performance audit is administered by the MTA and prepared by CH2M HILL. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-1 CH2M HILL

8 Introduction THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BALANCED AND OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF MTA'S PERFORMANCE In order to provide a balanced perspective on MTA s overall performance, the performance audit considers significant accomplishments and positive performance trends, as well as opportunities for improvement. The audit reviews the past four fiscal years, from July 2008 through June Since current trends, objectives, and programs are more relevant as MTA moves forward, an effort has been made to recognize and include the plans and activities currently underway at MTA and to articulate their implications for MTA s future. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-2 CH2M HILL

9 Introduction THE AUDIT TEAM CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT STAFF KEY INTERVIEWS MTA Administrator/CEO* Chief of Staff* Acting Chief Performance Officer* Manager, Policy and Document Control* Director of External Affairs* Acting Director, Marketing and Communication* Acting Director, Human Resources* Director of Audits* Chief of Police Deputy Chief of Police Chief Safety Officer Acting Manager, Transit Claims Unit/Safety Data* Chief Financial Officer* Deputy Chief Financial Officer* Acting Manager, Financial Management* Director Labor & Employee Relations Deputy COO Service Oversight* Director of Service Quality* Director Office of Customer Care & Community Outreach* Deputy Director Office of Customer Care & Community Outreach* Director of Operations Training* Director of Bus Maintenance Deputy Director of Bus Maintenance Deputy Director Operations Support* Deputy Director of Administration Bus Operations* Manager of Bus Operations* Acting Director of Service Development* Director of Operations Compliance & Investigation* Chief Information Officer Information Technology Deputy Director Information Technology Deputy Administrator / CAO Deputy CAO / Chief Engineer Deputy CAO Support Services* Deputy CAO Statewide Service Development* Acting Director Procurement* Deputy Director Planning* Director of Treasury Director of Local Transit Support Executive Director Transit Development Division Director of Rail Operations* Deputy Director Metro Operations* Manager of Administration Metro Operations* Superintendent Metro Rail Car Maintenance Assistant Superintendent Metro Rail Car Maintenance* Deputy Director of Light Rail Operations* Manager of Light Rail Operations* Director MARC Trains / Commuter Bus Services Deputy Director MARC Trains / Commuter Bus Services *INDIVIDUALS DENOTED WITH AN ASTERISK ARE NEW TO THE ORGANIZATION OR IN A NEW POSITION SINCE THE PREVIOUS AUDIT Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-3 CH2M HILL

10 Introduction THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT TEAM ALSO REVIEWED DOCUMENTS AND DATA Key MTA documents reviewed for the performance audit include the following: National Transit Database annual reports, Annual Customer Satisfaction Surveys, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fleet Management Plans Maryland Office of Legislative Audit Reports for MTA 2009 and 2012 StateStat Reports OpStat Reports MTA/Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300 Labor Agreement, AFSCME Local 1859 Labor Agreement, and OPEIU Local 2 Labor Agreement Various Weekly Performance Reports Managing For Results Annual Reports _ Departmental Organization Charts _ Light Rail, Metro, Bus Maintenance, and Training Department presentation/reports _ MTA Employee Satisfaction Survey In addition to MTA s administrative office, the audit team visited some of the MTA s key operating facilities: Wabash Metro Facility North Avenue Light Rail Headquarters Bush Bus Operating and Maintenance Divisions Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-4 CH2M HILL

11 Introduction THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT S LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE REVIEW IS ORGANIZED IN FIVE SECTIONS I. Introduction. The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the MTA s organization structure and the services it operated, and the agency s accomplishments and challenges over the audit period. II. Agency-Wide Performance Overview examines performance trends in key performance indicators over the audit period and provides a comparison to peer agency performance benchmarks. This section includes a discussion of MTA s performance against its farebox recovery goals. III. Interview Summary provides a summary of the interviews with MTA s administrative and management staff. IV. Managing For Results and StateStat discusses MTA s approach to the statewide Managing For Results initiative and the StateStat process for evaluating performance against goals and objectives. V. Conclusions include a discussion of MTA s progress towards goals, achievements over the audit period and FY13, and areas for improvement. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-5 CH2M HILL

12 Introduction THE MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION IS ONE OF THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S SIX MODAL ADMINISTRATIONS The Maryland Transit Administration has evolved since 1962, when the General Assembly established the Metropolitan Transit Authority to take over the regulation of the Baltimore Transit Company from the Public Service Commission. In 1968, the Metropolitan Transit Authority undertook a study of the potential for public ownership of transit operations in Baltimore. The following year, the General Assembly gave the Metropolitan Transit Authority the power to build, replace, and operate transit in the Baltimore region, including rail transit. The State created the Department of Transportation in 1971, and structured it to include the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which was renamed the Mass Transit Administration (MTA). In 2001, the name of the agency was changed to the Maryland Transit Administration. In addition to operating transit in the Baltimore region, the MTA operates MARC commuter rail, Commuter Bus, and paratransit service under contract. MTA is also responsible for providing financial, technical, and administrative assistance to locally-operated transit systems and rail freight operators throughout the State.. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-6 CH2M HILL

13 Introduction THE MTA OPERATES A MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT NETWORK THAT SERVES A MARKET OF OVER TWO MILLION PEOPLE IN A SERVICE AREA OF 1,800 SQUARE MILES MTA operates Core Bus services on 57 regular, QuickBus, and express routes serving Baltimore City and the Baltimore metropolitan area. The services are provided by MTA's fleet of almost 739 buses that operate from four divisions. The Core Bus services carry 66 percent of MTA's total ridership. Metro is a 15.5-mile Heavy Rail (Metro) system that serves 14 stations and links Baltimore's Central Business District (CBD) and Johns Hopkins Hospital with residential communities in the area northwest of Baltimore to Owings Mills. Service began in 1983; two extensions opened in 1987 and Next to the bus system, Metro serves the most riders about 14 percent of total MTA ridership. The 29-mile Light Rail system serves 33 stops and stations in the Baltimore CBD and communities to the north and south. The system opened in 1992, and three extensions have been added since then. In September 1997, the line was extended north to Hunt Valley, and in December 1997 service began to Penn Station and BWI Airport. The Light Rail system currently carries 8 percent of MTA s riders. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-7 CH2M HILL

14 Introduction THE MTA ALSO PROVIDES COMMUTER RAIL, COMMUTER BUS, AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES AND SUPPORTS TRANSIT OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE MTA's MARC commuter rail service operates over 201 miles of track, serving 42 stations in Washington, DC, Baltimore City, eight Maryland counties, and the West Virginia panhandle. Three lines operate during peak, mid-day, and evening hours Monday through Friday. During the audit period, service was operated under contract by CSX on the Brunswick and Camden Lines and by Amtrak on the Penn Line. MARC accounts for 8 percent of MTA s ridership. MTA contracts Commuter Bus services, in both the Baltimore and Washington DC metropolitan areas. MTA operated 24 routes using 5 service providers during the audit period between suburban employment and housing centers and the two downtown areas of Baltimore and Washington. Commuter Bus service accounts for 4 percent of MTA s ridership. Mobility Paratransit provides ADA-mandated paratransit services, using a combination of vans and taxis. Service is provided 24 hours a day averaging approximately 5,500 daily weekday customers. Less than one percent of the trips are provided by MTA; the rest of the service is operated under contract utilizing three service providers. In addition to the services provided in the Baltimore region, the MTA provides financial, technical, and operating support to public transportation systems in all of Maryland's 23 counties (e.g. the Locally Operated Transit Systems ). These systems provide various combinations of fixed-route, demand response, deviated fixed-route, and taxi voucher services to serve small urban and rural areas and elderly or disabled individuals. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-8 CH2M HILL

15 Introduction THE MTA IS LED BY AN ADMINISTRATOR/CEO, WHO IS SUPPORTED BY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS Administrator / CEO Chief of Staff Chief Performance Officer Chief Counsel Chief of Police Chief Safety Officer Chief Financial Officer Sr.Deputy Administrator Chief Operations Officer Executive Director Transit Development Division Deputy Administrator Chief Administrative Officer Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-9 CH2M HILL

16 Introduction AUDIT PERIOD ACCOMPLISHMENTS IMPACTING ALL MODES AND RIDERS Core Bus has procured 263 buses over the audit period, including twenty two 60-foot articulated hybrid buses. Core Bus is in the process of converting to an all-hybrid fleet to address public concerns about air pollution and noise. Light Rail continued to support special events and activities in their service area. Besides the seasonal football and baseball games, new events at M&T stadium including lacrosse and soccer and concerts took place during the audit period. Another large scale event, the Grand Prix resulted in major service adjustments which MTA managed successfully. MARC procured 26 new locomotives and purchased 54 additional bi level cars during the audit period, which allowed MARC to increase trip frequencies while adding flexibility to make up train consists resulting in improved performance and adjusting to a ridership increase of almost 4 percent during the audit period. Metro subway continued to upgrade and maintain the fleet implementing a 5-year truck assembly overhaul program. Metro operations developed, trained, and published a First Responder Manual for Baltimore City and County first responders to enhance access to the system in emergencies. Commuter Bus expanded service adding three routes, introduction of the ICC (Intercounty Connector Commuter Bus Service), opening a new lot in Prince Frederick, and expanding parking in several other locations. Paratransit service continued to expand and added a third service provider during the audit period Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-10 CH2M HILL

17 Introduction SOME ISSUES IMPACTING MTA PERFORMANCE DURING THE AUDIT PERIOD Staffing and budget limitations have continued to constrain MTA s ability to add staff and fill state funded vacant positions. Finding and filling positions with qualified candidates remains challenging. Job vacancies are taking an average of 8-12 months to fill and recent projections of staff eligible for retirement continues to be a concern for current staff. The loss of authorized positions was noted as a potential impediment to improved effectiveness across multiple departments. During the audit period several critical areas experienced multiple staffing changes in leadership positions. Turnover occurred in the following areas with the associated number of changes noted in the parentheses: Administrator (2), Director of Bus Operations (5), Director of Mobility (5), Service Development (3), Office of Service Quality (4), Human Resources (2), and Procurement (1). Organizational changes occurred three times during the audit period which resulted in individual departmental reporting responsibilities changing. Sick day absences declined by 5 percent while Workers Compensation and FMLA occurrences increased by 60 percent and 69 percent respectively during the audit period. Core Bus ridership data showed an 11 percent decrease during the audit period. MTA was working throughout the audit period to determine the best methodology for capturing Core Bus service ridership, currently captured via farebox. A total of 623 buses out of 739 buses are equipped with Automatic Passenger Counters (APC). MTA staff indicated that they will seek the necessary approvals to use this method of collecting ridership moving forward instead of relying on farebox data. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-11 CH2M HILL

18 Introduction MTA TOOK TARGETED ACTIONS DURING THE AUDIT PERIOD TO HELP IMPROVE PERFORMANCE MTA continued to support StateStat, a performance-measurement and management tool, reporting monthly to the Governor s office on 120 statistics such as unscheduled overtime, absenteeism, crime, accidents, training, ridership, service quality, vacancies, and MBE/WBE expenditures. MTA implemented an internal performance management program during the last audit period and continues to analyze key performance indicators to hold responsible parties accountable to their objectives. MTA expanded the program to include function areas across operational and administrative departments. MTA added 263 hybrid buses to their fleet including standard 40-foot buses and articulated buses to address heavy hauling bus routes in the service area. MTA issued a revised attendance policy designed to improve tracking, lower long-term absences, and track AWOL occurrences with stricter guidelines in the application of discipline. MTA implemented a Return To Work program to help reduce Workers Compensation absences. MTA started conducting mini- LAMP (Labor And Management Partnership) meetings by mode between management and the union leadership. Use of the CharmCard has increased to 30,000 users including seniors and disability customers. MTA also piloted the S-PASS (a pilot program) at select schools to make travel more secure and efficient for students. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-12 CH2M HILL

19 Introduction OTHER AUDIT PERIOD ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY Metro and Light Rail implemented Pro Tran which is a system that provides advanced warning of oncoming trains to personnel working in the transit right of way. The device audibly and visually alerts the operator of personnel in or near tracks. The MTA Customer Service office upgraded the telephone system in the Transit Information Control Center resulting in reduced hold times and fewer missed calls. Customer Service also procured a state of the art printing press which also supports printing requests for other state agencies. Light Rail and Metro completed testing of an Advanced Project Management Invoicing System designed to streamline the invoicing process and ensure capability. They plan to implement the system in MTA Police opened the new Police Monitoring Facility that includes an upgraded Police Monitoring Facility, an emergency operations center, an updated communications center with backup generator power. This facility greatly increased the capabilities of the MTA Police Force and enabled them to utilize new technologies such as Pocket Cop and Field Force Manager that assists officers in the field. The MTA Police were also opened a new state of the art K-9 Facility, a new Command One Storage Facility and remodeled the Southern District facility. MTA upgraded and trained staff in the utilization and application of MAXIMO, a strategic asset and service management system, as a decision support tool throughout all modes and the Store Rooms. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-13 CH2M HILL

20 Introduction MTA HAS TAKEN STEPS TO OVERCOME SOME OF THE CHALLENGES SINCE THE END OF THE AUDIT PERIOD AND POSITION THEMSELVES FOR THE FUTURE MTA procured 26 locomotives and 54 bi-level cars for MARC to replace vehicles approaching the end of their useful life, to increase reliability and to address ridership growth. Bus Operations procured 22 new 60-foot articulated hybrid buses that were placed into service in 2011 and 2012, and 241 new 40-foot hybrid buses put in service during the audit period. MTA has advanced three new capital projects the Red Line, Purple Line, and Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) the FTA gave approval for the Red and Purple Lines to move forward with preliminary engineering. MTA completed the construction of their $15.4 million new Central Control Center (CCC) in October The new control center will house controllers to oversee Core Bus, Metro and Light Rail. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) I-14 CH2M HILL

21 II. AGENCY-WIDE PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW AND PEER BENCHMARKS

22 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview AGENCY-WIDE AND MODAL PERFORMANCE TRENDS WERE REVIEWED TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF MTA S TRANSIT OPERATIONS This section discusses MTA s performance trends in three key performance indicators, comparisons to peer agency benchmarks for the three indicators, and MTA s farebox recovery trends during the audit period. The discussion of agency-wide performance trends included here provides a high level overview that has been used as a starting point for the functional review of modal transit operations. As required by Chapter 684, Acts of 2008, three key indicators have been used as a starting point in the assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of MTA s performance: Cost efficiency (costs relative to service provided): operating cost per vehicle mile of revenue service Cost effectiveness (cost in relation to service consumed): operating cost per passenger boarding Service effectiveness or productivity (service produced in relation to service consumed): passenger boardings per revenue vehicle mile. Consistent with the legislative mandate, agency-wide trends for MTA s Baltimore operations include directly-operated, fixed-route Bus services, Metro, and Light Rail. The performance audit also examines trends by mode for each of the six modes MTA operates (i.e. Core Bus, Light Rail, Metro, Commuter Bus, MARC, Mobility Paratransit and Taxi Access, and Purchased Mobility). Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-1 CH2M HILL

23 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview AUDITED DATA REPORTED TO THE NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE HAVE BEEN USED FOR DETERMINING AGENCY-WIDE AND MODAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND TRENDS The performance trends discussed in this section are for the period from FY09 through FY12, with FY08 used as a base year to provide a point of reference for the trend analysis. Performance indicators were calculated using data reported by MTA to the National Transit Database (NTD), since these reports provide operating statistics by mode. For peer comparisons the NTD data from FY09 - FY11 was used because FY12 NTD data has not been published as of this audit. For MTA services NTD data for FY09-FY12 was available using both the NTD data base and MTA s NTD data submission for FY12. Cost-based indicators are compared to the change in the Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area. Over the audit timeframe, the CPI-U increased 7.34 percent. While the change in the CPI-U is not a perfect measure of inflation in the cost of goods and services consumed by transit agencies, it is a commonly accepted standard that provides a point of reference for evaluating cost trends. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-2 CH2M HILL

24 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING TRENDS IN KEY INDICATORS, AGENCY-WIDE SERVICES INCLUDE DIRECTLY-OPERATED CORE BUS, LIGHT RAIL AND METRO Section of the Transportation Article specifies that starting in FY01; operating revenues will cover 40 percent of operating costs for Baltimore area transit services. Prior to FY01, the farebox recovery requirement was 50 percent. The legislature reduced the requirement to 40 percent in 2004, while maintaining a goal of 50 percent. Chapter 684, Acts of 2008 (HB 1185) amended the farebox recovery requirement to 35 percent for Baltimore area transit services for fiscal year 2009 and thereafter. The 35 percent farebox recovery requirement will be used in this report since it was in effect during the audit period. MARC farebox recovery requirement did not change and remains 50 percent. The required agency-wide performance indicators have therefore been developed for MTA s directly-operated services (Core Bus, Light Rail, Metro, and Mobility Paratransit and Call-A-Ride). They are discussed on the following pages. Following the discussion of agency-wide performance indicators is a brief discussion of the operating statistics and trends in key performance indicators for all MTA services, including Commuter Bus, MARC, and Mobility Paratransit and Call-A-Ride services. This section also includes peer benchmarks, both at the agency-wide level and for each mode. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-3 CH2M HILL

25 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview MTA S EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS HAVE ALSO BEEN COMPARED TO ITS PEERS This section includes the results of the peer review, which was conducted to provide benchmarks for MTA s performance, both on an agency-wide basis and at the modal level. MTA is unique because of the variety of transit services they provide. Separate groups of peers have been selected for each mode and as a point of comparison for agency-wide performance. Peers selected for these comparisons are similar to MTA in types and levels of service provided and consumed. Some peers are included because they provide examples of agencies that have effectively improved their services. Other peers operate in similar urban environments or with infrastructures similar to MTA. Peers may also vary between audit periods because the MTA requests a comparison against a particular agency. Key indicators for the peer comparison have been developed using annual averages of FY09 through FY11 NTD data. Peer data for FY12 was not available from the NTD as of the audit report date. The peer benchmarks are intended to provide a snapshot comparison of MTA s performance to other systems at a single point in time. Agency-wide peer comparisons are affected by the modes each system operates as well as factors such as the size of the system, geographic location, whether or not service is operated under contract, terms of negotiated labor contracts, and the age, mix, and condition of the fleet. On a modal basis, peer comparisons are impacted by factors such as system size, geographic location, labor contracts, and the age and condition of the fleet. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-4 CH2M HILL

26 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview PEER COMPARISON FOR DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICES Directly Operated Core Services Cleveland Pittsburgh Salt Lake City Atlanta Los Angeles Miami Denver MODE Bus X X X X Metro X X X X Light Rail X X X X Paratransit X X X X At least four peer agencies for each MTA mode were selected for comparison. Only Cleveland operated the same number of modes as the MTA. Peers selected provide directly operated service that included fixed route Core Bus, Light Rail, Metro, and paratransit services. MTA was the only agency that operated Call-A-Ride service and was included as part of the NTD database for paratransit through FY 10. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-5 CH2M HILL

27 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview PEER COMPARISON FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES Purchased Transportation Cleveland Pittsburgh Salt Lake Los Angeles Denver Houston San Jose VRE Tri-Rail SCRRA Trinity MODE Paratransit X X X X Commuter Bus X X X X Commuter Rail X X X X At least four peer agencies for each MTA mode were selected for comparison. Peers selected provide purchased transportation for paratransit, Commuter Bus, and Commuter Rail. None of the paratransit peers operated Call-A-Ride service. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-6 CH2M HILL

28 FINAL DRAFT Agency-wide Performance Overview THE OPERATING COST PER REVENUE MILE FOR DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICES INCREASED FROM $12.57 IN FY08 TO $14.83 IN FY12 Operating cost per revenue mile is a measure of the efficiency with which a transit agency delivers service (e.g. the cost of operating each mile that MTA vehicles operate in revenue service). The cost of directly operated services increased by 18 percent from FY08 to FY12 despite lower operating costs in FY09. $16.00 $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $- $12.57 $12.30 Operating Cost per Revenue Mile Directly Operated Services $13.26 $13.89 $14.83 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Fiscal Year Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-7 CH2M HILL

29 Agency-wide Performance Overview OVER THE AUDIT PERIOD, DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICES COSTS INCREASED BY 18 PERCENT. THE RATE OF INCREASE VARIED SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS MTA MODES For Light Rail, operating cost per revenue mile remained below the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The operating cost per revenue mile for Directly Operated Mobility, Commuter Bus, and MARC was well below the increase in CPI. Core Bus, Metro, Purchased Mobility, and Call-A-Ride had operating costs that increased at a rate greater than inflation. Base Year Operating Cost per Revenue Mile % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus $ $ $ $ $ % Light Rail $ $ $ $ $ % Metro $ $ 9.88 $ $ $ % Mobility - Directly Operated $ $ $ $ $ % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services $ $ $ $ $ % Commuter Bus $ 8.68 $ 8.74 $ 9.58 $ 5.83 $ % MARC $ $ $ $ $ % Mobility - Purchased Transportation $ 3.55 $ 4.03 $ 4.38 $ 4.68 $ % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) - - $ 3.34 $ 4.57 $ % Systemwide - Purchased Services $ 8.44 $ 9.39 $ 9.72 $ 8.29 $ % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services $ $ $ $ $ % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-8 CH2M HILL

30 Agency-wide Performance Overview AGENCY-WIDE, COST EFFECTIVENESS DECLINED DUE TO A DECREASE IN REPORTED RIDERSHIP, PARTICULARLY FOR CORE BUS, WHILE COSTS GREW AT A GREATER RATE THAN INFLATION Operating cost per passenger trip measures the effectiveness of MTA s passenger service. Operating cost per passenger trip increased 23 percent on core services between FY08 and FY12, in excess of the 7.3 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $- $3.41 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip Directly Operated Services percent growth in the CPI. The increase in this indicator is a result of the increased cost of services. $3.24 $4.16 $4.22 $4.19 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Fiscal Year Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-9 CH2M HILL

31 Agency-wide Performance Overview AGENCY-WIDE, COST EFFECTIVENESS DECLINED WHILE COSTS GREW AT A GREATER RATE THAN INFLATION DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY THE REPORTED DECREASE IN CORE BUS RIDERSHIP Base Year Operating Cost per Passenger Trip (b) % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus $ 2.99 $ 2.92 $ 3.91 $ 4.01 $ % Light Rail $ 4.73 $ 3.75 $ 4.88 $ 4.48 $ % Metro $ 3.96 $ 3.86 $ 4.01 $ 4.02 $ % Mobility $ $ $ $ $ % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services $ 3.41 $ 3.24 $ 4.16 $ 4.22 $ % Commuter Bus $ $ 9.93 $ $ 6.35 $ % MARC $ $ $ $ $ % Mobility - Purchased Transportation $ $ $ $ $ % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) - - $ $ $ % Systemwide - Purchased Services $ $ $ $ $ % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services $ 4.50 $ 4.45 $ 5.48 $ 5.21 $ % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. (b) The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report MTA s operating costs for purchased services (adjusted for service consumed) were below inflationary growth on Commuter Bus and MARC, but exceeded inflationary growth on Purchased Mobility and Call-A-Ride. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-10 CH2M HILL

32 Agency-wide Performance Overview SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY FLUCTUATED DURING THE AUDIT PERIOD Passenger trips per revenue mile are an indicator of agency-wide productivity Passengers per Revenue Mile Directly Operated Services FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Fiscal Year Base Year Passengers per Revenue Mile (b) % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus % Light Rail % Metro % Mobility % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services % Commuter Bus % MARC % Mobility - Purchased Transportation % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) % Systemwide - Purchased Services % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report (b) The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-11 CH2M HILL

33 Agency-wide Performance Overview OVERALL, BOTH BOARDINGS AND SERVICE LEVELS HAVE DECREASED SINCE FY09 Agency-wide, MTA s ridership on directly-operated services (e.g. Core Bus, Light Rail, Metro, and Mobility) decreased almost 7 percent from FY08 to FY12, despite an increase in FY09. Including services operated under contract, Commuter Bus, MARC, Mobility Paratransit, and Call-A-Ride all had large increases in ridership. Despite this increase, MTA experienced a 4 percent decrease in ridership overall. Base Year Boardings (b) % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus 82,854,337 87,836,243 69,315,249 72,520,531 73,736, % Light Rail 7,915,583 8,838,048 8,070,249 8,752,463 8,796, % Metro 13,894,282 13,522,792 13,363,903 14,002,609 15,199, % Mobility 142, , , , , % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services 104,806, ,337,892 90,880,318 95,401,678 97,850, % Commuter Bus 3,706,900 3,969,179 3,856,738 4,096,562 5,214, % MARC 7,897,602 8,081,155 8,095,577 8,232,729 8,532, % Mobility - Purchased Transportation 1,242,642 1,309,170 1,078,357 1,228,586 1,419, % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) , , , % Systemwide - Purchased Services 12,847,144 13,359,504 13,310,305 13,866,592 15,511, % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services 117,654, ,697, ,190, ,268, ,362, % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report (b) The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-12 CH2M HILL

34 Agency-wide Performance Overview BOARDING AND SERVICE LEVELS (CONTINUED) Service levels decreased by 3 percent on directly-operated services and increased by 13 percent on contracted services. Overall, MTA increased service by 4 percent over the audit period based on revenue miles operated. Over the audit period, service levels increased on Light Rail, Directly Operated Mobility, MARC, Purchased Mobility, and Call-A-Ride. Core Bus, Metro, and Commuter Bus all experienced a reduction in service levels. Base Year Revenue Miles % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus 19,632,528 20,191,790 20,073,940 20,413,153 19,063, % Light Rail 2,789,820 2,780,098 3,179,325 3,169,421 3,096, % Metro 5,194,022 5,285,406 4,480,709 4,706,797 4,627, % Mobility 789, , , , , % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services 28,406,085 29,087,505 28,479,410 28,964,000 27,671, % Commuter Bus 4,705,100 4,512,052 4,174,885 4,462,386 4,303, % MARC 5,124,244 5,088,471 5,008,185 5,398,457 5,821, % Mobility - Purchased Transportation 10,533,622 10,917,622 9,422,278 8,932,853 11,303, % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) - - 1,271,841 1,343,140 1,516, % Systemwide - Purchased Services 20,362,966 20,518,145 19,877,189 20,136,836 22,944, % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services 48,769,051 49,605,650 48,356,599 49,100,836 50,615, % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-13 CH2M HILL

35 Agency-wide Performance Overview THE HIGHEST GROWTH IN OPERATING COSTS OCCURRED ON DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICES Operating Cost for directly-operated services increased 15 percent over the audit period or almost twice the rate of inflation. While the highest growth occurred on Purchased Mobility, Core Bus, and Light Rail also experienced cost growth significantly higher than the rate of inflation. Agency-wide, costs increased percent. Base Year Operating Costs % Change Mode FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Core Bus $ 247,668,063 $ 256,331,934 $ 270,960,722 $ 290,578,847 $ 297,374, % Light Rail $ 37,452,561 $ 33,173,423 $ 39,400,273 $ 39,190,928 $ 43,345, % Metro $ 54,980,744 $ 52,222,401 $ 53,537,291 $ 56,224,020 $ 53,571, % Mobility $ 17,070,286 $ 15,972,604 $ 13,741,278 $ 16,418,033 $ 16,103, % Systemwide - Directly Operated Services $ 357,171,654 $ 357,700,362 $ 377,639,564 $ 402,411,828 $ 410,394, % Commuter Bus $ 40,856,100 $ 39,417,422 $ 40,008,281 $ 26,013,830 $ 33,903, % MARC $ 93,570,560 $ 109,135,596 $ 107,635,184 $ 92,903,640 $ 97,050, % Mobility - Purchased Transportation $ 37,391,374 $ 44,032,082 $ 41,234,877 $ 41,779,130 $ 48,964, % Call-A-Ride (formerly known as Taxi-Access) (a) - - $ 4,245,339 $ 6,137,697 $ 7,309, % Systemwide - Purchased Services $ 171,818,034 $ 192,585,100 $ 193,123,681 $ 166,834,297 $ 187,228, % % Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% Systemwide - All Services $ 528,989,688 $ 550,285,462 $ 570,763,245 $ 569,246,125 $ 597,623, % (a) Prior to FY10, Call-A-Ride data was combined with data for Mobility - Purchased Transportation. The % Change is FY10-FY12. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report Operating expenses excludes data for purchased transportation reported separately Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-14 CH2M HILL

36 Agency-wide Performance Overview AGENCY-WIDE, MTA S PERFORMANCE WAS NEAR THE AVERAGE OF THE PEER SYSTEMS. PEERS ARE SELECTED BASED ON THE MODES OPERATED AND THEIR SIZE AS COMPARED TO THE MTA FY09-FY11 Performance Assessment of Maryland Transit Administration PEER COMPARISON - SYSTEMWIDE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (a) Average Performance Indicators MTA Atlanta (a) Cleveland Pittsburgh (a) Salt Lake City (a) PEER AVERAGE (c) Operating Expenses (b) $ 363,873,280 $ 382,676,116 $ 186,648,500 $ 320,783,077 $ 188,547,652 $ 269,663,836 Passenger Trips (c) 98,740, ,045,627 44,190,555 63,394,491 35,351,142 72,495,454 Revenue Vehicle Miles (RVM) 28,093,546 47,541,583 16,730,443 25,146,008 19,824,168 27,310,550 Operating Expenses per RVM $ $ 8.05 $ $ $ 9.51 $ Operating Expenses per Passenger Trip $ 3.69 $ 2.60 $ 4.22 $ 5.06 $ 5.33 $ 4.30 Passenger trips per RVM (a) Includes directly operated fixed route Bus, Light Rail, and Metro. Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City operate Bus and Light Rail Only. Atlanta operates Bus and Metro only. (b) Operating costs exclude depreciation, amortization, capital costs (c) Unlinked boardings. The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. (d) Average annual amount Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19 The peers selected for the agency-wide comparison are those that operate in cities of similar size, age, and geography. Cleveland operates all three of the modes that MTA operates Bus, Light Rail, and heavy rail while Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City only operate Bus and Light Rail, and Atlanta only operates Bus and heavy rail. MTA s average cost per revenue mile of $12.95 was 25 percent higher than the $10.37 average for the peer systems. Costs among the peer systems ranged from $8.05 to $12.76 per revenue mile. Cost per passenger trip ranged from $2.60 to $5.33 among the peer systems. MTA s cost of $3.69 per passenger was 10 percent lower than the peer average of $4.12 per passenger. Only Atlanta, at $2.60, had a lower cost per boarding than MTA. Overall, MTA s service productivity was 40 percent above the peer average, providing 3.51 trips per revenue service mile compared to the peer average of Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-15 CH2M HILL

37 Agency-wide Performance Overview Performance Trends Fixed-Route Bus MTA SERVES 66 PERCENT OF TOTAL RIDERSHIP THROUGH THE FIXED ROUTE CORE BUS SERVICE FY08-FY12 Performance Assessment of Maryland Transit Administration KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS - CORE BUS Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Operating Expenses (a) $247,668,063 $256,331,934 $270,960,722 $290,578,847 $297,374, % Passenger Trips (b) 82,854,337 87,836,243 69,315,249 72,520,531 73,736, % Revenue Vehicle Miles (RVM) 19,632,528 20,191,790 20,073,940 20,413,153 19,063, % Operating Expenses per RVM $ $ $ $ $ % Operating Expenses per Passenger Trip $ 2.99 $ 2.92 $ 3.91 $ 4.01 $ % Passenger Trips per RVM % Percentage Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% (a) Operating costs exclude depreciation, amortization, capital costs (b) Unlinked boardings. The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report, Pages 32 (Line 15) and 48 (Lines 12 and 18) The cost efficiency and effectiveness of the directly-operated Core Bus services declined over the audit period, as cost per mile increased 24 percent (from $12.62 to $15.60) and cost per boarding increased 35 percent (from $2.99 to $4.03). Over the audit period ridership and service levels decreased, while operating costs were up 20 percent. In 2011 the Union contract was ratified which contributed to the increased costs in FY 11. Ridership also fluctuated over the audit period, dropping in FY10 due to three consecutive snowstorms that occurred during the winter. Ridership increased steadily over the rest of the audit period. Core Bus experienced an 11 percent decrease in ridership between FY08 and FY12. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-16 CH2M HILL

38 Agency-wide Performance Overview Performance Trends Fixed-Route Bus OVERVIEW OF MTA S COST EFFECTIVENESS AND SERVICE PRODUCTIVITY FY09-FY11 Performance Assessment of Maryland Transit Administration PEER COMPARISON - DIRECTLY OPERATED FIXED ROUTE BUS Average Performance Indicators MTA Atlanta Cleveland Pittsburgh Salt Lake City PEER AVERAGE (c) Operating Expenses (a) $ 272,623,834 $ 210,660,236 $ 150,338,304 $ 276,211,559 $ 157,934,052 $ 198,786,038 Passenger Trips (b) 76,557,341 67,943,301 37,102,861 56,310,632 21,311,414 45,667,052 Revenue Vehicle Miles (RVM) 20,226,294 25,811,256 14,323,136 23,287,476 16,353,321 19,943,797 Operating Expenses per RVM $ $ 8.16 $ $ $ 9.66 $ Operating Expenses per Passenger Trip $ 3.56 $ 3.10 $ 4.05 $ 4.91 $ 7.41 $ 4.87 Passenger trips per RVM (a) Operating costs exclude depreciation, amortization, capital costs (b) Unlinked boardings. The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. (c) Average annual amount Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19 At $13.48, MTA s average cost per mile for fixed-route bus services was 34 percent higher than the peer average of $ Cost-per-mile for the peer systems ranged from $8.16 to $ MTA s $3.56 cost per passenger was lower than all peers but Atlanta, and was 27 percent lower than the peer system average of $4.87. Peer system performance ranged from $3.10 to $7.41 per passenger. Productivity among the peer systems ranged from a low of 1.30 to a high of 2.63 passengers per mile. The peer average was 2.24 passengers per mile. MTA s 3.79 passengers per mile were 69 percent higher than the peer average and highest among peers. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-17 CH2M HILL

39 Agency-wide Performance Overview Performance Trends Light Rail LIGHT RAIL COSTS INCREASED AT A RATE GREATER THAN INFLATION BUT WAS DRIVEN BY INCREASES IN RIDERSHIP SERVICE GROWTH FY08-FY12 Performance Assessment of Maryland Transit Administration KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS - LIGHT RAIL Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY08-FY12 Operating Expenses (a) $ 37,452,561 $33,173,423 $39,400,273 $39,190,928 $43,345, % Passenger Trips (b) 7,915,583 8,838,048 8,070,249 8,752,463 8,796, % Revenue Vehicle Miles (RVM) 2,789,820 2,780,098 3,179,325 3,169,421 3,096, % Operating Expenses per RVM $ $ $ $ $ % Operating Expenses per Passenger Trip $ 4.73 $ 3.75 $ 4.88 $ 4.48 $ % Passenger Trips per RVM % Percentage Change in CPI-U 0.23% 1.72% 3.34% 1.88% 7.34% (a) Operating costs exclude depreciation, amortization, capital costs (b) Unlinked boardings. The method MTA utilized to report boardings to NTD changed in FY10 for all modes except Light Rail. Sources: National Transit Database Reports for FY08 - FY11, Data Tables 12 and 19; MTA's National Transit Database 2012 Annual Report, Pages 32 (Line 15) and 47 (Lines 12 and 18) The cost efficiency and effectiveness of the Light Rail service increased at a rate below the increase in CPI over the audit period. Service effectiveness remained stable throughout the audit period. Over the audit period ridership and service levels increased by 11.1 and 11 percent respectively, while operating costs were up 15.7 percent. In FY 12 Light Rail operations was significantly impacted numerous downed trees and storm damage in the right of way from Hurricane Sandy and the Deracho. Performance Audit Report (Compliance Review) II-18 CH2M HILL