ATTACHMENT A.7. Transit Division Performance Measurements Report Fiscal Year Fourth Quarter

Transcription

1 TTCHMENT.7 Transit Division Performance Measurements Report Fiscal Year Fourth Quarter

2 Introduction The Orange County Transportation uthority (OCT) operates a countywide network of local, community, rail-connector, and express bus routes serving over 6,000 bus stops. OCT also operates federally-mandated paratransit service (CCESS), a shared-ride program available for people unable to use the regular fixed-route bus service because of functional limitations. Fixed-route bus service, operated by OCT, is referred to as directly operated fixed-route service (DOFR) while routes operated under contract are referred to as contracted fixed-route service (CFR). The CCESS program is a contract operated demand response service mandated by the mericans with Disabilities ct (D) that is complementary to the fixed-route service and predominately accounts for the overall paratransit services operated by OCT. These three services make up the transit system provided by OCT and are evaluated by the performance measurements summarized in this report. This report provides an update on key performance indicators for the Transit Division focusing on areas such as safety, courtesy, and reliability, in addition to measurements commonly used in the transit industry such as ridership, operating data, financial data, and maintenance measurements. Performance Measurements The OCT Transit Division monitors a multitude of measurements in evaluating the services provided to the public. There are key performance indicators that track transit system safety, courtesy, and reliability standards: recordable vehicle accidents, customer complaints, on-time performance, and miles between road calls. long with these metrics, industry-standard measurements are tracked to assess OCT transit operations; these measurements are ridership, passenger fare revenues, operating costs, farebox recovery ratios, and cost per revenue vehicle hour. description of the performance indicators and the analysis to account for the variances between reporting periods is presented on the subsequent pages. Tables and graphs follow the details of each indicator showing the standards or goals for the fiscal year (FY), values for the current and previous FY, and the variance between the statistics as a percentage change. dditionally, the tables include a comparison between the current FY fourth quarter compared to the same quarter of the prior FY. Financial Sections ll financial data is unaudited and is based on a soft close by ccounting. Data in this report is likely to exclude changes such as adjustments and accruals that the ccounting Department incorporates as part of the year-end close process. FY FOURTH QURTER 2

3 Safety: Recordable Vehicle ccidents per 100,000 Miles Recordable vehicle accidents are counts of incidents concerning physical contact between vehicles used for public transit and other vehicles, objects, or pedestrians where a coach operator failed to do everything reasonable to prevent the accident. To obtain a standardized measurement, the accident counts are multiplied by 100,000 then divided by the total miles on the vehicles used for public transit. OCT has established a safety standard of no more than one (1) vehicle accident per 100,000 miles. Summaries Directly Operated Fixed-Route For FY , DOFR exceeded the safety standard of one or less recordable vehicle accidents per 100,000 miles with a rate of It was identified that a majority of the safety occurrences involved vehicles making contact with a fixed object such as a tree or a curb. To mitigate this issue, staff has conducted training and awareness campaigns that emphasize proper bus parking, curb distances, mirror checks, and safe operations on the roadway and in the bus zones. s a result of these efforts, the number of fixed-object accidents decreased by 8 percent, and accidents involving vehicle-versus-vehicle collisions recorded a 14 percent decline from the previous year. In total, DOFR has experienced a 9.3 percent improvement in the vehicle accident rate from the prior year, which was a rate of 0.86 accidents per 100,000 miles. Figure 1 - Safety: Recordable Vehicle ccidents per 100,000 Miles [DOFR] FY FY STNDRD D F Contracted Fixed-Route CFR did not meet the safety standard of one or less recordable vehicle accidents per 100,000 miles with a rate of In the third quarter, a noticeable trend was identified with vehicles making contact with fixed objects and vehicles involved in sideswipe accidents. OCT and the contractor staff implemented an action plan in early pril 2013 to address this concern. The plan had the contractor increasing the number of training hours and enhancing their training program by adding a mirror check station to ensure vehicle mirrors are aligned properly. s a result, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter, fixed object and sideswipe accidents in the previous year declined 75 percent and 80 percent, respectively. While the fourth quarter showed improvement, compared to the accident rate, the measurement increased by three percent from one accident per 100,000 miles. FY FOURTH QURTER 3

4 Figure 2 - Safety: Recordable Vehicle ccidents per 100,000 Miles [CFR] FY FY STNDRD D F CCESS CCESS exceeded the safety standard of one or less recordable vehicle accidents per 100,000 miles with a rate of Similar to CFR, a noticeable trend was identified with vehicles making contact with fixed objects. In response, the contractor concentrated their safety and training activities on reinforcing safe driving behaviors which included techniques for scanning the road, checking reference points while turning, and awareness of distractions on the road. s a result, the fourth quarter trends reported 40 percent fewer fixed-object occurrences when compared to the prior year, and when compared to the year-end total, the accident rate experienced an improvement of 5.6 percent. Figure 3 - Safety: Recordable Vehicle ccidents per 100,000 Miles [CCESS] FY FY STNDRD D F FY FOURTH QURTER 4

5 Results Table Safety: Recordable Vehicle ccidents per 100,000 Miles Mode Standard FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date DOFR 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 18,489,969 17,603, , % CFR 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 5,224,843 6,508,124 1,283, % CCESS 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 9,483,203 9,242, , % Fourth Quarter Only DOFR 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 4,485,742 4,347, , % CFR 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 1,420,880 1,720, , % CCESS 1.0 per 100, % ccidents n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 2,397,340 2,287, , % FY FOURTH QURTER 5

6 Courtesy: Customer Complaints per Thousands of Boardings Customer complaints are counts of incidents where a user of public transit reports dissatisfaction with the service. For DOFR, the metric is standardized by multiplying the counts by 100,000 then dividing by the total number of boardings. CFR and CCESS services do not record over 1,000,000 boardings per month, so the statistics are factored by 4,000 and 1,000 respectively then divided by the total number of boardings. The standards for customer complaints per thousands of boardings are six (6) complaints per 100,000 boardings for DOFR, one (1) complaint per 4,000 boardings for CFR, and one (1) complaint per 1,000 boardings for CCESS. Customer complaints are determined to be valid after an investigation process. Investigations may include a review of the automatic vehicle locator system, radio logs, on-board videos, or verbal communication with the coach operator. For example, a customer may call to comment that the bus did not show up or is running behind schedule. The radio log might confirm that the bus broke down and a relay trip was started, causing a late trip. Based on that information, this would be determined to be a valid complaint. Summaries Directly Operated Fixed-Route t the end of FY , DOFR exceeded the courtesy standard of six or less valid complaints per 100,000 boardings with a rate of The positive trend in this category is largely attributed to the 21,000 revenue vehicle hours (RVH) that were added during the October 2012 and February 2013 service changes to address three of the top five common complaints which were behind schedule, pass by, and no show. dding RVH to address capacity or scheduling issues is frequently referred to as schedule maintenance. In addition, comments on coach operator judgment, which is a top five complaint, decreased by 55.7 percent from the prior year due to the customer service forums included in the annual required training. Lastly, comments concerning fare disputes were also in the top five complaints largely due to the recent fare increase. In reference to the previous year complaint rate, the measurement improved by 21.5 percent from 3.62 valid complaints per 100,000 boardings. Figure 4 - Courtesy: Valid Customer Complaints per 100,000 Boardings [DOFR] FY FY STNDRD D F FY FOURTH QURTER 6

7 Contracted Fixed-Route CFR exceeded the courtesy standard of one or less valid complaints per 4,000 boardings with a rate of When compared to the previous year complaint rate, the measurement increased by 26.9 percent from 0.42 valid complaints per 4,000 boardings. Comments related to behind schedule, pass by, ahead of schedule, no show, and coach operator judgment were the top five complaints. For the schedule-related complaints, 2,000 RVH were added for schedule maintenance to address operating deficiencies. In terms of coach operator judgment comments, the contractor staff incorporated customer service training in their mandatory monthly safety meetings and performed immediate re-training for drivers receiving these types of comments. Figure 5 - Courtesy: Valid Customer Complaints per 4,000 Boardings [CFR] FY FY STNDRD D F CCESS CCESS did not meet the courtesy standard of one or less valid complaints per 1,000 boardings with a rate of However, when compared to last year, the complaint rate improved by 24.7 percent from 1.5 valid complaints per 1,000 boardings. In an effort to address complaints associated with behind schedule, a proactive strategy was implemented to maximize the use of supplemental taxi service for CCESS trips that were at risk of being late. s a result, the fourth quarter showed a 47.6 percent reduction in valid behind schedule complaints from the third quarter. This is another consecutive quarter of improvement for CCESS courtesy standards. The top five complaints also included coach operator judgment, reservation errors, dispatch errors, and ride time. Coach operator judgment complaints experienced a decrease from the previous year due to the customer service training included in the mandatory safety monthly meetings. Reservation errors, dispatch errors, and ride time complaints experienced increases compared to the prior year. With the service transition from Veolia Transportation, Inc. to MV Transportation, Inc. on uly 1, 2013, additional attention was placed on these areas to address these complaints; all comment categories will continue to be monitored to identify areas of improvement. FY FOURTH QURTER 7

8 Figure 6 - Courtesy: Valid Customer Complaints per 1,000 Boardings [CCESS] FY FY STNDRD D F Results Table Courtesy: Customer Complaints per Thousands of Boardings Mode Standard FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date DOFR-Valid 6.0 per 100, % Valid Complaints n/a 1,752 1, % Passengers n/a 48,444,009 45,592,071-2,851, % CFR 1.0 per 4, % Valid Complaints n/a % Passengers n/a 4,086,924 5,826,322 1,739, % CCESS 1.0 per 1, % Valid Complaints n/a 2,007 1, % Passengers n/a 1,335,305 1,365,980 30, % Fourth Quarter Only DOFR-Valid 6.0 per 100, % Valid Complaints n/a % Passengers n/a 12,090,414 11,079,200-1,011, % CFR 1.0 per 4, % Valid Complaints n/a % Passengers n/a 1,141,230 1,553, , % CCESS 1.0 per 1, % Valid Complaints n/a % Passengers n/a 347, ,339-4, % FY FOURTH QURTER 8

9 Reliability: On-time Performance On-time performance (OTP) is a measure of performance evaluating a revenue vehicle s adherence to a planned schedule such as time points on a fixed-route schedule or scheduled pick-up time for transportation on a demand-response schedule. For fixed-route service, a trip is considered on-time if it departed the timepoint no more than five minutes late. There is no tolerance for early departures. The system standard for OTP is at least 85 percent of the scheduled trips will be on-time. To more appropriately evaluate fixed-route services, particularly during the service transition between the DOFR and CFR modes, OTP is reported by the service type for the fixed-route system. The fixed-route service consists of four service types: local, community, StationLink, and express. On CCESS service, a trip is considered on-time as long as the vehicle arrives no later than 30 minutes from the scheduled pick-up time. The CCESS OTP standard is 95 percent. Summaries Local Fixed-Route Service Local fixed-route service comprises lines 1-99 typically operating along major arterials forming the OCT fixed-route grid network. These routes serve multiple Orange County municipalities and operate longer distances, generally along a single major corridor such as Beach Boulevard (Route 29), Harbor Boulevard (Route 43), and Katella venue (Route 50). When compared to the previous FY, the overall OTP measurement decreased by 1.8 percent from 85.2 percent to 83.7 percent. However, for the first time in over five years, schedule maintenance hours were made available. Since October 2012, approximately 23,000 service hours have been added to address operating deficiencies such as OTP and passenger loads. lthough the OTP for FY did not meet the standard of 85 percent, there has been a positive trend, from uly through to the present. Staff will continue to monitor performance of the local fixed-route service to identify areas for improvement and implement schedule adjustments when hours are available. Figure 7 - Reliability: On-time Performance [Local Fixed-Route] FY FY STNDRD 92.5% 90.0% 87.5% 85.0% 82.5% 80.0% 77.5% 75.0% D F Community Fixed-Route Service FY FOURTH QURTER 9

10 Community fixed-route service comprises lines , typically serving multiple streets and local community generators. These routes provide connections to the major grid routes, allowing passengers to travel beyond their community of origin. When compared to the major regional local fixed-route services, the operating environment for these routes is not as demanding. Typically, the community fixed-routes operate on less congested roadways which tend to have lower ridership and passenger loads, leading to less dwell time. Community fixed-route service exceeded the reliability system standard of 85 percent with an OTP of 86.3 percent for the fiscal year. Figure 8 - Reliability: On-time Performance [Community Fixed-Route] FY FY STNDRD 92.5% 90.0% 87.5% 85.0% 82.5% 80.0% 77.5% 75.0% D F StationLink Fixed-Route Service StationLink fixed-route service comprises lines consisting of rail feeder services transporting commuter rail passengers between Metrolink train stations and employment destinations in Orange County. Thus, travel is over a defined route with limited stops located at major employment centers. These trips are scheduled to meet specific train trips and, if needed, buses wait for late trains to ensure passengers reach their final destinations. StationLink fixed-route service exceeded the reliability system standard of 85 percent with an OTP of 94.4 percent for the fiscal year. FY FOURTH QURTER 10

11 Figure 9 - Reliability: On-time Performance [StationLink Fixed-Route] FY FY STNDRD 100.0% 97.5% 95.0% 92.5% 90.0% 87.5% 85.0% 82.5% D F Express Fixed-route Service Express fixed-route service is categorized into two types: intra-county (lines ) which transport commuters within Orange County and inter-county (lines ) which transport riders between Orange County and neighboring counties (Los ngeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino). Express fixed-route service did not meet the reliability system standard of 85 percent with an OTP of 81.6 percent for the fiscal year. However, overall OTP for this service has shown a positive improvement since October In addition, schedules for some of the lowest performing express routes (i.e., 211, 212 and 213) were adjusted before the une 2013 Service Change to improve OTP. Most of these routes did experience positive trends, and staff will continue to monitor their performance and make appropriate schedule adjustments in the October 2013 Service Change. Figure 10 - Reliability: On-time Performance [Express Fixed-Route] FY FY STNDRD 92.5% 90.0% 87.5% 85.0% 82.5% 80.0% 77.5% 75.0% D F FY FOURTH QURTER 11

12 CCESS CCESS service was just below the reliability system standard of 95 percent with an OTP of 94.2 percent. However, Figure 11 depicts the increases in OTP since the lowest point in September In addition, CCESS has recorded a fifth consecutive quarter of improvement in OTP, with the fourth quarter exceeding the standard. The positive trends are a direct outcome of strategies implemented by OCT and contractor staff to improve CCESS service efficiency with the use of the supplemental taxi service. s a result, OTP has increased by 1 percent from the previous year s OTP of 93.3 percent. Figure 11 - Reliability: On-time Performance [CCESS] FY FY STNDRD 96.0% 95.0% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 91.0% 90.0% D F Results Table Reliability: On-time Performance Mode Standard FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date ll Fixed-Route 85.0% 85.6% 84.2% -1.4% -1.6% Local FR 85.0% 85.2% 83.7% -1.5% -1.8% Community FR 85.0% 86.4% 86.3% -0.1% -0.1% StationLink FR 85.0% 95.1% 94.4% -0.7% -0.7% Express FR 85.0% 84.8% 81.6% -3.3% -3.8% CCESS 95.0% 93.3% 94.2% 0.9% 1% Fourth Quarter Only ll Fixed-Route 85.0% 85.1% 84.4% -0.7% -0.8% Local FR 85.0% 84.5% 84.2% -0.3% -0.4% Community FR 85.0% 86.4% 85.6% -0.8% -0.9% StationLink FR 85.0% 93.8% 95.6% 1.8% 1.9% Express FR 85.0% 86.4% 82.5% -3.9% -4.5% CCESS 95.0% 94.1% 95.3% 1.2% 1.3% FY FOURTH QURTER 12

13 Reliability: Service Delivery Failure In addition to OTP, CCESS measures service delivery failures (SDF) a unique measurement specific to the program. This indicator is an occurrence when a vehicle does not arrive at the pick-up location until 90 minutes or more after the conclusion of a 30-minute on-time window (i.e., 120 minutes or more). Summary SDF occurrences for CCESS totaled 135 a decrease of 42.1 percent from the previous year s count of 233 SDFs. For another consecutive quarter, a pivotal contributor to the improvement in SDF has been the use of supplemental taxi service in a proactive manner. Over 1.1 million CCESS trips are provided every year, making these occurrences less than one percent of the total trips provided; and while this is a very low percentage, OCT and contractor staff constantly work toward the goal of no SDFs. Figure 12 - Reliability: Service Delivery Failure [CCESS] FY FY D F Results Table Service Delivery Failure Mode Standard FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date % Fourth Quarter Only % FY FOURTH QURTER 13

14 Reliability: Miles Between Road Calls Miles between road calls is a maintenance performance indicator that measures the vehicle miles between mechanical failures of a vehicle used for public transit during revenue service. Road calls may cause a delay in service and necessitate removing the vehicle from service until repairs are made. Summaries Directly Operated Fixed-route t the end of FY , DOFR exceeded the maintenance reliability standard of 14,000 miles or more between road calls with 15,662. However, this is a decrease of 9.8 percent from 17,361 miles between road calls in the previous fiscal year. The primary reasons for the decrease is the age of the vehicles and the increasing mileage. s vehicles get older, their reliability tends to decrease. Moreover, additional buses were required to accommodate the 23,000 revenue hours that were added for schedule maintenance. Without purchasing new vehicles, older buses from the contingency fleet were used to operate the service and maintain the 20 percent spare ratio. Liquid natural gas (LNG) vehicles have seen a decrease in maintenance reliability, recording 15,507 miles between road calls this year compared to last year s 16,345. Similarly, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles recorded 20,133 miles between road calls this year, compared to 21,861 last year. In addition, warranty issues have affected both the LNG and CNG vehicle engines. dditionally, the LNG buses have reached or surpassed their 12-year life cycle, while the CNG buses are at their mid-life six-year cycle. The LNG vehicles have an average age of 13 years and average mileage of over 510,000; the CNG buses have an average age of six years and average mileage of over 210,000. Twenty-nine 40-foot CNG vehicles are planned for purchase in the FY approved budget to replace some of the aging LNG buses. The diesel 60-foot articulated buses are also 12 to 13 years old, and their mileage ranges from 400,000 to 525,000. These vehicles have the highest incidence of failures, achieving less than 7,000 miles between road calls on a regular basis. To ensure an adequate number of articulated buses are available for service, a 50 percent spare ratio has been made available by reactivating articulated buses that were previously retired and sent to the contingency fleet. In addition, foot CNG articulated buses are currently in production to replace 20 of the 60-foot diesel articulated buses in the active fleet. Figure 13 - Reliability: Miles Between Road Calls [DOFR] thousands FY FY STNDRD D F FY FOURTH QURTER 14

15 Contracted Fixed-Route CFR exceeded the maintenance reliability standard of 12,000 or more miles between road calls with 13,530. When compared to the previous year s rate, the measurement decreased by 13 percent from 15,550 miles between road calls. The decrease in miles between road calls is influenced by the age and mileage of the fleet assigned to CFR. With the service transitioned from DOFR to CFR, the CFR fleet increased from 160 to 172 buses. The vehicles provided to support the service transition were older model buses. OCT and contractor maintenance staff will continue to identify and address maintenance reliability concerns to improve performance in this area. Eleven CNG cutaway vehicles are currently in production to replace some of the older buses in the CFR fleet. Figure 14 - Reliability: Miles Between Road Calls [CFR] FY FY STNDRD thousands D F CCESS CCESS exceeded the maintenance reliability standard of 25,000 or more miles between road calls with 25,322. However, this is a 2.5 percent decrease from the previous year s 25,981 miles between road calls. Similar to fixed-route, maintenance reliability is influenced by the age of the vehicles. These vehicles are not heavy duty and have a shorter lifer cycle; five years or 150,000 miles. The average age of the fleet is approximately four years, and the average mileage per vehicle is over 200,000 miles. Seventeen paratransit cutaway vehicles are currently in production to replace some of the older CCESS buses. Figure 15 - Reliability: Miles Between Road Calls [CCESS] FY FY STNDRD thousands D F FY FOURTH QURTER 15

16 Results Table Reliability: Miles Between Road Calls Mode Standard FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date DOFR 14,000 17,361 15,662-1, % Valid Road Calls n/a 1,065 1, % Fleet Miles n/a 18,489,969 17,603, , % CFR 12,000 15,550 13,530-2,020-13% Valid Road Calls n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 5,224,843 6,508,124 1,283, % CCESS 25,000 25,981 25, % Valid Road Calls n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 9,483,203 9,242, , % Fourth Quarter Only DOFR 14,000 15,963 17,050 1, % Valid Road Calls n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 4,485,742 4,347, , % CFR 12,000 12,801 11,247-1, % Valid Road Calls n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 1,420,880 1,720, , % CCESS 25,000 27,556 22,877-4,679-17% Valid Road Calls n/a % Fleet Miles n/a 2,397,340 2,287, , % FY FOURTH QURTER 16

17 Ridership Ridership (or boardings) is the number of rides taken by passengers using public transit and is influenced by the weather, economy, and seasonal variations in demand. Summaries ll Fixed-Route t the end of FY , ridership for all fixed-route was 0.7 percent within the ridership projection of 51.8 million boardings with 51.4 million boardings. This is approximately a 2.1 percent decrease in ridership from the previous year s 52.5 million boardings. The main contributor to the decrease in ridership was the fare increase that went into effect on February 10, Traditionally, a fare increase of 25 percent results in an eight percent decrease in boardings. However, since the fare increase was implemented in the second half of the fiscal year, the net impact on ridership is not yet known, but seems to be less than what was expected. complete analysis of the fare increase on ridership requires additional time for observation and analysis. Figure 16 - Ridership [ll Fixed-route] FY FY millions D F CCESS CCESS exceeded the ridership projection of 1.2 million boardings with 1.3 million boardings, an increase of 2.3 percent from the previous year. When comparing the factors impacting ridership between fixed-route and paratransit, it becomes evident that many CCESS trips are non-discretionary. CCESS trips are primarily for medical appointments or to attend day programs provided to persons with special needs unlike fixed-route ridership, which is heavily impacted by changes in the local economy and, in particular, the unemployment rate. FY FOURTH QURTER 17

18 Figure 17 - Ridership [CCESS] FY FY thousands D F Same Day Non-D Taxi For FY , a pilot expansion of the Same Day Non-D Taxi (SDT) program increased the subsidy per ride, which resulted in an increase in the trip distance from three miles to five miles. OCT anticipated cost savings from the increased SDT program as cost on this service peaks at $10.90 per ride as compared to the CCESS cost per boarding of $ The SDT program exceeded the ridership projection of 56,063 boardings with 68,316 passengers. In addition, SDT acquired 2,067 clients who did not use SDT service in FY and added 20,195 trips that were not in the program the previous year. year-end cost savings of these added trips are estimated at approximately $715,000, as compared to the cost of providing these trips on CCESS. telephone survey and additional ridership analysis are planned for FY to further evaluate the performance of the expanded program. Figure 18 - Ridership [Same Day Non-D Taxi] FY FY thousands D F FY FOURTH QURTER 18

19 Results Table - Ridership Mode Goal FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date ll FR 51,896,776 52,530,933 51,418,393-1,112, % DOFR 47,537,013 48,444,009 45,592,071-2,851, % CFR 4,359,763 4,086,924 5,826,322 1,739, % CCESS 1,219,634 1,335,305 1,365,980 30, % Same Day Taxi 56,063 43,102 68,316 25, % Fourth Quarter Only ll FR 13,019,103 13,231,644 12,632, , % DOFR 11,742,407 12,090,414 11,079,200-1,011, % CFR 1,276,696 1,141,230 1,553, , % CCESS 450, , ,339-4, % Same Day Taxi 20,705 11,188 16,854 5, % FY FOURTH QURTER 19

20 Passenger Fare Revenues Passenger fare revenues are the total revenues derived from the payment of passenger fares which include cash and pre-paid fares. Summaries To address rising costs and ensure OCT maintains a state-mandated 20 percent farebox recovery ratio, a fare increase of approximately 25 percent was implemented on February 10, In order to continue receiving state funding, OCT is required to collect a minimum of 20 cents from passenger fares for every dollar spent on bus service. The last fare increase took place in anuary Since then, the cost to provide bus service has increased. n additional fare adjustment was planned in 2011; however, an increase in sales tax allowed OCT to defer raising fares until ll Fixed-Route t the end of FY , all fixed-route did not meet the budget target of $51.1 million for passenger fare revenues with $47.8 million. The lower fare revenues are largely due to a combination of a decrease in the cash fares collected and an increase in the use of passes. Similar to the last several fare increases, customers recognized it is more economical to purchase passes rather than pay cash fares. s a result, there was a noticeable shift in ridership from cash fares to passes, which has a lower fare per boarding. However, when compared to the previous year, fare revenues increased by 4.9 percent. dditional contributors to the lower revenues include delayed fares as cash receipts continue to be accounted for and a delayed fourth quarter reimbursement from Metrolink for transfer boardings billable to OCT. When accounting for these delayed revenues, the year-end fare revenues are estimated at $48.2 million. Figure 19 - Passenger Fare Revenues [ll Fixed-Route] millions FY FY FY Year-End (YE) Estimate $5.0 $4.5 $4.0 $3.5 $3.0 D F FY FOURTH QURTER 20

21 Paratransit Paratransit consists of fares from CCESS service and special agencies such as the Regional Center of Orange County. Paratransit did not meet the budget target of $4.8 million for passenger fare revenues with $4.6 million. When compared to the previous year, this is a decrease of 6.6 percent from $4.9 million. The decrease is due to a delay in receiving fares from the Regional Center of Orange County. When accounting for these delayed fares, the year-end revenues are approximately $5.2 million, which would exceed the projection. s for the CCESS service, the fare increase and the higher boardings have contributed to a 7.4 percent increase in fare revenues, from $2.7 million in the previous year to $2.9 million in this fiscal year. Figure 20 - Passenger Fare Revenues [Paratransit] FY FY FY YE Estimate thousands $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 D F Results Table Passenger Fare Revenues Mode Goal FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date ll FR $51,122,182 $45,662,485 $47,877,355 $2,214, % DOFR $46,013,399 $41,736,181 $41,851,480 $115, % CFR $5,108,783 $3,926,304 $6,025,875 $2,099, % Paratransit $4,870,963 $4,948,207 $4,621,066 -$327, % CCESS n/a $2,777,198 $2,983,952 $206, % Fourth Quarter Only ll FR $17,891,566 $12,150,368 $12,988,493 $838, % DOFR $16,103,611 $11,007,818 $11,240,325 $232, % CFR $1,787,955 $1,142,550 $1,748,168 $605,618 53% Paratransit $1,756,300 $1,874,950 $988,402 -$866, % CCESS n/a $759,941 $796,886 $36, % FY FOURTH QURTER 21

22 Operating Expenses Operating costs include the total expenses to operate and maintain the transit system including labor, fuel, maintenance, wages and salaries, employee benefits, taxes, and other costs associated with transit operations. Summaries ll Fixed-Route ll fixed-route was under the budget target of $211.1 million for operating expenses with $189.7 million. In addition, the current year reported a 0.9 percent decrease from the previous year costs of $191.4 million. The narratives for the all fixed-route services have been separated between DOFR and CFR. For DOFR, operating expenses were five percent under budget with an actual of $166.2 million and a budget of $175 million. The majority of the under-runs are in fuels, salaries and benefits, and other services accounts. In total, there was a $4.4 million under-run in the fuel accounts. The under-run is due to a combination of lower utilization of CNG and gasoline, lower unit costs on CNG and LNG, and assuming that OCT would not receive the lternative Fuel Tax Credit (FTC) in the budget. In regards to salaries and benefits, there was approximately a $1.8 million under-run due to multiple vacancies in the Transit Division. s for other services, there were approximately $2.6 million in under-runs in these accounts, primarily associated with delays in paying invoices. The year-end estimate for DOFR operating expenses is approximately three percent under budget when accounting for the delayed payments. Figure 21 - Operating Expenses [DOFR] FY FY FY YE Estimate millions $22.0 $20.0 $18.0 $16.0 $14.0 $12.0 $10.0 D F For CFR, operating expenses were under budget by 34.9 percent with an actual of $23.5 million and a budget of $36.1 million. The under-run is due to a combination of service level, contract rate, a payment delay, and the FTC. In terms of service level, the budget assumed elements including approximately 323,000 RVH would be operated, but actual consumed RVH reached approximately 310,000. The budget also assumed the contract rate would be $67.41 per RVH, but after a contract renegotiation, the rate was lowered to $63.04 per RVH. In total, the lower service level and contract rate account for an under-run of about $2.2 million. For the payment delay, an under-run of $1.5 million is due to the invoice for CFR service being paid one month in arrears. Lastly, the FTC was not assumed in the budget, which contributed FY FOURTH QURTER 22

23 $1.5 million to the overall under-run. When accounting for the delayed invoice, the year-end estimated costs for CFR are approximately $25 million, which would be under the budget target. Figure 22 - Operating Expenses [CFR] FY FY FY YE Estimate millions $3.5 $3.0 $2.5 $2.0 $1.5 $1.0 $0.5 $0.0 D F Paratransit Paratransit was under the budget target of $56.3 million for operating expenses with $49.7 million. The under-run is due to invoices being two months in arrears. When accounting for these delayed invoices, the year-end costs are approximately $52.6 million, which would be under the budget target. When compared to the previous year, this projected cost is an increase of approximately 2.7 percent from $51.2 million. The increased cost from the prior year is due to an increase in demand of about 2.3 percent and an increase of one percent in the contract rate for the primary CCESS service provider. Figure 23 - Operating Expenses [Paratransit] FY FY FY YE Estimate millions $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 D F FY FOURTH QURTER 23

24 Results Table Operating Expenses Mode Goal FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date ll FR $211,199,901 $191,453,156 $189,710,134 -$1,743, % DOFR $175,055,240 $171,455,137 $166,206,568 -$5,248, % CFR $36,144,661 $19,998,020 $23,503,567 $3,505, % Paratransit $56,332,747 $51,225,008 $49,731,517 -$1,493, % CCESS $52,459,355 $48,137,535 $45,832,662 -$2,304, % Fourth Quarter Only ll FR $47,883,316 $54,725,759 $47,668,515 -$7,057, % DOFR $42,246,146 $48,777,111 $42,003,006 -$6,774, % CFR $5,637,169 $5,948,648 $5,665,509 -$283, % Paratransit $14,843,160 $14,225,588 $10,576,305 -$3,649, % CCESS $13,851,943 $13,230,430 $9,686,145 -$3,544, % FY FOURTH QURTER 24

25 Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox recovery ratio is a measure of the proportion of operating costs covered by passenger fares, calculated by dividing the farebox revenue by total operating expenses. s part of the budget development process, a goal was established for each of the modes, as shown in the goals listed on the charts below. minimum farebox recovery ratio of 20 percent for all service is required by the Transportation Development ct in order for transit agencies to receive the state sales tax available for public transit purposes. Summaries fare increase of approximately 25 percent was implemented on February 10, 2013 to address rising costs and ensure OCT maintains a state-mandated 20 percent farebox recovery ratio. s a result of the fare increase, both fixed-route and CCESS services recorded increased passenger fare revenues. ll Fixed-Route ll fixed-route exceeded the budget target of 24.2 percent for farebox recovery with 25.2 percent. When compared to the previous year results, this is an increase of 1.3 percent from 23.9 percent. The improvement in the farebox recovery ratio is mainly due to the higher revenues and lower operating expenses as described in the previous sections. When adjusting for delayed payments and fare collection, the year-end estimate is 25 percent and would exceed the budget target. Figure 24 - Farebox Recovery Ratio [ll Fixed-route] 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FY FY FY YE Estimate TRGET D F FY FOURTH QURTER 25

26 Paratransit Paratransit exceeded the budget target of 8.6 percent for farebox recovery with 9.3 percent. When compared to the previous year results, this is a decrease from 9.7 percent. When adjusting for delayed payments and fare collection, the year-end estimate is 9.9 percent which would exceed the budget target. Figure 25 - Farebox Recovery Ratio [Paratransit] 50.0% FY FY FY YE Estimate TRGET 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% D F Results Table Farebox Recovery Ratio Mode Goal FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date ll FR 24.2% 23.9% 25.2% 1.3% 5.4% DOFR 26.3% 24.3% 25.2% 0.9% 3.7% CFR 14.1% 19.6% 25.6% 6% 30.6% Paratransit 8.6% 9.7% 9.3% -0.4% -4.1% CCESS n/a 5.8% 6.5% 0.7% 12.1% Fourth Quarter Only ll FR 37.4% 22.2% 27.2% 5.0% 22.5% DOFR 38.1% 22.6% 26.8% 4.2% 18.6% CFR 31.7% 19.2% 30.9% 11.7% 60.9% Paratransit 11.8% 13.2% 9.3% -3.9% -29.5% CCESS n/a 5.7% 8.2% 2.5% 43.2% FY FOURTH QURTER 26

27 Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost per RVH is one of the many industry standards utilized to measure the cost efficiency of transit service. It is derived by dividing operating expenses by RVH. Summaries Directly Operated Fixed-Route DOFR was under the annual budget target of $ per RVH with $ per RVH. s mentioned in the previous section, there were significant under-runs in the fuel and salaries accounts that contributed to a decrease in cost per RVH for DOFR. When accounting for the delayed payments, the year-end estimate is $ per RVH which is under the budget target. Figure 26 - Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour [DOFR] $200 FY FY FY YE Estimate TRGET $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 D F Contracted Fixed-Route CFR was under the annual budget target of $ per RVH with $75.67 per RVH. Similar to DOFR, the lower cost per RVH was contributed by under-runs in multiple operating expense accounts. When accounting for the delayed invoice, the year-end estimate is $81.56 per RVH which is under the budget target. FY FOURTH QURTER 27

28 Figure 27 - Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour [CFR] $150 $125 $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 FY FY FY YE Estimate TRGET D F CCESS (Primary Service) CCESS was under the annual budget target of $90.98 per RVH with $71.05 per RVH. In addition, when compared to the previous year, cost per RVH decreased by 7.4 percent from $76.75 per RVH. The lower cost per RVH can be attributed to invoices being paid two months in arrears. When accounting for the delayed invoices, the year-end estimate is $76.78 per RVH which is under the budget target. Figure 28 - Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour [CCESS] $125 FY FY FY YE Estimate TRGET $100 $75 $50 $25 $0 D F FY FOURTH QURTER 28

29 Results Table Cost per Revenue Vehicle Hour Mode Goal FY FY Variance Variance % Fiscal Year-To-Date LL FR $ $ $ $ % RVH n/a 1,543,637 1,556,565 12, % DOFR $ $ $ $ % RVH n/a 1,310,402 1,246,343-64, % CFR $ $85.74 $ $ % RVH n/a 233, ,624 77, % CCESS $90.98 $76.75 $ $ % RVH* n/a 508, ,450-2, % Fourth Quarter Only LL FR $ $ $ $ % RVH n/a 384, ,835 9, % DOFR $ $ $ $ % RVH n/a 322, ,036-12, % CFR $ $95.01 $ $ % RVH n/a 62,613 83,837 21, % CCESS $90.98 $80.66 $ $ % RVH* n/a 128, , % *CCESS is a combination of both the primary CCESS provider and the supplemental CCESS service (taxi trips); however, for this particular measurement, cost per RVH is derived by using only the expenses and hours from the primary CCESS provider as the approved target was calculated with the same methodology. FY FOURTH QURTER 29