TCRP Report 141 (Project G-11)
Download
1 / 30

2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting Linda Cherrington Texas Transportation Institute - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 107 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' 2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting Linda Cherrington Texas Transportation Institute' - aglaia


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

TCRP Report 141 (Project G-11)A Methodology for Performance Measurement andPeer Comparison in the Public Transportation IndustryAndBenchmarking Public Transportation Systems in Texas

2010 SCOPT/MTAP Annual Winter Meeting

Linda CherringtonTexas Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System


Tcrp g 11 project purpose
TCRP G-11 Project Purpose

  • Develop and test a methodology for performance measurement and peer comparison for:

    • All fixed-route components of a public transit system

    • Motorbus (MB) mode specifically

    • Major rail modes specifically

  • Provide guidance on applying performance measurement and peer comparison to:

    • Improve public transit agency operations

    • Demonstrate public transit’s ability to meet local or regional transportation goals

  • This presentation highlights key findings and products from the project


Research team
Research Team

  • Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

  • Texas Transportation Institute,Texas A&M University System

  • Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)at University of South Florida

  • Nakanishi Research & Consulting

  • Lehman Center for Transportation Researchat Florida International University


Desired methodology attributes
Desired Methodology Attributes

  • Robust

  • Practical

  • Transparent

  • Uniform

  • Innovative

  • Adaptable

  • Accessible

  • Updateable

  • Build upon TCRP G-6 work

    TCRP Report 88 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System


Research steps
Research Steps

  • Literature review & agency experience

  • Identify comparison factors, performance measures

  • Develop initial methodology

  • Small-scale test, revise methodology

    • Agencies chose topic and reviewed results, researchers applied method

    • 10 transit agencies, 5 state DOTs, Chicago RTA

  • Large-scale test, revise methodology

    • Agencies chose topic, applied method, reviewed results

    • 19 transit agencies, 2 state DOTs, Chicago RTA


Definition of benchmarking
Definition of ”Benchmarking”

  • “The continuous process of measuring products, services, and practices against the toughest competitors or those companies recognized as industry leaders.”

    • David Kearns, Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation 

  • “The search for industry best practices.”

    • Robert  C.  Camp, Best Practice Institute.  

  • “A process of comparing the performance and process characteristics between two or more organizations in order to learn how to improve.”

    • Gregory Watson,  former Vice President of Quality, Xerox Corp.  


Levels of benchmarking
Levels of Benchmarking

  • Adapted from European EQUIP benchmarking project

  • Level 1: Trend analysis

  • Level 2: Peer comparison

  • Level 3: Agency contact

  • Level 4: Benchmarking networks



Performance measure selection
Performance Measure Selection

  • TCRP Report 141 provides guidance on National Transit Database (NTD)-derivable and other commonly used measures, linked to particular topics or applications

    • Outcome measures that measure results

    • Descriptive measures that provide clues as to why the results turned out the way they did

  • TCRP Report 88 provides an expanded library of measures that can also be considered for benchmarking network applications


Peer grouping process
Peer Grouping Process

  • Methodology seeks to find agencies with similar characteristics

  • Methodology produces a ”likeness score” that indicates how similar or dissimilar two agencies are, and provides guidance on how to interpret the likeness score

  • Ideally, use 8–10 agencies with the smallest likeness scores as the peer group

    • Fewer peers may be used when likeness scores are out of the desirable range, but use at least 4 peers at a minimum


Peer grouping factors

Service characteristics

Modes operated (NTD)

Service area type (G-11)

Percent service purchased (NTD)

Percent service demand-response (NTD)

Vehicle-miles operated (NTD)

Annual operating budget (NTD)

Regional characteristics

Urban area population (Census)

Population growth (Census)

Population density (Census)

State capital (G-11)

Percent college students (Census)

Percent low-income (Census)

Roadway delay (TTI)

Freeway lane-miles (TTI)

Distance (G-11)

Peer Grouping Factors

Many other factors considered and tested during project

These factors provided the best differentiation between potential peers, and peer groupings that were the most acceptable to agencies participating in the research tests


Software tool
Software Tool

  • Peer-grouping methodology has been incorporated into the online Florida Transit Information System (FTIS) tool

    • Available now

    • Sponsored by the Florida DOT, but provides access to the full NTD, plus data added by the TCRP G-11 project

  • Requires a free, one-time registration at www.ftis.org

  • Testing during the G-11 project found that users were able to learn about the methodology, learn how to use the tool, and perform their first analysis with 16 person-hours of work or less

    • Subsequent analyses can be performed very quickly


Software tool1
Software Tool

  • Identify peer groups for specific modes or agency as a whole


Software tool2
Software Tool

  • Retrieve NTD-based measures for the peer group


Software tool3
Software Tool

  • Analyze data within FTIS or export to a spreadsheet


Software tool4
Software Tool

  • Investigate performance results


Research results
Research Results

Published as

TCRP Report 141

http://onlinepubs.trb.org


Benchmarking and improving texas rural and small urban public transportation systems

Benchmarking and Improving Texas Rural and Small Urban Public Transportation Systems

Texas Department of Transportation

Research Project 6205


Overview of project
Overview of Project

  • Establishing peer groups (rural and state-funded urban)

    • 38 rural transit districts

    • 30 eligible state-funded urban transit districts*

  • Examining effectiveness and efficiency by peer group

  • Identifying strategies to improve performance (transferable best practices)

*Does not include transit authorities in urban areas >200,0000


State

Transit Funds

35%

Eligible Urban

Providers

65%

Rural Providers

50%

Needs

50%

Performance

65%

Needs

35%

Performance

100% population

75% population

25% land area

Transit Funding Formula


Performance measures

Urban Performance

Revenue miles/ Operating expenses

Passengers/ Revenue miles

Local investment/ Operating expense

Passengers/ Population for urbanized area

Rural Performance

Revenue miles/ Operating expenses

Passengers/ Revenue miles

Locally investment/ Operating expense

Performance Measures


Peer grouping environmental data
Peer Grouping Environmental Data

  • Population

  • Service area size

  • Service area density

  • Percent of service area population that is age 65 or older

  • Percent of households with zero automobiles

  • Percent of population below poverty level

  • Percent of population ages 21 to 64 that are disabled





Determining high performers urban
Determining High Performers - Urban

1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean


Determining high performers rural
Determining High Performers – Rural

1 Standard Deviation Above the Mean


Benchmarking strategies to improve performance
Benchmarking Strategies to Improve Performance

  • Strategies to grow ridership and improve effectiveness

  • Efforts to manage cost to improve efficiency

  • Initiatives to maximize service and labor productivity

  • Projects to improve management processes


Why peer comparison and benchmarking
Why Peer Comparison and Benchmarking?

  • Informally, “the practice of being humble enough to admit that someone else is better at something and wise enough to try to learn how to match, and even surpass, them at it.”

    • American Productivity & Quality Center


Questions
Questions?

Linda Cherrington

[email protected]

713-686-2971 ext 15140


ad