ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Austin Metropolitan Area
PLAN 670: Urban Public Transportation Planning Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Table of Contents Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Historical Overview of the System ................................................................................................................ 2 Transit Agencies ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) – Capital Metro: ........................................... 2 Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS): ............................................................................. 2 Austin‐San Antonio Commuter Rail District (ASARD): .......................................................................... 3 City of Round Rock: ............................................................................................................................... 3 Texas State University: .......................................................................................................................... 3 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) – Capital Metro ................................................ 3 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) ............................................................................................. 5 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 5 Opinion ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) ........................................................................ 7 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 7 Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................. 7 Opinion .................................................................................................................................................... 10 City of Austin (Transportation Division) ...................................................................................................... 11 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 11 Performance Measures ........................................................................................................................... 12 Opinion .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority ......................................................................................... 13 Strategic Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Strategic Vision ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Service Plan 2020 Project ........................................................................................................................ 14 All Systems Go Long‐Range Plan ............................................................................................................. 14 Capital Metro Rail ................................................................................................................................... 14 Performance Measures ........................................................................................................................... 15 Conclusions of CMTA’s Quadrennial Performance Audit in 2004 .......................................................... 16 Opinion .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 18 References .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table of Figures Table 1: Transportation Networks ................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Alternative Mode Performance ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: CAMPO Journey to Work Trips in 2030 vs. Big Sister Cities in 2000 ............................................. 10 Table 4: Performance Measures ................................................................................................................. 12 Table 5: One Way Fares ‐ Capital Metro, August 2010 ............................................................................... 14 Table 6: FY 2009 Projections and FY 2010 Budget for different service types ........................................... 15 Table 7: Comparison of different agencies w.r.t transit‐related parameters mentioned in the Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013 ................................................................................................... 17 Table 8: Recommendations for different agencies w.r.t transit‐related parameters mentioned in the Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013 ......................................................................................... 18
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Executive summary This report seeks to review the political climate for public transit planning, and its decision making. The objective is to identify the extent to which the decision making framework supports the transit system in the City of Austin Metropolitan area. In first part of the report, the history and evolution of the transit system in the City of Austin Metropolitan region is reviewed in terms of transit mode, funding sources of each mode, major ridership, etc. After a brief understanding of the history and evolution of the transit system, public transit decision making environments are assessed in the second part of the report. To do so, in this report, we assessed goals, objectives, strategies, as well as relevant performance measures. The purpose is to find out if these elements, of different core agencies, such as Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), City of Austin (Transportation Division) and Transit Authority, really supports public transit as a meaningful mode in achieving their vision, and to what degree. This report demonstrates that TXDOT surely provide a big picture on transportation, but not specific on transit issues; CAMPO address and support transportation issues directly, but does not emphasize much on transit; City of Austin make efforts to support transit, but not directly. This report finally present some basic recommendations, based on the assessment of the observed flaws in the political framework. The idea is to encourage a more coordinated transit‐supportive approach to transit planning in the City of Austin Metropolitan area.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 1
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Historical Overview of the System The transportation was at its primitive stages when the City of Austin was found. In the earliest days, travel was restricted to walking, riding horseback, or driving a horse‐drawn wagon. In 1875, few years after the arrival of first passenger train (1871), mule drawn streetcars were moving up and down Congress Avenue. This mode of public transit was brought up by the mule‐drawn streetcar company, called the Austin City Railroad Company which was owned by John M. Swisher, a banker. For almost twenty years, mule‐drawn streetcars ruled the roads. Later in 1891, the city allotted, a real estate developer named M.M.Shipe, to get his electric streetcar business running. His company was named Austin Rapid Transit Railway Company. Initially, for a time the electric streetcars and mule‐drawn cars competed and then the mules were phased out after the 1891 barn fire. Throughout their six decades of operation in Austin, streetcar operators were continually trying to attract more riders. In1940, Austin's electric streetcars ceased operations and the Austin Transit Company's brand new fleet of buses launched.
Transit Agencies
Figure 1 Mule‐Drawn Streetcar
Figure 2 Electric Streetcars
In Austin Metropolitan Region, there are two State‐designated Public Transportation operating agencies:
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) – Capital Metro: It is a public transit provider owned by the city of Austin, Texas. It operates buses and will start operating the Capital Metro Rail system in 2009. (See Map 01 in Appendix) Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS): It is a Rural Transit District which provides general transportation services to the three counties in the CAMPO region (Williamson, Hays and Travis County) along with six others namely Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette and Lee counties. It has provided community‐based public transportation services since 1979. CARTS buses operate from five intermodal stations (one of which is Austin), located strategically throughout the CARTS district, each offers a variety of transportation options from various carriers.
Figure 3 First Buses in 1940
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Figure 4 CARTS Buses Service Area Map
Page 2
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK The three other local organizations that provide public transportation services in the region are:
AustinSan Antonio Commuter Rail District (ASARD): The Austin‐San Antonio Commuter Rail District was created by the Texas State Legislature to pursue development of passenger rail service in the Austin‐San Antonio Corridor. The District currently includes Austin and San Antonio and will likely grow, to include additional communities in the corridor, in the future. City of Round Rock: The City of Round Rock provides public transportation within Round Rock. Texas State University: Texas State University currently provides commuter bus service to faculty, students and staff, connecting downtown Austin to the Texas State University Campus in San Marcos. Of all the transit agencies Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) – Capital Metro being the most significant one, let us discuss the development and evolution of this transit provider in detail.
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) – Capital Metro Capital Metro was created on January 19, 1985. The voters in Austin and the surrounding area approved the formation of CMTA and agreed that the communities would support the agency with the proceeds from a one percent sales tax. During the election, the voters also approved a service plan that took over the existing bus services of Austin and called for the development of a light rail transportation system to serve the area. Ten capital‐area jurisdictions voted to participate in Capital Metro, including Austin. Later on some of the suburban cities also voted to join the service area, but some of the original member jurisdictions withdrew denying bus service to their area. Since Texas law prohibits collective bargaining by public employees, receiving Federal Funding under the Federal Transportation Act was a problem. A non‐profit corporation – StarTran – was created to operate Capital Metro’s assets and a Transit Union was also created to represent the employees of Star Tran. In 1989, the MTA was cut to ¾ % because people perceived that there are many buses which are running empty. Due to this, CMTA eliminated fares entirely in an attempt to increase ridership. This program surely attracted riders but the people, due to media, also thought that too many ‘problem riders’ were using the system. A large percentage of public supported the free‐fare program and Capital Metro reinstated fares in January 1991. In October 1995, the Board of Directors reinstated the MTA sales and use tax to the full one‐ percent. Capital Metro eventually became the first bus transit agency to have its entire bus fleet equipped with wheelchair ramps. In 1997, there was a performance review by the Texas Controller of Public Accounts, and cited an on‐going criminal investigation. The charges were irresponsible management, expensive and embarrassing mistakes, dubious contracting and purchasing practices, and $118,000 spent on food, parties, and presents for its employees.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 3
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK In 2000, a proposal for spending $1.9 billion for a light rail system with 52 miles of track on existing streets was put forth by Capital Metro. The referendum was narrowly defeated at the polls. In 2004, StarTran went on strike. Despite the fact that StarTran employees were already the highest paid bus operators in the state, again in 2008, StarTran voted for a strike. The strike caused the transit agency to reduce its fixed and paratransit service levels, particularly impacting Austin residents who had to use public transit. In the same year (2004), after continuous efforts of capital metro, a commuter rail plan, to be built on pre‐ existing freight rail lines, was approved by the voters. The Metro Rail Red Line which was supposed to begin in December 2008, got delayed eventually due to continued construction problems. In September 2005, Stadler Rail won a bid to build six diesel‐electric rail cars for the Capital Metro system. The initial cost for this rail line was planned to be $90 million. However, continued construction problems have caused the project to exceed budget. In 2009, it is believed to be the inaugural of the All Systems Go long range plan, with the beginning of the Capital Metro Red Line. The 20‐year transit plan also included expanded local and express bus service, new Rapid Bus service, as well as access to land next to the tracks to create hike and bike trails. This was some nuts‐and‐bolts background information about Capital Metro. Now let us try and assess the Current Transit policy Climate and the Transportation decision making environment.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 4
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Goals and Objectives In Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013, prepared by TxDOT, five goals and objectives establishes the general direction, which will in turn realize the Transportation vision and mission for Texas Metropolitan Area. These goals are: 1. Reduce congestion 2. Enhance safety 3. Expand economic opportunity 4. Improve air quality 5. Preserve the value of transportation assets For goals and objectives listed above, TxDOT documented the performance measures for each goal separately along with the strategies to achieve these goals. In order to have a better understanding and clear insight of these goals & its performance measures, the first step is to outline these goals & performance measures; discuss its implications on public transit. Goal 1: Reduce Congestion Performance measure for this goal has the following indexes, The Travel Time Index: Indicates the average amount of extra time it takes to travel during rush hours than during non‐congested times. Congested Peak Travel Times: While the Travel Time Index indicates how much time the individual traveler spends on congested roads, the percent of congested peak travel indicates the amount of overall travel that occurs in congested conditions. Strategies: To establish ‘Intelligent Transportation Systems’ and ‘Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan’. Goal 2: Enhance Safety Performance measure for this goal is Fatality rate —the number of deaths on Texas’ roads per 100 million vehicle‐miles traveled. Strategies: To establish partnership, including state and local law enforcement and emergency services, federal agencies, and public health and education entities all across Texas; house all crash data for the state in a new crash data system that will allow them to better determine the causes of crashes— vehicle, human, and infrastructure—and make better decisions to improve roadway safety; as well as other program, such as
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 5
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Teens in the Driver Seat, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, Alcohol and Drug Countermeasure Programs. However, these strategies do not imply to the state‐wide public transit in an effective way. Goal 3: Expand Economic Opportunity Performance measure for this goal is relatively unclear and difficult to understand; it is primarily related to business productivity and personal wealth, as well as economic activity generated by TxDOT. Goal 4: Improve Air Quality Performance measure for this goal is index of vehicle emissions. Strategies: Clean Air Public Awareness Program in the nation which provides consumers with five simple behavioral tips that can reduce air pollution: 1) maintain your vehicle, 2) drive less, 3) buy a “cleaner” vehicle, 4) drive the speed limit, and 5) reduce idling. Implementing a Clean Air Plan: Purchase alternative fueled vehicles and low emission vehicles such as hybrids; cleaner‐burning low and ultra low emission diesel fuel in all our on‐ and off‐road equipment; purchase only solar‐powered zero‐emission sign and arrow boards; encourage contractors to improve air quality by using newer, cleaner‐burning equipment, etc. Goal 5: Preserve the value of Transportation Assets Performance measures for this goal are fine road pavements and bridge condition. Strategies: To establish Innovative Engineering Science and Multiple Funding Options.
Opinion As mentioned above, in Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013, the first goal is to reduce congestion. To achieve this goal, specific programs like Intelligent Transportation Systems and Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan are encouraged. In establishing Intelligent Transportation Systems, the Strategic Transportation Plan mentioned that “to reduce congestion and create more reliable travel times, plan are expanding public transit, building toll roads, and applying congestion pricing policies.” It is evident that public transit might be a choice for reducing traffic congestion, but not a meaningful and prioritized way to be supported by the strategic plan. Also, Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan implies that TxDOT will support each MPO to develop their mobility plan for this goal. In case of Austin metropolitan area, the goal to reduce congestion will depend on and achieved by their Long Range Mobility Plan i.e. CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan. However, in the assessment section, CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan fails to provide any substantial outlook on public transit improvement. Thus, for the first goal of TxDOT, it is difficult to consider transit as a primary way to achieve the goal. Also, CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan mainly focuses on ‘Auto and Carpool Management’.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 6
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK In the rest of four goals of Texas Strategic Transportation Plan, few imply public transit as key alternative way. In the goal to improve air quality, it is mentioned that “Idling cars use fuel less efficiently, while public transportation and ridesharing reduce emissions per trip.” However, TxDOT Strategic Plan primarily focuses on ‘Clean air public awareness program’ and alternative fuel sources, and not much on specific public transit projects. In sum, Texas Strategic Transportation Plan presents a broad picture – essentially political – on its goals and objectives, rather than a detailed focus on one specific mode. Also, Strategic Plan states that local MPO’s should take the lead in managing local congestion and enhancing air quality. Thus, local MPO, City, as well as Transit Authority are the real agencies that run specific public transit project and potentially develop transit program on the ground.
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) establishes Long Range Plan for Austin Metropolitan Area is. The most recent Long Range Transportation Plan of Austin City was CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan adopted in 2005.
Goals and Objectives The CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan seeks to protect and enhance quality of life in the three county regions by planning a transportation system that: • Addresses the region’s current travel needs and anticipates future travel needs; • Is safe and convenient for all residents of the region; • Appropriately balances mobility needs with preservation of existing natural features and neighborhoods; • Supports the use of multiple modes of travel including auto, public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle; • Allows for enhanced freight mobility within and through the region; • Supports improvement of regional air quality and water quality; and • Is affordable and can be maintained over time.
Performance Measures In the Mobility 2030 Plan, CAMPO precedes a series of performance measures for the city’s future transportation system. To do so, the Long Range Plan incorporated three alternatives of transportation system to compare how the optimistic plan would work in the future. The alternatives are: Alternative One: the 2000 Transportation System is a baseline transportation system with which the future system performance shall be compared and assessed.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 7
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Alternative Two: The 2030 “No‐Build” Transportation System represents a theoretical future transportation system where no regional transportation improvements are built beyond those near‐term projects already committed through 2007 in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The performance of this system is presented in order to demonstrate what conditions in the region might be like if anticipated population growth occurs and no new projects are added to the transportation system. Alternative Three: The 2030 “Financially Constrained” Transportation System is the system called for by Long Range Plan. The performance of this system demonstrates what conditions in the region could be like in 2030 if the projects called for by this plan are constructed. For the performance measure, the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan put their primary effort to on transportation system performance, such as road and transit system. Those performance measures are including: 1. Transportation Networks Index: Length of road and transit system 2. Overall System Performance Index: Average weekday trips Index: Vehicle miles traveled 3. Motor Vehicle System Performance Index: Percent of roadway experiencing congestion Index: Total motor vehicle hour of travel and delay Index: Texas congestion index Index: Average network travel speed 4. Alternative Mode Performance Index: Percentage of walk, bicycle, carpool, transit, single occupant vehicle trips 5. Environmental Factors Index: Annual Gasoline, diesel consumption Index: Emissions Table 1 summarizes different types of transportation network systems by two alternatives, between 2030 no build and 2030 financially constrained. Since alternatives 2030 no build represent the Austin transportation system at the point of time of 2007, it could be representative of transportation system after 2007. So using the table we could compare Austin transportation system between 2007 and in the end of planning horizon 2030. In order to compare the degree of each type of facilities’ growth, we added forecasted population growth from 2007 to 2030.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 8
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK As Table 1 shown, total vehicle lane miles and Total Freeway/Parkway/Tollway Vehicle Lane Miles are expected to growth most, and they are mostly are auto‐motor oriented transportation system. For public transit system, fixed route bus service is expected to growth by 40%, but rapid bus and express bus is growth relatively less compared to auto system. Furthermore, none of commuter rail system would be improved since 2009’s system. Overall, three of Austin City transportation system would be improved as main focus, and two of it is for Auto motor system, and only one is for public transit. Table 1: Transportation Networks
2007
Total vehicle lane miles Total Freeway/Parkway/Tollway Vehicle Lane Miles Total Miles of Commuter Rail Total Miles of Rapid Bus and Express Bus Total Miles of Fixed Route Bus Service
9045
2030 Financially Pct. of network Constrained growth 12719 +41%
1190
1674
+41%
276 (2009) 672 1378
276 779 1933
+0% +16% +40%
Pct. Pop growth
+88%
Table 2 summarizes alternative mode performances. Comparing 2000 baseline mode with 2030 financially constrained plan, little would be changed for person’s trips by mode. Few of change are including that carpool would be increase 2% from base line, walk trips and single occupant vehicle trips decrease 1%, whereas, transit trips remain unchanged. In general, alternative of 2030 no build and 2030 financially constrained plan are hard to found to be essentially different in terms of mode share. Table 2: Alternative Mode Performance
Walk trips Bicycle trips Carpool trips Transit trips Single Occupant Vehicle trips Total
2000 4% 1% 40% 2% 53% 100%
2030 no build 3% 1% 42% 2% 52% 100%
2030 financially constrained 3% 1% 42% 2% 52% 100%
To assess the performance of CAMPO long rang plan, 2030 financially constrained alternative is compared with other peer cities in terms of population in 2000 by mode (see table 3). As the table shown, in CAMPO plan, drove alone is highest, but public transit is lowest among peer cities. Only carpool is possible mode that dedicated to be higher than some of other sister cities. Public transit is only 1% of total mode share.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 9
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Table 3: CAMPO Journey to Work Trips in 2030 vs. Big Sister Cities in 2000
Opinion As mentioned in the goals and objectives of the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan, one of the evident intentions regarding public transit is – to support the use of multiple modes including public transportation. Whether or not, other goals imply public transit investment, they certainly do not directly entail a meaningful consideration on public transit improvement. Out of total nine strategies enlisted in the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan, three notable strategies are, One of the strategies, in favor of public transit, is to allow all transportation modes to work as a seamless system. Another strategy, rather emphasizing on public transit, identifies and prioritizes improvements of local pedestrian and bicycle systems that would in turn benefit the regional transportation system. Overall, according to the strategies mentioned in the CAMPO Mobility 2030 Plan, public transit is hardly identified as one of the important alternate mode which would benefit the regional transportation system. In terms of performance measure, CAMPO Mobility Plan does not have their main focus on public transit. As a result, the improvement of public transit is relatively low as compared to other modes, especially carpool and single occupant vehicles. The only effort, this plan seems to be emphasizing on is high increase in ‘fixed bus service’ and comparatively less increase in ‘rapid & express buses’. Even then, the ‘increase’ in these services is less than the services in other peer cities.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 10
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
City of Austin (Transportation Division) Goals and Objectives The City of Austin has a Transportation Division as part of the Public Works Department. Though they did not mention about any specific goals and objectives for Transportation Planning in the city, their vision statement goes like this: “The Transportation Division’s mission is to continually improve the quality of the City's transportation network, providing our citizens with the safest and most efficient transportation system possible. Transportation’s vision is to become the best managed transportation organization in the United States ‐ meeting the needs of our customers through quality, innovation, engineering and excellence.” City of Austin also has a long‐range transportation plan known as The Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (AMATP).
The AMATP is a long‐range plan developed to meet transportation needs for the next 20 or so years. The AMATP is a multi‐modal approach (includes public transit, bike and pedestrian paths, roadways, etc.) to transportation planning designed to mitigate projected congestion of the transportation network and increase mobility options for users.
Apart from this, City of Austin is also looking forward to:
Effectively manage traffic problems in residential areas through Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP). Integrate bicycles into the transportation system of the City of Austin through Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. Regulate uncontrolled commuter parking practices in the neighborhood through Residential Permit Parking Program.
City of Austin forecasted the population growth to grow to almost one million people by 2020. In addition, to solve some of Austin's most challenging issues like traffic congestion, air quality and housing affordability, City of Austin is relying on rail and bus rapid transit systems of the Capital Metro’s All Systems Go long range plan. The All Systems Go long range plan intends to run the Metro Rail Red Line from 2009. ‘In response to this commuter rail service connecting the cities of Austin and Leander, Austin has made a direct commitment towards focusing growth around transit facilities by supporting Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD). TOD is a way for Austin to make long‐range coordinated transportation and land use decisions that will provide a variety of housing and mobility options and create active places where people can live, work, shop, interact and recreate. The City's mission with respect to Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) is to create transit‐supportive communities by optimizing the use of land around high quality transit and help Austin achieve some of its social, environmental and economic goals:
Support publicly funded transit investments and enhance transit ridership. Create greater mobility choice through improved travel options (walking, bicycling, transit, etc.)
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 11
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Decrease auto use and lessen the negative impacts of the automobile: contribution to traffic congestion and air pollution, high household spending on transportation, consumption of fossil fuels, and excessive parking needs. Create interesting and active places to live, work and play. Improve the design quality of the built environment. Increase housing options suited to a mix of generations and incomes. Achieve healthier lifestyles due to increased walking and bicycling. Foster economic development, an enhanced tax base and the potential for revenue from public‐sector real estate assets. Increase the predictability and consistency of the development process.’
The City of Austin believes that there are advantages to linking development and transit. Transit‐oriented development is one part of the solution to a range of transportation, social, and environmental problems, with potential to contribute to improving the quality of life in both Austin and the Central Texas Region.
Performance Measures ‘These provide departmental staff and management critical operating information; they provide City Management key decision‐making information for resource allocation, process improvements and other management decisions; additionally, they provide the City Council comprehensive data on each department's primary operating functions.’ Table 4: Performance Measures
Name: Description: Type: Name:
Description: Type: Name: Description: Type:
Average staff cost per regional transportation request Average staff costs per regional transportation request Efficiency Percent of regional transportation requests completed within agreed‐upon time frame measures timeliness & responsiveness of regional transportation work Result Number of regional transportation requests completed measures actual number of requests completed Output
Opinion City of Austin seems rather keen on supporting public transit of the city, as we can see from their series of effort on the transit related issues. The long range plan – Austin Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (AMATP) – also demonstrated city’s emphasis on public transit. Apart from Long Range Plan, the City also directed some other plans and development, such as Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, Transit‐ Oriented Development (TOD) to support and guide transit improvement of the City. Further, the City of Austin encourages and relies on Transit Authorities, like Capital Metro, CARTS in their public transit developing process. In sum, the City transportation division has put great emphasis on collaborative working with transit authority and other agencies to improve transit services. However, these efforts made by City’s Transportation division have an indirect effect on transit, and nothing much regarding its implementation. City of Austin should rely more on public transit agency and local MPO.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 12
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA), or Capital Metro, is a public transit provider owned by the city of Austin, Texas. It operates buses and soon will begin operating the Capital Metro Rail system, which has been indefinitely delayed from the scheduled opening date of March 30, 2009.
Strategic Goals Capital Metro’s management developed the following five goals: Improve employee and customer satisfaction. Improve the quality of operations performance. Enhance transport options to increase market share. Increase cost effectiveness of services. Stimulate the economic vitality of Central Texas In addition, the following strategic directions were developed which linked to long‐range goals: Improve employee and customer satisfaction. Hire and retain for attitude. Enhance relationships and communication with employees and contract services. Delight Capital Metro customers. Improve the quality of operations performance. Define and implement key performance indicators for operational performance. Develop service guidelines/standards. Enhance transport options to increase market share. Increase use of shared‐ride vehicles as an alternative to SOV (single occupancy vehicles). Enhance and maintain transportation leadership. Increase cost effectiveness of services. Define and implement key performance indicators for cost performance. Stimulate the economic vitality of Central Texas. Identify and implement key strategic alliances that increase transit options and contribute to a livable community and vibrant economy. According to the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Proposed Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 Budget, Capital Metro’s strategic management team developed the following Strategic mission:
Strategic Vision Double ridership by 2025 The FY 2009 and 2010 budget also includes the following All Systems Go! Programs to support the strategic vision:
Beginning of Metro Rail Red line service, the region’s first passenger rail, from Downtown Austin to Leander. Initialization of connector services from new rail stations to key destinations. Design of Metro Rapid bus service along two corridors. Origin and Destination survey to analyze current trends transit use. Completion of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis to evaluate and restructure fixed route and Para‐transit services.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 13
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Service Plan 2020 Project Capital Metro is continuously striving to improve its bus service. In this situation, the Service Plan 2020 effort is essential in meeting the current and projected needs of the Central Texas region. Service Plan 2020 will seek to improve the transit system, specifically:
Design bus services to better meet the needs of the region Increase transit ridership to manage traffic congestion and improve air quality Increase cost effectiveness of bus operations
All Systems Go LongRange Plan The plan addresses the pressures of regional population growth in the Greater Austin area, estimated to double in the next 25 years. All Systems Go provides an opportunity to cut through Austin's traffic congestion and help ensure that our city's communities remain great places to live, work and play. They created the plan, which includes Capital Metro Rail, Capital Metro Rapid, expanded Local and Express bus services, more Park & Ride locations and possible future rail services in Central Texas.
Capital Metro Rail The Red Line will run on 32‐miles of existing freight tracks between Leander and Downtown Austin. It will provide convenient service for suburban and central Austin residents from 2009. (See Map 02 in Appendix) According to the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Budget, Capital Metro will introduce a fare increase in August of FY 2010. The base fare will increase from $.75 to $1.00 and multi ride passes will also increase. Fares are listed below: Table 5: One Way Fares ‐ Capital Metro, August 2010
One Way Fares Oct 2008 ‐ Jul 2010 Beginning August 2010 Local Bus Fare $0.75 $1.00 Local Day Pass $1.50 $2.00 Express Fare $1.50 $2.00 Metro Rail Adult (1 zone/2 zones) $1.00 / $1.50 $1.50 / $2.00 Day Pass ‐ All services $3.00 $4.00 Stored Value Card $12.00 $12.00 31‐day Adult Pass Local Service $18.00 $25.00 31‐day Adult Pass all Services $36.00 $48.00 7‐day Pass $7.00 $10.00 Rideshare $45.00 $60.00 Metro Access 10‐Ride $7.00 $10.00 Metro Access Monthly Pass $22.50 $30.00 Reduced Fare Local * $0.35 $0.50 Reduced Fare All Services * $0.75 $1.00 Reduced fare for students 18 years and under with student ID and active duty and reserve military personnel with ID.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 14
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Another important factor is the expected increase in ridership. Ridership and Service Levels by Type Growth in ridership is the strategic goal of Capital Metro. For FY 2010, Capital Metro is projecting an increase in ridership of 968,406 from FY 2009 projections to approximately 33.5 million. The FY 2009 projections are 3.5 million lower than the FY2009 budget. This decrease in ridership was caused by the work stoppage in November, the drastic decrease in fuel prices and the effect of the fare increase in October. Capital Metro is a multi‐modal service provider that provides comprehensive public transportation throughout approximately 560 square miles of service area. The hours and miles of service comprise a majority of the budget. Table 6: FY 2009 Projections and FY 2010 Budget for different service types
Though there is substantial reasoning, by looking at the above two tables from the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Budget, it is really difficult to say if the ridership would increase with the increase in fares. However, the start of Capital Metro Red Line would surely increase the ridership by a great extent.
Performance Measures For the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Quadrennial Performance Audit in 2004, in accordance with Texas Transportation Code, KPMG assessed several quantitative indicators of Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (CMTA’s) operational performance. They are
Sales and use tax receipts per passenger Operating cost per passenger Fare recovery rate Operating cost per revenue mile and per revenue hour Average vehicle occupancy On‐time performance and Missed Trips Number of accidents per 100,000 miles Miles between mechanical road calls
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 15
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK There are additional data elements related to those mandated in order to provide a more complete contextual analysis of CMTA’s performance.
Operating Costs per Passenger, by Service Type Passenger Trips and Operating Costs by Transit Mode Passenger Revenue by Service Type Share of Total Vehicle Miles in Revenue Service
Conclusions of CMTA’s Quadrennial Performance Audit in 2004 In general, CMTA has maintained or improved its performance during the period included in this Quadrennial Performance Audit. Though faced with a sagging economy and declining tax revenues from fiscal year 2001 to 2003, the Authority increased its Passenger Trip count, and improved efficiency in terms of the share of vehicle mileage spent in revenue service. In the same period, CMTA also underscored its customer‐service and safety focus by improving on‐time performance and reducing its accident rate. CMTA has also demonstrated improvement in its Vehicle Maintenance functions.
Opinion The above mentioned summary, of CMTA’s Quadrennial Performance Audit in 2004, states that CMTA played an important role in enhancing the transit system and its conditions. It is clearly demonstrated that the starting of Capital Metro Red Line would increase the ridership by a great extent in the FY 2010. Also the City's mission with respect to Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) would be a great potential to create transit‐supportive communities by optimizing the use of land around high quality transit. Important projects like Service Plan 2020 and All Systems Go long range plan shows a great scope and commitment towards extension for the increasing transit needs of the on‐growing Austin’s population. Since history, it is evident that Capital Metro works in collaboration with the City of Austin and CAMPO. Apparently, it can also be said that Capital Metro takes care, of transit related goals, of TxDOT, CAMPO and City of Austin (Transportation Division).
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 16
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Conclusion As discussed, it is difficult to say that there is enough similarity in the goals, objectives and performance measures of TxDOT, CAMPO, City of Austin, as well as the Transit Agencies. As far as goals of different agencies are concerned, it is evident from the following table that TxDOT and CAMPO are less supportive to public transit as compared to the City of Austin (Transportation Divison) and Transit Operators. Secondly, for strategies, it is clearly seen that TxDoT encourages local MPO to support transit. By looking at the strategies of CAMPO, it seems that CAMPO encourages Auto and Carpool more than transit. Finally, although the City of Austin encourages public transit in their strategies, however its relation to transit enhancement is relatively indirect. Table 7: Comparison of different agencies w.r.t transit‐related parameters mentioned in the Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013
Transit related Goals Strategy Performance Relation
TxDOT
CAMPO
City of Austin
Transit operator
Mention Encourage MPO Less Indirect
Mention More emphasis on Auto/carpool Less Direct
Encourage transit Rely on transit agency More Indirect
Implement transit Series of study and plan Most Direct
Overall, TxDOT provides more political and broad picture of transportation system in its goals and objectives, rather than focusing on one specific mode. In TxDOT’s goals, enhancement of public transit is merely mentioned, and more responsibility of public transit is pushed towards the local MPOs. Thus, local MPO, City, as well as the Transit Authority ought to take the major responsibilities of formulating and running specific projects, along with potential development of transit on the ground. However, by looking at Austin’s MPO plan, it is apparent that even CAMPO mobility plan does not have their main focus on public transit. Due to this, improvement of public transit might be relatively less as compared to the other modes, especially carpool and single occupant vehicles. The only effort, this plan seems to be emphasizing on is high increase in ‘fixed bus service’ and comparatively less increase in ‘rapid & express buses’. Even then, the ‘increase’ in these services would be less than the services in other peer cities (as discussed above). Unlike the TxDOT and CAMPO, the City of Austin (Transportation division) has put large emphasis on correspondingly working with transit authority and other agencies to improve transit services. These efforts include Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD), etc. However, these efforts made by City Transportation division are indirect in nature, and not on the ground for implementation. We can see that City of Austin rely more on public transit agencies and MPO. Ideally, Public transit agencies, such as Capital Metro and CARTS, have done a lot of work regarding public transit in past several years. Capital Metro played an important role in enhancing the transit system and its conditions. With starting of Capital Metro Red Line, the ridership would increase by a great extent in no time.
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 17
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Moreover, important projects like Service Plan 2020 and All Systems Go long range plan shows a great scope and commitment towards extension for the increasing transit needs of the on‐growing Austin’s population. In reality, for Austin Metropolitan area, it is only the Transit operators and, to some extent, City of Austin (Transportation Division) that operates, improves and, manages the public transit. TxDOT and CAMPO barely emphasize or demonstrate any intention of transit enhancement. Therefore, recommendations to redefine the process, to encourage a more coordinated and transit‐ supportive approach towards transit planning is necessary.
Recommendations The recommendations presented in this paper are general, and based on the table above. Firstly, the TxDOT should emphasize more on public transit in its goals and objectives. The strategy should be, not only to encourage MPO’s plan, but also to specify to a real contact with operation, so that the link to public transit is enhanced. Secondly, for CAMPO, more emphasis should be given to transit in the mobility plan instead of auto, carpool and other modes. Thirdly, for City of Austin, direct relationship with public transit should be established. For example: Having political authority and fiscal means so that the City could play a powerful role in the transit operations. Table 8: Recommendations for different agencies w.r.t transit‐related parameters mentioned in the Texas Strategic Transportation Plan 2009‐2013
Transit related Goals Strategy Relation
TxDOT
CAMPO
City of Austin
Transit operator
Emphasis Project/Encourage MPO Enhance
Emphasis More emphasis on transit Direct
Encourage transit Project/Reliance on transit agencies Enhance (Direct)
Implement transit Series of study and plan Direct
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 18
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
http://atxhistory.org/transportation/aas_austintransport_020857 http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A77996 http://atxhistory.org/transportation/historicalhighlights http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/seaholm/history.htm http://www.capmetro.org/news/history.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority#History http://www.ridecarts.com/ http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/transportation/ http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/trafficcalming/program.htm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/bicycle/default.htm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/rppp.htm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/tod/default.htm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/eperf/index.cfm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/transplan/amatp_faq.htm http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/tod/why_tod.htm http://www.capmetro.org/index.asp http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital‐metrorail.shtml http://www.capmetro.org/docs/FY2004_Quadrennial_Review.pdf http://www.capmetro.org/docs/GFOA.pdf http://www.capmetro.org/docs/Proposed%20FY%202010%20Budget%20Book.pdf http://www.capmetro.org/docs/cafr_08.pdf http://www.capmetro.org/docs/FY2009Budget.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPMG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 19
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK
Appendix Map 01 – All Systems Go Long Range Plan
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 20
ADDRESSING TRANSIT IN A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK Map 02 – Capital Metro Red Line Plan
Submitted by: Avinash Shrivastava, Wenhao Li
Page 21