THOMAS A. RUBIN, CPA, CMA, CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM a presentation to THE TRANSIT COALITION re the LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and TRANSIT IN LOS ANGELES November 27, 2007
OVERVIEW • Understanding Surface Transportation in Greater Los Angeles • The Failure of the MTA Grand Strategy • Bus vs. Rail, Costs, Value, and Budget • Conclusion: Bus Works in Los Angeles, Guideway Transit Doesn’t, so Strengthen What Works and Abandon What Doesn’t (Data is primarily through MTA FY07, as the MTA FY08 Adopted Budget is junk.)
Understanding Surface Transportation in Greater Los Angeles Greater Los Angeles Transportation Reality Check: “Southern California, the land of low-density, single-family detached homes on large lots connected by endless freeways, where driving is king.”
not
SoCal TRANSPORTATION REALITY I • Of the 69 U.S. Urbanized Areas with Populations of 500,000 or More, Greater Los Angles: – Has by far the highest population per square mile, over 50% more than Greater NYC – Is second to last in both freeway centerline miles and and total roadway miles per capita – Is 45 th in daily vehicle miles traveled/capita and peak hour trip length
SoCal TRANSPORTATION REALITY II – SoCal has third best “homes-jobs” balance – Average vehicle miles per freeway lane mile is by far the highest in the nation – LA has the “widest” freeways in the U.S. – MTA buses and trains are among the most crowded in the U.S. Why do we have congestion? Too many people, not enough road capacity – and transit is not a congestion relief tool.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY POPULATION BY ETHNICITY 1970-2040 (State of California/Department of Finance/Demographic Research Unit) 16 14 12 10 (M illio n s ) 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 Hispanic Black Asian/Pacific Islander White Native American
U.S. URBANIZED AREAS POPULATION >1,000,000 1980 Population vs. Central Business District Commercial Square Feet 600 NYC r-squared = .97 (w/o Los Angeles) C e n tr a l B u s in e s s D i s tr i c t S q u a r e F e e t 500 Least Squares Line 400 (T h o u s a n d s ) 300 CHI 200 Los Angeles "actual" was only 23% of prediction. PHIL DC 100 SF ATL LA DAL DET 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Urbanized Area Population (Millions)
LOS ANGELES DOESN’T HAVE A DOWNTOWN – AND THAT’S A GOOD THING • Halting the Freeway System implementation mid-way approximately 1970 left us very short of both road coverage and capacity. • Development of multiple regional centers and fine grid system of arterials and proven far superior for surface transportation • Of the >two dozen super-megatropolis’ of the world, LA has the least rail transit – and the best surface transportation system.
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE 69 LARGEST URBANIZED AREAS VMT/Freeway Lane vs. TTI 1.8 r-squared = .76 (VMT/Freeway Lane Independent) LA 1.7 1.6 CHI Travel Time Index SFO DC 1.5 ATL 1.4 NYC RSB 1.3 1.2 OMA 1.1 TUL ROC SPI 1.0 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 VMT/Freeway Lane
PROBLEM STATEMENT You are the new CEO for a transit agency. On your first day, your staff presents you with two projects for your busiest line: One will double the speed on the fastest mile from 30 mph to 60 mph. The other will add one mph on the slowest mile, from 5 mph to 6 mph. You can only do one – which one?
ANSWER Time to travel a mile @ 30 mph? 2 Minutes Time to travel a mile @ 60 mph? 1 Minute Time Saved: 1 Minute Time to travel a mile @ 5 mph: 12 Minutes Time to travel a mile @ 6 mph: 10 Minutes Time Saved: 2 Minutes Winner: Speed up 1 mph on the slowest mile.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? In transportation, there are many cases where greatly speeding up travel on the fastest portion of the trip is far less productive than a minor speed up of travel on the slowest portion of the trip – and take a guess at the relative costs. … and what is the slowest portion of a transit trip in Los Angeles?
ANSWER Standing at a bus stop or train station waiting for the bus or train to arrive. Second slowest is walking to and from the bus stop or train station. In transportation modeling, a very common “constant” for this is 250% - perceived wait time is 250% of clock time – IF YOU ARE WAITING TEN MINUTES FOR A BUS, IT SEEMS LIKE 25 MINUTES.
Bus vs. Rail, Costs, Value, and Budget • Productivity, Cost-Efficiency, and Cost- Effectiveness of MTA Bus and Rail Transit – Peer Analysis – MTA Internal Comparisons • MTA Bus and Rail Subsidies • Allocations of MTA Budget to Bus and Rail
Peer Analysis I • Source: National Transit Database, Federal Transit Administration, Report year 2005 Transit Profiles, Top 50 Reporting Agencies • All 12 Heavy Rail Systems (MTA Red Line) • All 19 Light Rail Systems (MTA Blue, Gold, and Green Lines) • 20 Largest Bus Systems (out of 44)
Peer Analysis II • Metrics ( Not Considering Capital Costs): –MTA-Preferred Metric: Farebox Recovery Ratio –Productivity (consumption per unit of service): Average Passenger Load –Cost-Efficiency (cost per unit of service): Cost and Subsidy/ Vehicle Revenue Hour –Cost-Effectiveness (taxpayer cost per service consumed: Subsidy/Passenger and Subsidy/Passenger-Mile
Heavy Rail Farebox Recovery Ratio FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Farebox Recover Ratio 68.3% 70% 65.2% LA-MTA is third lowest of the dozen. 59.2% 56.6% 60% 52.2% 46.5% 50% 45.0% 41.0% 38.6% 40% 32.1% 30.9% 30% 21.3% 18.9% 15.9% 20% 10% 0% A T T T A A H A A A A A C T D R T T T . T T T T e T C Y A B A M e P M R A v R M N v B E M P - C M A A - A M S A M G W e L d l p e t m h i g S i e W Agency
Heavy Rail Productivity FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Average Passenger Load 29.6 30 LA-MTA has the highest Average Passenger Load of the twelve. 25.0 24.5 24.2 23.7 23.5 25 23.0 22.5 21.0 20.9 20.9 20 16.5 15.6 14.4 15 10 5 0 A T T T A A H A A A A A C T D R T T T . T T T T e T C Y B A A M P e R M M v A R N E v B M P C - A M A - A M A S G M W e L d l p e t m h i g S i e W Agency
Heavy Rail Cost-Efficiency FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Cost, Revenue, and Subsidy per Revenue Vehicle Hour $295 $300 $276 MTA has the highest cost per hour and the highest subsidy per hour of the twelve operators. $233 $232 $250 $217 $214 $213 $182 $200 $170 $162 $161 $152 $148 $150 $118 $100 $50 $0 A T T A T H A A A A A A D C T R T . T T T T T T T e C A A M B Y R M P e R M A v v N P B E M C - A M A - M A A S G M W e L d l p e t m h i g S i e W Agency Subsidy/Revenue Vehicle Hour Fare Revenue/Revenue Vehicle Hour" Cost/Vehicle Revenue Hour
Heavy Rail Cost-Effectiveness FTA "TOP 50" HEAVY RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (12) Subsidy/Passenger & Subsidy/Passenger Mile $0.50 LA-MTA performs very poorly, beating only three heavy rail systems widely acknowledged as failures. $0.45 MDT $0.40 S u b s id y /P a s s e n g e r M ile PATH M-MTA GCRTA $0.35 LA-MTA $0.30 Simple Ave. $0.25 MBTA CTA $0.20 MARTA SEPTA $0.15 Weighted Ave. WMATA BART NYCT $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 Subsidy/Passenger
Heavy Rail – Conclusion • The Red Line is very productive – due, in part, to the discontinuance of some Bus lines and shifts of others to feed it. • Cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and farebox recovery ratio are all well below peer norms. • While average passenger load is high, the Red Line has yet to achieve half of the 298,000 daily riders projected for 2000.
Light Rail Farebox Recovery Ratio FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Farebox Recovery Ratio 60% 53.9% 47.2% 50% 42.4% LA-MTA is eighth lowest of the nineteen . 40% 34.4% 32.2% 31.3% 30.5% 30% 26.0% 25.7% 24.5% 21.4% 21.2% 17.5% 15.8% 15.5% 14.4% 13.9% 13.1% 12.2% 12.2% 10.2% 20% 10% 0% T I A D t I C T A T t A T A C A A T T S N A M A e T T T R T D T - . R T H T T O U T M U R e i J P B P e R M A S B c M - V D v M - N v A M E a C D i A C - - - r A S T M C S A T G S M e K d L l p e t m h i g S i e W Agency
Light Rail Productivity FTA "TOP 50" LIGHT RAIL OPERATORS 2005 (19) Average Passenger Load 39.7 40 LA-MTA has the third-highest Average Passenger Load of the nineteen. 34.7 35 33.1 31.7 30 27.9 26.8 26.6 26.5 25.3 24.8 25 23.6 23.3 21.9 19.2 19.2 20 18.2 17.7 15.9 15 13.1 12.7 9.8 10 5 0 T A T D I t T C I A C A A A T A T A t T S N M T e A T R T T . T T T R O H D - U T T e U M i J P R B A e M P R c V M - S B v D N M A - v D E a M i - C C A - - T r A M S A S C S T G M e L K d l p e t m h i g S i e W Agency
Recommend
More recommend
