Frequency Vs. Coverage

If we lived in a perfect world, a transit agency would not only be able to provide both an extensive network of core bus routes running frequently and a network of lines that is able to blanket the area with coverage.

However, few transit agencies have the resources to provide both and  with as budgets continue to be squeezed and the future of federal funding in doubt, transit agencies are having to squeeze where ever they can. The question that transit agencies and the citizens it serves has to answer do we provide the best service possible to the busiest routes or do they provide the most coverage possible?

People waiting for a bus 

Here are some pro's and con's to each service. Like previous pro and con postings, I will only point out some important pros and cons to each and if you have one that you think should also be considered be sure to throw it out in the comments.

First lets do the pros and cons of coverage:

Pro's:

The one major pro with a coverage network is that most people should be able to access a bus route both at home and to work. Until the 90's many transit systems focused on coverage to ensure that they could serve the maximum number of people possible. Even if you lived in far flung suburbs so long as you lived in the transit area you would have service.

Con's:

The biggest con is that if you are providing service to far flung areas of the system, the chances are you can only provide mediocre service. Everyone may have service but the busiest routes will not have the resources to have the amount of frequency that is demanded which will lower ridership potential.

A second con is that your bus routes will perform poorly overall. While some routes will have good ridership their ridership will be hampered by the lack of enough frequency while you run routes to areas with limited to no ridership potential.

This leads to a third con and that is the empty bus syndrome. People who already have a bent against transit will see lots of buses running around empty and will guess that they all run empty so "no body rides transit". Of course these people would say it anyway but you are just giving them some added ammunition.

Transit Center in Miami. 

Now lets look at a service network:

Pro's:

The biggest pro is that routes that have the most potential will have the best service. You focus your resources on routes that are winners. By creating a network of frequent service lines you create market synergies because a customer knows that if they miss one bus the next one will not be far away.

The second positive is that performance of the overall network will be better because you will be concentrating your resources where your ridership potential is the highest. Your resources are being concentrated where they will get the most use.

Con's:

The major con is that there is some people who will lose bus service and of course they will not be happy. Even a route that has week ridership will have people screaming up a storm if you try to cut the route. For those who want to use transit service it can limit the choices you have in housing.

Beaverton Transit Center, Beaverton, Oregon Trimet Route 57 is a frequent service line along TV-Highway from Beaverton to Forest Grove. 

When Seattle first started working on a major revamp of bus service for September the numbers were telling. 4000 riders would be affected by routes being cut. Now I am not saying that these people don't count. However, it was point out that the routes that were going to see increase service with the modifications served about 50 times that number or more.

Sadly some needed decisions in Seattle were put off in order to keep everyone happy and ironically some of the people who complained will have less service (the current service) than they would have if the changes had taken effect.

It would be wonderful if we had the best of both worlds, were we could provide extremely frequent service to the busiest areas of the network and good coverage across the service area. Hopefully the day will come when both types of services can be provided.

Transit Service, Transit Service Area and Equality

Image by shoseph via Flickr
Does a transit system provide service to the largest coverage area possible, or does it provide the most possible service to its highest ridership areas? In an perfect world a transit system would have the funding to do both. However, 75 years of government induced pro automotive growth has made it impossible for a transit system to do both.

At one time, most transit systems tried to provide service to the largest service area possible. While this allowed more people to use transit, the question had to be asked whether the transit system was loosing more passengers due to the lack of frequent service on its most important lines.

Over the last couple of decades transit systems have gone away from the philosophy of providing the maximum coverage to a system of maximum efficiency by providing more service and busy corridors and cutting service to outlining areas. The problem is that you leave some areas with only limited service and sometimes they do not feel they are getting their money's worth from their tax dollars.

This is a situation currently happening in Portland, Oregon. The city of Boring (yes, the town is called Boring), is not happy with the amount of transit service it is receiving from the local agency Tri-Met. The city of Boring contributes about $2 million a year in tax dollars to Tri-Met but only gets limited service primarily during rush hour.

It is easy to understand where the city of Boring is coming from. A large amount of tax money leaves the city and they do not see a lot of return from their investment. While it would be nice if they could see the big picture cities only look to their own self interest and over the next few years that may only get worse.

It is difficult for Tri-Met to justify increase spending to areas such as Boring. If you look at a map of the Boring area you would see that it is largely semi-rural exurb that is difficult to service with transit. One alternative Tri-Met could use for Boring would be to provide a cutaway van flex route that agencies such as the Utah Transit Authority and Denver RTD have implemented.

A few of Boring's Neighbors have chosen to leave Tri-Met and start their own transit systems. With the investment they are making in Tri-Met they could provide better service than they currently receive from the bigger agency which is what happened when Wilsonville, Oregon started its own transit agency.

The problem would be for the citizens that have to travel out of the Boring area into Portland proper. Wilsonville's SMART transit agency and Tri-Met do not accept the other agencies transfers which means riders have to pay twice to make a one way ride (however SMART is fare free so if you are using Tri-Met's WES commuter rail line you would only have to pay once but it runs during rush hours only).

Portland is not unique when it comes to having battles over the amount of transit service being received. Ultimately the area in question needs to decide for itself whether going on its own will out way the pitfalls of not having a single integrated transit system with the most service being provided where ridership is the highest.

Private Vans?

Image by iirraa via Flickr

The Cap'n Transit blog has an entry on how New York is proposing allowing private vans to replace service abandoned by the budget cuts the MTA in the New York area.

Setting the "livery vans" up for failure?

In the posting it talks about while the city is talking about allowing the vans, on the other hand it is making the options so restrictive that it would almost be fool hardy for any van operator to actually try to make a goal of it.

The question is, would these kind of vans be successful in other areas?

While some people complain how much service has been cut in the area, in reality few places have actually lost service. Some areas have seen cutbacks but that is mostly due to them being far flung suburban areas that do not support regular transit service.

While I support private enterprise, it would be difficult for a private van to make money operating in these areas. However, how about service to such destinations as Hoogle Zoo where UTA service is virtually non-existent? While the vans might duplicate UTA service in places, not enough to do harm to either.

However, the danger is what many anti-transit folks propose. That is having vans directly compete against the UTA on its best routes. In this case the vans would cherry pick the best routes harming both operations. Complementary service would be a benefit to all those using it but cherry picking could lead to cut throat operations that will harm not only the operators but the customers as well.

Questions would also have to be answered on how these vans would be regulated so that they provide safe operations. Often times the biggest complaint about Jitneys is poor maintenance of their vehicles and the quality of drivers.

This could be an option worth exploring so long as transit service is improved and not damaged in the long run.

The New Flex Routes

Monday I had an opportunity to ride one of the 3 new Flex routes that started back on May 3rd. The routes are funded by a Federal Grant administered through UDOT.

Many routes across the nation have been started on these Federal Grants. The thought is that once these routes are running the agency will find the funding to keep them operating. However, many of the routes that are started under these programs are ones that are not economically justifiable in the first place under current funding and often times die a quick death once the federal funding runs out especially in our current period of extremely tight budgets.

Here are my concerns with these three federal routes and especially the 626 that I rode:

1. Currently the 626 is using a bus out of Ogden's paratransit pool which does not have a headsign. What is annoying about this is that how does the average person figure out if this a paratransit van or a Flex route van. I would think they would at least put a hand written sign in the window so someone at the Clearfield or Roy stations would know that this is a Flex Route bus and not a paratransit bus.

When I rode the bus out of Roy there was two other Paratransit vans sitting at the station at the time so I had to ask the driver which one was the 626. I have noticed that many of the new paratransit vans are now equipped with headsigns to alliviate this problem with the new flex routes, can't one of these be transferred to Ogden?

Not only does a headsign help passengers figure out which van is the one they need, but it also a source of free advertising. People along the route see that they now have transit service and while they may not ride it themselves will let other possible passengers know about it.

2. Another problem with the 626 is the lack of bus stops signs. While Gordon ave had a few bus stops signs, most of the route only has signs where they are needed to tell the driver to make a turn. While I am not sure about Clearfield, there was not even a bus stop sign at the Roy Station.

Bus stops signs make riding the bus more comfortable for new riders because they know where they have to go out and catch the bus. For regular riders this may seem like a non-issue but for non-regular riders the signs show them that there is a route and where is goes.

3. As I mentioned in my trip report, unless something dramatic happens, I do not see this 626 lasting when the federal funding runs out. There was only one other passenger who rode the bus besides myself but hopefully over time that will increase once people know that the route exists.

4. If you look under schedules on the UTA website you will find the 626 under Salt Lake County (crazy, I had no idea Clearfield or Roy where in Salt Lake County), yet if you go into Weber and Davis County schedules the 626 is no where to be found.

Many consider the UTA website on the horrible side already, this is just another example of how the website is to use for non-regular riders. If you where looking on the website for this schedule and did not see it under Weber or Davis Counties, would you go looking for it under Salt Lake County?

5. Another issue with the route is that it serves nothing except rural and suburban residential areas. There is plans to build an auto-centric development at the corner of 4000 South and 3500 West but right now that is nothing but a sign. Otherwise you could not even get to a grocery store on this route without taking another bus however, the schedule is designed only for commuters so few would take it anyway.

On the other had the Herriman Flex does serve major shopping areas however, if you need to travel far, you may need to transfer up to 3 times to get anywhere since the only connection the Herriman Route makes is with the Riverton FLEX Route.

The new Alpine/American Fork Flex route is the best route since it not only serves major shopping destination but you can also make connections with major inter-county routes at the American Fork Park N Ride Lot.

6. I did notice while riding the 626 there was a large number of recreational trails located along the route. While the paratransit van did not have bicycle racks, there is plenty of room inside the bus for bicycles, this would be an excellent opportunity to promote the route as a way to reach the trails and parks along the way. Once the again the schedule is not conducive right now to that but it is a way to think "outside the box" and promote transit use.

I proposed a route similar to this a couple of years ago, the route makes since especially as a flex route since it serves such a semi-rural suburban area that does not justify full bus service but UTA has some work to do to make the service successful and worth keeping beyond the federal grant period.

In addition UTA needs to also work with the communities and organizations along the route and they need to step up to the table to help make this service a success.

UTA Announcement

Image via Wikipedia

Today at the regular monthly meeting of the UTA board of trustees, the UTA board unanimously passed a resolution approving the appointments of John Inglish as chief executive officer, Michael Allegra as general manager, and Bruce Jones as general council and president of government resources.

Prior to discussion on the resolution, UTA Board Chair Larry Ellertson shared a statement addressing the process and the appointments. Mr. Ellertson’s statement is attached.



Also during the board meeting, acting general manager Michael Allegra discussed the 2010 budget situation. He described the actions the agency has already taken to address the reduced sales tax revenues resulting from the recession and additional steps that may be taken in the future. A summary of his budget update is also attached.



Both of these documents were shared with the public and media who attended board meeting. They have also been posted to the UTA website. If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact me at your convenience.



Regards,



Gerry Carpenter

UTA Media Relations/Spokesman



April 28, 2010
To: UTA Board of Trustees
FR: Michael Allegra – Acting General Manager
RE: 2010 Budget & Economic Update

The impacts of the economic recession continue to be unprecedented. The economic challenges that
began in 2008 have resulted in fluctuating, unpredictable fuel prices and a dramatic loss in sales tax
revenues. Government entities have been forced to cut back here in Utah and across the country.


The transit industry is not immune: a recent survey by the American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) revealed that 84% of transit agencies are suffering from revenue shortfalls and are raising fares
and/or cutting service.

UTA has faced the same economic challenges over the past two years, experiencing a significant drop
in sales tax revenues and higher, fluctuating fuel prices. At the same time, we have successfully
opened several major projects including FrontRunner from Ogden to Salt Lake, the TRAX extension to
Salt Lake Central Station, MAX bus rapid transit on 3500 South, and more. And the FrontLines 2015
program, now more than 50% complete, is ahead of schedule and under budget.

Sales Tax Revenues
Sales tax revenues are UTA’s primary source of funding for the operating budget. Over the past two
years, anticipated sales tax revenues have dropped by almost $40 million.
Budgeted Sales Tax Actual Sales Tax
2008 $208,251,000 $188,547,000
2009 $195,690,000 $171,854,000
2010 $174,470,000 down $1.0 million in January

The drop in sales tax revenues has a significant impact on UTA’s short-term and long-term budget
planning. The approximate $40 million lost in the past few years translates into $100 million lost by
2015 and upwards of $2-3 billion lost over 30 years.
Considering the drop in sales tax revenues and the revised growth projections, it’s as if the 2006 Salt
Lake referendum never happened. The new revenue from the 2006 ballot initiative has essentially
been negated, yet we are striving to maintain our current system and open 70 miles of new rail by
2015.

Balancing the 2010 Budget
As work on the 2010 budget began last fall, sales tax revenues were continuing to drop and it was clear
that additional budget cuts would be necessary. UTA staff, in consultation with the Board, moved
forward with a strategic approach to find equitable and balanced savings in 1) increased management
efficiencies, 2) employee compensation and staffing, and 3) service and/or fare adjustments.
The 2010 operating budget adopted by the Board of Trustees is $181.8 million dollars, and includes
$8 million in identified and $3.0 million in “unidentified savings,” for a total reduction of $11 million.
Since the Board adopted the budget last December, staff has been monitoring the economic factors
and evaluating options for finding these additional savings. Many of these measures were previously
identified and have already been implemented; others are being implemented at this time.

The following graph and supporting information shows the breakdown of the $11.0 million in
operating budget reductions. It demonstrates that:
• 71% of savings have come from reducing employee compensation/expenses and
increasing management efficiencies
• Only 29% has come from service reductions that have impacted riders
• UTA has not implemented a fare increase due to the loss in sales tax revenues

EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION & EXPENSES: approximately $3.6 million saved
- Wage Freeze: no pay increases in 2010.
- Retirement: UTA’s contribution to employees’ deferred compensation retirement cut by 50%.
- Performance Incentive: Program suspended for 2010. Employees achieved 98% of the 2009 goals
established by the Board.
- Health Insurance: Plan for 2010-2011 includes higher premiums and reduced benefits for employees
- Efficiency Review: UTA will be making approximately 30 staff reductions as part of an organizational
structure and staffing efficiency review we have been conducting with an external consultant.

That
process is almost complete, and we expect to implement these reductions in the next 1-2 weeks. We
are not providing more specifics at this time out of respect for the employees who will be affected.
* UTA employees at all levels have shouldered much of the burden through the economic downturn.
These measures represent a notable decrease in employees’ take home pay and compensation.


MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCES: approximately $4.2 million saved
- Hiring Freeze: More than 70 positions have been eliminated through vacancies/attrition to date.
The hiring freeze is still in effect and all vacant positions must come to the executive group for review
- Training/Travel: Reduced by 50% agency-wide
- General Reductions: Across-the-board budget reductions applied to all departments
- Other Operational Efficiencies: internal task teams have studied and are now implementing several
initiatives to save money. These include: consolidation of radio centers; reducing TRAX and
FrontRunner “layover” time; delaying the service vehicle replacement schedule; using contracted
services where appropriate; streamlining the operations run cut process

SERVICE ADJUSTMENTS: approximately $3.2 million saved
- Holidays: Added two holidays without service in 2010 - Memorial Day and Labor Day
- Rail Service Adjustments:
- Reduced weekend and late night service on TRAX in December 2009
- Reduced mid-day TRAX and FrontRunner service in April 2010
- Bus Service Adjustments:
- Adjustments to specific routes and trips implemented throughout 2009
- Reductions to specific routes and trips, and reductions to Saturday service in

April 2010
- Service Improvements: service has been reduced in some areas, but improved in others
- Added routes and increased service on several routes, such as the Flex routes
- Increased bus connections downtown from Salt Lake Central Station – the “2 to the U”
- In response to public comments, UTA maintained service on Route 472

* Service adjustments have been focused on off-peak, lower ridership and parallel service to minimize
impacts to riders as much as possible.
* Changes to paratransit services have been implemented over the past several months, reflecting the
public hearing process conducted last summer and the final plans subsequently adopted by the Board
of Trustees. The savings achieved in paratransit services have been leveraged with federal funding
programs to implement seven new flexible bus routes throughout UTA’s service area.
4
Reductions in Capital Program
In addition to the operating budget, the capital program has not been immune to budget cuts. As we
have evaluated the FrontLines 2015 program and other capital expenditures, we have identified the
following major savings:
• FrontLines 2015: $70 million
• Revenue Service Vehicles: $21 million

Going Forward
These measures address the economic challenges we have faced over the past year and balance the
current $181.8 million budget. However, as we move forward into 2010 we are still facing potential
budget shortfalls:
• Sales tax revenues: down approximately $1.0 million in January
• Farebox revenue: possible shortfall due to economy and ridership
• Fuel costs: currently running above budget
We are continuing to monitor sales tax revenues and fuel prices, and may be coming back to the Board
for a mid-year budget amendment. But with only one month’s worth of sales tax revenues for 2010,
we suggest that a budget amendment at this time would be premature.


Almost three-quarters of the budget reductions (71%) have come from our employees’ compensation
and from increasing management efficiencies. To date, we have not implemented fare increases and
we have minimized service reductions and impacts to our riders. However, due to ongoing challenges
with sales tax revenues and fuel prices, we are considering the prospect of additional budget cuts
throughout 2010 that may include fare increases and/or additional service reductions.
We are currently developing various scenarios for service and/or fare changes, and will likely initiate a
public comment process very soon. Because of the six-month lead time needed to implement a
change in services or fares, we need to begin the process as soon as possible. The six-month
timeframe includes going through an open public hearing process, reviewing the comments and
making adjustments to the proposals, and implementing the changes to begin realizing the financial
savings.


STATEMENT


Meeting of the UTA Board of Trustees
April 28, 2010


On behalf of the Board of Trustees, we welcome all Board members and the public to today’s
meeting. We appreciate the public interest in the Utah Transit Authority because we
understand its importance to the Wasatch Front and the State of Utah. Transportation is
critical to accessibility, sustainability and quality of life in Utah.


As you know, government entities throughout the State of Utah are struggling with tough
economic challenges, and UTA is no exception. UTA, like other government and transit
agencies, is dealing with a decrease in revenues of tens of millions of dollars. As an agency, we
are taking significant steps in dealing with these budget and economic challenges. Our efforts
to balance the budget have involved impacts to service and operations, capital programs and
our employees.


We believe the public has not been accurately informed about how we are dealing with these
impacts and why we are proposing to require UTA’s officers to take on new assignments and
expand their duties, without salary increases. I want to be very clear about this point: the
appointment of officers we announced on April 8 represents a transition in roles and
responsibilities, it does NOT represent salary increases or promotions.
One of the first steps in dealing with economic challenges is to require our senior staff to take
reductions in compensation. We have done this: UTA’s senior management has taken a 10 to
15 percent compensation reduction this year by foregoing the performance incentive, at a time
when they are taking on additional job responsibilities.


Additionally, the UTA Board and staff have adopted a balanced strategy in dealing with this
economic and budget crisis. We have moved forward looking to achieve equitable savings in
three (3) areas:
• Management efficiencies
• Employee compensation & staffing
• Service and/or fare adjustments


Mike Allegra, Acting General Manger, will review the budget information in greater detail
during his report to the Board later in this meeting, and his report will demonstrate that our
efforts to find balanced savings have been successful. The Board supports this effort and
believes it is sound in its approach and will place UTA in a better position for the future.
Because of budget impacts from this economic crisis, it is necessary that we require staff to
take on additional duties and responsibilities, including senior management. The most senior of
management positions at UTA is the title of General Manager. As in any organization,
succession planning is important to UTA. The appointments being considered today reflect the
Board’s responsibility to address succession planning and a transition of this most senior
management position to Mike Allegra. We would like to make it clear that Mike Allegra will be
the new General Manager.


As Mike Allegra assumes the management role of General Manager, John Inglish will continue
to serve UTA and the Board in his role as CEO, focusing on policy-level initiatives and programs.
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify some misinformation and misunderstanding that may
have occurred regarding this transition, and to confirm that we have determined to propose
this transition with the stipulation that it be without any addition of staff or salary increases.


Larry Ellertson
Chair, UTA Board of Trustees