February 2018 METRO TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AUDIT PROGRAM EVALUATION AND AUDIT

Similar documents
Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Travel and Rider Characteristics for Metrobus

Executive Summary. TUCSON TRANSIT ON BOARD ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY Conducted October City of Tucson Department of Transportation

Aurora Corridor to E Line

The Who and What: Bus Rapid Transit Riders and Systems in the U.S.

How familiar are you with BRT?

Hampton Roads Transit. Ridership Report for February 2014 Operations & Oversight Committee Meeting

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

City of Davenport CitiBus Public Transportation Study. April 2015

METRO. Monthly Board Report. February 2009

Speaker: Brian Dranzik, Fiscal & Policy Administrator Milwaukee County

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. Metrolink Ridership and Revenue Quarterly Report. Staff Report

Title VI Fare Change Equity Analysis

Spring Lake Park Mounds View North Oaks. Arden Hills. Shoreview. Roseville. Little Canada. Falcon Heights SNELLING. Lilydale. West Saint Paul 35E

Transit Workshop with MPO Board

Evan Johnson, Tindale Oliver & Associates. Alan Danaher, P.E., PTOE, AICP, PTP

Bus Riders of Saskatoon Meeting with City of Saskatoon Utility Services Department October 23, :30pm 2:30pm th Street West, Saskatoon

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Project

Swift Bus Rapid Transit. June DeVoll, Community Transit & Tom Hingson, Everett Transit

Interim Transit Ridership Forecast Results Technical Memorandum

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

An Evaluation of Comprehensive Transit Improvements TriMet s Streamline Program

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Overview of Pulse BRT and transit network redesign

Gratiot Avenue Transit Study Tech Memo #4: Ridership

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) sets a new global trend in public transportation

Gold Team: Tempe Transportation. Group Members: Melissa Dobroski, Skylie Dosier, Jake Damle, Joseph Dean

Impact Analysis of the 2007 MBTA Fare Increase and Restructuring A report produced by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts

Chapter PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Introduction

Transit Planning at 3 Scales: the Network, Corridor, and Station Levels

Approximate Travel Times

Valley Metro. Ride Guide APRIL 2018 BUS & LIGHT RAIL

Operational Comparison of Transit Signal Priority Strategies

Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley 1990 to 2009

Increased Onboard Bicycle Capacity Improved Caltrain s Performance in 2009

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Sept. 26, 2011

Understanding the Market of Metro Transit's Ridership and Services and How Technology Can Help Kevin J. Krizek Ahmed M. El-Geneidy

Community Task Force November 15, 2017

Item B1 November 19, 2009

Transportation-Demand Management Community Presentation

ASIA PACIFIC RAIL 2006

APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Passenger Rail Surveys in Florida

APPENDIX C. Systems Performance Report C-1

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT

WHITE PAPER: TRANSIT SERVICE FOR SOUTH SHAGANAPPI

Instances of 1 Minute or Less Between Buses 4 5% 55% 3.9% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 2.9% 2.8% Sep- Sep 07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan- Jan 08 Feb- Feb 08 Mar-08

Capital and Strategic Planning Committee. Item III - B. April 12, WMATA s Transit-Oriented Development Objectives

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL PROJECTS OPERATING PLANS - NEXT NETWORK TRANSIT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Appendix A-2: Screen 1 Alternatives Report

1/30/2019 DRAFT. January 31, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Office of the County Auditor 115 S. Andrews Avenue, Room 520 Fort Lauderdale, Florida FAX

CASE STUDY City of Monrovia: Leveraging emerging ridesharing services to expand mobility options

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

Scheduling 101 Calculating Running Time Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Multimodal Operations Workshop Houston, TX

4 Ridership Growth Study

Calgary Transit Route 302 Southeast BRT Year One Review June

Purpose and Need. Chapter Introduction. 2.2 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need

January Project No

THE 2010 MSP REGION TRAVEL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (TBI) REPORT HOME INTERVIEW SURVEY. A Summary of Resident Travel in the Twin Cities Region

Members of the Board of Directors. Wendy Knowles, Clerk of the Board. Metrolink Ridership and Revenue Annual Report

Community Transit Solutions for the Suburbs APTA Annual Meeting Steve Fittante, New Jersey Transit Corporation September 30, 2013

Estimating Ridership of Rural Demand-Response Transit Services for the General Public

Appendix 1 Transit Network Analysis

the Story of the 30s & 70s Bus Lines James Hamre - WMATA

Main-McVay Transit Study: Phase 2 Options Definition and High Level Constraints Evaluation

Access BART: TOD and Improved Connections. October 29, 2008

Appendix 3.2 D. Ridership Errata Sheet

July 23, Transit Workshop

Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Chapter VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Vision. Mission. Goals and Objectives CONNECTING COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE ST.

Craig Rempp, Transit Superintendent Mary Karlsson, Kimley-Horn. Mankato City Council Meeting 6/25/2018

Transit Ridership - Why the Decline and How to Increase. Hosted by the. Virginia Transit Association

Transit Pre-Planning and Data Collection for Multi-Modal Corridor Studies

Cobb Community Transit

Using GPS Data for Arterial Mobility Performance Measures

Planning Transit Operations and Bike Sharing Denver RTD. Bill Van Meter, Assistant General Manager, Planning March 23, 2012

Statistical Analysis of Fare Compliance

COST ESTIMATION. Fully Allocated Causal Factor Models Temporal Variation Models Incremental Fixed Variable Cost Models

Wichita Free Fares Project Scope

RTC TRANSIT OPERATING STATISTICS RTC RIDE RTC RAPID RTC INTERCITY SIERRA SPIRIT

Arlington County 10-Year Transit Development Plan & Premium Transit Network Briefing. May 2016

State Road & Tollway Authority Georgia 400 Demolition Project Frequently Asked Questions

Understanding Rail and Bus Ridership

M14A/D Select Bus Service

Public Transport Asset Management

B. Draft Policies and Procedures

AUDIT REPORT. Department of the Interior Office of Inspector General

Executive Summary BEYOND THE B-LINE: RAPID TRANSIT LINE PHASE II - COMMERCIAL DRIVE WEST. Final Draft December 13, Appendix B BROADWAY/LOUGHEED

STAFF REPORT SAUSALITO CITY COUNCIL

Community Task Force July 25, 2017

TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION INTERNAL AUDIT DIVISION

Final Study Recommendations AMES TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY. For Public Review and Comment. October Ames Transit Feasibility Study

Public Consultation Centre For. Transportation Master Plan Update. Information Package

Estimating Ridership of Rural Demand-Response Transit Services for the General Public

Capital Metro Monthly Ridership Report March 2017 (Fiscal Year 2017)

Transcription:

February 2018 METRO TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AUDIT PROGRAM EVALUATION AND AUDIT

INTRODUCTION Background Each weekday, Metro Transit provides more than 250,000 rides across 131 routes. This includes urban local and suburban local bus routes, express buses, two light rail systems and a commuter rail. In 2016, Metro Transit provided 58.9 million bus rides and 23.7 million rail rides, resulting in a total of 82.6 million rides. Customers are counted through a variety of ways: Paying through a Farebox on a bus that accepts dollar bills, coins, tokens, coupons, and transfers; Bus operators can press a designated key on the Farebox keypad for fares such as free rides, Mobile App rides, reduced fare rides, et al; Tagging a card validator on a bus or at a station using a stored value card, such as a Go-To card, MetroPass, U-Pass, College Pass, and Student Pass; INIT 3-dimensional Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) on the Light Rail; Four-Light Beam Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Online ticket sales, Mobile App activizations, card validators and manual counts by Metro Transit police on the NorthStar. The monthly rider counts are produced by the Revenue and Ridership Department, which is part of Metro Transit s Finance department. Purpose The purpose of this Metro Transit Ridership Estimate Audit was to evaluate the methods and controls used for counting passengers across the bus and rail systems. Scope This audit covered activities related to the counting and estimating of Metro Transit rides. Methodology To understand the ridership calculation process, the following methods were used: Review of Metro Transit ridership calculations and work instructions. Review of National Transit Database (NTD) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reporting requirements. Literature review of transit agency NTD and FTA reporting best practices. Review the accuracy of Metro Transit APC data on Light Rail and Bus. Review of Metro Transit GFI Regional Fare and Cubic Data. Interviews with Metro Transit Ridership Staff and Metro Transit Finance Management. 2

Assurances This audit was conducted in accordance with the Institute of Internal Auditors International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the U.S. Government Accountability Office s Government Auditing Standards. 3

OBSERVATIONS National Transit Database Reporting Metro Transit currently uses data from the Farebox, GFI TRIM units, Cubic readers, online ticket activizations, Mobile App sales, and APCs for reporting ridership across the system. Metro Transit is responsible for reporting system ridership to the National Transit Database on a monthly and annual basis. The National Transit Database is a data repository for transit systems financial, operating and asset data. Transit agencies that receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration are required to report their system data, which includes ridership. 1 Audit reviewed National Transit Database and Federal Transit Administration reporting requirements and best practices to ensure Metro Transit s ridership estimate methodology is following the published guidelines for reporting ridership estimates. The National Transit Database Policy Manual states that transit agencies may collect data during the year by using drivers logs, scheduling software, automatic passenger counters, and fareboxes. 2 If APCs are installed on every fleet vehicle and a 100-percent count can be obtained, an agency may use APC data for reporting and only conduct a small number of manual counts to check for accuracy. In 2016, the Federal Transit Administration stated that APC technologies have advanced to the point where they produce better data than sampling with manual counts, 3 so fewer comparison counts are required of reporters using APC data. With the increased accuracy of APC technology, the NTD allows agencies to use APC data in any NTD-approved sampling plan, even if the entire fleet is not fully equipped with APCs. 4 Dr. Xuehao Chu of the University of South Florida published a guide to creating a customized sampling plan for NTD reporting and explains that an agency can utilize all of its valid APC-equipped vehicles to capture system-wide ridership data by establishing a vehicle rotation plan. 5 According to Metro Transit staff, about 92-percent of the bus fleet is currently equipped with APCs. The remaining eight-percent of the fleet will become equipped as the older busses are retired and replaced with new ones, a process that will not be completed until 2020 at the earliest. If an agency cannot obtain a 100-percent rider count, they must report based on a sampling methodology that has been approved by a qualified statistician. The methodology must also meet the FTA s 95-percent confidence and 10-percent precision levels. NTD emphasizes that a sampling plan should be revised when major changes are made to an agency s service. 6 In Audit s literature review of reporting best practices, Audit did not find current documentation of agencies combining APC data with other data sources to estimate ridership. While not all agencies today have APCs installed on all of their fleet vehicles, most of the current ridership estimate literature refers to using APCs as the primary data source. It is likely that other agencies without 100-percent 1 Federal Transit Administration The National Transit Database website (www.transit.dot.gov/ntd). 2 National Transit Database Policy Manual, p. 92. 3 Notice of Request for Comments on Update to the Uniform System of Accounts and Changes to the National Transit Database Reporting Requirements, Feb. 3, 2016. 4 Notice of Request. 5 Chu, Xuehao and Ike Ubaka (2004), A Guide to Customized Sampling Plans for National Transit Database Reporting. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 7., No. 4., p. 23. 6 National Transit Database Sampling Manual, p. 14. 4

APC coverage are supplementing their estimate with other data sources, however, the transit industry is moving towards most agencies using APC data for the sake of simplicity and accuracy. Ridership Estimate The Ridership Department collects data from the GFI Farebox and TRIM units on buses, Cubic readers on buses, at Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit stations, and APC data from INIT APCs on Light Rail vehicles and four Light-Beam APCs on A-Line buses. This data is used each month by the Ridership Department to calculate the number of rides by service type (bus, light rail or commuter rail) and the number of rides by fare type. These calculations are compared with the previous year and are also used to project the total number of system riders for the year. Audit reviewed the Ridership Department s process and work instructions for compiling source ridership data and calculating the number of riders. According to the Ridership Department, the methodology used to estimate bus ridership was approved about nine years ago. The data for estimating bus ridership comes from the GFI Farebox (cash, coupons, tokens, tickets, etc), GFI TRIM units (transfers), and Cubic readers (stored value cards) on-board busses. Although APCs are installed on-board much of the Metro Transit bus fleet, they are not used in calculating ridership for the majority of bus service; APCs on-board buses are only used by the Service Development for route planning and analysis and to calculate A-Line BRT rides. Once the data is totaled, Ridership department staff add 1,800 rides per day to account for additional rides that are not captured by the Farebox or Cubic reader. The Ridership Department indicated this number is arbitrary and Audit found it to be based on work instructions last updated in 2008. Additionally, the Farebox cannot record specific fare media once it has recorded 100 pieces of data; this results in many rides being recorded as unknown. Ridership spreads these unknown rides across different fare products to adjust the rider breakdowns accordingly. Light Rail data comes from INIT 3-dimensional APCs. Green Line vehicles are 100-percent covered by APCs, while only 30-percent of Blue Line vehicles are covered. The data collected from Blue Line vehicles equipped with APCs is used to extrapolate an estimate for the entire line. 7 Since Light Rail vehicles carry a large volume of passengers to and from special events, such as Twins and Vikings games, Ridership makes special adjustments to Light Rail ridership estimates on these days. APC data is typically blocked out two hours before and after the event, as well as during the event. Ridership then uses the event s actual attendance to estimate the Light Rail ridership during this time. 8 The A-Line BRT rider data is also gathered from four light-beam APCs. These figures are then adjusted by eight-percent to determine final ridership calculations. APCs are necessary on proof of payment service like A-Line because there are no fareboxes or Cubic readers on the busses. Ridership adjusts the APC-reported data by eight-percent to account for overcounting of actual rides counted by the APCs. This adjustment factor is established through manual counts conducted by the Ridership 7 Overnight airport shuttle trips are removed from the Blue Line s total number of daily trips taken, because the trains going between the airport terminals do not leave the tunnel and therefore do not have signal to record the number of rides. 8 This estimate is based on manual counts of ridership during similar events, which are then used to calculate the proportion of the event s actual attendance that rode Light Rail. 5

Department and is continually monitored and adjusted. In 2016, Audit conducted a manual count of the A-Line APCs and found the APCs to be undercounting actual boardings by two-percent. 9 Overall the front door boardings were overcounted by about three-percent while back door boardings were undercounted by about 11-percent. The differences are likely a result of the wider backdoor, which is designed to facilitate multiple people entering the doors at the same time, or drivers getting on and off the bus. The APCs do not always recognize multiple passengers boarding or alighting at the same time and the APCs count drivers getting on and off the bus, as well as people getting on and off at layovers but not actually riding for a trip. The NorthStar Commuter Rail rides are calculated from the card readers on the platforms, online NorthStar ticket sales, mobile app activizations, and Metro Transit police estimates of free rides. NorthStar vehicles are not equipped with APCs. Online tickets are adjusted by Ridership based on the specific fare product to account for how many total riders were likely on a ticket. For example, 3.6 riders are added for each Family Ticket purchased, because the family only needs to download a single pass for the whole family. Additionally, 57 riders are added per day to account for veterans riding the NorthStar for free. This adjustment factor is based on manual counts conducted by the Metro Transit Police Department and likely comes from veterans taking the NorthStar to and from the VA hospital located near the NorthStar s Ramsey station. APC and Farebox Reconciliation The Ridership and Service Development Departments use two separate data sources to calculate ridership based on their different needs. The Ridership Department is primarily interested in reporting total rides, while Service Development is interested in analyzing rides by stop to be used for route analysis and planning. Ridership Department staff calculates bus ridership using GFI Fareboxes, TRIM units and Cubic readers on buses. Farebox and TRIM data is collected when cash boxes are emptied in garages. Cubic data is automatically registered in the Go-To database when a bus enters the garage and connects to the wireless system. This data is processed daily and used to calculate total ridership on the bus system. Rides are also broken down by fare media type to report how riders are paying their fare. Service Development uses passenger counts from the APCs to obtain ridership numbers for bus routes. This data is used for route analysis and route planning and is processed for accuracy. Audit reviewed and compared the two data sources to analyze how closely the two estimates are to one another. A representative sample of the system s buses (N=274) was selected from July 2017 and the buses selected were matched to routes. APC, Farebox and Cubic data were compared from a particular route s operating day (Farebox probe to Farebox probe). For the purpose of this analysis, Audit used archived APC data, which has already been processed for accuracy. This means that any trips Service Development identified as inaccurate had been removed from the population. Audit calculated and identified differences between the ride counts from APC data and Farebox data. The total number of bus trips included in the analysis was 5,259; of these trips, 1,877 (36-percent) did not have APC data available in the archives which could have been because it had been removed in processing. Removing bus trips without APC data, Audit found that about 65-percent of APC and 9 Audits analysis looked at boardings by all persons that boarded the bus through one of the two doors. This analysis includes riders, drivers, audit staff counting riders, and any other person that boarded the bus during layovers. 6

Farebox trips are within 10 riders of one another. While this is a large portion of trips in close agreement to one another, it leaves between 30- and 40-percent of trips not in agreement. These results indicate that at this time APCs cannot be used as substitutes for most bus ridership calculations, nor can the Farebox be used as a substitute in the APC ridership calculations. To determine whether APCs could be a suitable substitute for current methodologies used in NTD reporting, a more in-depth analysis using direct observation of actual ridership would be needed. 7

CONCLUSIONS Metro Transit s use of both APC and Farebox data for NTD reporting meets industry standards. While the Ridership Department s work instructions were found to be outdated, their current processes capture the majority of the system s riders through APCs on Light Rails and BRTs; and Farebox, TRIM units and Cubic readers on buses. As Metro Transit expands proof of payment service throughout the system, APCs will become increasingly relied upon to estimate ridership for all purposes, including NTD reporting. Currently, several projects including Orange Line, Gold Line, C Line and D Line are all planned as proof of payment Bus Rapid Transit services. A fresh look at current methodologies and further analysis as to the accuracy of APCs will help position the agency to ensure ridership calculations remain accurate and consistent across the system. 8

RECOMMENDATIONS Program Evaluation and Audit recommendations are categorized according to the level of risk they pose for the Council. The categories are: 1. Essential Steps must be taken to avoid the emergence of critical risks to the Council or to add great value to the Council and its programs. Essential recommendations are tracked through the Audit Database and status is reported twice annually to the Council s Audit Committee. 2. Significant Adds value to programs or initiatives of the Council, but is not necessary to avoid major control risks or other critical risk exposures. Significant recommendations are also tracked with status reports to the Council s Audit Committee. 3. Considerations Recommendation would be beneficial, but may be subject to being set aside in favor of higher priority activities for the Council, or may require collaboration with another program area or division. Considerations are not tracked or reported. Their implementation is solely at the hands of management. 4. Verbal recommendation An issue was found that bears mentioning, but is not sufficient to constitute a control risk or other repercussions to warrant inclusion in the written report. Verbal recommendations are documented in the file, but are not tracked or reported regularly. 1. (Significant) Metro Transit Ridership should update work instructions and assumptions used to calculate the system s ridership estimate. Work instructions do not reflect all of the calculations being done and include outdated pieces of data inputs. Assumptions are also being used that are based on ridership behavior from several years ago, which does not reflect the current system. Both of these changes are important in making sure the ridership estimate reflect Metro Transit s current system. Management Response: Staff will review and update work instructions to reflect current data calculation practices. Staff will also review data assumptions and their factored adjustments to ensure they are reasonable and represent current ridership behavior and patterns. Staff Responsible: Richard Moore (Supervisor, Revenue and Ridership Analysis) and Michael Watters (Analyst, Revenue and Ridership Analysis) Timetable: March 1, 2018. Thrive 2040 Principles: Accountability 2. (Significant) Metro Transit should evaluate options for and commence further analysis of the accuracy of Farebox and Automatic Passenger Counter rider estimates on buses. Both systems are used in estimating the number of passengers on Metro Transit buses and both systems have unestablished error rates. Further examination and development of system error rates would refine current estimates for reporting and service development purposes. 9

Management Response: Staff are exploring options on various methods to analyze and compare APC and Farebox data to determine data comparability, differences and error rates. One option being considered is hiring an outside consultant to help with the Farebox data and analysis comparisons. Once this analysis is completed, any recommended changes will be discussed with Internal Audit before being implemented. Staff Responsible: John Levin (Director, Strategic Initiatives) Timetable: December 31, 2018. Thrive 2040 Principles: Collaboration and Accountability 10

390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 651.602.1000 TTY 651.291.0904 public.info@metc.state.mn.us metrocouncil.org