capitol corridor: a performance-based management model fra best practices - state ipr corridor...
TRANSCRIPT
Capitol Corridor:A Performance-Based Management Model
FRA Best Practices - State IPR Corridor ManagementAASHTO – SCORT Annual Meeting, Washington DC [2/22/12]David B. Kutrosky, Managing DirectorCapitol Corridor (Sacramento-Oakland/San Francisco-San Jose)
Capitol Corridor Service Area
• 170-mile route (~290 track miles)– 168 miles-UPRR– 2 miles-Caltrain (SF Peninsula)
• 3 distinct service-area Megaregion– Sacramento / Sierra Foothills– Oakland / S.F. Bay Area– San Jose
• Extensive connections to local transit and communities
• Operated by Amtrak under management of Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA)
February 22, 2012 2
CCJPA OBJECTIVES• Know your product/service• Identify goals for service’s success• Efficient and effective management team• Incentivize your partners -- service users
and providers and financiers• Maintain control of service performance• Guide expansion via collaborative efforts
February 22, 2012 3
CCJPA Structure
February 22, 2012 4
Success of Past 13 Years (1999-2012)
• Elevated core service: 8 daily trains to 32– Increased frequency under flat State operating
budget– 3rd busiest Amtrak route in nation– Improved relationship with UPRR resulted in the
#1 on-time performance in Amtrak system– One of the highest customer satisfaction ratings
• The performance data speaks for itself…
February 22, 2012 5
(1999-2012)Performance Improvements
Measure FY 1998/99 FY 2010/11 % change FY 2011/12 YTD
Ridership 463,000 1.71 million 269% improvement
+7%
Revenue $6.25M $27.2M 335% improvement
+10%
System Operating Ratio
30% 48% 60% improvement
50%
Service Level 8 daily trains 32 weekday trains(22 weekend trains)
300% improvement
Same
On-Time Performance
86% 95% Standard = 90%
94%
February 22, 2012 6
• Capitol Corridor enters into an annual operating contract– Service/Schedule– Budget and payment provisions– Performance Standards; incentives + penalties
• Surveys (twice a year) to gauge customer satisfaction• Distinct State source of funds (diesel sales tax)
– Requires early budget planning process (at least 6 months) – Lock in budget; share risk; focus on improving customer service
• Review performance: bi-weekly calls; quarterly meetings• Make sure front line employees know what’s going on!
Amtrak Operating Agreement
May 15, 2011 7
February 22, 2012 7
• Capitol Corridor amended out of national Amtrak-UP OTP agreement into a stand-alone 3-party contract– Ensure payment to RR for Capitol Corridor OTP– Eliminated penalties, “look-backs” of national OTP agreement– Each month “hit restart button”
• Same definition for “on-time” but bar raised to min 92%• Payments increased:
– by 50% if continued 92%-96%; – by 100% if continued 96+%
• Benefit of single RR owner who dispatches trains• Results: Best OTP in Amtrak; UP earning max incentive
Tri-Party On-Time Performance Agreement
February 22, 2012 8
• Part of Construction/Maintenance Agreement – Continuously revised as funds are allocated– Funding above Amtrak incremental MoW payments
• Private-Public Partnership/shared funding1. Night-time surfacing gang assigned to route2. Various track upgrades: switches, signal lights, et al3. Safety Fences: deter trespassing
• Improved ride quality; no slow orders• Results: Retained ridership during down
economy; highest customer satisfaction
Supplemental Capitalized Maintenance
February 22, 2012 9
Ridership and Gas PricesS
ep
-06
Oc
t-0
6
No
v-0
6
De
c-0
6
Ja
n-0
7
Fe
b-0
7
Ma
r-0
7
Ap
r-0
7
Ma
y-0
7
Ju
n-0
7
Ju
l-0
7
Au
g-0
7
Se
p-0
7
Oc
t-0
7
No
v-0
7
De
c-0
7
Ja
n-0
8
Fe
b-0
8
Ma
r-0
8
Ap
r-0
8
Ma
y-0
8
Ju
n-0
8
Ju
l-0
8
Au
g-0
8
Se
p-0
8
Oc
t-0
8
No
v-0
8
De
c-0
8
Ja
n-0
9
Fe
b-0
9
Ma
r-0
9
Ap
r-0
9
Ma
y-0
9
Ju
n-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
Au
g-0
9
Se
p-0
9
Oc
t-0
9
No
v-0
9
De
c-0
9
Ja
n-1
0
Fe
b-1
0
Ma
r-1
0
Ap
r-1
0
Ma
y-1
0
Ju
n-1
0
Ju
l-1
0
Au
g-1
0
Se
p-1
0
Oc
t-1
0
No
v-1
0
De
c-1
0
Ja
n-1
1
Fe
b-1
1
Ma
r-1
1
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
2000000
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
Capitol Corridor Ridership in Correlation to Gas Prices
12 Month Ridership total Gas 12 Month Rolling Avg
12
-Mo
nth
Ro
llin
g R
ide
rsh
ip S
um
Ca
lifo
rnia
12
Mo
nth
Ro
llin
g A
ve
rag
e F
ue
l Pri
ce
s
(CA
Re
gu
lar
Re
tail
Ga
s P
ric
es
)
*August 28, 2006 - start of 32 weekday train sched-ule*
February 22, 2012 10
FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005 FFY 2006 FFY 2007 FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2010$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
$71,050
$87,350
$40,675
$87,100
$59,300
$90,975
$38,000
$35,050
10,311
9,735
10,617
11,671
8,257
8,918
9,286
7,828
Annual Mechanical Delays vs. Annual Assessments
AssessmentsLinear (Assessments)Mechanical Delays (minutes)
February 22, 2012 11
February 22, 2012 12
Oct-09
Nov-09
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10
Jun-10Jul-1
0
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11Jul-1
1
Aug-11
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
0.0
200.0
400.0
600.0
800.0
1000.0
1200.0
Total Delay Minutes per 10K MilesOct 2009-Jan 2012
Host RR Minutes: Avg 634.8 min Linear (Host RR Minutes: Avg 634.8 min)
Dela
y M
inut
es p
er 1
0K M
iles FRA stan-
dard for Host RR = 900
(0.7% decreasing trend) (14.0% increasing trend)(33.4% decreasing trend)
Sep-06
Nov-06Jan
-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07Jan
-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
Sep-08
Nov-08Jan
-09
Mar-09
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09Jan
-10
Mar-10
May-10
Jul-10
Sep-10
Nov-10Jan
-11
Mar-11
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
RidershipOTP %Linear (OTP %)
Four (4) tie renewal and track upgrade projects as part ofprogram to improve reliability affected monthly OTP
Service level of 32 weekday startedSept. 2006
Ridership Grows as OTP Improves
February 22, 2012 13
Sep-06
Nov-06Jan
-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07Jan
-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
Sep-08
Nov-08Jan
-09
Mar-09
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09Jan
-10
Mar-10
May-10
Jul-10
Sep-10
Nov-10Jan
-11
Mar-11
$0.10
$0.12
$0.14
$0.16
$0.18
$0.20
$0.22
$0.24
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
12-mos Avg Rolling Yield
Rolling 12 month AVG OTP %
Solid OTP Maximizes Revenue Yield
February 22, 2012 14
FFY00-01 FFY01-02 FFY02-03 FFY03-04 FFY04-05 FFY05-06 FFY06-07 FFY07-08 FFY08-09 FFY09-104
4.05
4.1
4.15
4.2
4.25
4.3
4.35
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
4.17
4.26
4.09
4.11
4.16
4.054.07
4.18
4.24
4.33
78.3%
84.0%
78.5%
85.6%84.7%
73.1%74.6%
86.0%
92.5%93.1%
Customer Satisfaction (On Board Surveys)OTP %
Respondents were asked to rate their overall experience on a scale of 1-5,where the higher the score, the more positive the rating.
Customer Satisfaction vs. OTP
February 22, 2012 15
• Buy-in from service providers/operators• Support from public/users; gain advocates• Secure dedicated funding• Get funds obligated quickly; get project “in the
ground”; successful phased implementation• Tout benefits to policymakers, communities; need
for continual investment to meet growth demand• viable alternative • jobs, economic growth• offset rising gas prices • reduce GHG emissions
THANKS!!February 22, 2012
16
CLOSING