REINVENTING TRANSIT FROM A SOCIAL SERVICE TO A CRITICAL PUBLIC UTILITY

Transcription

1 REINVENTING TRANSIT FROM A SOCIAL SERVICE TO A CRITICAL PUBLIC UTILITY

2 THE PRE 1950 PAST. Extensive networks for streetcars, trams and buses. Operated by the private sector through a system of franchises with oversight by PSC. Profitable up until WWII

3 THE DISMANTLEING PERIOD Transit outside very large dependent eastern cities completely dismantled.. A few hang on with public support from cities and Chambers of Commerce. Assets including garages, vehicles, sold off and converted to other purposes.

4 THE RESSURRECTION PERIOD AS A SOCIAL SERVICE. New Regional Authorities developed city by city with public tax funding as the mainstay.. Service spread broadly to provide some access (though very inadequate) for disenfranchised.. Service and fares set by public hearing

5 THE REINVENTION PERIOD 1990 TO PRESENT. Beginnings of recognition that PT has a vital role to play in our communities not an incidental one.. New High Performance Transit Networks begin to be conceived, funded and built. Recognition of critical role of Market Research for service development

6 How Has Transit Changed? Finances Demographics Politics Processes, equipment, technology

7 Creation of High Performance Networks include: Unique branding Off-board ticketing Level boarding Real Time passenger information Substantial stations

8 Western U.S. Investment in Transit (in billions) City/Agency Past 10 Years Current Next 10 Years TOTAL Salt Lake City $1.10 $3.00 $5.50 $9.6 Denver $1.50 $4.70 $7.50 $13.70 Portland $3.10 $1.55 $2.80 $7.45 Phoenix $1.40 $0.00 $7.50 $8.90 Houston $0.30 $2.40 $1.50 $4.20 Atlanta $0.30 $0.05 $15.00 $15.35 Las Vegas $0.85 $0.90 $0.25 $2.00 Minneapolis $1.00 $2.00 $6.50 $9.50 San Francisco $4.50 $4.20 $5.10 $13.80 Dallas $2.00 $3.60 $2.50 $8.10 Los Angeles $4.30 $4.40 $6.70 $15.40 San Diego $2.00 $0.00 $4.00 $6.00 Seattle $5.00 $5.00 $15.00 $25.00 Albuquerque $0.42 $0.00 $0.03 $0.45 Austin $0.40 $0.00 $0.60 $1.00 Charlotte $0.46 $1.90 $3.00 $5.36 TOTALS $28.63 $33.70 $83.48 $145.81

9 Different modes may be selected for each service type. 9

10 MARKET SEGMENTATION All Travelers Sensitivity to Time Low Sensitivity of Time High Sensitivity of Time Need for Fixed Schedule Flexible Schedule Fixed Schedule Flexible Schedule Fixed Schedule Willingness to Use Transit No Transit Transit No Transit Transit No Transit Transit No Transit Transit Market Segments Anxious Amblers Flexible Riders Productive 9 to 5-ers Routine Riders Cautious Flyers Flexibl e Flyers Cautious 9 to 5-ers Routine Flyers Attitudinal Focus 10 None of These Factors Transit Fixed Fixed Schedule Schedule and Transit Time Time and Transit Time and Fixed Schedule Time, Fixed Schedule and Transit

11 CHANGE CULTURAL ATTITUDES 1. Shift the culture from a social service to that of a critical public utility 2. Perceive of the public investment as paying for reduced traffic and assume a leadership role in the development of new modes including car sharing, bike and pedestrian ways and van pools 3. Identify social service needs and turn responsibility over to social service organizations

12 CHANGING CULTURE 4. Do not use Public Hearing input for service design but for communication of changes 5. Pay executives and top level staff according to market. Currently US transit executives are paid ½ to 1/3 comparable counterparts in other regional utility industries.

13 Modernize and technologize. Create a developing technology center.. Incorporate new fare payment technology for distance based fare collection. Take full advantage of new social media such as Facebook and Twitter to keep public informed

14 Market based service criteria. Conduct market research to identify markets to serve.. Establish fares at levels the markets will bear. Establish standards for efficiency to explain why not all markets can be served including ISO 9000 and certification.. Use market research to continuously evaluate public perception of value such as Net Promoter Score

15 Financial Sustainability. Identify the ROI for the community stockholders.. Be aggressive about gaining non-tax revenue generation from non-traditional sources i.e. TODs and commercial franchises within stations. Seek relationships with energy developers. Open the market to allow the best equipment to be purchased for the required service

16 CONVERSION TO PUBLIC UTILITY MODEL Study and evaluate the many models used world wide to support the privatization of the Public Transit Sector including: 1. Authorizing/ organizing Authority systems common in Europe. 2. Public/Private Partnerships for the development and operation of major infrastructure investments 3. Allow Private Sector partners to do what they do best, choose markets, take risks which controlling them etc.

17 Thank you for listening.

18 Transit Ridership in Utah Transit Total Ridership Annual Transit Riders in Utah Million 70 Annual Riders (Millions) Million World War 2 Rise of the Automobile Energy Crisis Start of TRAX 39 Million 0 Creation of UTA

19 The Potential of Transit in Utah Annual Boardings (millions) Transit Oriented Growth Financially Sustainable Regional Transportation Plan

20 Why John M. Inglish, General Manager/CEO Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, Utah

21

22 The Transit 2030 Plan Plan highlights include: Commuter Rail: 120+ miles Light Rail: 60 miles Bus Rapid Transit: 80+ miles Increases in bus service Integrated multi-modal system Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

23 The Results Passed in both counties at a 2-1 margin

24 Business Support In 2005, top local business and community leaders participated in UTA television and print campaign.

25 Evidence About Programs & Projects 80 UTA Net Promoter Score by Service Type Decision FrontRunner Trax Regular Bus Fast/Express 35M

26 Routine Riders Lower sensitivity to time Fixed schedule Travel during rush hours Willingness to use transit Most have one car per household Employed full-time or part-time Lower income Half are married Two-thirds are male Your typical college student is representative of this group 26

27

28 Evidence About Processes Decision