Fiscal Year (FY) 2011–12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT Understanding the Region’s Investments in Public Transportation

Transit/Rail Department PHOTO CREDITS SCAG would like to thank the ollowing transit agencies: • City o Santa Monica, Big Blue Bus • City o Commerce Municipal Bus Lines • Foothill Transit • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)

• Omnitrans • Victor Valley Transit Authority CONTENTS

SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region ...... 1

SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance ...... 13

SECTION 03 Operator Profiles ...... 31

Imperial County ...... 32

Los Angeles County ...... 34

Orange County ...... 76

Riverside County ...... 82

San Bernardino County ...... 93

Ventura County ...... 99

APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region ...... A1

APPENDIX B System Performance Measures ...... B1

APPENDIX C Reporting Exceptions ...... C1 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus (BBB)

City o Commerce Municipal Bus Lines (CBL) FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

INTRODUCTION The Southern Cali ornia Association o Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) representing six counties in Southern Cali ornia: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible under state and ederal law or preparing long-range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs through a per ormance- driven, outcome-based approach, and in cooperation with the public and stakeholders, including the State o Cali ornia and public transportation operators. These plans and programs must provide or the development and integrated management and operation o transportation systems and acilities that will unction as an intermodal transportation system or the ederally designated metropolitan planning area and as an integral part o an intermodal transportation system or the state and the nation.

Public transportation, or transit, is a mobility strategy that allows travelers modal choice to reach their destinations, and provides mobility or residents without access to vehicles. Transit also represents a signi icant investment within the region’s overall transportation system, composing roughly hal (in com- bination with passenger rail) o all investments in the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustain- able Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

SCAG REGION NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

191 cities SAN BERNARDINO

VENTURA 6 counties LOS ANGELES

38,000 square miles RIVERSIDE ORANGE

ARIZONA 19 million people PACIFIC OCEAN IMPERIAL

MEXICO

1 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

operations within the context o the production THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ACT OF 2012 DEFINES o the 2016 RTP/SCS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AS: X Providing a benchmarking resource which Transportation by a conveyance that provides providers o public transportation can use to regular and continuing general or special trans- compare their system’s perormance to that o portation to the public, but does not include comparable agencies school bus, charter, or intercity bus transpor- X Addressing new Metropolitan Planning provisions tation or intercity passenger rail transportation contained in Moving Ahead or Progress in the provided by the entity described in chapter 243 21st Century (MAP-21), relating to the production (or a successor to such entity).i o public transportation System Perormance Reports in Regional Transportation Plans

The purpose o this report is to provide an incremen- This report is organized into three sections:

tal step towards producing a transit System Peror- SECTION 01 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN mance Report or the 2016 RTP/SCS, and to continue THE SCAG REGION discusses the types o tran- incorporating an annual review o system peror- sit provided in the region, how service provision is mance geared towards planning or operations and governed, transit’s role in providing mobility, and the maintenance into SCAG’s transit modal planning prac- external beneits transit provides. tices. There are our key actors this report addresses SECTION 02 REGIONAL PERFORMANCE as an incremental step towards the 2016 RTP/SCS: analyzes transit perormance at a regional level, X Providing a ramework or understanding the addressing the system’s productivity, the inancial region’s large and complex public transporta- resources dedicated to the region’s transit system, tion system, and analyzing its perormance at the geographic distribution o service provision and that same level. This includes contextualizing consumption or Fiscal Year 2011-2012 (FY 2011-12)11. public transportation’s role in providing mobility SECTION 03 OPERATOR PROFILES depicts the within the region, addressing governance issues, individual perormance o each o the transit proper- and addressing the geographic distribution o ties in the region that report data within the National service provision and consumption, in addition Transit Database’s urban operator’s ormat. to addressing the growing role o rail transit and demand response services in the region Finally, the Appendices provide urther detail regard- ing transit governance in the SCAG region and the X Providing a resource that helps policy makers development o the system perormance measures understand the nature and extent o the region’s used in this report. investments in public transportation, the kinds o returns those investments are delivering, and

adding to the discussion regarding planning or 1 For purposes of this report, a fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends June 30 of the following calendar year.

2 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

annual reports (see Table 4). These measures were reviewed by the High Speed Rail and Transit Subcom- mittee o SCAG’s Transportation Committee, and by the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee.

Deining Public Transportation The Federal Transit Act o 2012 deines public trans- portation as:

“Transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transpor- tation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or intercity bus transportation or intercity passenger rail transportation provided by The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS the entity described in chapter 243 (or a successor On April 4, 2012 SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the to such entity)i.” 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, the culmination o a multi-year planning e–ort involving stakeholders rom across As amended by MAP-21, 49 US Code Section 5302, the region. This plan laid orth the region’s vision urther deines public transportation as: or mobility investments over a twenty- three year “(14) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.—The term ‘public time span, and was the irst to integrate a “Sustain- transportation’— able Communities Strategy” identiying “high quality (A) means regular, continuing shared-ride surace transit corridors” or inill development, and advanc- transportation services that are open to the gen- ing strategies or reducing regional greenhouse gas eral public or open to a segment o the general emissions. public deined by age, disability, or low income; and As part o the analytical work comprising the produc- (B) does not include— tion o the transit appendix to the 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS, base year perormance data were analyzed or (i) intercity passenger rail transportation provided 25 agencies providing inter-jurisdictional transit ser- by the entity described in chapter 243 (or a succes- vice in the SCAG Region. sor to such entity);

The 2010-11 System Perormance Report (ii) intercity bus service; The 2010-11 Transit System Perormance Report was (iii) charter bus service; (iv) school bus service; (v) SCAG’s irst e–ort at producing an annual ormat or sightseeing service; measuring system perormance. This e–ort included a (vi) courtesy shuttle service or patrons o one or review o the literature on transit perormance mea- more speciic establishments; or sures (see Appendix B) which led to the selection o a discrete set o measures proposed to be used or the (vii) intra-terminal or intra-acility shuttle services.”

3 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

It is important to note that per the ederal deinition o transit, and or the sake o this report, services such FIGURE 1 Public Transit Modes in the SCAG Region as intercity passenger transportation, high speed rail, FIXED ROUTE BUS SERVICE university or workplace shuttles, school buses, or tour- ism based services do not qualiy as public transporta- De ined as “a transit mode comprised o rubber tired vehicles operating on tion and will not be considered here. Further, since the ixed routes and schedules over road- perormance o the Southern Caliornia Regional Rail ways” (re erred to as Motor Bus in the National Transit Database). Authority’s Metrolink service was analyzed in SCAG’s 2013 Rail System Per ormance Report, its individual perormance will not be analyzed here in any depth. DEMAND RESPONSE The transit system in the six-county SCAG Region is De ined as “a transit mode comprised comprised o an extensive network o services pro- o passenger cars, vans, or small buses operating in response to calls vided by dozens o operators. The network includes rom passengers or their agents ixed-route local bus, community circulators, express to the transit operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to pick up the passengers and transport them to their bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), demand response, com- destinations.” muter rail, heavy rail, and light rail. The modal catego- ries used in this report, along with deinitions pro- COMMUTER RAIL vided by the National Transit Database, are illustrated De ined as “a transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway or in Figure 1. urban passenger train service operat- ing between a central city and sub- TRANSIT AND MOBILITY IN THE SCAG REGION urbs. Service must be operated on a regular basis... or the Transit and Mobility purpose o transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between urbanized areas and outlying areas.” As o the beginning o FY 2011-12, our region’s transit system consisted o approximately 9,000 miles o bus HEAVY RAIL routes and 70 miles o heavy and light rail, in addition De ined as “a transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity or a to 388 miles route miles o rail utilized by Metrolink. heavy volume o tra“c. It is char- Almost 5% o travelers in the SCAG Region used tran- acterized by separate right-o -ways (ROWs) rom which all other vehicular and oot tra“c are sit to reach their destinations in 2009. According to excluded and high speed and rapid acceleration passenger data reported to the National Transit Database, transit rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on ixed rails.” agencies in the SCAG Region experienced 716 million LIGHT RAIL boardings and invested $2.45 billion in operations and maintenance in FY 2011-12. De ined as “a transit mode that typi- cally is an electric railway with a light FY2011-12 also saw the opening o a new light rail volume tra“c capacity compared to heavy rail (HR). It is characterized line in Los Angeles County, the Metro Expo Line (Line by passenger rail cars operating on ixed rails in shared or 806). The initial operating segment o the Expo Line exclusive ROW and vehicle power drawn rom an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph.” opened April 28, 2012, serving an 8.6 mile corridor

4 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE 1 Total Trips by County, All Purposes

Total Trips County Auto Transit Bicycle Walk Imperial 114,018,194 Not available 318,631 10,361,556 Los Angeles 6,231,994,828 400,196,991 166,397,229 2,083,153,592 Orange 2,180,289,337 67,656,250 39,874,041 388,410,530 Riverside 1,272,756,998 17,577,906 21,621,490 214,696,550 San Bernardino 1,434,093,895 26,259,261 21,761,307 230,494,820 Ventura 477,831,965 6,490,657 15,518,240 79,642,547 TOTAL 11,710,985,217 518,181,065 265,490,938 3,006,759,595 Percentage o Trips County Auto Transit Bicycle Walk Imperial 90.49% Not available 0.25% 8.22% Los Angeles 69.65% 4.47% 1.86% 23.28% Orange 80.76% 2.51% 1.48% 14.39% Riverside 82.60% 1.14% 1.40% 13.93% San Bernardino 83.21% 1.52% 1.26% 13.37% Ventura 81.49% 1.11% 2.65% 13.58% SCAG REGION 74.96% 3.32% 1.70% 19.24%

Source: National Household Travel Survey 2009iii

rom 7th Street Metro Center/Julian Dixon to La Transit is particularly important or commute trips, Cienega Blvd. Additional stations at Culver Blvd and which tend to occur during peak congestion periods. Farmdale Ave opened on June 20, 2012. The Expo Line provided almost 600,000 trips and 2.2 million pas- FY 2011-12 saw the opening of the Metro Expo senger miles in FY2011-12, with a weekday average o Line, an 8.6 mile corridor connecting Culver 13,897 trips and 51,141 passenger miles.ii City with the region’s rail system, and providing 600,000 trips in its first year of operation. Table 1 illustrates transit’s role in terms o total travel in the SCAG Region. These data, which were obtained Table 2 presents Journey to Work data obtained rom rom the Federal Highway Administration’s 2009 the US Census’s 2009-2011 American Community National Household Travel Survey, represent a sample Survey 3-Year Estimates. These data demonstrate o all travel in the region, regardless o time, length, or that the overall mode share or transit is much higher duration. Transit’s overall role is comparatively small, or commute trips than overall trips. Los Angeles but serves an important role in providing modal choice.

5 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

TABLE 2 Journey to Work by County

2011 3 year Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Ventura ACS Estimates County County County County Bernardino County County Workers 16 years and 57,099 4,327,711 1,400,804 838,422 782,989 378,846 over MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Car, truck, or van 90.2% 83.0% 88.2% 90.0% 91.0% 89.1% Drove alone 78.9% 72.2% 78.1% 77.1% 74.4% 75.9% Carpooled 11.3% 10.8% 10.0% 13.0% 16.7% 13.2% In 2-person carpool 7.9% 8.4% 7.7% 9.6% 13.2% 9.7% In 3-person carpool 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 1.9% 2.0% 1.7% In 4-or-more 1.8% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% person carpool Workers per car, 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.09 truck, or van Public transportation 1.5% 7.2% 2.9% 1.5% 1.9% 1.4% Walked 2.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.6% 2.0% 2.3% Bicycle 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% Taxicab, motorcycle, 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0% or other means

Worked at home 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 3.7% 5.5%

Source: American Community Survey, 2011

County has a particularly high transit commute mode Transit Dependency share – 7.2% o all work trips, which compares avor- Transit plays an important role in providing mobility ably with the state share o 5.2% and the national and modal choice in the SCAG Region, but also helps share o 5%.iv to provide mobility or households or travelers with no or limited access to vehicles. Table 3 displays ive The other counties o the region are well below both year estimates o vehicles available by household, the state and ederal averages with respect to transit as reported by the U.S. Census’s American Commu- mode share. However, it should be noted that given nity Survey. One out o ten households in Imperial the sheer size o the SCAG region, it still remains one and Los Angeles Counties have no vehicles available, o the largest transit markets in the country. Orange and about 1/4 to 1/3 o households in all counties County’s commute mode share may only be 2.9%, but have only one vehicle available. Public transportation OCTA still ranks among the APTA’s 50 largest provid- remains an e–ective way o providing mobility options ers o public transportation.

6 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE 3 Vehicles Available by Household

Vehicles Available by Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Ventura Household County County County County Bernardino County County No vehicles available 11% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 1 vehicle available 31% 35% 29% 30% 28% 26% 2 vehicles available 35% 35% 42% 39% 38% 41% 3 or more vehicles 23% 20% 25% 26% 29% 29% available

Source: American Community Survey, 2011

or those householdsv. (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario ranks 99 out o 100, and Oxnard- Thousand Oaks-Ventura ranks 85). As noted in the Brookings Institution Report, “Tran- Ninety-nine percent o zero vehicle households within sit Access and Zero Vehicle Households,” the SCAG Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana have access to Region contains three o the 100 Metropolitan Statisti- some sort o public transportation, while 87% o Riv- cal Areas (MSAs) with the largest concentrations o erside- San Bernardino-Ontario households and 91% zero vehicle households. As the second largest MSA in o Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura households do. the country, it is not surprising that the Los Angeles- Long Beach-Santa Ana2 MSA has the third largest External Beneits o Transit Use number o zero car households, behind New York - Transit use also provides external beneits to the Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-PA, and Chi- region’s transportation system, through investment, cago-Naperville-Jolliet IL-IN-WI. The 358,705 zero car reduced tra®c congestion, and air pollution emis- households represent almost 5% o the national total, sions reductions. APTA estimates that or every billion and are almost as much as the combined total o the dollars invested in transit (as o 2007) approximately San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont CA and Washington- Arlington-Alexandria DC-VA-MD-MV MSAs vi. THE SCAG REGION contains three of the 100 Metropolitan Statistical Ares (MSAs) with the The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CA and largest concentrations of zero vehicle households Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSAs are also represented within the index, with 65,862 and 10,200 LA-LB-SA MSA is the households, respectively. These two areas both rank 358,705 3RD HIGHEST IN THE NATION within the bottom quintile or share o jobs accessible Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario via transit within 90 minutes, while Los Angeles-Long 65,862 Beach-Santa Ana ranks within the middle quintile 10,200 Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura 2 This MSA’s name was changed per the 2010 US Census Boundaries to Los Transit Access and Zero Vehicle Households, 2011 Angeles - Long Beach - Anaheim CA

7 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

FIGURE 2 Annual Delay Costs Averted by Public Transit, FIGURE 3 Aggregate Delay Hours Averted by Public Medium and Large UZAs Transit, Medium and Large UZAs

$1,100 45,000

1,000 40,000 900

800 35,000

700 Delay Hours 30,000 Delay Costs in Millions 600

500 25,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Source: TTI 2012 Source: TTI 2012

36,000 jobs are created. This includes the direct the amount o delay averted in aggregate hours, purchasing power o transit agencies, and also the per capita hours, and monetized costs avoided via spending power o the employees o transit agencies public transit usage in the Indio- Cathedral City-Palm vii. Were this rate to have held constant into FY 2011- Springs CA, Lancaster-Palmdale CA, Los Angeles- 12, transit spending in the SCAG Region would have Long Beach-Santa Ana CA, Oxnard CA, and Riverside- resulted in the creation or maintenance o roughly San Bernardino CA urbanized areas (UZAs). 150,000 jobs. As discussed in chapter 5 o the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, Similar studies by APTA have concluded that compact, delay is a commonly used measure o mobility, o¯en transit riendly communities have a per capita tran- deined as the di–erence between actual travel time sit atality rate roughly 25% that o auto dependent and the travel time at a predeined “optimal speed” communities, and have less severe tra®c collisions. or the mode being considered. For the purposes o Further, as the market share or cleaner transit uels the TTI report, the delay in question relates to auto has reached 30.4% nationally, the per passenger mile travel, measured in Vehicle Hours o Delay. air pollution emissions proile o transit has decreased As displayed in Figure 2 signiicant externalized costs signiicantly, especially regarding diesel particulate, o auto operation are avoided in the SCAG Region due oxides o nitrogen, and hydrocarbonsviii. to travelers choosing transit instead o driving. During The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), in its annual the economic boom year o 2007, these cost savings Urban Mobility Report, estimates tra®c congestion totaled nearly one billion dollars. These estimated delay averted due to the use o the region’s public savings are especially signiicant when compared to transportation system. Figures 3-5 are charts tracking total congestion related costs, estimated to be over

8 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

National Transit Database (NTD) FIGURE 4 Per Capita Delay Hours Averted by Public All o the data analyzed in this report were obtained Transit rom the NTD. Data reported to NTD by transit agen- 13 cies allow or analysis to be conducted most easily at

12 the agency level. NTD data is not an e–ective tool or 11 measuring service as it is experienced by the passen-

10 ger. The NTD was established by Congress to be the

9 nation’s primary source or inormation and statistics

8 on its transit systems. Recipients or beneiciaries o Delay Hours

7 grants rom the FTA under the Urbanized Area For-

6 mula Program (§5307) or Other than Urbanized Area

5 (Rural) Formula Program (§5311) are required by stat- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ute to submit data to the NTD. Over 660 transit pro- viders in urbanized areas annually report perormance Source: TTI 2012 data to the NTD. These data are used to apportion over $5 billion o FTA unds to transit agencies in $14 billion or the SCAG Region in 2007. The impact o urbanized areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are sub- the recession o 2008-2009, and subsequent service mitted to Congress summarizing transit service and cuts, can be seen as the cost savings diminish in the saety data. 2008-2011 periodix. The legislative requirement or the NTD is ound in Similarly, Figure 3 outlines the aggregated hours o Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). NTD data or the SCAG Region delay averted by travelers who choose to use transit include annual operations and inancial reports dating instead o driving. In 2007, transit riders averted a back to 1991, and monthly non-audited operations total o almost 45,000 delay hours by not using road reports dating back to 2002. acilities. As the economy worsened, the delay ben- Year to year changes in NTD reporting mandates can eits decreased signiicantly. However, transit’s delay a–ect the data used in perormance measurement. As reducing impacts will be greatest when demand or directed by congress or through various rulemaking road-space is greatest. This would imply that when processes, agencies may be required to report new the economy recovers to pre-2008 levels, so will tran- types o data to the NTD. Within the past two years, sit’s delay reduction beneits. NTD has established several new reporting modes, Figure 4 displays transit’s delay reduction beneit on including Commuter Bus and Rapid Bus, which a–ect a per capita basis. Transit riders in the SCAG Region the way the day is analyzed. Where appropriate these saved residents roughly ten hours in delay averted in modes are speciically called out, and in other cases 2011. the data are subsumed into the Motor Bus mode to maintain the time series.

9 SECTION 01 Public Transportation in the SCAG Region

Transit Perormance Measures A brie discussion o the measures used in this TABLE 4 Performance Measures Used in Section 03 report is contained below. A richer discussion is con- Per ormance Concept Per ormance Measure tained in Appendix A. Economics/Cost Operating Cost per The measures selected or this report are concerned E®ciency Vehicle Revenue Hour with two levels o analysis, the regional level and the Farebox Recovery agency level. Section 02 o the report is concerned with the regional level and Section 03 with the Economics/Cost Operating Cost per agency level. E–ectiveness Passenger Trip

Section 02 o the report ocuses on services pro- Operating Cost per Passenger Mile vided and consumed, the changing ways passengers Passengers per Vehicle are using transit in the region, how transit is paid or, Revenue Hour Service E–ectiveness/ and the changing geographic distribution o transit Productivity Passengers per Vehicle demand. The key measures employed are ridership, Revenue Mile passenger miles, total costs and und sources, mode Fleet Average Vehicle shares, and productivity. Maintenance Age The perormance measures used in Section 03 are Mobility/Travel Time Average Vehicle Speed shown in Table 4. These measures ocus on travel time, maintenance, and economic categories – par- ticularly cost e–ectiveness and cost e®ciency. demand or transit service, within existing inancial constraints? Given the demand side characteristics Cost e®ciency measures evaluate the ability o an o these measures, they more clearly represent the agency to provide service given existing unding individual conditions o any particular service area, constraints, without examining the consumption o since transit demand varies widely over space. These service. These measures simply demonstrate the measures are thereore less useul or inter-agency ability o an agency to provide outputs o transit benchmarking than cost e®ciency measures. service (revenue hours, revenue miles) given certain inputs (labor, operating expenses). These measures The ratio o passenger volume to service provided are used by most transit agencies to track system orms the basis or most productivity measures. perormance. Typically measured in passengers per hour or per mile, these igures are a–ected by demand, service Cost e–ectiveness measures assess both supply and area size and characteristics, vehicle speeds, and the demand. How well is a system meeting community amount o service provided.

10 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

Maintenance measures analyze the state o an agen- cy’s capital stock, and the e–ectiveness o its mainte- nance programs. Fleet average vehicle age measures the age o an agency’s leet, and allows or medium term planning assumptions about maintenance and vehicle replacement needs. These data are reported in leet average age in years in this resource.

Mobility, the ability o travelers to move between a variety o origins and destinations, is one o the key goals o regional planning at SCAG. The aver- age speed at which a transit vehicle moves is a useul proxy variable or travel time, a component o mobility. While this variable does not compare travel speeds to other modes, or assess individual trip times, it does assess the impact o congestion, route direct- ness, dwell and boarding/alighting times, signal times, and other variables on providing relatively quick tran- sit trips.

11 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

Foothill Transit

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, MPOs across the country have been moving toward the implementation o Per ormance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP), an analytical strategy ocused on assessing the ability o plans, programs, and individual projects to advance the adopted goals and objectives o MPO policy boards, as they relate to transportation system improvement. More in ormation about PBPP can be ound in Appendix B.

A key practice in PBPP is the episodic monitoring o a system’s per ormance. This is the key manner by which MPOs and other agencies can assess the extent to which their strategies and investments are having the desired impacts on transportation system per ormance. Section 2 o this report, “Evaluat- ing Transit System Per ormance” is SCAG Transit and Rail Department’s eœort to monitor, evaluate, and report on the Region’s investments in public transportation.

The key measures in this section have been vetted with stakeholders at the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee, and were reviewed by the High Speed Rail and Transit Subcommittee.

13 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

FIGURE 5 Characteristics of Transit Service in SCAG Region: Service Provision and Consumption in FY 2011-12

Total Vehicle Revenue Hours: 19,160,239

Total Directional Route Miles: Total Passenger Trips: Total Passenger Miles: 18,696 710,804,989 3,633,814,562

Total Vehicle Per Capita Transit Trips: Per Capita Passenger Miles: Revenue Miles: 38.95 206.39 293,205,799 SERVICE SERVICE

SERVICE PROVIDED CONSUMED | TRIPS CONSUMED | MILES

As discussed in Section 01, the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS In Fiscal Year 2011-12 , the region’s transit agencies contained an analysis o transit perormance trends provided just over 19 million hours o bus, rail and in FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09, and the subsequent demand response transit service, along 18,696 direc- FY2010-11 Transit System Perormance Report ocused tional miles o routes. This service level along these on analyzing that year’s perormance. One key ind- routes combined to just under 300 million vehicle ing o these e–orts was that the years between FY revenue miles o service. Passengers in the region 2008-09 and FY 2011-12 were a period o austerity took just under 711 million unlinked passenger trips on and downsizing or households and employers in the those bus, rail, and demand response services, and region, and subsequently also or transit agencies. This travelled just over 3.6 billion miles on those services. austerity was the product o the Recession o 2008- Service Provided and Consumed: 20 Year Trends 09, and led to cuts in service and dropping demand. National Transit Database data provides an opportu- As reported in the FY2010-11 Transit System Per- nity to construct timeseries dating back to 1991. Given ormance Report in Figures 5 and 6, the 703.6 mil- that this period contains the enactment o the Ameri- lion trips reported in FY2010-11 represent were a cans with Disabilities Act and the onset o Metrolink 6% decrease rom the FY2008-09 data point, and and Metro Rail service in the SCAG Region, it is helpul per capita trips have allen rom a high o over 42 in to look at this timeseries in order to understand the 2005-2006 to 38.8 in 2011-2012. changing nature o transit service provision and con- sumption in the SCAG Region. Total service hours have Figure 5 demonstrates basic service provision and grown by roughly 60% since 1991, but that growth has consumption measures or the region, as obtained stagnated since the recession o 2008-2009. rom the NTD’s 2012 data.

14 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE 6 Total Service Hours FIGURE 7 Total Boardings

25 800

20 600

15 400 Billions 10 Billions

200 5

0 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

FIGURE 8 Per Capita Trips FIGURE 9 Total Passenger Miles

50 4,000

45 3,000

35 2,000 Billions

30 1,000

25 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: California Department of Finance 2013, NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

Total transit boardings have grown by about 26% ridership, a growth o 1.7% total trips taken, and .3% since 1991, but are roughly 6% below their high per capita trips. This gain is still 7.2% below the pre- point in 2008. As noted above, service cuts and the recession high o 42 per capita trips. economic recession have had negative e–ects on The use o per capita transit trips as a measure o ridership. FY2011-12 represents an annual uptick in regional perormance has a long history at SCAG,

15 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

FIGURE 10 Per Capita Passenger Miles Travelled FIGURE 11 Share of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours by Mode, FY 2011-12

200

150 6% Rail Modes*

19% Demand Response

100 75% Bus

50 *Light Rail 3% Commuter Rail 2% Heavy Rail 1% 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

The region’s pattern o service provision has changed PER CAPITA TRIPS are a key transit perfor- drastically in the past 20 years, as rail and demand mance measure at SCAG, as selected by TC and response transportation have become a much greater our transit stakeholders. Per Capita trips help ocus o regional transit provision. Metro Rail, which us to understand changes to transit demand in provided only 4% o all vehicle revenue hours in 2012, light of population growth. accounted or 13% o all operating expenses and car- ried roughly 14.3% o all trips.

Annual per capita passenger miles do appear to be dating back to the 2001 RTP. The Transit appendices growing though, suggesting a long term pattern to to the 2001 and 2004 RTPs spells out the region’s towards longer transit trips. per capita trip perormance targets, as endorsed by Changing Patterns o Service Provision the Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) and Transpor- As shown in Figure 11, the share o vehicle revenue tation and Communications Committee (TCC). This hours devoted to demand response has doubled, goal was 34.9 trips per year, a igure that is being rom 8.6% in 1991 to 19.1% in 2012. Similarly, the share slightly exceeded in FY2011-12. However, that goal o operating expenses devoted to demand response was enacted in light o the drastic drop in per capita also doubled, rom 5% to 10% over the same period, transit trips in the mid-1990s, and represented the as shown in Figure 16 on page 19 o this report. 1997 total. The TCC and RTTF hoped to stabilize and maintain total per capita transit trips, and this goal The split o passenger miles travelled by mode has has been achieved. also changed drastically over the past 20 years. In 1991, 99% o passenger miles were provided by bus,

16 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE 12 Modal Share of Service Provided in SCAG FIGURE 13 Modal Share of Passenger Miles Region

Bus Demand Response Bus Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Demand Response 100% 100%

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20 Share of Vehicle Revenue Hours 0 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

SYSTEM LEVEL MEASURES: REVENUES TABLE 6 Characteristics of Transit Operating AND COSTS Expenditures in SCAG Region Cost e–ectiveness and e®ciency are important mea- SCAG Region FY 11-12: sures or understanding the perormance o transit. Operating Costs and Revenues rom NTD Transit capital and operations and maintenance costs total roughly hal o the investments in the 2012-2035 Total Operating Expenditures $2,440,939,897 RTP/SCS. The annual operating costs o transit ser- Vehicle Operations Costs $1,348,570,441 vice in the SCAG Region are signiicant. In FY 2011-12, Vehicle Maintenance $460,565,064 operating costs totaled just over $2.4 billion and capi- tal investments were just over $1.1 billion. Non Vehicle Maintenance $162,374,398 Figure 14, on the next page, details the proportions o General Administration $469,429,994 capital unds spent on acilities and the proportions Fare Box Revenues $638,174,478 spent on vehicles. According to APTA, in 2007 the nation spent roughly 27% o its transit capital unds Source: NTD 2012 on vehicle acquisition, and roughly 73% on the devel- opment o acilities, implying that the region is keep- whereas in 2012 only 69% were. By 2012, Metro Rail ing pace with national trends. accounted or 16% o all passenger miles, and com- muter rail or 12%, with demand response accounting Historical Investments or 2% o all passenger miles. Since 1992, transit agencies have spent $14.67 Bil-

lion in 2012 dollars on capital investments: 36% or

17 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

FIGURE 14 Transit Capital Expenditures in SCAG Region, FIGURE 15 Sources of Capital Funds, FY 2011-12 FY 2011-12

9% Other 29% Federal

66% Facilities 19% State

25% Rolling Stock 52% Local

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

Rolling Stock, 48% or Facilities, including passenger system preservation investments. Transit O&M and stations, guideways, administration buildings, and system preservation accounts or 64.2% o the Multi- maintenance buildings, and 15% or other expenses, modal System Preservation and Maintenance Needs including purchased transportation services, com- identiied in the 2011 Cost Model. munications-inormation systems, and are collection The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS also budgets roughly $55 Bil- equipment. lion or transit capital investments, and another $57.8 In the period since 1991, transit agencies have spent Billion or Intercity Passenger Rail and High Speed Rail a urther $42.898 Billion (2012 dollars) on Opera- capital. tions and Maintenance expenses. Almost 78% o Fund Sources those expenses have been or ixed route bus service, As o FY 2011-12, local unding makes up just over hal almost 6% each or Light Rail and Commuter Rail, 8% o all transit capital unds in the SCAG Region. This or Demand Response, and 3.3% or Heavy Rail. is consistent with the national trend o diminishing Projected Investments ederal shares in transportation unding. However, Projections rom the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Financial it should also be noted that one reason the SCAG Model indicate signiicant continued spending on Region is able to und nearly hal its capital budget transit. The SCAG Cost model identiies a total cost o locally is the success o local option sales taxes or $139.3 billion or the Region’s transit Operation and transportation. Five o the six counties in the SCAG Maintenance (O&M) and system preservation goals, Region are sel-help counties, and Los Angeles County including O&M expenses or existing services, ser- has passed a total o three sales tax measures. vice expansions, major new capital investments, and As demonstrated in Figure 16, rom 1998 to 2003 well

18 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE 16 Transit Capital Fund Sources FIGURE 17 Sources of Operations Revenues, FY 2011-12

Federal State Local 80%

70 23% Farebox 60 3% Other 50 18% Federal 40 14% State 30 42% Local 20

10

0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012

FIGURE 18 Trends in Operating Funding FIGURE 19 Operations Revenues as a Share of All Revenues

Fares Federal State Local Other 100% 70%

60 80

50 60 40

30 40

20 20 10 0 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: NTD 2012 Source: NTD 2012 over 60% o all capital revenues were ederal. This with declines in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) rev- period coincides with Metro Red Line extensions to enues as documented in the Transit Appendix o the Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, and dem- 2012-2035 RTP/SCS. onstrates the importance o the region’s ability to Figure 17 displays total FY 2011-12 O&M unding or compete or ederal resources. The precipitous decline the region’s transit properties. In FY 2011-12 only 32% in state revenues between 2008 and 2012 coincides 19 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

o transit O&M revenues were generated outside FIGURE 20 Operating Expenses by Mode the region, with the remaining coming rom arebox revenues or other local sources. The 20 year trend or O&M unding is more stable than or capital und- 1992 ing, relecting the ederal government’s reluctance to directly support operations in urbanized areas in the

95% Motor Bus post- Intermodal Surace Transportation E®ciency Act

5% Demand Response o 1991 (ISTEA) era. Declining state revenues in recent years relect similar trends as declining capital unds.

The importance o LTF unds to transit agencies oper- ating budgets is demonstrated in Figure 18. As state revenues grew beginning in 2000, local monies were reed up or other uses. However, decreases in state unds between 2007 and 2012 have meant that local 2002 unds are increasingly important, in addition to caus- ing many operators to cut service.

76% Motor Bus Operating Expenses by Transit Mode 5% Light Rail Figure 20 demonstrates the splits among modes in 4% Heavy Rail terms o O&M spending. The region’s increasing inan- 9% Demand Response cial commitment to rail transit and demand response is 6% Commuter Rail evident in the period between 1992 and 2012, as total spending on rail and demand response modes grew rom 5% in 1992, to 23% in 2002, and to 29% in 2012.

2012 METHOD OF SERVICE PROVISION Public transportation services are provided via ser- vices operated directly or by services agencies pur- 71% Motor Bus chase rom a third party provider. According to APTA’s 8% Light Rail 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, purchased 4% Heavy Rail transportation expenses make up about 13.3% o 10% Demand Response the nation’s total operations spendingx. Nationally, 7% Commuter Rail 57% o purchased transportation expenses are or demand response transit, and 39% are or ixed route servicesxi.

The NTD deines directly operated service and pur- Source: NTD 2012 chased transportation as ollows:

20 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE 7 Service Provision in the SCAG Region

Total Service Total Trips Passengers Median Cost Hours per Hour per Trip

Demand Response Directly Operated 136,381 390,662 2.86 $34.28

Demand Response Purchased 3,528,139 7,911,168 2.24 $26.64 Transportation Percentage Directly Operated 4% 5% - -

Percentage o Service Operated 76% 85% - - Directly Motor Bus Directly Operated 10,766,892 491,829,101 45.68 $3.48

Motor Bus Purchased Transportation 3,393,453 85,625,669 25.23 $5.09

X DIRECTLY OPERATED (DO) Transportation ser- Similar to national trends, the impact o purchased vice provided directly by a transit agency, using transportation in the SCAG Region is elt most heav- their employees to supply the necessary labor ily in the demand response mode. While purchased to operate the revenue vehicles. This includes transportation services provide 15% o ixed route instances where an agency’s employees provide bus trips, they provide 95% o demand response trips. purchased transportation (PT) services to the Some large operators choose to employ purchased agency through a contractual agreement. services on less productive routes, leading to a drastic di–erence (81%) in the comparative productivity, X PURCHASED TRANSPORTATION (PT): Transpor- deined as passengers per service hour, o purchased tation service provided to a public transit agency and directly operated services. The much smaller or governmental unit rom a public or private di–erence in productivity (27%) between demand transportation provider based on a written response services would indicate that the gap in ixed contract. The provider is obligated in advance route productivity is not innate to the style o service to operate public transportation services or a provision, but is the result o policy decisions made in public transit agency or governmental unit or a selecting routes or contracting. speciic monetary consideration, using its own employees to operate revenue vehicles. Pur- TRANSIT MODE SHARES chased transportation (PT) does not include: Since 1991, transit agencies in the SCAG Region have • Franchising provided about 13.22 billion transit trips, almost 90% • Licensing operations occurring on buses, 4% on heavy rail, 5% on light rail, • Management services and commuter rail and demand response each pro- • Cooperative agreements viding 1%.

• Private conventional bus service

21 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

FIGURE 21 SCAG Region Transit Mode Share FIGURE 22 Transit Mode Share All Counties but Los Angeles

Metrolink Imperial County Orange County 1992 Riverside County San Bernardino County VenturaCounty 12%

10 99% Motor Bus 8 1% Demand Response

6

4

2

0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

2002 Source: NTD 2012

Between 1991 and 2011, there was a massive e–ort to 88% Motor Bus expand the scope and nature o transit in the region. 5% Light Rail One strategy has been the prolieration o ixed 5% Heavy Rail guideway transit acilities. The NTD deines a ixed 1% Demand Response guideway as: 1% Commuter Rail “A public transportation acility using and occupying:

X A separate right-o-way (ROW) or rail or the exclusive use o public transportation and other 2012 high occupancy vehicles (HOV), or

X A ixed catenary system useable by other orms o transportation.” 82% Motor Bus

8% Light Rail As o 1990, all regional ixed guideway transit opera-

7% Heavy Rail tions consisted o express buses operating in HOV

1% Demand Response lanes. Between 1991 and 1993, the Los Angeles County

2% Commuter Rail Transportation Commission (LACTC), the Southern Cali- ornia Rapid Transit District (RTD), and Metrolink began operating light, heavy, and commuter rail service. Similarly, the passage o the Americans with Disabili-

Source: NTD 2012 ties Act in 1990 mandated that accessible parartran- sit be provided to passengers with disabilities within

22 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE 23 Average Trip Length and Residential FIGURE 24 Average Trip Length by Mode Distribution by County

Share of Regional Residents Outside LA County Average Trip Length Bus Light Rail Heavy Rail Demand Response 60% 8 10

55 7 8

50 6 6 45 5 Miles 4 40 4 Trip Length in Miles

Percentage of Residents 35 3 2

30 2 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Source: California DOF 2013, NTD 2012 Source: California DOF 2013, NTD 2012 three-quarters o a mile o any ixed route bus service. having roughly 17% o the Region’s population, has As demonstrated in Figure 21, since the opening o seen between 8% and 12% o the total transit trip the Metro Blue Line in 1991, rail transit has grown rom consumption since 1991. Riverside and San Bernardino 1.3% o transit trips to approximately 10% in 2002, Counties, despite both having grown rapidly since and to 16.1% o trips in 2012. Conversely, bus trips 1991, have di–ering growth patterns in terms o their have declined rom 98.6% o trips to 83.4% o trips. overall share o regional transit consumption. While Rail transit supplies only 11.6% o all Vehicle Revenue San Bernardino County has grown rom 1% to nearly Miles, since the per vehicle capacity o various rail 3%, Riverside County has hovered steadily at roughly modes is much higher than that o buses. However 1%. Ventura and Imperial Counties represent airly rail transit services also constitute 20.9% o all oper- small portions o the region’s overall transit trips. ating expenses in the SCAG Region. Los Angeles County is not depicted below in order to GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT TRIPS maintain the scale o the chart. Increasing Average Trip Length Los Angeles County is the largest and densest county Figure 23 details the impact o changes in residential in the region, and it is no surprise that the largest per- patterns by county on average trip length. As the share centage o transit services provided and consumed o regional residents living in a County other than Los occur there. However, while Los Angeles County rep- Angeles County has grown rom 39.9% to 45.8%, the resents slightly more than hal o the total population average length o a transit trip has grown by 15%. o the SCAG Region, it has historically represented over 80—90% o total transit ridership. Figure 24 demonstrates the modal breakdown o this growth in average trip length. Newer modes, including As demonstrated in Figure 22, Orange County, while

23 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

In contrast, demand response trips have seen a radi- DEMAND RESPONSE cal growth o 232%, rom just over our miles a trip TRIPS LENGTHS to nearly 9.5 miles a trip. This is the largest average INCREASE trip length growth o any transit mode, and partially Since 1991 demand response trip lengths explains the rapid growth o the demand response have seen a radical growth of 232% from mode in terms o service hours. just over four miles a trip to nearly 9.5 Service Provision and Consumption by . miles a trip Urbanized Area Within the US Census deined urbanized areas o the SCAG Region, there is a similar pattern in the provi- commuter rail and light rail, are being used to serve sion and consumption o transit service. These areas much longer trips, and increasing demand response exclude rural areas, where relatively small proportions trip lengths relect new residential distribution pat- o the region’s transit service is provided or con- terns. Commuter rail trips have retained an average o sumed. As demonstrated in Table 8 the vast bulk o nearly 35 miles a trip and range o standard deviation transit service, trips, passenger miles, and operating o 2.4 (roughly 7% o the mean value). Bus trips have expenses occur in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Ana- also maintained a mean trip length o our miles, with heim UZA. This UZA, containing central Los Angeles a standard deviation o 0.12. County, Northern Orange County, and small portions Changes in average rail trip length relate most closely o Riverside and San Bernardino Counties represents to system expansions by Metro. As new rail corridors the vast bulk o the population o the SCAG Region, enter service, they serve travel markets o varying with over 12 million residents. lengths. The average trip length o light rail transit Given its massive size, it’s no surprise that the Los started at 8.7 miles when the Metro Blue entered ser- Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA makes up the vice in the early 1990s, serving a relatively longer dis- largest portion o service provided, service consumed, tance market. The subsequent opening o the Metro and costs. However, the UZA represents approxi- Green Line, Metro Gold Line and Metro Gold Line mately 89% o all operating costs, while supplying Eastside Extension led to an eventual 21% decline 87% o the service hours and carrying 94% o all in average trip lengths, as those corridors served trips. While each individual unit o service might be shorter distance trips. more expensive to provide within the UZA, it can be In contrast, the heavy rail mode shows great growth concluded that this service is more productive on the a¯er the opening o the Metro Red Line Extensions whole. to Hollywood and North Hollywood 1999 and 2000. REGIONAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY These extensions doubled and then tripled the extent The long term ridership trend in the region is some o the regional heavy rail system, rom 10 directional growth. As noted previously, since 1992, the average route miles, to 20, and then to 32. per capita trips has risen rom 38 to 39, with a high o

24 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE 8 Share of Service Provision and Consumption by Urbanized Area

Vehicle Revenue Vehicle Revenue Unlinked Operating Miles Hours Passenger Trips Expenses

Camarillo, CA 0.07% 0.08% 0.01% 0.04%

El Centro-Calexico, CA 0.34% 0.23% 0.09% 0.18%

Indio-Cathedral City, CA 1.14% 1.23% 0.64% 0.89%

Lancaster-Palmdale, CA 1.03% 0.91% 0.44% 0.82%

Los Angeles-Long Beach- 85.86% 86.34% 93.75% 90.61% Anaheim, CA Oxnard, CA 1.39% 1.41% 0.64% 0.86%

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 7.61% 7.49% 3.54% 4.95%

Santa Clarita, CA 1.19% 1.05% 0.51% 0.86%

Simi Valley, CA 0.20% 0.22% 0.06% 0.20%

Thousand Oaks, CA 0.31% 0.30% 0.05% 0.17%

Victorville-Hesperia, CA 0.86% 0.74% 0.26% 0.42%

Yuma AZ-CA 0.20% .13% .03% .13%

Source: NTD 2012

43 in 2007. At the same time, productivity has allen, have been steadily increasing over the last decade, with passengers per hour down about 24% since while arebox recovery has remained airly steady. 1992.

Costs are rising as distribution o residents spreads THE ROLE OF BUSES IN THE and the average length o transit trips grows. As can REGION’S TRANSIT SYSTEM be seen in Figure 24, the average cost o a passenger trip has grown by 47%, while the average cost per Buses provided 75% of all service and car- passenger mile has grown only by 15%. This conirms ried 83.4% of trips in FY2011-12. While that longer, costlier-to-supply trips are growing as a those shares are declining, they are doing so proportion o all transit travel. slowly. It’s the overwhelming majority of all transit-based mobility in the region. The region’s operating costs per revenue hour have

luctuated signiicantly over the past 20 years but

25 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

FIGURE 25 Twenty Year Transit Trends, 1992-2012

Total +27% Per Capita +2.7% RIDERSHIP Route Miles +53% Vehicle Revenue Hours +68% SERVICE Vehicle Revenue Miles +92%

Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Hour -24%

Change Since 1992 Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Mile -34% PRODUCTIVITY Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour +11% Cost per Passenger Trip +47% Cost per Passenger Mile +15% Source:COSTS NTD 2012

region. Passengers per hour are decreasing, while the FIGURE 26 Demand Response Trips per Fixed Route Trip cost per passenger trip is increasing commensurately. Average vehicle age is increasing again a¯er a rapid decrease in the early 2000s, while increasing vehicle 0.016 speeds may relect the increasing role o rail transit

0.012 and exurban ixed route bus service.

The measures selected or the operator proiles in the 0.008 next section were identiied in Table 4. Figures 28-35

0.006 display the aggregate regional perormance or these measures, across all modes. 0.004 The declines in productivity evident in Figures 29 and

0.002 33 are most likely a product o the increase in service 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 hours over the last 20 years. As service has increased, it is no longer being used as intensely as it was in the Source: NTD 2012 early 1990s. O course, there are valid policy reasons Costs per passenger mile were very airly volatile in to seek to lower passengers per hour or mile. For the 1990s, but have been surprisingly steady since instance, an agency could seek to extend service ur- 2001, given the rising importance o rail transit in the ther into the evening, seeking to provide later return

26 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE 27 Creating a performance baseline for the 2016 RTP/SCS

Incorporation FY Response to FY Incorporation of Local MAP-21 2010-11 Comments/ 2011-12 into Feedback and Rulemaking Report Publication Report 2016 RTP/SCS MAP-21 Rulemaking

Source: NTD 2012

trip options or travelers or to provide mobility or NEXT STEPS FOR THE FY2011-12 TRANSIT service sector workers who o¯en work well into the SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT evening. Similarly, an agency might determine that The 2011-12 Transit System Perormance serves as an the load actors on its runs are too high, and seek to important component in the production o the transit provide extra service so that travelers would have element o the 2016 RTP/SCS. Fiscal Year 2011-12 will more comortable rides. serve as the planning base year or the document, so the data contained in this report will provide the initial Similarly, as discussed on page 13, the region’s baseline o transit system perormance or the 2016 demand or paratransit services has grown sig- RTP/SCS, and will provide the transit portion o the niicantly. Transit agency stakeholders commented MAP-21 mandated system perormance report in that during the dra¯ process that a good way o under- plan. While the orthcoming rulemaking may a–ect standing those changes to demand is the measure the data and measures that will be incorporated into o Demand Response trips per ixed route bus trip. uture plans, this e–ort will provide a baseline, vali- Figure 26 captures that measure, and also displays dated by stakeholder and operating agency approval, the rate o demand response trips to all ixed route o base year system perormance. trips. The average number o demand response trips per ixed route bus trips has grown by 47% in the past 21 years, and by 2012, the region was providing 0.014 demand response trips or every ixed route bus trip.

27 SECTION 02 Evaluating Transit System Performance

AGGREGATE REGIONAL PERFORMANCE FOR OPERATOR PROFILES*

FIGURE 28 Operating Cost per Revenue Hour FIGURE 32 Farebox Recovery

$135 26.5% 130 26.0 25.5 125 25.0 120 24.5 115 24.0 110 23.5 105 23.0 100 22.5 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

FIGURE 29 Operating Cost per Passenger Trip FIGURE 33 Operating Cost per Passenger Mile

$4.00 $0.80 3.50 0.70 3.00 0.60 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.40 1.50 0.30 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

FIGURE 30 Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Hour FIGURE 34 Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Mile

50 4.0 3.5 40 3.0

30 2.5 2.0 20 1.5 1.0 10 0.5 0 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

FIGURE 31 Fleet Average Vehicle Age FIGURE 35 Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 15.0 14.5 8 14.0 6 13.5

4 13.0 12.5 2 12.0 0 11.5 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

28 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

i National Transit Database, Glossary, downloaded rom vii American Public Transportation Association, 2009, “Job http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/Glossary.htm#F Impacts o Spending on Public Transportation: An Update.” on 4/4/2013 White Paper ii Metro.net, http://isotp.metro.net/ viii American Public Transportation Association in partner- ship with Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2010, Evaluating iii U.S. Department o Transportation, Federal Highway Public Transportation Health Beneits Administration, 2009 National Household Travel Survey ix Texas Transportation Institute, 2012 Annual Urban Mobility iv US Census, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Report Estimates “Selected Economic Characteristics,” downloaded rom http://actinder2.census.gov/aces/tableservices/ x APTA, 2014 , 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, page 26 js/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_DP03& xi APTA 2014, 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, page 34. prodType=table on 4/4/13 This total does not include vanpools or publicos v US Census, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates “Selected Economic Characteristics” vi Adie Tomer, “Transit Access and Zero Vehicle Households” Brookings Institution 2011

29 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

Metro

Omnitrans FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

INTRODUCTION Section 03: Operator Pro iles depicts the individual per ormance o each o the transit properties in the SCAG Region that report per ormance data within the National Transit Database’s urban operator ormat. The key objective o the Operator pro iles is to provide a benchmarking resource which pro- viders o public transportation can use to compare their system’s per ormance to that o comparable agencies. The measures selected or analysis were agreed upon by the members o the Regional Tran- sit Technical Advisory Committee (RTTAC), SCAG’s key venue or outreach and collaboration with the various transit properties in the region. Subsequently, in the autumn o 2012, the measures were also reviewed by the High Speed Rail and Transit subcommittee o SCAG’s Transportation Committee.

The selected measures are detailed in Table 4, on page 10. They ocus on cost e“ciency, cost eœective- ness, productivity, maintenance, and mobility. Further details about the process by which they were selected can be ound in Appendix B.

Where possible, the data presented include an analysis o per ormance trends rom FY1990-91 to FY2011-12.

31 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

IMPERIAL COUNTY

IMPERIAL VALLEY TRANSIT

1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 El Centro, CA 92343 http://www.ivtransit.com

Governance Structure County Transportation Commission

Base Fare $75

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $4,524,132

Capital Expenditures N/A

Annual Service Provided 47,000 Hours

Service Area 4,598 Square Miles

Fleet Size 27 Vehicles

Extent o System 623 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 17 hours

Please see reporting exceptions list in Appendix C

32 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

IMPERIAL COUNTY

YUMA COUNTY AREA TRANSIT

500 South Orange Avenue Yuma, AZ 85364 ycat.org

Intergovernmental Public Transportation Governance Structure Authority

Base Fare $2.00

Day Pass $5.00

Monthly Pass $60.00

Total Operating Budget $2,666,274

Capital Expenditures $15,197

Annual Service Provided 31,486 Hours

Service Area 78 Square Miles

Fleet Size 30 Vehicles

Extent o System 340 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 16 hours

The Majority o YCAT Service occurs in Arizona and is not reported here

33 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

ACCESS SERVICES INCORPORATED OF LOS ANGELES (ASI)

3449 Santa Anita Avenue, P.O. Box 5728 El Monte, CA 91734-1728 http://www.asila.org

Governance Structure Incorporated Membership Organization

Base Fare $ 2.50

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $ 111, 337,095

Capital Expenditures $8,263,034

Annual Service Provided 1,621,630 Hours

Service Area 1621 Square Miles

Fleet Size 745 Vehicles

Extent o System N/A

Span o Service 24 hours

34 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

ASI DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 8% $140 7% $120 6% $100 5% $80 4% $60 3% $40 2%

$20 Farebox Recovery 1% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$60 $0.50

$50 $0.40 $40 $0.30 $30 $0.20 $20

$10 $0.10 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

6 10

5 8 4 6 3 4 2

1 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 30 9 8 25 7 20 6 5 15 4 3 10 2 5 1 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

35 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

ANTELOPE VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (AVTA)

42210 6th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534-7124 http://www.avta.com

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $3.75

Monthly Pass Monthly Pass $50

Total Operating Budget $20,117,490

Capital Expenditures $419,814

Annual Service Provided 181,531 Hours

Service Area 1,200 Square Miles

Fleet Size Fleet Size 102 Vehicles

Extent o System 526 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 15 Hours

36 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

AVTA FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 50%

$100 40% $80 30% $60 20% $40

$20 10% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$7 $0.60

$6 $0.50 $5 $0.40 $4 $0.30 $3 $0.20 $2 $0.10 $1 Cost Per Passenger Mile Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

40 3.0 35 2.5 30 25 2.0 20 1.5 15 1.0 10 0.5 5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 25 14 20 12 10 15 8 6 10 4 2 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

37 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

AVTA DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 12% $120 10% $100 8% $80 6% $60 $40 4% 2% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$7 $0.60

$6 $0.50 $5 $0.40 $4 $0.30 $3 $0.20 $2 $0.10 $1 Cost Per Passenger Mile Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 0.4 4 0.3 3

0.2 2

1 0.1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

8 25 7 20 6 5 15 4 3 10 2 1 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

38 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF ARCADIA TRANSIT (ARCADIA TRANSIT)

240 West Huntington Drive, P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $1,657,558

Capital Expenditures $0

Annual Service Provided 22,926 Hours

Service Area 11 Square Miles

Fleet Size 18 Vehicles

Extent o System N/A

Span o Service 15 Hours

39 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

ARCADIA TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 8% $70 7% $60 6% $50 5% $40 4% $30 3% $20 2%

Farebox Recovery 1%

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$16 $0.60 $14 $0.50 $12 $10 $0.40 $8 $0.30 $6 $0.20 $4 $0.10 $2 Cost Per Passenger Mile Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

8.0 8 7.0 7 6.0 6 5.0 5 4.0 4 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 Passengers Per Service Hour 0.0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 14

10 12 10 8 8 6 6 4 4

2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

40 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

BEACH CITIES TRANSIT

415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 http://redondo.org/

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $40

Total Operating Budget $ 2,565,725

Capital Expenditures $ 1,887,278

Annual Service Provided 39,633 Hours

Service Area 13 Square Miles

Fleet Size 20 Vehicles

Extent o System 63 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 15 Hours

Please see reporting exceptions list in Appendix C

41 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF COMMERCE MUNICIPAL BUS LINES (CBL)

2535 Commerce Way Commerce, CA 90040 ci.commerce.ca.us

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $0.00

Day Pass $0.00

Monthly Pass $0.00

Total Operating Budget $ 2,867,458

Capital Expenditures $ 102,275

Annual Service Provided 23,598 Hours

Service Area 10 Square Miles

Fleet Size 14 Vehicles

Extent o System 135 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 12 hours

42 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

COMMERCE MUNICIPAL BUS LINES FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 $140 $120 $100 The City o Commerce Municipal Bus $80 Lines does not charge a are $60 $40

Cost Per Service Hour $20 $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$6 $4 $5

$4 $3

$3 $2 $2 $1 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 4

8 3 6 2 4

1 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 14 18 12 16 14 10 12 8 10 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

43 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL BUS LINES (CULVER CITY BUS)

4343 Duquesne Avenue Culver City, CA 90232-2941 http://www.culvercity.org

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $84

Total Operating Budget $18,216,327

Capital Expenditures $11,107,337

Annual Service Provided 145,727 Hours

Service Area 33 Square Miles

Fleet Size 52 Vehicles

Extent o System 107 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 20 Hours

44 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

CULVER CITY MUNICIPAL BUS LINES FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 25% $120 20% $100 $80 15%

$60 10% $40 5%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$6 $4 $5

$4 $3

$3 $2 $2 $1 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

70 10

60 8 50

40 6

30 4 20 2 10

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 12.5 18 12.0 16 14 11.5 12 11.0 10 8 10.5 6 10.0 4 9.5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 9.0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

45 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FOOTHILL TRANSIT

100 South Vincent Avenue, Suite 200 West Covina, CA 91790-2902 http://www. oothilltransit.org

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.25

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $70

Total Operating Budget $ 62,614,618

Capital Expenditures $ 17,269,306

Annual Service Provided 671,603 Hours

Service Area 327 Square Miles

Fleet Size 300 Vehicles

Extent o System 836 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 24 Hours

46 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FOOTHILL TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 35%

$100 30% 25% $80 20% $60 15% $40 10%

$20 Farebox Recovery 5% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $5

$8 $4

$6 $3

$4 $2

$2 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

50 10

40 8

30 6

20 4

10 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 20

10 15 8

6 10

4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

47 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

GARDENA MUNICIPAL BUS LINES (GMBL)

13999 S. Western Ave. Gardena, CA 90249-3005 http://www.ci.gardena.ca.us

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $ 17,311,038

Capital Expenditures $ 841,897

Annual Service Provided 125,967 Hours

Service Area 40 Square Miles

Fleet Size 63 Vehicles

Extent o System 154 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 16 Hours

48 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

GMBL FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 30% $140 25% $120 20% $100 $80 15% $60 10% $40 5% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$8 $4.00 $7 $3.50 $6 $3.00 $5 $2.50 $4 $2.00 $3 $1.50 $2 $1.00 $1 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Mile Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

70 12

60 10 50 8 40 6 30 4 20 10 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 25 14 12 20 10 15 8 6 10 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

49 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

GMBL DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$90 3.0% $80 2.5% $70 $60 2.0% $50 1.5% $40 $30 1.0% $20 0.5% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0.0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$35 $14

$30 $12

$25 $10

$20 $8

$15 $6

$10 $4

$5 $2

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

8 16 7 14 6 12 5 10 4 8 3 6 2 4 1 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 16 14 10 12 8 10 6 8 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

50 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO)

One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 http://www.metro.net

County Transportation Commission and Governance Structure State Designated Transit District

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $5

Monthly Pass Monthly Pass $75

Total Operating Budget $ 1,410,474,629

Capital Expenditures $ 743,434,928

Annual Service Provided 8,172,449 Hours

Service Area 1513 Square Miles

Fleet Size Fleet Size 3761 Vehicles

Extent o System Extent o System 3924 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 24 Hours

51 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

METRO FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$175 40% $150 $125 35%

$100 30% $75

$50 25%

$25 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 20% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$5 $4

$4 $3

$3 $2 $2

$1 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

70 25 60 20 50

40 15

30 10 20 5 10

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

25 20

20 15

15 10 10 5 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1993 1995 1997 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

52 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

METRO HEAVY RAIL LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$1000 50%

$800 40%

$600 30%

$400 20%

$200 10% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$8 $5 $7 $4 $6

$5 $3 $4

$3 $2 $2 $1 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

300 75

250

200 50

150

100 25

50

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 25

20 15

15 10 10

5 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

53 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

METRO LIGHT RAIL LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$1000 25%

$800 20%

$600 15%

$400 10%

$200 5% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $6

$5 $8 $4 $6 $3 $4 $2

$2 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

300 80

250 60 200

150 40

100 20 50

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008

*Source: NTD 2012

54 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (LADOT)

100 S Main St, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 http://www.ladottransit.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $0.50

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $18

Total Operating Budget $ 74,764,677

Capital Expenditures $ 78,299,892

Annual Service Provided 777,805 Hours

Service Area 465 Square Miles

Fleet Size 450 Vehicles

Extent o System 1850 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 16 Hours

55 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LADOT FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 25%

$100 20% $80 15% $60 10% $40

5%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $10

$8 $8

$6 $6

$4 $4

$2 $2

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

70 12

60 10 50 8 40 6 30 4 20 10 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 14

14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

56 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LADOT DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 7% $70 6% $60 5% $50 4% $40 3% $30 2% $20

$10 Farebox Recovery 1% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$70 $10

$60 $8 $50 $6 $40

$30 $4 $20 $2 $10

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 20

10 15 8

6 10

4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

57 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

LONG BEACH TRANSIT (LBT)

1963 East Anaheim Street Long Beach, CA 90801-0731 http://www.lbtransit.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.25

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass $65

Total Operating Budget $ 73,263,250

Capital Expenditures $ 13,490,448

Annual Service Provided 675,127 Hours

Service Area 98 Square Miles

Fleet Size 220 Vehicles

Extent o System 402 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 19 Hours

58 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LONG BEACH TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 30%

$100 25%

$80 20%

$60 15%

$40 10%

5% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $1.00 $0.90 $8 $0.80 $0.70 $6 $0.60 $0.50 $4 $0.40 $0.30 $2 $0.20 $0.10 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

80 8 70 7 60 6 50 5 40 4 30 3 20 2 10 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 12.0 14 11.5 12 10 11.0 8 10.5 6 10.0 4 9.5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 9.0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

59 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LONG BEACH TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 10% $120 8% $100 $80 6% $60 4% $40 2%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$35 $6

$30 $5 $25 $4 $20 $3 $15 $2 $10

$5 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 1.0

8 0.8

6 0.6

4 0.4

2 0.2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 30 14 25 12 10 20 8 15 6 10 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

60 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

MONTEBELLO BUS LINES (MBL)

400 South Taylor Avenue Montebello, CA 90640 http://www.cityo montebello.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.10

Day Pass $3

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $ 24,239,657

Capital Expenditures $ 5,108,094

Annual Service Provided 246,936 Hours

Service Area 151 Square Miles Service Area

Fleet Size 83 Vehicles

Extent o System 263 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 18 Hours

61 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

MONTEBELLO BUS LINES FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 40%

$100 35% $80

$60 30%

$40 25%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 20% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$3.00 $1.50

$2.50

$2.00 $1.00 $1.50

$1.00 $0.50

$0.50 Cost Per Service Hour Cost Per Passenger Trip $0.00 $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

80 10

8 60 6 40 4

20 2

0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 20

8 15 6

4 10 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 5 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

62 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

MONTEBELLO BUS LINES DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$150 20%

15% $100

10%

$50 5% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$35 $18 $30 $16 $14 $25 $12 $20 $10 $15 $8

$10 $6 $4 $5 $2 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

100 1.6 1.4 80 1.2

60 1.0 0.8 40 0.6 0.4 20 0.2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 18 16 10 14 8 12 10 6 8 4 6 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

63 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

NORWALK TRANSIT SYSTEM (NTS)

12650 E Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 http://www.ci.norwalk.ca.us

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.10

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $ 11,558,910

Capital Expenditures $ 579,349,000

Annual Service Provided 93,205 Hours

Service Area 37 Square Miles

Fleet Size Fleet Size 42 Vehicles

Extent o System 158 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 19.5 Hours

64 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

NORWALK TRANSIT SYSTEM FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 18% $120 16% 14% $100 12% $80 10% $60 8% 6% $40 4%

$20 Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour 2% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$6 $2.50

$5 $2.00

$4 $1.50 $3 $1.00 $2 $0.50 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

40 2.5 35 2.0 30 25 1.5 20 15 1.0 10 0.5 5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 18 14 16 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

65 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

NORWALK TRANSIT SYSTEM DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$250 10%

$200 8%

$150 6%

$100 4%

$50 2% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$60 $25

$50 $20

$40 $15 $30 $10 $20 $5 $10 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 1.00

8 0.75 6 0.50 4

0.25 2 Passengers Per Service Mile Passengers Per Service Hour 0 0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

66 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT (SCT)

28250 Constellation Road Santa Clarita, CA 91355 http://www.santa-clarita.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass $2.50

Monthly Pass $32

Total Operating Budget $ 20,998,899

Capital Expenditures $ 5,764,547

Annual Service Provided 209,909 Hours

Service Area 48 Square Miles

Fleet Size 109 Vehicles

Extent o System 592 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 19 Hours

67 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 30%

$100 25%

$80 20%

$60 15%

$40 10%

5% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$6 $1.20

$5 $1.00

$4 $0.80

$3 $0.60

$2 $0.40

$1 $0.20

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

60 3.0

50 2.5

40 2.0

30 1.5

20 1.0

10 0.5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

14 25

12 20 10 15 8

6 10 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

68 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 2.5% $120 2.0% $100 $80 1.5%

$60 1.0% $40 0.5%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0.0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$60 $10

$50 $8 $40 $6 $30 $4 $20 $2 $10

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 2.0

4 1.5

3 1.0 2 0.5 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

8 25

20 6

15 4 10

2 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

69 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SANTA MONICA’S BIG BLUE BUS (BIG BLUE BUS)

1660 Seventh Street Santa Monica, CA 90401-3324 http://www.bigbluebus.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass Monthly Pass $60

Total Operating Budget $ 64,278,710

Capital Expenditures $ 25,234,672

Annual Service Provided 508,213 Hours

Service Area 51 Square Miles

Fleet Size Fleet Size 218 Vehicles

Extent o System Extent o System 211 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 21 Hours

70 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

SANTA MONICA’S BIG BLUE BUS FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 30%

$120 25% $100 20% $80 15% $60 10% $40 5% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$5 $2.00

$4 $1.50 $3 $1.00 $2

$0.50 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

100 10

80 8

60 6

40 4

20 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 15 14 14 12

10 13 8 12 6 4 11 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 10 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

71 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

SANTA MONICA’S BIG BLUE BUS DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$100 .15%

$80 .10% $60

$40 .05%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$35 $14

$30 $12

$25 $10

$20 $8

$15 $6

$10 $4

$5 $2

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 4

4 3 3 2 2 1 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

8 10

8 6

6 4 4

2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

72 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

TORRANCE TRANSIT SYSTEM (TTS)

20500 Madrona Avenue Torrance, CA 90503 http://Transit.TorranceCA.Gov

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $35

Total Operating Budget $ 21,601,407

Capital Expenditures $ 12,244,853

Annual Service Provided 181,118 Hours

Service Area 103 Square Miles

Fleet Size 117 Vehicles

Extent o System 337 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 16 Hours

73 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

TORRANCE TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 20% $140 18% 16% $120 14% $100 12% $80 10% $60 8% 6% $40 4% $20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour 2% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $3.00

$8 $2.50

$2.00 $6 $1.50 $4 $1.00

$2 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

50 10

40 8

30 6

20 4

10 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 15

10 14 8 13 6 12 4 11 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 10 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

74 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TORRANCE TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 16% $140 14% $120 12% $100 10% $80 8% $60 6% $40 4%

$20 Farebox Recovery 2% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$20 $6 $18 $16 $5 $14 $4 $12 $10 $3 $8 $2 $6 $4 $1 $2 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 0.5 9 8 0.4 7 6 0.3 5 4 0.2 3 2 0.1 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 25

10 20 8 15 6 10 4

2 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

75 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

ORANGE COUNTY

ANAHEIM TRANSIT NETWORK

1280 South Anaheim Blvd Anaheim CA 92805 http:/www.rideart.org

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare N/A

Day Pass $5.00

Monthly Pass N/A

Total Operating Budget $11,570,546

Capital Expenditures $957,790

Annual Service Provided 209,990 Hours

Service Area 25 Square Miles

Fleet Size 63 Vehicles

Extent o System 95 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 12 Hours

Please see reporting exceptions list in Appendix C

76 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

ORANGE COUNTY

LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL TRANSIT

505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 http://www.lagunabeachcity.net/cityhall/pw/transit

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $0.75

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $30.00

Total Operating Budget $2,034,563

Capital Expenditures $0

Annual Service Provided 21,246 Hours

Service Area 9 Square Miles

Fleet Size 24 Vehicles

Extent o System 42 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 12 Hours

77 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

LAGUNA BEACH MUNICIPAL TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE ORANGE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 10%

$100 8% $80 6% $60 4% $40

$20 2% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$25 $8 $7 $20 $6 $5 $15 $4 $10 $3 $2 $5 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

35 3.5 30 3.0

25 2.5 20 2.0 15 1.5 10 1.0 5 0.5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 16 14 10 12 8 10 6 8 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

78 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

ORANGE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA)

550 S. Main Street Orange, CA 92868 http://www.octa.net/de ault.aspx

County Transportation Commission and Governance Structure State Designated Transit District

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass $55

Total Operating Budget $ 251,840,633

Capital Expenditures $ 8,284,623

Annual Service Provided 2,399,705 Hours

Service Area 464 Square Miles

Fleet Size 1724 Vehicles

Extent o System 2,356 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 21 Hours

79 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FIXED ROUTE ORANGE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$160 35%

$140 30% $120 25% $100 20% $80 15% $60 10% $40

$20 Farebox Recovery 5% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$4.50 $1.00 $4.00 $3.50 $0.80 $3.00 $0.60 $2.50 $2.00 $0.40 $1.50 $1.00 $0.20 $0.50

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

45 4.0 40 3.5 35 3.0 30 2.5 25 2.0 20 1.5 15 10 1.0 5 0.5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 18 16 10 14 8 12 10 6 8 4 6 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

80 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY DEMAND RESPONSE ORANGE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$90 14% $80 12% $70 10% $60 $50 8% $40 6% $30 4% $20

Farebox Recovery 2%

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$40 $4.00 $35 $3.50 $30 $3.00 $25 $2.50 $20 $2.00 $15 $1.50 $10 $1.00 $5 $0.50

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

8 0.7 7 0.6 6 0.5 5 0.4 4 0.3 3 2 0.2 1 0.1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

7 18 16 6 14 5 12 4 10 3 8 6 2 4 1 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

81 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

CITY OF CORONA

400 South Vicentia Avenue Corona, CA 92882 http://www.CoronaTransit.com

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $4.00

Monthly Pass $35.00

Total Operating Budget $1,926,752

Capital Expenditures $42,010

Annual Service Provided 28,748 Hours

Service Area 41 Square Miles

Fleet Size 14 Vehicles

Extent o System 49 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 11 hours

82 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

CITY OF CORONA FIXED ROUTE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour MB Farebox

$80 25% $70 $60 20%

$50 15% $40 10% $30

$20 5% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$2.50 $2.50

$2.00 $2.00

$1.50 $1.50

$1.00 $1.00

$0.50 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0.00 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

20 4.0 18 3.5 16 14 3.0 12 2.5 10 2.0 8 1.5 6 4 1.0 2 0.5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

8 8 7

6 6 5

4 4 3 2 2 1 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

83 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

CITY OF CORONA DEMAND RESPONSE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 25% $70 20% $60

$50 15% $40 $30 10% $20 5% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$18 3 $16 $14 $12 2 $10 $8 $6 1 $4 $2 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile 8.0 0.6 7.0 0.5 6.0 5.0 0.4

4.0 0.3 3.0 0.2 2.0 1.0 0.1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0.0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 18 14 16 12 14 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

84 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION (CITY OF RIVERSIDE)

3900 Main Street Riverside, CA 92522-0144 http://www.riversideca.gov/park_rec/seniors-transportation.asp

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $2.00

Day Pass n/a

Monthly Pass n/a

Total Operating Budget $3,055,927

Capital Expenditures $1,121,209

Annual Service Provided 46,898 Hours

Service Area 87 Square Miles

Fleet Size 31 Vehicles

Extent o System n/a

Span o Service 9 hours

85 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

CITY OF RIVERSIDE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION FIXED ROUTE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$100 16% 14% $75 12% 10% $50 8% 6% $25 4%

Farebox Recovery 2% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$25 $10

$20 $8

$15 $6

$10 $4

$5 $2 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 2.5

8 2.0

6 1.5

4 1.0

2 0.5 Passengers Per Service Mile Passengers Per Service Hour 0 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 25 14 12 20 10 15 8 6 10 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

86 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY (RTA)

1825 Third Street, P.O. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92507 http://www.riversidetransit.com

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $4.00

Monthly Pass $50.00

Total Operating Budget $48,264,842

Capital Expenditures $5,534,379

Annual Service Provided 630,493 Hours

Service Area 2725 Square Miles

Fleet Size 270 Vehicles

Extent o System 1,678 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 18 hours

87 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

RTA FIXED ROUTE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$125 25%

$100 20%

$75 15%

$50 10%

$25 5% Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$8 $2.00

$6 $1.50

$4 $1.00

$2 $0.50

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile 30 3 25

20 2 15

10 1

5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 20 14 12 18 10 16 8 6 14 4 12 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 10 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

88 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

RTA DEMAND RESPONSE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 16% 14% $60 12% 10% $40 8% 6% $20 4%

Farebox Recovery 2% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$4.00 $5 $3.50 $4 $3.00

$2.50 $3 $2.00 $1.50 $2 $1.00 $1 $0.50

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0.00 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

6.0 2

5.0 1.5 4.0

3.0 1

2.0 0.5 1.0

Passengers Per Service Hour 0.0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 25

8 20

6 15

4 10

2 5 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

89 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY (SUNLINE)

32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276-0398 http://www.sunline.org

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.00

Day Pass $3.00

Monthly Pass $34.00

Total Operating Budget $21,788,954

Capital Expenditures $4,603,421

Annual Service Provided 246,513 Hours

Service Area 1120 Square Miles

Fleet Size 100 Vehicles

Extent o System 291 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 14 hours

90 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

SUNLINE FIXED ROUTE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$140 20% 18% $120 16% $100 14% 12% $80 10% $60 8% $40 6% 4%

$20 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour 2% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $4.00 $3.50 $8 $3.00 $2.50 $6 $2.00 $4 $1.50 $1.00 $2 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

50 5

40 4

30 3

20 2

10 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 20 18 16 15 14 12 10 10 8 6 4 5

2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

91 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

SUNLINE DEMAND RESPONSE RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$100 9% 8% 7% $75 6% 5% $50 4% 3% $25 2% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour 1% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$70 $5 $60 $4 $50 $40 $3

$30 $2 $20 $1 $10 Cost Per Passenger Mile Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 $0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 1.0

4 0.8

3 0.6

2 0.4

1 0.2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 25 18 16 20 14 12 15 10 8 10 6 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

92 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

OMNITRANS

1700 W. Fih Street San Bernardino, CA 92411 http://www.omnitrans.org

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.5

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass $47

Total Operating Budget $ 69,227,853

Capital Expenditures $ 33,367,174

Annual Service Provided 796,025 Hours

Service Area 463 Square Miles

Fleet Size 283 Vehicles

Extent o System 853 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 20 Hours

93 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

OMNITRANS FIXED ROUTE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 30%

$100 25%

$80 20%

$60 15%

$40 10%

$20 Farebox Recovery 5% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$5 $2.00

$4 $1.50

$3 $1.00 $2

$0.50 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

45 5 40 35 4 30 3 25 20 2 15 10 1 5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

12 18 16 10 14 8 12 10 6 8 4 6 4 2 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

94 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

OMNITRANS DEMAND RESPONSE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 18% $70 16% $60 14% 12% $50 10% $40 8% $30 6% $20 4%

$10 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour 2% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$30 $3.00

$25 $2.50

$20 $2.00

$15 $1.50

$10 $1.00

$5 $0.50

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

7 0.5

6 0.4 5 4 0.3

3 0.2 2 0.1 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 18 9 16 8 14 7 12 6 10 5 8 4 6 3 2 4 1 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

95 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY

17150 Smoketree Street Hesperia, CA 92345 http://vvta.org/index.htm

Governance Structure Joint Powers Authority

Base Fare $1.25

Day Pass $3.50

Monthly Pass $50

Total Operating Budget $ 10,295,100

Capital Expenditures $ 7,834,591

Annual Service Provided 147,866 Hours

Service Area 424 Square Miles

Fleet Size 91 Vehicles

Extent o System 659 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 14.5 Hours

96 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY FIXED ROUTE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$90 25% $80 $70 20% $60 15% $50

$40 10% $30 $20 5% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$7 $1.20 $6 $1.00 $5 $0.80 $4 $0.60 $3 $0.40 $2

$1 $0.20

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

30 1.2

25 1.0

20 0.8

15 0.6

10 0.4

5 0.2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 25 9 8 20 7 6 15 5 4 10 3 2 5

1 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

97 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY DEMAND RESPONSE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$100 16% 14% $80 12% 10% $60 8% $40 6% 4% $20 Farebox Recovery 2% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$35 $1.20 $30 $1.00 $25 $0.80 $20 $0.60 $15 $0.40 $10

$5 $0.20

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 1.00

4 0.75 3 0.50 2

0.25 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

7 25 6 20 5

4 15

3 10 2 5 1 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

98 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

VENTURA COUNTY

GOLD COAST TRANSIT

301 E 3rd St Oxnard, CA 93030 http://www.goldcoasttransit.org/

Joint Powers Authority, recognized as a Governance Structure transit district via Assembly Bill 664 com- mencing July 1, 2014

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass $49

Total Operating Budget $ 16,607,750

Capital Expenditures $ 490,449

Annual Service Provided 198,015 Hours

Service Area 84 Square Miles

Fleet Size 78 Vehicles

Extent o System 370 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 16 Hours

99 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

GOLD COAST TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$120 30%

$100 25% $80 20% $60 15%

$40 10%

$20 Farebox Recovery 5% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$5 $8 $7 $4 $6 $5 $3 $4 $2 $3 $2 $1 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

50 5

40 4

30 3

20 2

10 1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 20 18 16 15 14 12 10 10 8 6 4 5

2 Average Vehicle Spped Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 *Source: NTD 2012

100 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

GOLD COAST TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$90 12% $80 10% $70 $60 8% $50 6% $40 $30 4% $20 2% Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour $10 $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$60 $3.00 $2.50 $50

$2.00 $40

$30 $1.50

$20 $1.00

$10 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

5 0.5

4 0.4

3 0.3

2 0.2

1 0.1

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

10 15

8 10 6

4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

*Source: NTD 2012

101 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

VENTURA COUNTY

SIMI VALLEY TRANSIT

2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 http://simivalley.org/

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.25

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $40

Total Operating Budget $ 5,022,592

Capital Expenditures $ 1,139,180

Annual Service Provided 43,262 Hours

Service Area 47 Square Miles

Fleet Size 17 Vehicles

Extent o System N/A

Span o Service 14 Hours

Please see reporting exceptions list in Appendix C

102 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

VENTURA COUNTY

THOUSAND OAKS TRANSIT

2100 Thousand Oak Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 www.toaks.org

Governance Structure Municipally Owned Transit Property

Base Fare $1.50

Day Pass $4

Monthly Pass $42

Total Operating Budget $ 3,450,094

Capital Expenditures $ 224,495

Annual Service Provided 49,996 Hours

Service Area 69 Square Miles

Fleet Size 20 Vehicles

Extent o System N/A

Span o Service 12 hours

103 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

THOUSAND OAKS TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$100 16% 14% $80 12% 10% $60 8% $40 6% 4% $20 Farebox Recovery 2% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$12 $2.50

$10 $2.00

$8 $1.50 $6 $1.00 $4

$2 $0.50 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

30 1.4

25 1.2 1.0 20 0.8 15 0.6 10 0.4 5 0.2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 20 14 12 15 10 8 10 6 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

104 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

THOUSAND OAKS TRANSIT DEMAND RESPONSE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$70 10% 9% $60 8% $50 7% 6% $40 5% $30 4% $20 3% 2%

$10 Farebox Recovery

Cost Per Service Hour 1% $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$30 $6

$25 $5

$20 $4

$15 $3

$10 $2

$5 $1 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

10 1.00

8 0.75

6 0.50 4 0.25 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

16 20 14 12 15 10 8 10 6 4 5 2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

105 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

VENTURA COUNTY

VENTURA INTERCITY SERVICE TRANSIT AUTHORITY (VISTA)

950 County Square Drive, Suite 207 Ventura, CA 93003 www.goventura.org

Governance Structure County Transportation Commission

Base Fare $1.25

Day Pass N/A

Monthly Pass $50

Total Operating Budget $ 7,904,646

Capital Expenditures $0

Annual Service Provided 85,635 Hours

Service Area 28 Square Miles

Fleet Size 46 Vehicles

Extent o System 338 Directional Route Miles

Span o Service 14 Hours

106 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

VISTA FIXED ROUTE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 45% $70 40% 35% $60 30% $50 25% $40 20% $30 15% $20 10%

$10 Farebox Recovery 5% Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $1.00 $9 $0.90 $8 $0.80 $7 $0.70 $6 $0.60 $5 $0.50 $4 $0.40 $3 $0.30 $2 $0.20 $1 $0.10 Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

1.0 30

25 0.8

20 0.6 15 0.4 10 0.2 5

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 35 18 30 16 14 25 12 20 10 8 15 6 10 4 5

2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

107 SECTION 03 Operator Profiles

VISTA DEMAND RESPONSE VENTURA COUNTY

Cost per Service Hour Farebox Recovery

$80 25% $70 $60 20% $50 15% $40 $30 10% $20 5% $10 Farebox Recovery Cost Per Service Hour $0 0% 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Cost per Passenger Trip Cost per Passenger Mile

$10 $3.00 $9 $8 $2.50 $7 $2.00 $6 $5 $1.50 $4 $1.00 $3 $2 $0.50 $1

Cost Per Passenger Trip $0 Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.00 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Passengers per Service Hour Passengers per Service Mile

14 1.0 12 0.8 10

8 0.6

6 0.4 4 0.2 2

Passengers Per Service Hour 0 Passengers Per Service Mile 0.0 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fleet Average Vehicle Age Average Vehicle Speed, in Miles per Hour

20 20 18 16 15 14 12 10 10 8 6 5 4

2 Average Vehicle Speed Fleet Average Vehicle Age 0 0 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

*Source: NTD 2012

108 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

A1 APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

TABLE A1 Urbanized Areas (UZAs) within the SCAG TABLE A2 Subregions of the SCAG Region Region

Los Angeles-Long Beach- San Bernardino Santa Clarita, CA Anaheim, CA Arroyo Verdugo Associated Subregion Governments Thousand Oaks, Riverside-San Bernardino, CA (SANBAG) CA San Gabriel Victorville- Indio-Cathedral City, CA Valley Council Hesperia, CA City o Los Angeles o Governments Lancaster-Palmdale, CA Camarillo, CA (SGVCOG) San Fernando Mission Viejo-Lake Forest-San El Centro- Coachella Valley Valley Council Clemente, CA* Calexico, CA Association o o Governments Governments (CVAG) Murrieta-Temecula-Meniee, (SFVCOG) Hemet, CA CA South Bay Oxnard, CA Simi Valley, CA Gateway Cities Council Cities Council o o Governments (GCCOG) Governments (SBCCOG) Yuma, AZ-CA* Imperial County Ventura Council o Transportation Governments (VCOG) Commission (ICTC) Western Riverside *Bi-regional/ Bi-state urbanized areas Las Virgenes Malibu Council o Council o Governments Source: Census 2000 Governments (WRCOG) North Los Angeles Westside Cities Council County o Governments (WCCOG TRANSIT GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE AREAS Orange County Council SCAG is the largest Metropolitan Planning Organi- o Governments (OCCOG) zation in the United States, consisting o approxi- mately 38,000 square miles and bounded by Mexico, Source: TTI 2012 Arizona, and Nevada, in addition to Kern, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties. The region is home to There are 68 ixed route operators in the region, and approximately 18 million residents and contains 15 over 100 providers o various specialized services, urbanized areas (UZAs), as designated by the United including community circulators, erries, dial-a-rides, States Census Bureau. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated para- transit, and specialized services operating beyond the The SCAG Region is also divided into 15 subregional ADA. units, most o which are represented by subregional Councils o Government. Two subregions are also These agencies are administered through a wide county transportation commissions, the Imperial variety o governance structures. The three most County Transportation Commission (ICTC), and the signiicant types are wholly owned municipal transit San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). properties (both ixed route and demand response),

A2 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

Imperial County Transit Network

joint powers structures, and our county transporta- Seven Joint Powers Authority (JPA) operators provide tion commissions who also operate transit service. ixed route bus service at a subregional scale through Two o the commissions, the Los Angeles County multiple jurisdictions. These include the Antelope Transportation Metropolitan Authority (Metro), and Valley Transit Authority (AVTA), Foothill Transit, Gold the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Coast Transit, Omnitrans, Riverside Transit Agency are also designated as transit districts by the State o (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency, and Victor Valley Caliornia. The Ventura County Transportation Com- Transit Authority (VVTA). Additionally, the Southern mission (VCTC) and Imperial County Transportation Caliornia Regional Rail Authority operates commuter Commission (ICTC) also operate transit service. rail service under the Metrolink service brand at a regional scale.

A3 APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

Los Angeles County Transit Network

IMPERIAL COUNTY In addition, the Yuma County Intergovernmental Within Imperial County, the bulk o service is operated Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA) provides by Imperial Valley Transit, a service brand o the Impe- local services in the Yuma AZ - CA UZA under the rial County Transportation Commission (ICTC). IVT Yuma County Area Transit service brand, including the currently operates service between municipalities in community o Winterhaven and Quechan Tribal Lands the Imperial Valley, and is seeking to establish a series in the SCAG Region. YCIPTA also provides an express o local circulators. The services are a mix o small service between Yuma and El Centro on Mondays, urban and rural transit services. Circulator services Wednesdays, and Saturdays. are also historically provided within the City o Calex- LOS ANGELES COUNTY ico by the Calexico Transit System. Los Angeles County is one o the most robust transit

A4 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE A3 Municipal Operators of Los Angeles County

Agency Structure Service Area

Arcadia Transit Municipally Owned City o Arcadia

AVTA JPA Lancaster-Palmdale UZA Beach Cities Transit Municipally Owned Western South Bay Subregion

Commerce Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned City o Commerce and surrounding communities Culver City Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned City o Culver City and surrounding communities

Foothill Transit JPA San Gabriel Valley Subregion Gardena Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned Northern South Bay Cities Subregion

LADOT Municipally Owned Local Circulators throughout City o Los Angeles

La Mirada Transit Municipally Owned Northern Gateway Cities, near City o La Mirada Long Beach Transit Municipally Owned Southern Gateway Cities

Montebello Bus Lines Municipally Owned North Western Gateway Cities Norwalk Transit System Municipally Owned Eastern Gateway Cities

Santa Clarita Transit Municipally Owned Santa Clarita UZA

Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus Municipally Owned Cities o Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles (Westside Cities Subregion) Torrance Transit System Municipally Owned Southern South Bay Cities Source: TTI 2012 markets in the nation. The Los Angeles- Long Beach- X METRO: Metro is typically the 3rd or 4th largest Anaheim CA UZA, composed primarily o Los Angeles provider o transit trips in the US in any given and Orange Counties, provided the second largest year, and provides the vast bulk o all transit trips share o transit trips, service hours, and service miles in the SCAG Region. Their service area includes o all UZAs nationally in FY2011-12. Agencies in the Los the portions o Los Angeles County south o the Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CA UZA also provided Angeles National Forest. Metro operates mul- the third largest total o passenger miles travelled tiple transit modes, including light rail, heavy rail, nationally. Given the size and productivity o transit bus rapid transit and ixed route bus services. service in Los Angeles County, it’s no surprise that In cities or subregions where there are local transit service provision is extraordinarily complex. operators, Metro o¯en operates trunk routes and serves long distance markets. Metro unds Transit service in LA County can be divided into three Metrolink service in LA County. categories—Metro service, the LA County Municipal Operators, and local and specialized providers. Metro is a designated transit district per Chapter

A5 APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

4, Article 1, Section 99213 o the Caliornia Public Similarly, the Pomona Valley Transit Authority Utilities Codei. is a JPA providing demand response service in eastern Los Angeles County. X LA COUNTY MUNICIPAL OPERATORS: The municipal operators o transit, called the ‘Munis,’ More localized providers are reerred to as the consist o thirteen municipal transit properties “local operators.” They are typically municipally and two joint powers operators. These operators owned and provide demand response or circu- are designated as eligible recipients o ederal lator services within jurisdictional boundaries. ormula unds via Chapter 4, Article 1, Section These operators are represented in the planning 99207.5 o the Caliornia Public Utilities Code. process via Metro’s Local Transportation Systems Most o–er ixed route services between jurisdic- Subcommittee (LTSS) o the Technical Advisory tions, though the municipal operators service Committee. areas tend to be centered around the jurisdiction The American Public Transportation Authority’s (APTA) that owns them. In most cases, these operators 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book illustrates the provide the bulk o local trips within their service size and complexity o the transit system in Los area while Metro service is overlaid to support Angeles County. In FY2011-12, Metro was the second longer distance tripsii. largest provider o bus passenger trips and passenger Some o the Munis have airly small service miles in the nation, and LADOT, Foothill Transit, Long areas, such as Beach Cities or Culver City Transit. Beach Transit, and Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus also Others, including Long Beach Transit and Foothill ranked in the top i¯y largest providers o passenger Transit, have very large service areas. Foothill is trips and passenger miles. LADOT was also the third a JPA operator serving as the primary ixed route largest provider o commuter bus trips, while Metro operator in the San Gabriel Valley, an LA County was the largest provider o light rail passenger miles, subregion with two million residents. AVTA is a and the third largest provider o light rail trips in the JPA and the sole provider o ixed route bus ser- country. The LTSS operators, together as a group, vice in the Lancaster-Palmdale UZA. provided the 18th largest total o demand response trips in the nation, and Access Services provided the X SPECIALIZED AND LOCAL OPERATORS: Local second largest totaliii. circulator and demand response services are provided by a variety o transit properties ORANGE COUNTY throughout LA County. Access Services o Los Within Orange County, OCTA operates the second Angeles, Incorporated, is the largest provider o largest ixed route bus transit leet in the SCAG ADA paratransit trips in the county, and pro- Region, and was the nation’s 22nd largest provider o vides some or all complimentary ADA paratran- transit trips and 20th largest provider o passenger sit service or Metro and various municipal bus miles in FY2011-12. Additionally, OCTA operates ADA operators. ASI’s service area includes the entire paratransit and unds Metrolink commuter rail service.

county, and they are unique in that respect. The cities o Anaheim and Laguna Beach operate local

A6 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

Orange County Transit Network

circulator service, and the cities o Anaheim and Santa RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ana are in the project development pipeline to imple- In Riverside County, ixed route bus service is pri- ment rail circulators. The City o Irvine also provides marily operated by RTA and SunLine Transit. RTA’s transit service through the City o Irvine iShuttle. service area is the western hal o Riverside County, and SunLine’s service area is the Coachella Valley. The OCTA is a designated transit district per Chapter 4, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Article 1, Section 99213 o the Caliornia Public Utilities unds the county’s participation in regional commuter Codeiv. rail service via Metrolink, and the cities o Riverside and Corona respectively operate demand response and local circulator service.

A7 APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

Riverside County Transit Network

Rural transit service in southwestern Riverside County SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY is provided by the Reservation Transportation Author- Omnitrans is the largest agency in southern San Ber- ity, a collaborative o 18 ederally recognized tribal nardino County, and the Victor Valley Transit Authority groups. The cities o Banning and Beaumont also (VVTA) provides ixed route service in the Victorville- provide service via the Pass Transit service brand, and Hesperia UZA. The San Bernardino Associated Gov- Desert Roadrunner service is provided in the City o ernments (SANBAG) unds the county’s participation Blythe and unincorporated eastern Riverside County in Metrolink. by the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency. Rural ixed route transit is provided by several opera- tors in San Bernardino County, including the Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority (MARTA), the Morongo

A8 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

San Bernardino County Transit Network

Basin Transit Authority (MBTA), Needles Area Transit, respective jurisdictions. The Ventura Intercity Service and Barstow Area Transport. Transit Authority (VISTA) operates service between jurisdictions. VCTC owns and operates VISTA, and VENTURA COUNTY also unds Ventura County’s participation in Metrolink. The largest operator o ixed route bus service in The Ojai Trolley provides rural transit service in and Ventura County is Gold Coast Transit. Their service around the City o Ojai. area is centered on the western end o the county, and extends as ar north as the city o Ojai. Simi INTERREGIONAL SERVICES Valley Transit, Thousand Oaks Transit, Moorpark City In addition to the services listed above, several transit Transit, and Camarillo Area Transit are municipally agencies provide service outside the boundaries o owned transit properties providing service within their the SCAG Region. VISTA in Ventura County provides

A9 APPENDIX A Transit Governance in the SCAG Region

Ventura County Transit Network

service into neighboring End o the Region, RTA and Metrolink provide service into San Diego County. And YCIPTA also provides an Santa Barbara County. The Eastern Sierra Transit express service between Yuma, Arizona and El Centro Authority provides thrice weekly service to Mam- on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays. moth via the Owens Valley, with connections to Reno, Nevada and Yosemite National Park. In the Southern

i Caliornia Department o Transportation, Mass Transit Divi- iii American Public Transportation Association, 2013 Public sion, Transit Development Act Statutes and Cali ornia Codes Transportation Fact Book, page 37 o Regulations iv Caliornia Department o Transportation, Mass Transit Divi- ii Caliornia Department o Transportation, Mass Transit Divi- sion, Transit Development Act Statutes and Cali ornia Codes sion, Transit Development Act Statutes and Cali ornia Codes o Regulations o Regulations

A10 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

B1 APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

FIGURE B1 The Performance Based-Planning Process under MAP-21

PLANNING Strategic Direction Where do we want to go? Goals and Objectives Per ormance Measures

ANALYSIS How are we going to get there? Identi y Trends & Targets Identi y Strategies and Analyze Alternatives PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Develop Investment Priorities

Investment Plan Monitoring Resource Allocation Evaluation DATA Program o Projects Reporting PROGRAMMING IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION Source: Federal Transit AdministrationWhat (FTA) will it take? How did we do?

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT X Identiication o those actors beyond and agen- cy’s control that could a–ect perormance Since the passage o the United States Government Perormance and Results Act o 1993, the ederal gov- X A description o the resources required to ernment has advised MPOs to integrate perormance achieve the perormance goals management into their business practices and long The US DOT deines perormance based planning range plansi. The initial ederal guidance on peror- and programming as an approach to applying per- mance consisted o: ormance management principles to transportation X Enacting agency mission statements system policy and investment decisions. It is a data- driven process that can identiy strategies and invest- X Generating outcome oriented goals and ments at the system or corridor levels, and can “pro- objectives vide a nuanced means o assessing progress toward X Employing speciic perormance objectives meeting the intent o the RTP”ii. expressed in quantiiable and measurable orms Within the context o transportation planning, the X Identiication o perormance measures or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) deines per- indicators to be used in measuring or assessing ormance based planning as “selecting investments relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes to most e–ectively and e®ciently achieve desired X Description o how perormance measures relate outcomes, as determined through public input and to goals and objectives agency strategic direction. A Perormance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) process becomes X A discussion o how actual perormance relates cyclical with inormation on the perormance o the to stated goals

B2 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

FIGURE B2 The Transportation Performance Management Process

2. Measures 3. Targets

1. National Goals 4. Plans

6. Accountability and 5. Reports Transparency

Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) system and the expected beneits o system improve- such as Strategic Highway Saety Plans, Asset Man- ments strategically directing investments.” Figure B1, agement Plans, the Congestion Management Process, outlines the cyclical nature o the PBPP processiii. Transit Agency Asset Management Plans, and Transit Agency Saety Plans, as well as others that are not The FHWA sees perormance based planning pro- required), and programming documents, including cesses as potentially integrated into all o the pro- State and metropolitan Transportation Improvement cesses o MPOs. The text below, quoted rom the Programs (STIPs and TIPs). PBPP attempts to ensure FHWA’s Per ormance Based Planning and Program- that transportation investment decisions are made ming Guidebook, outlines the beneits o integrating – both in long-term planning and short-term pro- perormance based processes into statewide and gramming o projects – based on their ability to meet metropolitan planning processes. established goals”iv. “Perormance-based planning and programming The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Policy on (PBPP) reers to the application o perormance man- Per ormance Measurement provides a ramework or agement within the planning and programming pro- reining the administration’s perormance measures cesses o transportation agencies to achieve desired and ensuring consistency in measures. The policy perormance outcomes or the multimodal trans- stresses the importance o linking measures to goals, portation system. This includes a range o activities providing clear, concise measures, and starting rom and products undertaken by a transportation agency a validated baseline. As illustrated in Figure B3, the together with other agencies, stakeholders, and the integration o goals, targets, indicators and a vali- public as part o a 3C (cooperative, continuing, and dated background is important to accurately measur- comprehensive) process. It includes development o: ing the impact o plans and policies in the transporta- long range transportation plans (LRTPs), other plans tion planning process. and processes (including those Federally-required,

B3 APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

MAP-21 and Perormance Based Planning FIGURE B3 Fully Integrated Performance Management MAP-21 continues to reinorce the importance o Goal Structure perormance based planning in the RTP process, while also reinorcing the importance o maintaining a state o good repair or transportation inrastructure and Strategic Objective assets.

SCAG has incorporated perormance based plan- ning aspects o perormance management into its Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) since 1998 and has encouraged perormance based planning Per ormance Goals throughout the region. For the 2004 RTP, SCAG developed a set o measurable goals and outcomes that included the principal o sustainability, which is not limited only to the environment and the trans- portation-land use connection, but also has impor- Per ormance tant implications on how the region meets its critical Indicators system preservation needs:

X Saety

X Inrastructure Condition

Annual Per ormance X System Reliability Targets: Outcome or Output Oriented X Freight Movement and Economic Vitality X Environment sustainability; and

X Reduced project delivery delays

Inputs/Resources/ The legislation amends 23 U.S.C 150(c) to require Data MPOs to work in collaboration with transit agencies and state DOTs to establish perormance measures consistent with perormance targets related to transit asset management and transit saety, as set orth in 49 U.S.C. 5326(c) and 5329(d).

Validated Baseline MAP-21 also mandates RTPs must employ peror- mance based planning, that RTPs must include a System Perormance Report, and that Federal Trans- Source: FHWA, FTA) portation Improvement Programs (FTIP) must include

B4 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

“a description o the anticipated progress brought measurement in regional planning. The Guide deines about by implementing the FTIP towards achieving perormance measures as a set o “objective, measur- the perormance targets.” able criteria used to evaluate the perormance and e–ectiveness o the transportation system, govern- The FHWA and the FTA have outlined a process or ment policies, plans and programs. Perormance mea- the incorporation o perormance based planning into sures use statistical evidence to determine progress the transportation planning process. FHWA’s six-step toward speciic and deined objectives.” Perormance transportation planning process is outlined in Figure measures can be quantitative or qualitative, and B-3. The nine rulemaking processes that will imple- should “help set goals and outcomes, detect and cor- ment the MAP-21 perormance requirements will rect problems, and document accomplishments”v. a–ect the transportation planning process in a variety o ways, but the Metropolitan and Planning Statewide Perormance measurement can occur at the regional rulemaking will establish perormance based plan- or corridor level, and at either the system or a proj- ning processes at the state and regional levels, and ect by project basis. The CTC’s State Transportation establish coordination procedures or establishing o Improvement Program (STIP) Guidelines establish per- perormance targets, and linking o those targets to ormance criteria at both the project and the system the planning and programming processes. level. The guidelines provide the ollowing examples o appropriate system perormance measures: Perormance Measure Selection This report is an incremental step towards producing X Saety a System Perormance Report or the 2016 RTP/SCS, X Mobility and the incorporation o an annual review o system X Accessibility perormance geared towards planning or operations and maintenance into SCAG’s transit modal planning X Reliability practices. Similar to the Metropolitan Transportation X Productivity/Throughput Commission’s (MTC) o the Statistical Summary o Bay X System Preservation Area Transit Operators, this report provides an annual ormat or measuring system perormance, through X Return on Investment/Liecycle Cost the analysis o data reported by transit operators to Perormance Measurement in the 2012-2035 the National Transit Database (NTD). The incorpora- RTP/SCS tion o a transit property into this analysis is thereore The adopted perormance measures or the 2012- contingent upon a steady report o perormance data 2035 RTP/SCS are outlined in the i¯h chapter o the to the NTD. plan, and urther discussed in the plan’s perormance TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES measurement appendix. In addition to the tradi- tional measures o mobility and economic impact, The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines the adopted perormance measures also included adopted by the Caliornia Transportation Commission two new categories: location e®ciency and public (CTC) provides guidance in the use o perormance

B5 APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

health. As below detailed in Table B1, the adopted The Customer level o analysis usually includes perormance measures ocus on outcomes mostly measures o service availability, comort and qual- related to land use, air quality, congestion related ity o service, most especially relating to comort and delay, road saety, and economic impacts o planned convenience. Perormance measures within the travel investments. time, availability, service delivery, saety and security, and maintenance and construction categories are Given the system perormance mandates contained applicable to this level o analysis. in MAP-21, the 2016 RTP/SCS will need to incorporate more multimodal measures within its adopted mea- The Agency level o analysis is more concerned with sures, possibly including transit speciic measures. the e®ciency and e–ectiveness o transit operations. As a result, this report will also inorm the process or Appropriate categories include maintenance and con- selecting the measures to be included in the System struction and economic measures. Due to the avail- Perormance Report component o the 2016 RTP/SCS. ability o NTD cost and utilization data, the agency level is among the most commonly analyzed. Furthermore, as the Federal Transit Administration completes its rulemaking processes regarding MAP- The Vehicle/Driver point o view includes measures 21, sta– will have to incorporate new transit speciic o vehicular speed and delay, such as those routinely measures into the 2016 calculated or streets and highways as proscribed in the Institute or Transportation Engineers (ITE) High- RTP/SCS, including saety and state o good repair way Capacity Manual. Vehicle/Driver measures can measures. This iteration o the system perormance also include measures o acility or guideway capac- report unctions to begin the discussion as to what ity. Examples include average vehicle speed, volume/ other transit modal perormance measures should capacity ratios, roadway capacity, and vehicular also be included in the 2016 RTP/SCS. capacity. Within the context o transit, the measures Transit Perormance Measurement Systems o¯en ocus on the perormance o an individual route The Transit Cooperative Research Program Report or run. 088: A Guide Book or Developing a Transit Per or- Measures at the Community level assess transit’s mance Measurement System divides transit peror- role in meeting broad community objectives. The mance measures into eight distinct categories. These impact o transit service on di–erent aspects o a categories are displayed in Table B2vi. community, including economic growth, property These perormance measurement categories can also values, and employment, mobility and the environ- be broken into our levels o analysis. These include ment are among the most common community level the Agency, the Customer, the Vehicle/Driver, and the measures. Community levels.

B6 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE B1 Adopted Performance Measures from the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS

Outcome Per ormance Measure/Indicator De inition Land consumption (total & per Total and per capita o land areas used development capita) Median distance or work and non- The travel distance rom which hal o the work or non-work work trips trips exceed and the other hal below Location Percent o work trips less than 3 The share o total work trips which are ewer than 3 miles Eciency miles Share o growth in transit priority Share o the region's growth in population, households and areas employment in transit priority areas Work trip length distribution The statistical distribution o work trip length in the region

Person delay per capita Delay per capita can be used as a supplemental measure to account or population growth impacts on delay Person delay by acility type (mixed Delay – excess travel time resulting rom the di–erence low, HOV, arterials) between a reerence speed and actual speed Mobility/ Accessibility Truck delay by acility type Delay – excess travel time resulting rom the di–erence (Highway, Arterials) between a reerence speed and actual speed Travel time distribution or transit, Travel time distribution or transit, SOV, HOV or work and SOV, HOV or work and non-work non-work trips trips

Collision/accident rates by severity Accident rates per million vehicle miles by mode (all, Sa ety and Health by mode bicycle/pedestrian and atality/killed)

Tons o pollutants Measured/orecast emissions include CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, SOX, and VOC. CO2 as secondary measure to relect Environmental greenhouse gas emissions. Quality Net tons o pollutants (criteria Measured/orecast emissions include CO, NOX, PM2.5, pollutants) and greenhouse gas PM10, SOX, and VOC. CO2 as secondary measure to relect emissions greenhouse gas emissions.

Additional jobs supported by Number o jobs added to the economy as a result o improving competitiveness improved transportation conditions which make the Region more competitive Economic Well Additional jobs supported by Total number o jobs supported in the economy as a result Being transportation investment o transportation expenditures. Net contribution to Gross Regional Gross Regional Product due to transportation investments Product and increased competitiveness

Beneit/Cost Ratio Ratio o monetized user and societal beneits to the agency Investment transportation costs Eectiveness System Cost per capita to preserve multi- Annual costs per capita required to preserve the multi- Sustainability modal system to current and state modal system to current conditions o good repair

Source: SCAG, 2012-2035 RTP/SCS

B7 APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

TABLE B2 Transit Performance Measurement Categories from TCRP 88

Category Description

Availability Measures how easily potential passengers can use transit or particular types o trips

Service Delivery Measures that assess passengers day to day experiences using transit

Community/ Measures o transit’s role in meeting passengers day to day experiences using transit Transit Impact How long it takes to make a trip by transit, by itsel, in comparison with another mode, Travel Time or in comparison with an ideal value Saety and The likelihood that one will be involved in an accident (saety) or become a victim o a Security crime (security) while using transit Maintenance and The e–ectiveness o the agency’s maintenance and the impacts o transit construction Construction on passengers Economic Measures o transit perormance rom a business perspective

Capacity The ability or transit acilities to move people and vehicles

Source: TCRP 88: Guide Book for Developing a Transit Performance

B8 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

TABLE B3 Performance Measure Data Reported to the National Transit Database

Operational Measures Financial Measures

Vehicle Revenue Miles (Passenger Car Fare Revenues Earned by Mode and Type o Service Revenue Miles or Rail Modes) Vehicle Revenue Hours (Passenger Car Operating Expense by Mode and Type o Service Revenue Hours or Rail Modes) Operating Expense by Mode and Type o Service or Vehicle Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Operations Directional Route Miles (Fixed-Guideway Operating Expense by Mode and Type o Service or Vehicle and Mixed-Tra®c when Applicable) Maintenance Operating Expense by Mode and Type o Service or Non-Vehicle Passenger Miles Travelled Maintenance Operating Expense by Mode and Type o Service or General Unlinked Passenger Trips Administration Monthly Operational Measures Total Capital Expenditure

Capital Expenditure – Rolling Stock

Capital Expenditure - Facilities

Source: NTD 2012

B9 APPENDIX B Transit System Performance Measures

i National Highway Cooperative Research Program Report iii Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program - 446: A Guidebook or Per ormance Based Transportation USDOT/FHWA/FTA. 2013, North Dakota Metropolitan Plan- Planning, 2000, page 6 ning Organizations Peer Exchange on Introducing Per or- mance Management into the MPO Planning Process: A TCPB ii Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program - Peer Exchange USDOT/FHWA/FTA. 2013, North Dakota Metropolitan Plan- ning Organizations Peer Exchange on Introducing Per or- iv Federal Highway Administration 2013 Per ormance Based mance Management into the MPO Planning Process: A TCPB Planning and Programming Guidebook Peer Exchange v Caltrans, 2010 Cali ornia Regional Transportation Planning Guidelines, page 177

B10 Southern California Association of Governments FY 2011-12 TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REPORT

APPENDIX C Reporting Exceptions

C1 APPENDIX C Reporting Exceptions

TABLE C1 Reporting Exceptions

Reporting Agency Exceptions

Anaheim Transit Only report 2008-2012

Beach Cities Transit Report only rom 2008-2012

Culver City Municipal Bus Lines Demand Response report only 2009-2011

Foothill Transit No reports 1998-2002

Imperial Valley Transit Only report 2008-2012

La Mirada Transit No report rom 2006-2008

Metro Demand Response only reports 1994-1998

No report, Demand Response 2010-2011, Demand Response Montebello Bus Lines average leet age 2008-2011 Norwalk Transit System No report Demand Response 2002-2003

Simi Valley Transit No reports rom 1995-1998, missing some data in 1998 and 2011

Torrance Transit Demand Response no report 2010-2011 Source: TTI 2012

There are many reasons why there might be excep- discontinuations, and incomplete reporting. Reporting tions to reporting on the part o a transit agency, exceptions that a–ected the data presented in this including data corruptions, results o the auditing pro- report are presented in Table C1. cess, incorrect reporting, data transer issues, service

C2 Southern California Association of Governments For more inormation about the FY 2011-12 Transit System Perormance Report, please contact:

MATT GLEASON Senior Regional Planner, Transit/Rail Department Southern Caliornia Association o Governments Phone: (213) 236-1832 Fax: (213) 236-1963 Email: [email protected] MAIN OFFICE 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 236-1800 www.scag.ca.gov

REGIONAL OFFICES Imperial County San Bernardino County 1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 Santa Fe Depot El Centro, CA 92243 1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 Phone: (760) 353-7800 San Bernardino, CA 92410 Fax: (760) 353-1877 Phone: (909) 806-3556 Fax: (909) 806-3572 Orange County OCTA Building Ventura County 600 South Main Street, Suite 906 950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 Orange, CA 92863 Ventura, CA 93003 Phone: (714) 542-3687 Phone: (805) 642-2800 Fax: (714) 560-5089 Fax: (805) 642-2260 Riverside County 3403 10th Street, Suite 805 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 784-1513 Fax: (951) 784-3925

printed on recycled paper 2640 2015.03.23