Sacramento Area Council of Governments#
New Transit Performance Metrics#
The UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies (UCLA ITS) suggests that:
Updating the policy and legislation that governs state transit funding could help make expenditures more effective and better aligned with the state’s goals of VMT and GHG reduction, which transit can achieve only through increased ridership.
The UCLA ITS recommends using cost-efficiency metrics (operating expense per VRM/VRH/UPT) and service-effectiveness metrics (passenters per VRM/VRH) to compare transit-oriented vs. auto-oriented markets.
The charts below display these metrics by different categories.
Performance Metrics Explained#
Metric type |
Metric example |
Implicit Goal(s) |
Advantages |
Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost-efficiency |
Operating cost per revenue hour (opex_per_vrh) |
Reduce costs |
Useful in both financial and service planning |
Favors high labor productivity in dense, congested areas; does not track use |
Operating cost per revenue mile (opex_per_vrm) |
||||
Operating cost per vehicle trip (opex_per_upt) |
||||
Service-effectiveness |
Passengers per revenue-vehicle hour (upt_per_vrh) |
Increase ridership; reduce poorly patronized service |
Useful for service planning; emphasizes what matters to riders |
Favors high ridership; does not track costs |
Passengers per revenue-vehicle mile (upt_per_vrm) |
Increase ridership; reduce low-ridership route miles/segments |
Useful for service planning |
Favors high ridership and fast vehicle speeds; does not track costs |
By Agencies#
By Mode#
By Type of Service#
Cost-efficiency metrics#
Cost-efficiency measures inputs to outputs: For example, the cost of operating an hour of transit service.
Per the UCLA ITS Paper
Transit-oriented markets (which are predominantly urban), transit service tends to be relatively service-effective. But high operating costs on these (mostly) older, larger systems can inhibit efforts to improve ridership by adding service. In such contexts, assessing systems with an emphasis on cost-efficiency (i.e., the cost of operating an hour of service) grounds would provide incentives for agencies to manage their costs so as to be able to provide more service with available funding.
Operating cost per VRH#
Lower is better
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
Operating cost per VRM#
Lower is better
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
Operating cost per trip#
Lower is better
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
Service-effectiveness metrics#
Service-effectiveness measures outputs to consumption: For example, passenger boardings per service hour.
Per the UCLA ITS Paper
[In] more auto-oriented markets, transit operators tend to be relatively cost-efficient, in that they have lower operating costs but serve fewer riders. In this context, assessing systems with an emphasis on service-effectiveness (i.e., passenger boardings per service hour) will motivate operators to improve ridership by changing service hours, routes, and fares to better match local demand. Agencies might also implement fare programs with schools and other institutions, and even work with municipalities on improving land use around transit in order to increase the relative attractiveness of transit service.
Passengers per VRH#
Higher is better
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
Passengers per VRM#
Higher is better
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.
0 rows with zero or negative values excluded due to log scale.