2014 Peer Comparison Report

Peer Agency Comparison on Performance Measures May 2016

Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division King Street Center, KSC-TR-0415 201 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 206-553-3000 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov/metro

Alternative Formats Available 206-477-3832 TTY Relay: 711

Peer agency comparison on performance measures Among its peers, Metro was one of the fastest growing agencies in boardings and passenger miles over the past 10 years, and was the fastest growing agency in terms of boardings in the years 2010-2014. The ridership increase reflects a local economy that has weathered the effects of the Great Recession better than most of Metro’s peers. It also reflects Metro’s focus on increasing service on some of our most productive routes, such as the RapidRide lines.

Every year, King County Metro Transit compares its performance to that of peer agencies using data from the National Transportation Database (NTD). Metro compares itself to 29 of the other largest1 bus transit agencies in the U.S. on eight indicators. The comparisons include only the agencies’ bus modes (motor bus, trolley bus, commuter bus, and rapid bus, as defined by the NTD).

The measures presented are from 2014, with comparisons to previous years. NTD annual data are not available until the end of the following year at the earliest, so the analysis is delayed by at least one year. Other challenges to peer analyses include the fact that only bus performance measures are measured, but many of the peer agencies also operate significant rail systems around which they structure their bus networks. This may affect their performance on the measures compared.

Metro was near the middle of its peers in cost-related indicators. Coming out of the recession, Metro raised fares, collected a short-term “congestion reduction charge,” and took many actions to cut costs and improve efficiency in order to maintain service. As a result, expenses during this five-year period had modest growth and service levels remained stable. With the increase in ridership, Metro has one of the slowest growth rates in costs per boarding and per passenger mile during this period.

Also, it is not always clear what has been included and excluded in the NTD reports.

In previous years, Metro reports included Sound Transit bus service operated

by Metro. This year’s analysis does not include Sound Transit service, but the composition of other agencies’ reports is uncertain. That is one reason Metro uses a robust cohort of 30 peers and shows the averages among them.2 The key measures compared are based on service and financial statistics. Service measures are: boardings (the total number of times passengers board buses during the year), vehicle hours and vehicle miles (the hours and miles a bus travels from the time it leaves its base until it Metro returns), and passenger miles (the total miles Boardings 120.1 traveled by all passengers).

Financial measures are the total bus operating cost divided by the service statistics. Farebox recovery is the total bus fare revenue divided by operating costs.

Boardings per hour Passenger miles per mile Cost per hour Cost per mile Cost per boarding Cost per passenger mile Farebox recovery1

33.4 12.0 $142.46 $11.58 $4.27 $0.96 30.5%

After the temporary funding was phased out and not replaced by another funding source, Metro had to make significant service reductions in September 2014. While this had a dampening impact on costs, it also had a dampening impact on the service provided in terms of bus hours and vehicle miles as well as service consumed (i.e. boardings and passenger miles).

2014 Rank Peer Avg 9 118.2 10 33.8 9 10.8 9 $129.17 10 $11.02 11 $4.04 17 $1.04 9 27.5%

1-year Annual Growth Metro Rank Peer Avg 2.0% 2 0.6% 2.2% 2 -0.2% 2.8% 8 -5.8% 2.3% 12 2.4% 3.0% 10 3.0% 0.1% 25 4.5% 0.3% 20 3.8% 1.4% 5 -0.8%

5-year Annual Growth Metro Rank Peer Avg 2.5% 1 0.2% 2.0% 6 0.5% 3.8% 9 1.8% 3.1% 12 2.4% 3.5% 14 2.9% 1.1% 18 1.9% -0.2% 19 1.2% 1.1% 16 0.8%

10-year Annual Growth Metro Rank Peer Avg 2.7% 3 0.2% 1.6% 2 -0.3% 1.1% 16 1.0% 2.5% 21 3.9% 3.1% 22 4.4% 0.9% 28 4.1% 1.9% 22 2.8% 8.2% 5 1.2%

Ranking compared to previous year: Improving Declining No change By number of boardings.

The 2014 peer comparison added Santa Clara and removed Austin, which is no longer in the top 30 by boardings.

3 The growth is the total percentage-point growth.

1 2

A-1

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS

Service measures

Productivity, measured as boardings per vehicle hour, is one of the key priorities for Metro service investments, along with social equity and geographic value. Metro has seen more growth in this productivity measure than many of its peer agencies. This is likely a function of two factors: 1. Metro continued to add service to productive routes and to routes that were experiencing crowding issues brought on by development and increasing population densities in key suburban areas. For example, Metro increased its investment in the busy Route 212 from Eastgate into downtown Seattle.

2. Budget-driven service reductions resulted in fewer service hours without significantly impacting the demand for Metro service. As a result, the previously noted ridership gains outweighed reductions in service hours.

Metro’s productivity ratio also continues to benefit from the service guidelines that were adopted in 2011. These guidelines moved some investment from routes in east and south King County, with their lower density and productivity, to routes in denser, highly productive areas such as Seattle’s urban core.

As mentioned earlier, the growth in employment over the past few years has also added significantly to boardings and thus boardings per hour. Coupled with Metro’s efforts to reduce layover time, as recommended in King County’s 2009 Performance Audit of Transit, these factors increased Metro’s boardings per hour.

Bus Boardings 2014 (in millions) MTA New York City Transit Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia San Francisco New Jersey Washington DC MTA New York Bus King County Metro Transit Boston Average Baltimore Miami Denver Houston Minneapolis Honolulu Atlanta Portland Las Vegas Oakland Pittsburgh San Diego Orange County San Antonio Milwaukee Phoenix Cleveland Ft. Lauderdale Dallas Santa Clara

795.7 361.6 276.1 184.0 163.7 161.2 139.7 125.6 120.1 119.6 118.2 79.8 77.4 76.7 68.4 67.8 66.3 59.8 59.7 59.7 56.1 53.4 51.6 48.9 42.5 41.0 40.5 39.5 38.1 37.4 32.9 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Metro had 120.1 million bus boardings in 2014 (peer rank: 9).

A-2

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Bus Boardings Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014

Bus Boardings Percentage Change 2013–2014 Baltimore 2.0%

Portland

1.9%

Cleveland Miami

2.4%

1.5%

Baltimore

2.2%

Washington DC

1.4%

Phoenix

2.2%

1.4%

Washington DC

San Francisco

0.8%

Boston

2.1% 1.8%

Pittsburgh

0.8%

San Diego

Los Angeles

0.6%

Las Vegas

MTA New York Bus

0.6%

MTA New York Bus

Denver

0.5%

Ft. Lauderdale

Santa Clara

0.4%

San Francisco

Atlanta

0.3%

San Antonio

0.7%

Ft. Lauderdale

0.1%

Houston

0.7%

0.0% 0.1%

Santa Clara

-0.5%

New Jersey

-0.5%

Houston

-0.6%

Average

-1.0%

Phoenix

-1.1%

Las Vegas

-1.9% -2.7% -3.7%

Minneapolis

-4.3% -4.9% -6.5%

0.2% 0.2%

-0.3%

Portland

-1.0% -1.3%

Oakland

-2.4% -2.5%

Honolulu Chicago Atlanta

-3.2% 5%

10%

15%

One-year change: Metro boardings increased 2% in 2014 (peer rank: 2), while the peers averaged a 0.6 loss in ridership.

-4%

-3%

MTA New York City Transit Orange County

-2.2%

Honolulu

Milwaukee Pittsburgh

-2.2%

Philadelphia

0%

-0.3%

New Jersey Dallas Los Angeles

-0.7%

San Antonio Chicago -5%

0.5% 0.3%

Denver

-0.2%

Orange County

-8.0%

0.8%

0.0%

Miami Milwaukee

1.1% 1.0%

Average

-0.2%

MTA New York City Transit Dallas

-3.7%

1.6% 1.5%

Minneapolis

San Diego

-0.8%

-1.5%

A-3

2.5% 2.4%

Oakland Boston Cleveland

-10%

King County Metro Transit

10.2%

King County Metro Transit

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Five-year change: Metro boardings increased by a yearly average of 2.5% from 2010 to 2014 (peer rank: 1), while the peers averaged a slight increase.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Metro appears to be bucking the national trend of low growth or declining ridership brought on by low inflation and low fuel prices which make automobile operations comparably cheaper.

Metro likely benefits from a strong local economy, which creates a higher demand for transit commute trips. Investments in highly productive routes (such as RapidRide) have helped offset ridership losses from the budget-driven service reductions in September 2014.

Bus Boardings Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014 MTA New York Bus

19.8%

San Diego

8.7%

King County Metro Transit

2.7%

Las Vegas

1.4% 1.0%

Minneapolis San Antonio

0.8%

Santa Clara New Jersey

0.7% 0.4%

Denver

0.3%

Baltimore

0.3%

Average Miami

0.2% 0.1%

San Francisco

0.0%

-0.2%

Honolulu

-0.2%

Philadelphia

-0.5% -0.5% -1.0%

Ft. Lauderdale

-1.0%

Los Angeles Chicago Washington DC

-1.1%

Pittsburgh

-1.2% -1.5% -1.6% -1.6%

Boston

-1.9% -1.9% -2.0% -2.3% -3.5% -3.5% -3.9% -10%

Phoenix Portland Oakland

-5%

Atlanta Houston MTA New York City Transit Milwaukee Orange County Cleveland Dallas 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

10-year change: Metro’s boardings increased by a yearly average of 2.7% from 2005 to 2014 (peer rank: 3), while the peers had flat ridership.

A-4

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Boardings Per Vehicle Hour 2014

Boardings Per Vehicle Hour Percentage Change 2013–2014

San Francisco

64.1

MTA NY City Transit

52.5

Los Angeles

Baltimore 2.2%

Atlanta Boston

2.2% 0.9%

47.5 45.3

Boston Honolulu

45.2

Chicago Las Vegas

45.1 43.0

Philadelphia

27.1%

King County Metro Transit

Washington DC San Francisco

0.7% 0.3%

Cleveland Oakland

41.2

0.1% 0.1%

Baltimore Average

33.8

King County Metro

33.4

Portland

33.1

-1.2%

Ft. Lauderdale Milwaukee Oakland

32.9

-1.2%

Los Angeles

31.1 30.9

-1.3% -1.5%

Houston Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh

30.5

-1.7%

New Jersey Miami San Diego

-0.5% -1.2%

San Diego

30.5

-2.2%

Atlanta

30.4

-2.4%

Washington DC

30.3

Cleveland

29.7

MTA NY Bus

29.3

-4.2%

Miami

28.9

-4.4%

Minneapolis

27.4

Phoenix

26.4

San Antonio Denver Santa Clara New Jersey Houston

10

Philadelphia Minneapolis Chicago

25.9

-6.3% -6.4% -7.8% -8.3%

Honolulu Phoenix San Antonio Orange County

-8.4% -10.7% 20

30

40

2014: Metro had 33.4 boardings per hour (peer rank: 10).

50

60

70

-15%

Las Vegas Ft. Lauderdale

-5.6%

25.5 23.8 23.2

16.7 0

Denver Milwaukee

-5.9% -5.9%

21.6

Dallas

Dallas MTA New York City Transit Portland

-3.0% -3.6%

28.9

Orange County

A-5

-0.2% Average

40.8

-10%

MTA New York Bus Santa Clara -5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

One-year change: Ridership grew 2% while hours decreased 0.1%, resulting in a net gain of 2.2% in boardings per hour (peer rank: 2). The peers averaged a decline of 0.2% in 2014.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Boardings Per Vehicle Hour Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014

Boardings Per Vehicle Hour Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014 Phoenix

4.4%

Pittsburgh

Baltimore Las Vegas Pittsburgh Miami King County Metro Transit Boston Los Angeles Portland San Diego Cleveland Atlanta San Francisco Denver Average Oakland Houston

4.4%

King County Metro Transit Baltimore Las Vegas

-0.1% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.4% -0.8% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.4% -1.7% -2.3% -2.3% -3%

-2%

-1%

3.4% 2.7% 2.5%

Miami

2.0% 1.7% 1.6%

Denver

0.5%

San Francisco

0.4%

Los Angeles

0.4%

Boston

0.2%

Ft. Lauderdale

0.2%

-0.2% -0.3% -0.6% -0.7% -0.9% -1.1% -1.3%

Ft. Lauderdale Dallas Minneapolis Milwaukee

-1.4% -1.4%

Orange County MTA New York City Transit Washington DC Dallas

-3.0% -3.4% 2%

3%

4%

5%

-4%

-3%

Philadelphia New Jersey San Antonio Phoenix Milwaukee Atlanta

-2.0% -2.0%

New Jersey Chicago

0.0% Portland Average Santa Clara Oakland

Houston

-2.0% -2.0%

MTA New York City Transit Orange County Honolulu

0.3%

Chicago Honolulu

Five-year change: Metro’s boardings per hour increased by a yearly average of 2% from 2010 to 2014 (peer rank: 6), while the peers averaged a 0.5% increase.

A-6

1.2% 0.6% 0.6%

Cleveland

MTA New York Bus San Antonio Washington DC Philadelphia

1%

1.3%

San Diego Minneapolis

1.2% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% Santa Clara

0%

2.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

10-year change: Metro’s boardings per hour increased by a yearly average of 1.6% from 2005 to 2014 (peer rank: 2). This reflects the strong long-term growth in boardings mentioned in the previous section.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Passenger Miles Per Vehicle Mile 2014 Honolulu San Francisco Los Angeles MTA New York…

Baltimore Miami Portland Las Vegas King County Metro…

Chicago Boston Philadelphia New Jersey Average Ft. Lauderdale Cleveland Santa Clara Houston Oakland MTA New York Bus Pittsburgh San Diego Minneapolis Atlanta Denver Washington DC Milwaukee Orange County San Antonio Phoenix Dallas 0

Passenger Miles Per Vehicle Mile Percentage Change 2013–2014 Portland

17.5 16.7 16.5 15.3

Boston

11.9% 11.4%

Oakland

4.5%

Houston

4.3%

San Francisco

2.9%

King County Metro Transit

2.8%

Atlanta

2.8% 2.7%

Washington DC

2.0%

Miami

0.5%

New Jersey -0.2% -0.3%

Dallas Los Angeles Average

-5.8% -0.9% -1.1%

San Diego

-1.3%

Honolulu

MTA New York City Transit

-2.0%

Cleveland

-3.8%

Chicago

-4.1%

Minneapolis

-4.7% -5.4%

Milwaukee

-5.5%

Philadelphia MTA New York Bus

-5.8%

Denver

-5.9%

Las Vegas

-7.6%

Phoenix Orange County

-7.7%

4.9

-11.2%

San Antonio

-11.3%

Ft. Lauderdale Santa Clara

-14.2% 10

15

20

2014: Metro had 12 passenger miles per vehicle mile (peer rank: 9). This measure is really an indication of the average number of passengers that are on a bus at any particular time; the number varies significantly by route, day of week and time of day.

A-7

12.5%

Baltimore

13.8 13.1 12.4 12.3 12.0 11.8 11.6 11.5 11.0 10.8 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.3 9.2 8.8 8.4 8.4 7.9 7.7 7.1 5

21.4%

Pittsburgh

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

One-year change: Metro’s passenger miles per vehicle mile increased 2.8% from 2013 to 2014 (peer rank: 8). Metro’s vehicle miles fell in 2014 by 0.9%.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

SERVICE STATISTICS Passenger Miles Per Vehicle Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014

Passenger Miles Per Vehicle Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014 Oakland Portland Pittsburgh Santa Clara Miami Las Vegas Phoenix Los Angeles King County Metro Transit Boston Cleveland Milwaukee San Francisco Houston Average San Diego Baltimore Denver Washington DC Atlanta New Jersey

8.8%

-4.0% -6%

-4%

-2%

Portland Honolulu

2.9%

Los Angeles

2.9% 2.4%

Cleveland

2.1%

Milwaukee

2.1%

Santa Clara

2.0%

Oakland

2.7% 2.6%

1.9%

Las Vegas

1.5%

San Diego

1.9% 1.8%

1.5%

Denver

1.3%

Baltimore

1.4% 1.4% 1.2%

1.3%

King County Metro Transit

1.1%

Average

1.0%

Minneapolis

0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

0.9%

New Jersey

0.7%

Ft. Lauderdale

0.3%

Houston

0.2%

-0.1% Atlanta Philadelphia -0.5% -0.7%

MTA New York City Transit Phoenix

-1.3%

Transit Dallas MTA New York Bus Ft. Lauderdale Minneapolis 4%

0.6%

Chicago

Chicago Philadelphi a San Antonio Honolulu MTA New York City

-1.5% -1.5% -2.5% -4.1% 6%

8%

10%

-6%

Five-year change: Strong ridership growth from 2012 to 2014 helped stem the fiveyear trend of falling passenger miles per vehicle mile. From 2010 to 2014, this ratio increased at an average annual rate of 3.8% (peer rank: 9). The change in passenger miles reflects changes in both ridership and trip length, while vehicle miles reflects service levels. Since vehicle miles in 2014 were nearly identical to those in 2010, the improvement in this measure came primarily from the increase in passenger miles that resulted from the closure of the downtown Seattle Ride Free Area, a source of numerous short trips, and from increased employment and longer commute trips.

A-8

3.7% 3.3%

San Francisco

3.8% 3.8% 3.3% 2.9%

2%

4.1%

Pittsburgh

4.5% 4.5% 4.0%

0%

5.5%

Boston

5.6% 4.9%

0.0% -0.3% -0.5% -0.9% -0.9% -1.2% -1.6% -2.2% -2.9%

Miami

7.5%

-4%

-2%

Washington DC San Antonio Orange County Dallas 0%

2%

4%

6%

10-year change: Over 10 years, Metro’s passenger miles per vehicle mile increased at an annual rate of 1.1% (peer rank: 16), slightly better than the peer average of 1%.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS

Financial measures

Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour 2014

The cost of operating transit service tends to fall into two categories: 1. The direct costs of putting buses on the road, such as fuel or power (for trolley buses), vehicle maintenance, driver wages and insurance. Direct costs total about 70% of the cost of operating bus service.

2. Indirect cost (about 30% of total operating costs) are for things such as information technology, safety and security, administrative services and maintenance of transitrelated facilities.

Metro has a couple of other costs that other transit agencies do not have. Because Metro is part of a large, general-purpose government, it pays for support that is provided by other county agencies. In addition, Metro maintains and operates the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel. While adding to Metro’s total costs, this facility also supports efficient operation and quality of service in the busy Seattle core, reducing the number of service hours needed and providing the added benefit of reducing congestion on Seattle’s crowded streets. Both of these costs fall into the indirect cost category.

Metro also relies on a broad array of vehicle sizes and types to operate its service.

This fleet mix can have a significant influence on operating cost. Large articulated buses allow Metro to carry more passengers during periods of high demand.

Electricity-powered trolleybuses minimize pollution, operate more quietly, and are well-suited for climbing the steep hills of Seattle. However, articulated buses and trolleybuses tend to be more expensive to run on a per-hour and per-mile basis.

MTA NY City Transit

$ 190.73

Baltimore

$178.19

Santa Clara

$172.5

San Francisco

$170.39

Oakland

$167.33

Boston

$162.39

Pittsburgh

$157.97

MTA NY Bus

$149.51

King County Metro

$142.46

Philadelphia

$141.93

Portland

$133.32

Cleveland

$130.84

Average

$129.17

Chicago

$128.01

Washington DC

$126.71

Los Angeles

$126.25

New Jersey

$125.66

Honolulu

$125.48

Miami

$120.98

Minneapolis

$119.79

Atlanta

$114.32

Orange County

$109.56

Denver

$108.59

Houston

$107.84

Dallas

$106.31

Milwaukee

$100.97

Phoenix

$95.22

Las Vegas

$95.01

Ft. Lauderdale

$93.36

San Antonio

$90.12

San Diego

$83.29 $0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

$200

2014: Metro’s operating cost per hour was $142.46 (peer rank: 9th most expensive).

A-9

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour Percentage Change 2013–2014 Baltimore San Francisco Cleveland Boston Miami MTA New York City…

Chicago Atlanta MTA New York Bus Minneapolis San Antonio Average King County Metro…

Philadelphia Washington DC Oakland New Jersey Milwaukee Denver Pittsburgh -0.2% -1.3% -1.5% -2.3% -3.2% -3.3% -3.6% -3.8% -3.8% -5.0% -5.9% -10%

0%

Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014

Ft. Lauderdale Los Angeles Honolulu Portland Dallas Las Vegas Orange County Houston Phoenix San Diego Santa Clara 10%

20%

30%

40%

-2%

One-year change: From 2013 to 2014, Metro’s operating cost per hour increased 2.3%, which kept it below the average growth of its peers (peer rank: 12). Metro’s focus on controlling costs continued in 2014, resulting in another year-to-year change showing a slower growth rate than the previous year.

A-10

5.8%

MTA NY City Transit Baltimore Atlanta San Antonio Boston Denver Honolulu Pittsburgh Santa Clara Cleveland Oakland King County Metro Las Vegas Chicago Philadelphia Average San Francisco Minneapolis MTA NY Bus Los Angeles Portland Miami Houston San Diego Orange County Phoenix Ft. Lauderdale New Jersey -1.0% -1.2% -1.3%

38.3%

8.4% 8.4% 7.9% 6.0% 4.9% 4.8% 4.2% 4.0% 3.8% 3.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 1.1% 0.9% 0.3%

-1%

5.1% 4.8% 4.8% 4.7% 4.2% 3.9% 3.6% 3.5% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 1.7% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.8% Milwaukee Washington DC Dallas 0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Five-year change: Metro’s has sought to control costs over the past five years with the annual growth in expenses averaging about 3% during this period. On a cost per hour basis, however, Metro is slightly above the average of its peers due in large part to the limited growth in hours resulting from the September 2014 service reductions.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014 Portland Boston Baltimore Pittsburgh

16.9% 6.8% 6.1% 6.0% 5.4% 5.1% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.0% 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 1.8% 1.7% 1.4%

MTA NY City Transit Cleveland Las Vegas San Francisco Honolulu Oakland Average Denver San Antonio Philadelphia Miami Ft. Lauderdale Atlanta Minneapolis Los Angeles Houston Phoenix King County Metro Orange County Dallas New Jersey Chicago Milwaukee Washington DC Santa Clara -0.6% -2%

Metro’s operating costs per vehicle mile (shown on the next page) are affected by the geography and topography of Metro’s service area. Puget Sound, Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish limit the street network, causing increased traffic congestion, and the region has steep hills along key travel corridors. Together, these factors slow the travel speeds of Metro’s buses. Since many costs accrue regardless of distance traveled (i.e. driver wages), slower travel times mean higher costs per mile.

It’s no surprise that service in other congested cities (New York, Chicago, Baltimore) and in other cities that have similar geographical constraints (San Francisco) is more expensive per mile. Cities without these constraints (Dallas, Las Vegas, Phoenix) are among the least expensive to operate.

San Diego 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

10-year change: Metro saw rosier results over a 10-year period with an average annual percentage growth in cost per hour of 2.5% (peer rank: 21), well below the peer average. While the growth in expenses averaged 4% annually during this time, the growth in hours topped 10%.

A-11

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile 2014 MTA NY City Transit

Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile Percentage Change 2013–2014

San Francisco

$22.37

MTA NY Bus

$17.64

Boston

$15.95

Oakland

$13.67

Philadelphia

$13.57

Chicago

$13.50

Santa Clara

$13.24

Baltimore

$12.74

King County Metro

$11.58

Washington DC

$11.41

Pittsburgh

$11.04

Average

$11.02

Cleveland

$10.77

Los Angeles

$10.60

Portland

$10.47

Miami

$9.40

Minneapolis

$9.16

Honolulu

$8.89

Atlanta

$8.86

New Jersey

$8.59

Orange County

$8.09

Milwaukee

$7.89

Dallas

$7.72

Las Vegas

-1.3% -1.4% -1.9% -2.9% -3.2% -3.8% -5.1% -5.3%

$7.45

Denver

$7.39

Phoenix

$7.12

San Diego

$6.91

Houston

$6.88

San Antonio

$6.41

Ft. Lauderdale

$6.35 $0

$5

$10

48.3% 48.3% 14.3% 9.9% 8.1% 6.4% 6.2% 5.6% 5.0% 3.9% 3.0% 3.0% 2.7% 2.6% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% Honolulu Portland Phoenix Dallas Orange County Houston Las Vegas San Diego Santa Clara

-13.1% $15

$20

$25

2014: Metro’s operating cost per vehicle mile was $11.58 (peer rank: 10).

A-12

Baltimore MTA New York Bus San Francisco Boston Cleveland Miami MTA New York City…

Chicago Atlanta King County Metro…

Average San Antonio Washington DC Ft. Lauderdale Philadelphia Minneapolis Oakland Denver Milwaukee Los Angeles New Jersey Pittsburgh

$24.84

$30

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

One-year change: Metro’s operating cost per vehicle mile increased 3% in 2014 (peer rank: 10). Metro’s miles decreased by 0.9% and vehicle hours decreased by 0.1%, so cost per mile decreased more than cost per hour.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014

Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014 MTA NY City Transit 5.8% Boston 5.7% Baltimore 5.7% Atlanta 5.6% Pittsburgh 5.1% Denver 4.9% San Antonio 4.5% Cleveland 4.1% Los Angeles 4.1% Santa Clara 4.0% San Francisco 4.0% Honolulu 3.9% Oakland 3.6% King County Metro 3.5% Chicago 3.3% Average 2.9% MTA New York Bus 2.8% New Jersey 2.7% Philadelphia 2.6% Minneapolis 2.4% Portland 2.1% Phoenix 1.5% Las Vegas 1.4% Miami 1.3% Orange County 1.3% Houston 1.3% San Diego 1.0% Ft. Lauderdale 0.6% 0.0% Dallas 0.0% Washington DC Milwaukee -0.3% -1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Portland Boston Cleveland Pittsburgh MTA NY Bus MTA NY City Transit San Francisco Baltimore Honolulu Los Angeles Denver Average Oakland Philadelphia Las Vegas Miami San Antonio Minneapolis Dallas Atlanta Phoenix Ft. Lauderdale King County Metro New Jersey Houston Orange County Washington DC Chicago Milwaukee Santa Clara San Diego 7%

0%

Five-year change: Metro’s average annual growth was 3.5% over five years (peer rank: 14). As with the operating cost per hour measure, Metro cost containment efforts were overshadowed by the lack of five-year growth in vehicle miles, primarily as a result of the 2014 service reductions.

A-13

17.6% 7.3% 6.2% 6.0% 5.8% 5.7% 5.6% 4.8% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.4% 4.3% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 3.7% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.3% 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.4% 1.2% 0.2% 2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

10-year change: Metro’s average annual growth in cost per mile was 3.1% (peer rank: 22), much lower than the peer average of 4.4%.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Boarding 2014 Santa Clara Dallas Oakland New Jersey Pittsburgh MTA NY Bus Houston Cleveland Baltimore Denver King County Metro Miami Washington DC Minneapolis Average Portland Orange County Atlanta MTA NY City Transit Phoenix Boston San Antonio Philadelphia Milwaukee Chicago Ft. Lauderdale Honolulu San Diego Los Angeles San Francisco Las Vegas

Operating Cost Per Boarding Percentage Change 2013–2014 $7.25 $6.38

$5.42 $5.42 $5.18 $5.11 $5.00 $4.40 $4.37 $4.27 $4.27 $4.18 $4.18 $4.14 $4.04 $4.03 $3.99 $3.77 $3.64 $3.60 $3.59 $3.47 $3.45 $3.25 $2.84 $2.84 $2.78 $2.73 $2.66 $2.66 $2.21 $0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

2014: Metro’s operating cost per boarding was $4.27 (peer rank: 11). Many of the issues that make Metro’s cost high on per-hour and per-mile measures also drive Metro’s relatively high cost per boarding, including trip length, fleet mix, and vehicle speed. As Metro’s productivity continues to grow, cost per boarding will fall.

A-14

MTA NY Bus San Antonio Chicago Minneapolis Baltimore Miami Cleveland San Francisco Philadelphia Boston MTA NY City Transit Santa Clara Orange County Honolulu Milwaukee Average Ft. Lauderdale Denver New Jersey Phoenix Atlanta Pittsburgh Oakland Washington DC Las Vegas King County Metro 0.0% -1.1% -2.5% -2.7% -2.7% -4%

-2%

13.6% 12.4% 11.4% 10.3% 8.9% 8.4% 8.2% 8.1% 8.1% 6.9% 6.2% 5.4% 5.1% 5.1% 4.8% 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.2% 2.7% 2.0% 1.8% 1.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.1% Los Angeles Portland Houston San Diego Dallas

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

One-year change: Operating cost and boardings grew at similar rates from 2013 to 2014, causing the ratio to increase by only 0.1% and leaving the cost growth rate well below many of Metro’s peers (peer rank: 25).

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Boarding Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014

Operating Cost Per Boarding Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014 MTA NY City Transit Honolulu Chicago San Antonio Atlanta Santa Clara Minneapolis Denver New Jersey Philadelphia Boston Oakland MTA NY Bus Orange County Cleveland Average San Francisco Ft. Lauderdale King County Metro Pittsburgh Houston Baltimore Los Angeles Portland San Diego Milwaukee -0.6% -0.6% -0.9% -1.2% -3.2% -4%

-2%

Portland

7.1%

4.1% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.0% 1.9% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 0.2% Dallas Las Vegas Washington DC Miami Phoenix 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

-5%

Five-year change: The recent flattening of growth in Metro’s operating cost coupled with its growth in boardings during this period resulted in Metro falling below many of its peers in average annual growth over five years, up 1.1% (peer rank: 18—the further down the chart, the better).

A-15

17.2%

MTA NY City Transit Boston Dallas Atlanta San Antonio Houston Washington DC Oakland Philadelphia Baltimore Orange County Cleveland Honolulu Phoenix Average San Francisco Ft. Lauderdale New Jersey Milwaukee Denver Pittsburgh Las Vegas Los Angeles Minneapolis Miami Santa Clara Chicago King County Metro MTA NY Bus -1.7%

5.7% 5.1% 4.9%

7.6% 6.5% 5.9% 5.5% 5.1% 5.0% 4.8% 4.8% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.4% 4.1% 4.1% 4.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 0.9% 0.1% San Diego 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

10-year change: As with five-year growth, Metro’s average annual growth in cost per boarding of 0.9% over the past 10 years remains low compared to its peers (peer rank: 28), and significantly below the average of 4.1%.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile Percentage Change 2013–2014

Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile 2014 MTA NY Bus MTA NY City Transit Dallas Oakland Boston Santa Clara Washington DC San Francisco Philadelphia Pittsburgh Chicago Cleveland Average Orange County Phoenix Minneapolis Atlanta

$1.83

$1.00 $0.99 $0.97 $0.96 $0.94 $0.92 $0.84 $0.84 $0.83 $0.78 $0.74 $0.72 $0.71 $0.64 $0.64 $0.60

King County Metro Milwaukee Baltimore Denver Portland San Antonio New Jersey San Diego Miami Houston Los Angeles Ft. Lauderdale Las Vegas Honolulu $0.00

$0.50

$0.75

Atlanta

1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0%

$1.25

$1.50

$1.75

$2.00

-30%

-20%

Washington DC New Jersey Oakland Dallas Boston San Diego Houston Pittsburgh Portland

-18.8% $1.00

9.1% 8.6% 8.0% 8.0% 6.8% 6.8% 6.5% 6.3% 6.1% 4.9% 4.1% 3.8% 1.4%

Las Vegas Los Angeles King County Metro Transit Honolulu

-2.7% -3.4% -4.5% -7.7% -11.1%

$0.51 $0.25

33.1% 20.9% 15.6% 15.2%

0.0% -0.2% -2.3%

2014: Metro’s operating cost per passenger mile was $0.96 in 2014 (peer rank: 17), below the peer average of $1.04. One of the impacts of the geographical constraints noted previously is that narrower corridors tend to extend trip lengths as activity centers and housing are spread over further distances. As a result, Metro tends to accumulate a greater number of passenger miles per boarding than most of its peers, so the operating cost per passenger mile tends to be lower than its peers.

A-16

Baltimore MTA New York Bus San Antonio Ft. Lauderdale Chicago Cleveland Philadelphia Denver San Francisco MTA New York City Transit Minneapolis Milwaukee Phoenix Orange County Miami Average Santa Clara

$1.62 $1.57 $1.42 $1.38 $1.36 $1.35 $1.34 $1.18 $1.16 $1.14 $1.10 $1.04 $1.02

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

One-year change: Metro’s operating cost per passenger mile fell 0.3% from 2013 to 2014 (peer rank: 20). This compares to a peer average of 3.8% growth in cost per passenger mile.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2005–2014

Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile Average Annual Percentage Change 2010–2014 MTA New York City Transit

6.7%

Orange County Minneapolis

MTA NY City Transit 5.4% 5.3%

5.0%

San Antonio

4.9%

Philadelphia

4.7%

4.8% 4.4%

Phoenix

4.6%

Ft. Lauderdale

2.9%

Boston New Jersey

2.3%

Average

-0.6% -0.8% -0.9% -2.4% -2.9% -2.9% -3.1% -4.8% -5.0% -2%

3.4% 3.2%

San Francisco

3.1%

Boston

1.2% 1.1%

Los Angeles

-0.4%

Atlanta Denver

0.3% King County Metro Transit

Houston

2.7% 2.7%

Minneapolis

2.6%

Las Vegas

2.6%

Ft. Lauderdale

2.5%

Chicago

Houston Washington DC Santa Clara Phoenix

2.4%

Oakland

2.4%

New Jersey

2.3%

King County Metro

1.9%

Los Angeles

1.7%

Honolulu

1.7%

Milwaukee Las Vegas

Milwaukee

Miami Oakland Portland

-0.9%

2%

2.8%

Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh San Diego

0%

3.1%

Average

1.3%

Dallas Cleveland -0.2%

3.5%

2.0% 1.3%

San Francisco

4.0%

Baltimore

3.3% 2.9%

4.3%

Cleveland

3.6%

Philadelphia

-0.4%

Washington DC

4.2%

Denver Chicago

0.3%

Portland

4%

6%

8%

Five-year change: The recent reduction in operating cost per passenger mile lowered Metro’s average annual growth to -0.2% over five years, putting it just below the average among its peers (peer rank: 19). Previous reductions in passenger miles and average trip length were erased in 2014, with passenger miles showing growth from almost 459 million in 2010 to nearly 533 million in 2014.

A-17

6.5%

Orange County

Atlanta Honolulu Baltimore

-4%

7.8%

San Antonio

MTA New York Bus

-6%

Dallas

5.6% 5.5%

0.3% Santa Clara

-1.3%

San Diego

-1.3%

Miami

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

10-year change: Metro’s average annual growth in cost per passenger mile over 10 years was 1.9% (peer rank: 22), less than the average of 2.8%. As with the other cost metrics, the cost containment discussed earlier benefits Metro’s performance on this metric over five- and 10-year periods.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Farebox Recovery Difference 2013–2014

Farebox Recovery 2014 Las Vegas New Jersey Chicago San Diego MTA New York City Transit Ft. Lauderdale MTA New York Bus San Francisco King County Metro Milwaukee Honolulu Philadelphia Miami Pittsburgh Average Atlanta Portland Los Angeles Minneapolis Orange County Washington DC Denver Phoenix Cleveland Oakland Boston Baltimore Houston San Antonio Dallas Santa Clara

52.3% 37.9% 36.6% 32.8% 31.9% 31.7% 31.4% 30.5% 30.1% 29.9%

27.5% 27.3% 27.2% 27.0% 27.0% 26.6% 24.9% 24.3% 23.5% 23.4% 21.4% 21.3% 20.7% 18.4% 15.2% 13.7% 20%

30%

0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% Philadelphia Washington DC Honolulu Los Angeles Atlanta Santa Clara Average Ft. Lauderdale Miami New Jersey Milwaukee Chicago Dallas MTA New York City Transit

-2.2% -2.9% -3.7% -4.1% -4.6% -4.7%

12.0% 10%

3.1% 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4%

0.0% -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% -0.6% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.9% -1.1% -1.1% -1.2% -1.3% -1.3% -1.4% -1.5%

29.2% 27.7% 27.7%

0%

40%

50%

60%

2014: Metro’s revenue from sales tax, its primary source of funding, fell as a result of the Great Recession and took a number of years to recover. To replace a portion of the lost revenue, Metro raised fares each year from 2009 through 2011, driving farebox recovery (bus fare revenue divided by bus operating cost) to 30.5% (peer rank: 9).

A-18

Denver Las Vegas Orange County Oakland King County Metro Transit Houston Portland San Diego Phoenix

41.7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

San Antonio Pittsburgh Cleveland Minneapolis MTA New York Bus Boston Baltimore San Francisco

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

One-year change: With no fare increase in 2014, and increases in ridership and operating expenses being roughly equal, Metro’s farebox recovery rate grew 1.4 percentage points in 2014 (peer rank: 5).

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016

FINANCIAL STATISTICS Farebox Recovery Difference 2010–2014 Washington DC Las Vegas

Portland Oakland Pittsburgh Orange County Miami

New Jersey Houston King County Metro Transit Average Los Angeles Philadelphia San Francisco

-6%

-4%

New Jersey Phoenix Average Dallas

-0.3% -0.4% -0.9% -1.5% -1.6% -2.0% -2.4% -3.0% -3.0% -3.4% -4.9%

Chicago Milwaukee San Diego Boston Santa Clara Denver San Antonio Baltimore MTA New York City Transit Minneapolis 0%

2%

1.0% 0.7% 0.5%

Washington DC Houston

-9.1% -9.5%

Cleveland -2%

5.0% 4.2% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.7% 2.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.2%

Denver Chicago Cleveland Orange County Oakland

4%

6%

Five-year change: Farebox recovery increased by a total of 3.4 percentage points over five years (peer rank: 11). This increase is due primarily to fare increases that brought in more revenue during the first few years of this time period.

A-19

King County Metro Transit San Francisco Pittsburgh

0.2%

-4.0% -4.5%

10.0% 10.0% 9.3% 8.5% 8.2%

San Diego Portland

2.8% 2.4% 2.1% 2.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4%

Dallas Honolulu MTA New York Bus Phoenix

-0.6% -0.8% -1.2% -1.9% -2.3% -2.3% -3.0% -3.8%

Ft. Lauderdale Las Vegas

5.4% 5.0% 5.0% 4.9% 4.4% 3.6%

Ft. Lauderdale Atlanta

-0.3%

Farebox Recovery Difference 2005–2014

-15%

-10%

-5%

Boston Miami San Antonio Minneapolis Honolulu Santa Clara Milwaukee Los Angeles MTA New York Bus Atlanta Philadelphia Baltimore MTA New York City Transit 0%

5%

10%

15%

10-year change: Farebox recovery increased by a total of 8.8 percentage points over 10 years (peer rank: 4). This was driven by ridership increases and fare increases.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT PEER AGENCY COMPARISON ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2016