TO BOARD OF DIRECTORSboardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/Box04/11007784.001.pdf · 2004-12-27 · Los Angeles, CA SUBJECT: METRO OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT 90012-2952 FOR MAY 2003

_b iMll II

June 27, 2003TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THROUGH: J?_GER SNOBLE

Metropolitan _TC/_j_ FFICgRTransportation JOI_I'NB :/CATOE, JR/

Authority FROM: DEPUTY CHIEF EX]ECUTIVE OFFICER/One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA SUBJECT: METRO OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT90012-2952 FOR MAY 2003

ISSUE

Director Beatrice Proo requested a copy of the Metro Operations PerformanceReport for April 2003 and each subsequent month.

DISCUSSION

Metro Operations provides the division transportation and maintenance managers amonthly report on performance indicators relevant to optimal bus and railtransportation service.

In May, Metro Bus Operations:• Delivered 99% of our revenue service hours

• San Gabriel Valley Sector decreased their traffic accidents per 100,000 hubmiles

In May, Metro Rail Operations:• Exceeded In-Service-On-time targets

Areas of focus/improvement: Metro Bus and Rail Operations will continue theirfocus on safety issues - accidents and workers' safety to decrease accidents andworkers' compensation claims and outlates and cancellations.

Attachment 1: Metro Operations Performance Report for May 2003

Metro Operations Monthly Performance Reportfor

May 2003

Prepared by:

Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityMetro Operations, Service Performance Analysis

.__,_ -._.,,- _ _ , ._c__- _ _ _,,_- _ ,= _.,, _.,_ • _, •, • _, _

Page

San Fernando Valley Sector (SFV) 3

San Gabriel Valley Sector (SGV) 7

Gateway Cities Sector (GC) 11

South Bay Sector (SB) 15

WestsidelCentral Sector (WC) 19

Rail Performance 23On-time Service

In-Service On-Time PerformanceSchedule Revenue Service Hours Delivered

Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical FailuresZero Tolerance Costs

Bus Service Performance Systemwide 29On-Time Pullout PercentageOutlates and Cancellations by DivisionIn-Service On-Time Performance

Scheduled Revenue Service Hours Delivered

Maintenance Performance 33

Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical FailuresPast Due Critical Preventive Maintenance ProgramZero Tolerance Costs

Attendance 36Maintenance Attendance

Safety Performance 37Bus Accidents per 100,000 Hub Miles

Rail Accidents per 100,000 Revenue Train Miles

Customer Satisfaction 40

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings

New Workers' Compensation Claims 41New Workers' Compensation Claims per 100 Employees

"How You Doin'?" Incentive Program 42Monthly Metro Bus & Metro Rail

MetroOperat)onsMonthlyReportforMay2003 Page2

San F rnando Vail y Sector Scorecard Ov rview (SFV)

This sectorhastwo MTAoperatingdivisions,Division8 inChatsworthand Division15 inSunValley. The sectoris responsiblefor theoperationof approximately430 Metrobusesand23

MetroBuslinescarryingnearly68.4 millionboardingpassengerseachyear.

This report givesa brief overview of sector operations':* On-Time Pullout Percentage* In-Service On-Time Performance* Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical Failures (MMBCMF)* Traffic Accidents per 100,000 Hub* Complaints per 100,000 Boardings

Bus Systemwide

On-TimePullouts(system)* 99.36% 99.61% 100% 99.64% 99.73%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 4,808 5,415 6,500 6,937 6,147 •MechanicalFailures(MMBCMF)

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 63.71% 64.88% 70.00% 69.17% 68.90%

BusTrafficAccidentsPer 100,000Miles 3.99 3.91 2.70 3.87 4.38

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 3.11 3.54 3.00 4.22 4.30

SFVSector

On-Time Pullouts * N.A. 99.45% 100% 99.76% 99.84%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable N.A. 4,646 6,500 8,700 8,514 •MechanicalFailures

In-Service On-time Performance N.A. 70.00% 67.15% 62.02%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000Miles N.A. 3.09 2.70 2.94 3.98

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings N.A. 3.43 3.00 6.34 6.18

Division 8

On-TimePullouts* 99.40% 99.57% 100% 99.81% 99.90%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 6,637 5,775 6,500 9,331 8,066 •MechanicalFailures

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 65.59% 67.88% 70 00% 70.00% 65.99% •

BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000Miles 3.02 3.22 2.70 2.88 3.45

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 3.26 3.16 3.00 6.93 7.42 NB

Division 15

On-TimePullouts* 98.97% 99.37% 100% 99.73% 99.79%

Mean MolesBetweenChargeable 2,871 4,514 6,500 8,303 8,855 •MechanicalFailures

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 65.32% 62.51% 70.00% 65.94% 59 97%

BusTraffic Accidents Per 100,000Miles 3.25 3 01 2.70 2.97 4.34

Complaints per 100,000Boardings 4.05 3 58 3.00 6.00 5.52 n

• A substantialportionof theTransitRadioSystem(TRS)sourcedatais self-reportedTheremaybeotheroutlates,cancellations,or lostrevenueservicehoursnotreportedthroughtheTRS_Green - High probab_hty of achieving the FY03 target (on track)

_'ellow - Uncerta0n rf the FY03 target w=llbe achieved - shght problems, delays or management tssues

me=Red - H=gh probabohty that the FYO3 target wnll not be achieved -- spgnfftcant problems and/or delays

Metro OperabonsMonthly Report for May 2003Page 3

I,_,,__' _,i_ _" " '-_ _.......____,,._L_._,-Y_-_,_,_E__.... _"_'_ ...... _' " ' "_ ' _ _ _..... "...... _'_-_' ........ _-_ ...... _ _......__:_,__...... _ _ .... _"_' :_ '_'_'_::_:;_,_'f" _ _'_

Definition: On-time Pullout Performance measures the percentage of buses leaving the operatingdivisionwithin one minute of the scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service.

Calculation: OTP% = [(100%- [(Total late and cancelled runs / by Total scheduled pullouts)X 100)]

100.0% _ - - Goal _ __.--II------_

•r.. - " = :.99.5%

99.0%

I

98.5%

98.0% 1Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_OTP Systemwide _ Goal --B-- Dw 8 _ Div 15 II

Definition: Average Hub Miles traveled betweenchargeable mechanical problems that result in a servicedisruption of greater than ten minutes.

Calculation: MMBCMF = (Total Hub Miles/ by Chargeable Mechanical Related Roadcalls)

18,000

15,000 1

1 ,oooI i

9,ooo46,000 _

3,000 ,Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_MMBCMF _ Div 8 _ Div 15 ISystemwlde Goal

REASONS FOR OUTLATES andCANCELLATIONS OUTLA TES CANCELLATIONS5ched.

Pull- % of % of % Total Outlates & ON-TIME PULL- No Operator Bus Mechanical OtherDiv. Outs Number Pull-outs Number Pull.outs Cancellations OUT RATE Available Failure

San Fernando Valley (SFV) 99.84%8 5077 0 ' 0.00% 5 0.10% 2.60% 99 90% 0 3 2

15 7124 0 0.00% 15 0 2t% 7.81% 99.79% 0 13 2

SYS.

TOTAL 71378 5 0.01% 187 0.26% 100.00% 99.73% 18 135 39

Metro Operat=ons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 4

SFV Sector Bus Service Performance - Continued

Definition: This performance indicator measures the percentage of scheduled buses that depart selectedtime points no more than 1 minute early and no more than five minutes later than scheduled.

Calculation: ISOTP% =1-((Number of buses departing early + Number of buses departing more than fiveminutes late)/(Total buses sampled))

100%

90%

80%

50% t4O%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Oec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

IiSystemwide ISOTP _ ON-TIME GOAL _ Div 8 --II-- Div 15 I

- . _L,I__ ii .-___:_______-I III I Ii_I I i lil i I IiI I iI'i r i

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-O2 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_Systemwide Early _ Div 8 --I-- Div 15 ]I J

Metro Operations Monthly Report for May 2003Page 5

SFV Sector Bus S rvice Performance - Continued

_'/ , 4, ......

Definition: Average number of Traffic Accidents for every 100,000 Hub Miles traveled. This indicator measuressystem safety.

Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles = (The number of Traffic Accidents / by (Hub Miles / by100,000))

8.0I5.5 t J

I5.0

4.5 -_

4.0 1 _

3,5 _ -- _'- /_'

-2.5 4

2.0II

1.5 _Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-C2 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov*02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

-"-,-Systemwide _ Goal -*- Div. 8 ---=- Div. 151

Definition: Average number of customer complaints per 100,000 boardings. This indicator measures service

quality and customer satisfaction.Calculation: Customer complaints per 100,000 Boardings = Complaints/(Boardings/100,000)

9.0

8.0

7.0-

6.0

5.0.

4.0.

3.0 _Goal

2.0-

1.0 I

Jun-02 Jut-Q2 Aug-Q2 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

_Compiamts MTA Systemwlde ---i--Div 8 _ DIv 15 _ Goal


San Gabriel Valley Sector Scorecard Overview (SGV)

This sectorhastwo MTAoperatingdivisions,Division3 CypressParkand Division9 in El Monte.The sectoris responsiblefor the operationof approximately440 Metrobusesand28 Metro Buslinescarryingover60.4 millionboardingpassengerseachyear.

This reportgives a brief overviewof sector operations':* On-Time Pullout Percentage* In-Service On-Time Performance* Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical Failures (MMBCMF)* Traffic Accidents per 100,000 Hub* Complaints per 100,000 Boardings

Bus Systemwide

On-Time Pullouts(system)* 99.36% 99.61% 100% 99.64% 99.73%

Mean Miles BetweenChargeable 4,808 5,415 6,500 6,937 6,147 •MechanicalFailures(MMBCMF)

In-ServiceOn-time Performance 63.71% 64.68% 70.00% 69 17% 68.90%

BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000 Miles 3.99 3.91 2.70 3.87 4.38

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 3.11 3.54 3 00 4.22 4.30

SGV Sector

On-Time Pullouts* N.A. 99.71% 100% 99.77% 99.84%

MMBCMF N.A. 6,708 6,500 7,708 7,994 •

In-ServiceOn-time Performance N.A. 70% 70.09% 71.75% •BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000 Miles N.A. 3.23 2 70 3.48 3.28

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings NA. 3.13 3.00 3.57 3.68

Division 3

On-Time Pullouts* 99.60% 99.69% 100% 99.72% 99.74%

MMBCMF 4,505 5,538 6,500 5,735 4,711

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 67.86% 68.70% 70% 71.05% 73.63% •BusTrafficAccidents Per 100,000 Miles 4.63 3.96 2.70 4.31 4.91 fIB

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 2.35 2.61 3.00 3.06 3.41

Division 9

On-TimePullouts* 99.53% 99.72% 100% 99.84% 99.95%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 6,181 8,336 6,500 11,351 10,578 •MechanicalFailures

In-ServiceOn-bme Performance 68.22% 64.56% 70.00% 67.71% 64.87%

BusTrafficAccidents Per 100,000 Miles 2.31 2.56 2.70 2 71 2.55

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 3.82 3.90 3.00 4 33 4.02

*A substantialpo_onof theTransitRadioSystem(TRS)sourcedatatsself-reportedTheremaybeotheroutlates,cancellations,or_ostrevenueservicehoursnotreportedthroughtheTRS_reen - H_ghprobabddyof achieving the FYO3target (on track)

_ellow - Uncerta0nIf the FY03 target will be achieved - shghtproblems, delays or management tssues

=imRedoHvghprobability that the FYO3target will not be achieved -- s=gntficantproblems and/or delays

Metro OperatmonsMonthly Report for May 2003Page 7

Definition: On-time Pullout Performance measures the percentage of buses leaving the operating division

within one minute of the scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service.

Calculation: OTP% = [(100% - [(Total late and cancelled runs / by Total scheduled pullouts) X 100)]

_oo.o%_-

99.5%

99.0%I

98.5% -_

98.0% IJun-02 Jul-02 A_g-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_OTP Systemw_de_ Goal _ Dw 3 _ Div 9 }

Definition: Average Hub Miles traveled between chargeable mechanical problems that result in a service

Calculation: MMBCMF = (Total Hub Miles / by Chargeable Mechanical Related Roadcalls)

15,000

12,000

9,000

_,ooo, _ _ .i/ "_,=p

3,000Jun-02 Jul-O2 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-O3 Apt-03 May-03

_MMBCMF Systemwide -- Goal _ Div 3 ---m-- Div 9

REASONS FOR OUTLA TES andCANCELLAI IONS OUTLA TES CANCELLATIONS

Sched.

Pull- I % of I % of % Total Outlates & ON-.ME PULL- No Operator Bus Mechanical Other

i B

Div. Outs Number I Pullouts Number I Puff-outs Cancellations OUT RA TE Available Failure

_anGabriel Valley (SGV) 99.84%3 6163 0 0.00% 16 0.26% 8.33% 99,74% 1 10 5

9 5569 0 0.00% 3 0.05% 1.56% 99.95% 0 2 1SYS.

TOTAL 71378 5 0 01% 187 0.26% 100.00% 99.73% 18 135 39

Metro Operatons Monthly Report for May 2003 Page 8

SGV SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continu d



100% ,

90% J

80% 1

70"/, _ _ J_ Goal __ _.

60% 1

40%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 SelP02 O¢t-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

I_'-" Systemwide ISOTP _ ON-TIME GOAL _ Div 3 --tB-- Div 9 /t J

30% .

I

25% ]

20% lI

15%

1110%

Jun-02 Jut-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_ Systemwide Early _ Dhv3 --II-- Dlv 9 I


SGV SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued


Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles = (The number of Traffic Accidents / by (Hub Miles / by100,000))5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 1

1.5JI l

;

1.o I iJun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

r_Systemwide _ Goal -*-- Div. 3 --=-- Div. 9 1L J

Definition: Average number of customer complaints per 100,000 boardings. This indicator measures servicequality and customer satisfaction.

Calculation: Customer complaints per 100,000 Boardings = Complaints/(Boardings/100,000)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 _ • _

Goal "__

2.0 I

1.0Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mm'-03 Apr-03 May-03

_Complamts MTA Systemwide _ Div 3 ---!-- Div 9 _ Goal ]


Gateway Cities Sector Scorecard Overview (GC)

This sectorhastwo MTAoperatingdivisions,Division1 and2, bothoperatingoutof thedowntownLos Angelesarea. The sectorwillbe responsiblefor theoperationof approximately365 Metro buses and 16 Metro Bus lines carrying nearly 63.4 million boarding passengers each

year.

This report gives a brief overview of sector operations':

* On-Time Pullout Percentage* In-Service On-Time Performance

* Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical Failures (MMBCMF)

* Traffic Accidents per 100,000 Hub

* Complaints per 100,000 Boardings

Bus Systemwide

On-TimePullouts(system) * 99.36% 99.61% 100.00% 99.64% 99.73%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 4,808 5,415 6,500 6,937 6,147 •MechanicalFailures(MMBCMF)


BusTrafficAccidentsPer 100,000 Miles 3.99 3.91 2.70 3.87 4.38

Complaintsper 100,000Boardings 3.11 3.54 3.00 4.22 4.30

GC Sector

On-Time Pullouts* N.A. 99.64% 100% 99 78% 99 83%

MMBCMF N.A. 6,726 6,500 7,770 8,790 •

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance N.A. 70% 74.49% 74.38% •BusTrafficAccidentsPer 100,000 Miles N.A. 4.49 2.70 4.12 5.23

Complaintsper 100,000Boardings N.A. 2.07 3.00 2.63 2.93 •

Division 1

On-Time Pullouts* 99.69% 99.84% 100% 99.81% 99.79%

MMBCMF 2,036 8,510 6,500 10,164 11,671 •

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 70.78% 74.95% 70% 78.33% 76.61% •BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000 Miles 4 50 4 51 2.70 3.41 4.37

Complaintsper 100,000Boardings 1.72 1 76 3.00 2.24 2.65 •

Division 2

On-Time Pullouts* 99.18% 99.44% 100% 99.74% 99.88%

MMBCMF 2,301 5,514 6,500 6,248 6,908

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 61.26% 63.01% 70% 67 20% 71.55%

BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000 Miles 5.34 4 48 2.70 4.86 6.18 _1

Complaintsper 100,000Boardings 2.43 2.38 3.00 3.09 3 26

*A substantialportionoftheTransitRadioSystem(TRS)sourcedataisself-reported.Theremaybeotheroutlates,cancellations,orlostrevenueservicehoursnotreportedthroughtheTRSC_Green- Highprobabilityof achievingthe FY03 target (ontrack)

_ellow - Uncertainif the FY03 targetwill be achieved - slightproblems,delaysof management_ssues

m_Red - High probablhtythatthe FY03 target will notbe achieved *- sDgn_cantproblemsand/ofdelays

Metro Operations Monthly Reportfor May 2003Page11

Definition: On-time Pullout Performance measures the percentage of buses leaving the operating divisionwithin one minute of the scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service.


100.0%

99.5%

99.0%

98.5% IJun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

I_OTP Systemwide _ Goal --B-- Div 1 _ Div 2 II

Definition: Average Hub Miles traveled between chargeable mechanical problems that result in a servicedisruption of greater than ten minutes.


17,000

15,000

13,000

11,000 1_

,ooo _...,27,000 _ " P_l

,,ooo f3,000 i

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

_MMBCMF Systemwide _ Goal ---m--Div 1 _ Div 2

REASONS FOR OUTLATES and

CANCELLATIONS OUTLA TES CANCELLATIONSSched.

Pull- I % of I % of % Total Outlates & ON-TIME PULL" N° Operat°r Bus Mechanical OtherDiv. Outs Number Pull-outs Number Pull-outs Cancellations OUT RA TE Available Failure

Gateway Cities (GWC) 99.83%

1 6074 0 0.00% 13 0.21% 6.77% 99.79% 0 11 22 5792 0 0.00% 7 0.12% 3.65% 99,88% 2 2 3

5Y', _.

TOT _.L 71378! 5 0 01% 187 0.26% 100,00% 99.73% 18 135 39

Metro Operatuons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 12

GC SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued



1o0% I

90%

80% y_..._l____

60% -,

I,50= _j

J

40%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

_'_" Systemwide ISOTP _ ON-TIME GOAL --!1-- Div 1 --&-- Div 2 /L J

30% ,

I

25% 120%

I

15°/, t

10%

5%

IJun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

I_ Systemwide Early --I!-- Div 1 _ Div 2 I


GC SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued


Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles -- (The number of Traffic Accidents ! by (Hub Miles ! by

100,000))

7.0

6.0

5.5

5.0 i

4.5

4.0 :

3.5

3.0

2.5

Jun-O2 Jul-02 Aug-O2 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-O2 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-O3

[_ Systemwide _ Goal -4-- Div. 1 _ Div. 2 ]

Definition: Average number of customer complaints per 100,000 boardings. This indicator measures servicequality and customer satisfaction.Calculation: Customer complaints per 100,000 Boardings = Complaints/(Boardings/100,000)

4.0

2.5

1.0-Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

--l-- Div 1 _ Div 2 _ Goal /

L

J


South Bay Sector Scorecard Overview (SB)

This sectorhastwo MTAoperatingdivisions,Division5 in InglewoodandDivision18 inCarson.The sectorwillbe responsibleforthe operationof approximately530 Metrobusesand 32 MetroBuslinescarryingover85.6 millionboardingpassengerseachyear.

This reportgivesa briefoverviewof sectoroperations':* On-Time PulloutPercentage* In-ServiceOn-Time Performance

* Mean MilesBetweenChargeableMechanicalFailures(MMBCMF)* TrafficAccidentsper 100,000 Hub* Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings

Bus Systemwide

On-TimePullouts(system)* 99.36% 99.61% 100% 99.64% 99.73%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 4,808 5,415 6,500 6,937 6,147 _1MechanicalFailures

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 63.71% 64.88% 70% 69.17% 68.90%BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000 Miles 3.99 3.91 2.70 3.87 4 38 mlB

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 3.11 3.54 3.00 4.22 4.30 i

SB Sector

On-TimePullouts* N.A. 99.75% 100% 99.69% 99.77%

MMBCMF N.A. 5,665 6,500 6,307 5,030 •In-ServiceOn-timePerformance NA. 70% 63.43% 63.08% iBm

BUSTraffic AccidentsPer100,000 Miles N.A. 4.03 2.70 4.01 4.99

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings N.A. 3 42 3.00 4.04 3.58

Division 5

On-TimePullouts* 99.57% 99.74% 100% 99.70% 99.89%

MMBCMF 3,047 8,883 6,500 8,936 7,994 •

In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 64.94% 63.31% 70% 65.94% 64.02%

BusTrafficAccidentsPer 100,000Miles 4.45 4.35 2.70 4.64 4.91 i

Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings 2.45 2.47 3.00 2.88 2.75 •

Division 18

On-TimePullouts* 99.24% 99.76% 100% 99.68% 99 67%

MMBCMF 3,938 4,514 6,500 5,189 3,921In-ServiceOn-timePerformance 59.98% 60.19% 70% 61.04% 62.50% i

BusTraffic AccidentsPer 100,000Miles 3.57 3.80 2.70 3.55 3.66 i

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 4.75 4 39 3.00 5.27 4.44

• A substant;al portion of the Transit Radio System (TRS) source data =sself-reported There may be other outlates, cancellations, or lost

revenue service hours not reported through the TRS

_Green - High probabdltyof achtewngthe FYO3target (ontrack)

_(ellow - Uncertainif the FY03 targetwill be achDeved-- shghtproblems,delaysor management=ssues

_ed - High probabd=tythatthe FY03 target will not be ach=eved- slgn:ficantproblems and/or delays

Metro Operations MonthlyReportfor May 2003Page 15

Definition: On-time Pullout Performance measures the percentage of buses leaving the operating division

within one minute of the scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service.


,oooo%,. / oa,99.5%

99.0% -_

i

98.5% IJun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_OTP Systemwide -- Goal --l-- Div5 _ Div 18 ]

D finition: Average Hub Miles traveled between chargeable mechanical problems that result in a service

disruption of greater than ten minutes.


14,000 ]

12,000

6,000 _

4,000 _

2'000ju_, £,_O 1_ 2 N(:-02 Dec-02 Jan-O3 Feb-03 Ma'r-03 Apr-O3 May-03

I_ MMBCMF Systemwide Goal _ Div 5 _ Div 18 t

REASONS FOR OUTLA TES andCANCELLATIONS OUTL.ATES CANCELLATIONS_ched.

Pull- % of I % of % Total Outlates & ON-TIME PULL- No Operator Bus Mechanical Other

B

Div. Outs Number Pull-outs Number I Puff-outs Cancellations OUT RATE Available Failure

South Bay (SB) 99.77%5 7267 0 0.00% 8 0.11% 4.17% 99.89% 1 6 1

"/8 9143 0 0.00% 30 0.33% 15.63% 99.67% 4 21 5SYS.

TOTAL: 71378 5 0.01% 187 0.26% 100 00% 99.73% 18 135 39

Metro Operations Monthly Reportfor May 2003Page 16

SB SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Definition: This performance indicator measures the percentage of scheduled buses that depart selected

time points no more than 1 minute early and no more than five minutes later than scheduled.

Calculation: ISOTP% =1-((Number of buses departing early + Number of buses departing more than five

minutes late)/(Total buses sampled))

100%

90%

80%

70%d

60%I

50%


[_ SystemwideISOTP _ ON-TIME GOAL ---A--- Div 5 ---II-- Oiv 18 It I

25%

20%

15%I

10%,

5%


I_ SystemwideEarly _ Div5 --B-- Div 181|

MetroOperationsMonthlyReportfor May 2003Page 17

SB SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continu d

Definition: Average number of Traffic Accidents for every 100,000 Hub Miles traveled. This indicator measuressystem safety.Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles = (The number of Traffic Accidents / by (Hub Miles / by100,000))

60 i

2.5 Goal

2.0 _ Ii 1

' i11.5[

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

_Systemwide _ Goal _ Div. 5 --*- Div. 18

Definition: Average number of customer complaints per 100,000 boardings. This indicator measures serviceCalculation: Customer complaints per 100,000 Boardings = Complaints/(Boardings/100,000)

5.5- _ --

f ,4.01

2.5 - _ Goal

1.0 -

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep.02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May.03

_Complaints MTA Systemwlde _ Div 5 _ Div 18 _ Goal

Metro OperatJons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 18

Westside/Central Sector Scorecard Overview (WC)

This sector has three MTA operatingdivisions,Division6 in Venice, Division7 in West Hollywood,and Division10 in Los Angeles, near the Gateway building. The sectorwill be responsiblefor theoperationof approximately605 Metro buses and 25 Metro Bus lines carryingnearly 89.3 millionboarding passengers each year.

This reportgives a brief overview of sectoroperations':* On-Time PulloutPercentage* In-Service On-Time Performance

* Mean Miles Between Chargeable Mechanical Failures (MMBCMF)* Traffic Accidents per 100,000 Hub

* Complaints per 100,000 Boardings

Bus Systemwide

On-Time Pullouts (system) * 99.36% 99.61% 100.00% 99.64% 99.73%

Mean Miles Between Chargeable 4,808 5,415 6,500 6,937 6,147Mechanical Failures (MMBCMF)

In-Service On-time Performance 63.71% 64.88% 70 00% 69.17% 68 90%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Miles 3.99 3.91 2.70 3.87 4.38 I

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 3.11 3.54 3.00 4 22 4.30 I

WC Sector

On-Time Pullouts * N.A. 99.59% 100% 99.36% 99.50%

MMBCMF N.A. 6,099 6,500 5,786 5,035

In-Service On-time Performance N.A. 70% 67.79% 68.70%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Miles N.A. 4.69 2.70 4.65 5.25 I

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings N.A. 3.33 3.00 4.76 5.32 I

Division 6

On-Time Pullouts * 99.21% 99.73% 100% 99 85% 99.95%

MMBCMF 9,868 9,241 6,500 8,063 6,785 •

In-Service On-time Performance 59.23% 64.64% 70% 66.08% 65.52%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Miles 4.70 4.18 2.70 4.51 7.94 I

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 4.73 4.51 3.00 5.91 7 34 I

Division 7

On-Time Pullouts * 99.38% 99.59% 100% 99.37% 99.42%

MMBCMF 5,647 6,942 6,500 5,458 4,834

In-Service On-time Performance 57 80% 67.96% 70% 68.78% 70.53%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Miles 5.53 5.23 2.70 4 77 6.13 I

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 3.07 3.36 3.00 4 63 4.91 I

Division 10

On-Time Pullouts * 99.27% 99.56% 100% 99.25% 99.48%

MMBCMF 3,787 5,121 6,500 5,832 4,992

In-Service On-time Performance 63.76% 63.56% 70% 67.11% 68.08%

Bus Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Mtles 3.88 4.23 2.70 4.55 3.78 I

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 2.73 3.13 3.00 4.70 5.37 I

* A substantialpo_tonof theTransttRadioSystem(TRS) sourcedata tsself-reported.Theremaybe otheroutlates,cancellabons,or lostrevenueservmehoursnot reportedthroughthe TRS_Green -H_jhprobal_lltyofachtevingtheFY03target(ontrack)

,_'eltow- UncertaintftheFY03targetwnbeachieved- sl_jhtprol_ems,delaysormanagementtssues

=_Red- HighprobabdttythattheFY03targetv,nllnotbeachieved- significantwoblemsand/ordelays


Definition: On-time Pullout Performance measures the percentage of buses leavingthe operating divisionwithin one minuteof the scheduled pullout time The higher the number, the more reliable the service.Calculation: OTP% = [(100% - [(Total late and cancelled runs / by Total scheduled pullouts)X 100)]

100.0%Goal

99.5%

99.0%

98.5%

98.0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_OTP D_v6 --l-- Div 7 --t-- Div 10 ]Systemwide Goal

D finition: Average Hub Miles traveled between chargeable mechanical problems that result in a servicedisruption of greater than ten minutes.Calculation: MMBCMF= (Total Hub Miles / by Chargeable Mechanical Related Roadcalls)

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000Jun -02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec -02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

I_MMBCMF _ Goal --'Jr-- D_v6 ---l--- Div 7 --e-- Div 10 1Systemwide

REASONS FOR OUTLA TES andCANCELLATIONS OUTLATES

Sched. CANCELLA TIONS

Pull- % of % of % Total Outlates & ON-TIME PULL- No Operator Bus Mechanical OtherDiv. Outs Number Pull-outs Number Pull-outs Cancellations OUT RATE A vailable Failure

Westside/Central (WC) 99.50%6 2037 0 ' 0 00% 1 0.05% 0.52% 99.95% 0 1 07 8045 5 0 06% 42 0.52% 24 48% 99.42% 6 32 9

10 9087 0 0.00% 47 0.52% 24.48% 99.48% 4 34 9SYS.

TOTAL 71378 5 0.01% 187 0.26% 100,00% 99.73% 18 135 39

Metro Operahons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 20

WC SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued




lOO%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 AIx-03 May-03

I_ SystemwideISOTP _ ON-TIME GOAL ---dk--Div6 --B-- Div7 _ Div 10 ]I I

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

o%1Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

I_ SystemwideEarly _ Div 6 --B-- Div 7 --e-- Div 10 I

Metro OperationsMonthly Reportfor May 2003Page 21

WC SECTOR BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Definition:AveragenumberofTrafficAccidentsforevery100,000Hub Miles traveled.Thisindicatormeasuressystem safety.Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles = (The number of Traffic Accidents ! by (Hub Miles / by

oo,ooo))

8.0, /!:7.0 ]

6.0

5.0 :

4.0

3.0 i

2.0

11.0 tI

;0.01Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

[_Systemwide _Goal --*-Div, 6 + Div. 7 _ Div, 10 l

Definition:Averagenumberofcustomercomplaintsper 100,000boardings.Thisindicatormeasuresservicequalityand customersatisfaction.Calculation: Customercomplaintsper100,000Boardings=Complaintsl(Boardings1100,000)

7.0- i

1

5.5-

4.0-

Goal2.5-

1.0 -

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

i _Complaints MTA Systemwtde _ Div 6 _ DIv7 Dw 10 ]Goal

Metro OperahonsMonthly Report for May 2003Page 22

Metro Rail Scorecard Ov rvi w

MetroRailoperatesoneheavyrail line,Metro Red Line fromUnionStationto NorthHollywoodandtwo lightrail lines,MetroBlueLine fromdowntownto LongBeachandMetroGreenLinealongthe 105 freeway. MetroRail isresponsibleforthe operationof approximately74 heavyrailcars and66 lightrailcarscarryingnearly5.8 millionboardingpassengerseachyear.

This reportgivesa briefoverviewof sectoroperations':* On-Time PulloutPercentage* In-ServiceOn-Time Performance* Mean Miles BetweenChargeableMechanicalFailures(MMBMF)* TrafficAccidentsper 100,000 TrainMiles* Complaintsper 100,000 Boardings

Metro Red Line (MRL)

On-Time Pullouts 99.53% 99.89% 99.40% 99.35% 99.52%

Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 1,644 9,842 10,000 8,260 7,733MechanicalFailures


Traffic Accidents Per 100,000Train Miles 0.08 0.22 0.10 0.08 0.00 t

Complaints per 100,000 Boardings 0.83 0 73 0.85 1.17 0.95 I

Metro Blue Line (MBL)

On-Time Pullouts 99.09% 99.43% 99.00% 99.09% 99.16% •Mean MilesBetweenChargeable 4,221 4,897 10,000 6,171 5,831 IMechanicalFailures


Traffic Accidents Per 100,000Train Miles 1.75 0.97 0.55 0.83 2.12


Metro Green Line (MGrL)

On-Time Pullouts 99.29% 99.62% 99.00% 98.92% 99.79%

Mean Miles Between Chargeable 5,891 3,990 10,000 5,459 6,678 IMechanical Failures

In-Service On-time Performance 99.09% 99.16% 98.00% 98.14% 98.85% •

Traffic Accidents Per 100,000Train Miles 0.07 0.00 0.55 0.15 0.00 •


• Green - High probability of achieving the FY03 target (on track).

Yellow- Uncertainif the FY03 targetwill be achieved - slightproblems,delaysor managementissues.

I Red- Highprobabilitythatthe FY03 targetwillnotbe achieved- significantproblemsand/ordelays.

Metro Operations MonthlyReport for May 2003Page 23

Definition: On-time Pullouts measures the percentage of trains leaving the yard within ninety seconds of Ithe scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service. FCalculation: OTP% = [(100% - [(Total cancelled pullouts plus late pullouts) / by Total scheduledpullouts) X by 100)]

Heavy Rail (Red Line) OTP

100.0%

99.5% _/

99.0%

98.5%

98.0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep=02 Oct-O2 Nov-O2 Dec=02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

Light Rail (Blue & Green Lines) OTP100.0%

99.0% Ra_Goal

98.0%

97.0%

96.0%



RAIL SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Definition: In-Service On-Time Performance measures the percentage of trains leaving all timecheckpoints on any run no earlier than thirty seconds, nor later than 5 minutes of the scheduled time. Thehigher the number, the more reliable the service.

Calculation: ISOTP% = [(100% minus [(Total runs inwhich a train left any timecheck point either late orearly) / by Total scheduled runs) X by 100)]

Heavy Rail (Red Line) ISOTPloo.o%

i

99.5%

99.0,/,

98.5%

98.0%

97.5%

97.0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

Light Rail (Blue & Green Lines) ISOTP100.0%

99.0%

98.0%

97.0%

96.0%

95.0%dun-02 duJ-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

MetroOperations Monthly Reportfor May 2003Page 25


Definition: This performance indicator measures the percentage of scheduled Revenue Service Hoursdelivered after subtracting cancellations, outlates and in-service delays.

Calculation: SRSHD% = (1-(Total Service Hours Lost / by Total Scheduled Service Hours))

Heavy Rail (Red Line) SRSHD100.0%

Ii

99.5%

99.0%

98.5%

98.0%

97.5%

97.0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

o Light Rail (Blue & Green Lines) SRSHD

°°i°oli

\ /1 \/

'°"°%t . "d

Metro Operahons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 26


Definition: Mean vehicle miles between Revenue Vehicle Failures. NTD defined Revenue Vehicle

Failures are vehicle systems failures that occur in revenue service and during deadhead miles in which thevehicle did not complete its scheduled revenue trip or in which the vehicle did not start its next scheduled

revenue trip.

Calculation: MVMBRVF = Total Vehicle Miles / Revenue Vehicle Systems Failures

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-O3 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

Red Line _ Blue Line _ Green Line _ GOAL

MetroOperations MonthlyReport for May 2003Page 27

D finition: The Zero Tolerance Program was developed to maintain graffiti free stations and rail cars.The rail cleanliness rating measures the performance of this program in one of its categories. Thechart below indicates the total cost for parts and labor associated with graffiti and vandalismabatement.

Calculation: Total Rail Cleanliness Cost = [Sum of (Part cost * Quantity)] + [Sum of (Average LaborTime to Install Part * Quantity) * Average Fully Burdened Mechanic Labor Salary]Note: Part and labor costs are calculated at time of purchase,

$125,000

$100,000

$75,000

$50,000

$25,000

_

Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

J• Blue Line • Red Line • Green Line [] Metro Rail Total

Total FY03 Metro Rail Year-to-Date Cost: $1,022,198


_i_,_:_'_" _;_,_"._ _"_'___ _ _ _._'_____j_....r__.__: ,_ _ _ _ . _ _ .__._. ,_ :_;;_ _ _,_.___. _ kI

Definition: On-time PulloutPerformance measures the percentageof buses leaving the operating divisionwithin one minute of the scheduled pullout time. The higher the number, the more reliable the service.


* A substanhal portion of the Transit Radio System (TRS) source data is self-reported. There may be other outlates,cancellations, or lost revenue service hours not reported through the TRS.

_-_'_" _ v_ _--,' _'._ _,_._.._r_..._._:..?_._._S_._:_._._._C_.,,C,_/t_,r.___;-:. ,__._. _ _._.__:, _;-_. _..;_ ._,._ .._

100.0% i

99.5%// Go"99.0o/o_

98.5%

Jun-O2 JuI-O2 Aug-O2 Sep-O2 Oct-O2 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-O3 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-O3

100%

SFV Div8Div15 SGV Div3 Div9 GW Divl Div2 SB DivKDiv18 WC Div6 DivTDivlO FTICOACHTCl MVNorwalk

Trans.

Gateway Cities (GWC) South Bay (SB)

San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley [I [] Mar-03 []Apr-03 [] I Westside/ Contracted ServicesMay-03 I Central(WC) (CS)(SFV) (SGV)

CANCELLATIONS OUTLA TES REASONS FOR OUTLA TES andSched. CANCELLATIONS

Pull. %of %of %TotalOutlates& I ON-TIMEPULL- NoOperator BusMechanical OtherDiv. Outs Number Pull-outs Number Pull-outs Cancellations I OUT RATE A vailabla Failure

San Fernando Valley (SFV) 99.84%

8 I 5077 0 0.00% 5 0.10% 2.60% 99.90% 0 3 2

15 I 7124 0 0.00% 15 0.21% 7.81% 99.79% 0 13 2

San Gabriel Valley (SGV) 99.84°/,

3 I 61631 0 0.00% 16 0.26% 8.33% 99.74% 1 10 5

II

9 55691 0 0.00% 3 0.05% 1.56% 99.95% 0 2 1Gateway Cities (GWC) 99.83°/,

2 57921 0.00% 7 0.12% 3.65%1 99.88% 2 2 3South Bay (SB) 99.77%

18 91431 0.00% 30 0.3.3% 15.63% I 99.67% 4 21 5Westside/Central (WC) . 99.50%

6 I 2037 I, il 0.00% 1 0.05% 0.52% 99,95% 0 1 0

7 80451 0.06% 42 0.52% 24.48% 99.42% 6 32 9

10 90871 0.00% 47 0,52% 24.48% 99.48% 4 34 9TOTAL 713781 5 0.01% 187 0.26% 100.00% 99.73% 18 135 39




Calculation: ISOTP% =1-((Number of buses departing early + Number of buses departing more than five

minutes Jate)/(Total buses sampled))

100% I ................................................................................................

80% _ ...........................................................................................................................................

On-Time Goal

60% _ .............................................................................................................................................

40% ..............................................................................................................................................

20% - _ .................. ,_,_"_----- ....... _----- --------- ---------_ ,,,- ...................... _,ii

i i i, i

0%Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

I_ EARLY _ ON-TIME _ LATE _ ON-TIME GOAL]

San Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley Westside/

(SFV) (SGV) Gateway Cities (GWC) South Bay (SB) Central (WC)

lOO% _ _ t

90% -_ .................... zo.,4._................................................ _.zo,i-Ii |

80% _.____.L =1.s5_. i...........................................................................

70% ......

60%

OO/o t i40% 9.97"/................................................................

30%

20%

10%

0% ....

Div.8 Div.15 Div.3 Div.9 Div.1 Div.2 Div.5 Div.18 Div.6 Div.7 Div.10

I IBEARLY nON-TIME _LATE I


BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Year-to-Date Compared To Last Year

_ Variance FYO3-YI'D VarianceSan Fernand( Valley Sector (SFV) San Gabriel Valley Sector (SGV)Division 8 Division 3

Early 8.05% 8.63% 0.58% Early 10.02% 6.38% -3.64%On-Time 67.88% 65.99% -1.89% On-Time 68.70% 73.63% 4.93%

Late 24.06% '25.38% 1.32% Late 21.28% 19.99% -1.28%

Division 15 Division9

Early 9.44% 8.18% -127% Early 12.63% 14.38% 1.75%On-Time 62.51% 59.97% -2.54% On-Time 64.56% 64.87% 0.31%

Late 28.05% 31.85% 3.80% Late 22.81% 20.74% -2.07%

Gateway Cities Sector (GWC) WestsidelCentral Sector (WC)Division 1 Division6

Early 11.69% 8.38% -3.31% Early 15.45% 9.17% -6.28%OnTime 74.95%" 76.61% 1.66% On-Time 64.64% 6_.52% 0.89%

Late 13.35% 15.00% 1.65% Late 19.91% 25.30% 5.39%

Division 2 Division7Early 15.63% 11.61% -4.02% Early 12.46% 14,16% 1.70%

• . ,On-_e: 63.01% :_ 71.55% _, _ 6.54,% On-Time - 67.96% - ""iO.53% , ,2.58%Late 21.35% 16.84% -4.52% Late 19.58% 15,31% -4.28%

South Bay Sector (SB) Division 10

Division 5 Early 14.48% 9.72% -4.76%Early 12.52% 15.90% 3.38% on::li_e 6_56% -68_08% 4_52%

on,Time 63.31% " 64:02% 0_71,% Late 21.96% 22.20% 0.24%Late 24.18% 20.08% -4.09%

Division 18 SYSTEMWIDEEarly 12.27% 9.56% -2.71% Early 12.45% 10.68% -1.77%

On,:-Time 60.19% 62.50% 2.31% on_Time _ 66_42% 69.17% 2.75%Late 27.55% 27.94% 0.40% Late 21.14% 20.14% -1.00%


BUS SERVICE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Definition: This performance indicator measures the percentage of scheduled Revenue Service Hoursdelivered after being offset by cancellations, outlates and in-service equipment failures.

Calculation: SRSHD% = (Lost Revenue Service Hours minus Recovered Service Hours divided by TotalScheduled Service Hours)

100.00%GOAL

99.50% ..........................................................................................................................

m i __99.00% .........................

98.50% .............................................................................................................................

98.00% ............................................................................................................................

97.50% ......................................................................................................


Performance Year-to-Date Compared To Last Year

_ Variance

FV) _ Varianc'-"_e!00Oo I Division 008Oo_5198._o/o I 98.99%I 0.40% I Division9199.1.°/oI 99..4°/o! 0.30%I

Gateway Cities Sector (GWC) WestsidelCentral Sector (WC)Division 1 99.27% 99.34% 0.07% Division 6 99.11% 98.97% -0.14%Division 2 98.80% 99.05% 0.25% Division 7 99.12% 99.01% -0.11%

Division 10 99.17% 98.92% -0.25%

South Bay Sector (SB)

Division 5199.08% 99.13% 0.05% I Systemwidel 9901%1 99"07%I- 006%lDivision 18 98.89% 98.86% -0.03%

San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley Westside/

(SFV) (SGV) Gateway Cities (GWC) South Bay (SB) Central (WC)

99 53% 99 01%lOO% 99.02% 99.24% 9889% 99.29% 9906% 99 21% 99 31% 99.11% 98.97% 99.14% 98.84% 99.00% 9983% 99.01%

[ []Mar-03 []Apr-03 []May-03 I

Metro Operattons Monthly Report for May 2003Page 32

Definition: Average Hub Miles traveled between chargeable mechanical problems that result in a

service disruption of greater than ten minutes.


8,500

8,000

7,500,,ooo_ _ _ ,6,500 _ "_-

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 O¢t-02 Nov-O2 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-O3 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gatewav Cities South I_v (SBI WA,_x;rb,_'

16,000 _- - (SFVJ.... _JSGV) _ _ __ GL__WCL...... cen_ tWCL __ __

12,000

10,000

8,000

,,000 i4,000 _- _ , -2,000 ...........

Di 15 SFV Div3 Div9 SGV Divl Div2 GWC Div5 Div18 SB Div6 Div7 Div10 WC

I I_ Mar-03 E]Apr-03 BMay-03 I

San Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gatewav Gibes South B_y (SB) Westalde/(SFV) (SGV) (GWC) Central (WC)

l t'1I I Illf;_:::-- .... -1Oiv.8 Oiv. 15 Div. 3 Div. 9 Div. 1 Oiv. 2 Oiv.5 Div. 18 Div. 6 Div. 7 Div. 10

I [] CNG [] Diesel (Except FlexMetro) [] FlexMetro Diesel ]

Metro Operations Monthly Report for May 2003Page33

MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE - Continued

Number of Buses Percent of Buses

CNG 1,884 75.54%Diesel (Except FlexMetro) 484 19.41%FlexMetro Diesel 31 124%Gasoline 61 2.45%

Propane 34 1.36%Total 2,494 100.00%

Average Age of Fleet by Sectors' Divisions

SFV SGV GWC SBDiv 8 Div 15 Div 3 Div 9 Div 1 Div 2 Div 5 Div 186.7 5.9 6.1 5.3 3.2 3.0 3.4 5.5

I wc IDiv 6 Div 7 Div 109.0 3.5 5.1

Definition: Average past due criticalscheduled preventive maintenance jobs per bus. This indicatormeasures maintenance management's ability to prioritize and perform critical repairs and indicates thegeneral maintenance condition of the fleet.

Calculation: Past Due Critical PMP's = (Total Past Due Critical PMP's / by Buses)

o.sI Goal

0.4 ]0.3

0.2 _0.1

0.0 I ,


0.70

0.60San Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Westside/

i 0.50 -- -- -- (sL=V) ($GVJ_ (GWC) Central 0NC.)-- --

0.40

0.30

o,00.00 #TIDw. 8 DIV. 15 Dtv. 3 Div. 9 Div. 1 Div. 2 Div. 5 Div. 18 Div. 6 Div. 7 Div. 10

[ l_Mar-03 r:lApr-03 nMay-03 ]

MetroOperationsMonthlyReportforMay2003Page34

Definition: The Zero Tolerance Program was developed to maintain a graffiti free bus fleet. The bus cleanlinessrating measures the performance of this program in one of its categories. The chart below indicates the total cost forparts and labor associated with graffitti and vandalism abatement.

Calculation: Bus Cleanliness Cost = [Sum of (Part cost * Quantity)] + [Sum of (Average Labor Time to Install Part *Quantity) * Average Fully Burdened Mechanic Labor Salary]

Note: Part and labor costs are calculated at time of purchase.

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$-Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

Total FY03 Metro Bus Year-to-Date Cost: $4,241,642

$1oo,oooT| San Femando San Gabriel Gateway Clbes Southbay(SB) Westslde/Central RRC

$50,000 ...................

$-Div8 Div15 Div3 Div9 Divl Div2 Div5 Div18 Div6 Div7 Divl0 RRC

MetroOperationsMonthlyReportfor May2003Page35

Definition: Maintenance Mechanics and Service Attendants - % attendance Monday through Friday forthe month.

Calculation: 1-(FTEs absent / by the total FTEs assigned)

100.0%

98.0%

94.0%

92.0%

90.0% r


100.0% !

Westsidel

San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Central (WC)(SFV) (SGV) (GWC)

198.0% w._-,_

_.o_ __ 96_ H°"_ _ i)% _6.26% 96 56% i

96.0% .........

94.0°/° ............

92.0°/° ...........

90.0%

Div8 Div15 Div3 Div9 Divl Div2 Div5 Div18 Div6 Div7 Div10

I I_Mar-03 I;-IApr-03 nMay-03 ]

Metro Operat=onsMonthly Reportfor May 2003Page 36

...................... _ , ,_ ,,i ,,, ,, ,, ,, r .... r i

Definition: Average number of Traffic Accidents for every 100,000 Hub Miles traveled. This indicator

measures system safety.

Calculation: Traffic Accidents Per 100,000 Hub Miles = (The number of Traffic Accidents / by (HubMiles / by 100,000))

5.0 I

4.5

3.0 ¸

2.5 Goal

2.0 , , , IJun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

Note The thirteen months prior to the reportingmonthare re-examinedeach monthto allowfor reclassificabonof accidentsand latefilingof reports.

8.0 San Femando Valley San Gab,-iet Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Westside/

I (SFV) (SGV) (GWC) Central (WC) ]6.O _------

2.0 ---- ""*'_'_- ----

0.0 I ........

Div. 8 D_v 15 DIv. 3 Div. 9 Div. 1 Div 2 Div. 5 Div 18 Div. 6 Div. 7 Div. 10

I KsMar-03 [] Apt-03 [] May-03 [

Metro OperationsMonthlyReportfor May 2003Page 37

I) finition: Average number of PassengerAccidents for every 100,000 Boardings.This indicatormeasures system safety.Calculation: PassengerAccidents Per 100,000 Boardings = (The number of PasengersAccidents / by(Boardings / by 100,000))

0.3

\0.2 -- - ---'_

Goal

0.1

0.0Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

Note The thirteen months pnor to the reporting month are re-examined each month to allow for reclassification of accidents and latefiling of reports

San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Westsidd I

1.0 --- (SFV)) ..... (SGV) ....... (GWC) .......... Central (WC L ,

0°8 -

0,6 -

0.4 .......

Div. 8 Div. 15 Div. 3 Div. 9 Div. I Div. 2 Div. 5 Div. 18 Div. 6 Div. 7 Div. 10

[] Mar-03 E]Apr-03 [] May-03 ]


Definition: Average number of Rail Accidents for every 100,000 Revenue Train Miles traveled. This

indicator measures system safety.

Calculation: Rail Accidents Per 100,000 Revenue Train Miles = (The number of Rail Accidents / by

Revenue Train Miles / by 100,000))

3.0

2.5

z.o /

1.5

1.0

0.5

-0.1Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec.02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

_ RedLine _ BlueLine _ Green Line I

_ RLeiI_----"_-'=-_11,9_I ",,t_ r_mm;_=gIID| PI"L'_= =_-_-L-_'i'_n__m_,_6_iIBIBAI_e, -'_-.. ....................

Definition: Average number of Rail Passenger Accidents for every 100,000 Boardings. This indicator

measures system safety.

Calculation: Rail Passenger Accidents Per 100,000 Boardings = (The number of Rail Passenger

Accidents / by (Train Boardings / by 100,000))

0.3 ¸

0.2 ¸

0.1

0"_un-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Fel)-03 Mar-03 Alx-03 May-03

[-- Red Line -- Blue Line _ Green Line IL I

Metro Operat=onsMonthlyReport for May 2003Page 39

Definition: Average numberof customer complaints per 100,000 boardings. This indicatormeasuresservice quality and customer satisfaction.

Calculation: Customer complaints per 100,000 Boardings = Complaintsl(BoardingsllO0,O00)

6.0

5.0 l

4.0 ..

3.0Goal

2.0

1.0 t

I0.0 I

Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 0¢t-02 N0v-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03

18.0

(cs)16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0 •San Femando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Westside/ Rail

(SFV) (SGV) (GWC) Central (WC)8.0 ..........

0.0DIvll DivlS DIv3 Dw9 DIvl DIv2 DWS Oiv18 Dt¥6 O_v7 DfvlO FTI Coach TCI MV Rail

"MV's boarding.... pprox. 10,0OO.Theref....... gle compla ....... Its m a large swing incomplaints per 10_,000 hoardings, f ]

NOV.f_ld boarding under review and not released [ [] Mar-03 I:lApr_03 [] May-03 J


Definition: This indicator measures the total new indemnity claims per 100 Transit Operationsemployees filed each month (Includes: Transportation, Maintenance, Rail and all Administration).

Calculation: Workers Compensation Claims per 100 Employee-Month = Total New WorkersCompensation Claims filed by Transit Operations Employees/(Total Transit Operations positions in whichthere is an incumbent during the month/100).

New Metro Operations Indemnity Claims/100 Employees3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Jun-02 Jul-O2 Aug-02 Sep-02 O¢t-02 Nov-02 De¢-O2 Jan-03 Feb-O3 Mar-03 Apt-03 May-03

_Jmmm

Definition: This indicator reflects a three-month view of Bus & Rail new indemnity claims per 100employees in which there is an incumbent each month.

Calculation: New workers compensation claims per 100 employees by Division & Rail for three months= Total new workers compensation claims filed by Division & Rail employees/(total positions occupied inthe Division & Rail during the month/100).

8.00

7.00 ......San Fernando Valley San Gabriel Valley Gateway Cities South Bay (SB) Westside/ Rail

(SFV) (SGV) (GWC) Central (WC)6.00

5.00

4000000O'lLloo .........0.00 ............. -_:Div.8 Div.15 Div.3 Div.9 Div.l Dlv.2 Div.5 Div.18 Div.6 Div.7 Div.10 Rail

[ mMar-03 l_Apr-03 _May-03 j

Metro Operations Monthly Report for May 2003

Page 41

IDefinition: A performance awareness program designed to increase productivity and efficiency.

Calculation: Performance by Division are ranked from best to worst. A score of 1 to 11 is assigned, with 11 being the best and 1 being the worst.

Each score for each performance indicator is then multiplied by the weight assigned to the particular performance ind_cator and then summed.

Summed values are sorted from high to low and the Division with the highest score wins the program award for the month.

Maintenance

Weight Div 1 Div 2 Div3 Div 5 Div 6 Div 7 Div8 Div9 Div 10 Div 15 Div 18

On-Time Pullouts 35% 0.99786 0.99879 0.99740 0.99890 0.99951 0.99416 0.99902 0.99946 0.99483 0,99789 0.99672Points 5 7 4 8 11 1 9 10 2 6 3

Miles Between

Mechanical Failures 30% 11671 6908 4711 7993 6785 4834 8066 10578 4992 8855 3921

Points 11 6 2 7 5 3 8 10 4 9 1

_,_ '_ 0._0 _0 '_0:_27 0:95_2_ _o:_z 01_7_:. 0_2: 0.970_ _:_ 0._7 o._._Points 5 1 9 4 11 10 7 8 6 2 3

Points 5 6 7 8 2 4 11 1 9 4 10

Totals 6.80 5.60 4.75 7.10 7.40 3.55 8.80 7.90 4,60 5.90 3.80

FINAL Maintenance Division Ranking (Sorted)RANKING DIV. Div 8 Div 9 Div 6 Div 5 Div 1 Div 15 Div 2 Div 3 Div 10 Div18 Div 7

Rank 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 1lth

MAINTENANCE1,00

0.00

9.00 s.j__.e7.90

8.00 -- -- _.4u

. 6.807.00 -- --

6.906.00 -- __ __ _ _n

5.00 -- __ 4.75

3.00 --

2.00 --

1.00 --

0.00

Div 8 Div9 Div 6 Div 5 Div 1 Div15 Div 2 Div 3 Div 10 Div 18 Div 7

MetroOperationsMonthlyReportfor May 2003Page 42

"HOW YOU DOIN'?" PROGRAM - Continued

Definition: A performance awareness program designed to increase producbvity and efficiency.

Calculation: Performance by Division are ranked from best to worst. A score of 1 to 11 zs assigned, with 11 being the best and 1 being the worst.

Each score for each performance indicator is then multiplied by the weight assigned to the particular performance indicator and then summed.

Summed values are sorted from high to low and the Division with the highest score wins the program award for the month.

Transportation

Weight Div I Div 2 Div 3 Div 5 Div 6 Div7 Div 8 Div 9 Div 10 Div 15 Div 18

On-Time Pullouts 15% 0.99786 0.99879 0.99740 0.99890 0.99951 0.99416 0.99902 0.99946 0.99483 0.99789 0.9967;

Points 5 7 4 8 11 1 9 10 2 6

In-Service On-Time

_ance 15% 0.7661 0.7155 0.7363 0.6402 0.6552 0.7053 0.6599 0.6487 0.6808 0.5997 0.62._Points 11 9 10 3 5 8 6 4 7 1

.._._,209,fe_L . ;_ _.0.C_;.38 .... 0,.t161 .., '_0,0638': _0.11__. - : 0,(_17:" ..0.14iS i: _ 0;0_63 0.1438 -"_09"_2._ 0.08"_8 0.095_Points 9 4 11 1 7 3 8 2 5 10

• . ='-3.65Points 5 2 7 4 1 3 10 11 8 6

Points 11 9 8 10 2 5 I 7 4 3

4

JPoints 5 11 8 3 7 4 10 2 1 6

9

Totals 7.30 7.15 8.15 4.20 8.90 3.90 7.95 5.35 4.20 5,75 6.15

• FINAL TranSlo_rtation Division Ranking (Sorted)

RANKING DIV. Dtv 3 Div 8 Div I Div 2 Div 18 Div 6 DIv 15 Div 9 Div 5 Div 10 Div 7

e_.nk !st -2nd r 3rd ..4th _th _ ,. 7th 8"d_ 9U1" 9th 11th

TRANSPORTATION11.00

10.00

9.00 8.15 7.95

6.00 ._358,_ -- --

4.1111 -- _ _

3.00 -- --2.00 __

1._ __

Div 3 Div8 Div 1 Div 2 Div 18 Div6 Div 15 Div 9 Div 5 Div 10 Oiv 7

MetroOperahonsMonthlyReport for May 2003Page 43

"HOW YOU DOIN'?" PROGRAM - Continued

:_ '*'_ _ _'_ _ _"_ '_.... Y* _ _- -':' ,......... *_ ~ _ "_ __':.V_T _ ..... _" _ _ II

Definition: A performance awareness program designed to increase productivity and efficiency

Calculation- Performance indicators are ranked from best to worst Performance percentages for various indicators are averaged and outcomesare are sorted from h_gh to low The rail line competes with _tself on itsown _mprovemenl over prior year performance The percentage scoreshowing best improvement (or least decline) wins the program award for the month

_1 Metro Blue Line _1 I Metro Red Line I I MetroGreen Line IYearly Yearly Yearly

Wayside Availability May-02 May-O3 _mp_o_eme,_ May-02 May-03 _m_ov_n_,t May-02 May-03 _m_,o_er_-etTrack 100 00% 100.00% 0 00% 10000% 100 00% 0 00% 100 00% 100 00% 0 00%

S_gnals 99 91% 99 98% 0 07% 99 99% 99 89% -0 10% 100 00% 99 90% -0 10%Power 99 91% 99 99% 0 08% 100 00% 100 00% 0 00% 100 00% 99 96% -0 04%

Wayside Performance 99.94"/= 99.99% 0 05% 100.00% 99.96% -0.03% 100,00% 99 95% -0.05%

Vehicle AvailabilityVeh¢clePerformance 99.64% 99.11% -0.53% 99.88% 99.41% -0.47% 99.80% 99.08% -0.72%

Operator AvailabilityOperators 99.92=/= 99.69% -0.23% 99.99% 99.87% -0.12% 99.99% 99.94% -0.05%

In-Service PerformanceISOTP - Ra=l 99.38% 98.77% -0.61% 99.83% 99.18% -0.65% 99.79% 98.88% -0.91%

Total Rail Line Performance 99.72% 99.39% -0.33% 99.92% 99.61% -0.32% 99.90% 99.46% -0.43%

lMetro Rail Final Ranking (Sorted)Rail Line RED BLUE GREEN

0.s0% Metro Rail Ranking - Monthly

-0.318% -0.330% -0.432%0,00%

-0.50%


Documents

TO BOARD OF DIRECTORSboardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/Box04/11007784.001.pdf · 2004-12-27 · Los Angeles, CA SUBJECT: METRO OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE REPORT 90012-2952 FOR MAY 2003