Appendix
Getting to the Route of It: The Role of Governance in Regional Transit
October 2014
Report Appendix
To learn more about how governance affects transit performance outcomes, the Eno Center for Transportation (Eno partnered with TransitCenter to travel to six complex, urbanized areas to study their transit systems and the structures that govern them. The aim was to explore how different regional governance structures help foster—or hinder—the ability of different transit systems to deliver improved service, mobility, and
innovation. This report summarizes insights and conclusions drawn from the experience of these six regions.
Its findings are qualitative and inherently subjective as they are largely based on interviews conducted with
senior officials at numerous organizations in each of the study regions. The goal of the report is to provide
a resource for local- and state-level policy makers interested in understanding the transit governance structures of other regions, and in exploring opportunities to improve performance and customer experience on
their systems. While recognizing that each region is unique in its history, jurisdictional boundaries, and transit network organization, this report concludes with several recommendations for improving existing transit
governance structures.
To select the six regions detailed within the body of this report, the Eno/TransitCenter conducted a preliminary review of 16 candidate regions. The candidate regions were:
•
Atlanta
•
Boston
•
Chicago
•
Dallas/ Fort Worth
•
Denver
•
Los Angeles
•
Miami
•
Minneapolis/ St. Paul
•
Nashville
•
New York/ New Jersey/ Connecticut Metropolitan Region
•
Philadelphia
•
Portland
•
San Diego
•
San Francisco Bay Area
•
Seattle
•
Washington, DC
These initial 16 regions were selected based on a number of qualitative and quantitative criteria, including:
• Regional population. The Eno/TransitCenter team considered regions with populations larger than
one million. The population figures were according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Metropolitan Statistical
Areas.
• Complexity. State boundaries, multiple counties, competing entities, and the number of types of transit
services pose challenges for governance and coordination. The Eno/TransitCenter attempted to select
regions that had greater complexity, as they provide more lessons to be learned.
• Innovation. From the literature review, some regions were mentioned as innovators in transit governance, funding, or regional coordination. Valuable insights could come from learning more about innovative policies and practices.
1
• Geography. To get a fair representation of the United States, the Eno/TransitCenter team sought to select
regions from across the country. This included selecting only one city from each state for initial review,
except for California where evidence of complexity and innovation made several regions stand out.
To determine which of these 16 regions would be the best suited for this study, the Eno/TransitCenter team
conducted a brief review of each region’s transit governance structure.
Atlanta
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), a large agency that operates heavy rail, streetcar, and a local bus network, is the primary transit provider in the Atlanta region. These transit services are
provided almost exclusively within Fulton and DeKalb counties. The largest source of MARTA’s funding is
a one percent sales tax that is levied within the two counties. Twelve board members govern MARTA, with
ten members representing the two counties and the other two representing the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) and the Georgia DOT respectively. The GRTA operates a regional commuter bus
system, Xpress, and works with transportation agencies throughout the state to help coordinate services and
planning. The Atlanta Regional Commission, the region’s MPO, helps to develop the regional transportation
improvement plan, but does not have the authority to carry out projects.
Boston Region
In 2009, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) was created, by merging the Executive Office of Transportation, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the Massachusetts Highway Department, and the Registry of Motor Vehicles. In this process, the primary transit provider, the Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), and other smaller regional transit authorities, were placed under
direct MassDOT oversight and funding. The reorganization was in response to a funding crisis and was
also intended to bring better coordination between the transportation entities and financial stability to
debt-heavy organizations such as the MBTA. Within this structure, funding for the MBTA is from multiple
sources, and an ongoing concern is the annual operating deficit and capital needs of the aging system. While
the new funding streams are an improvement, MBTA still annually struggles to balance their budget.
Chicago
The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) is Chicago’s transit oversight agency that is tasked with funding distribution and regional planning for the region’s three main service boards: Chicago Transit Authority
(CTA), Metra (commuter rail), and Pace (suburban bus). RTA’s board of directors consists of 15 members
and a chairman appointed from the six-county region. CTA, Metra, and Pace are each led by a separate board
of directors. The RTA Board annually develops a budget, which consists primarily of funds that are distributed based on formulas. A small portion of the budget is discretionary, but in recent years CTA has received
the bulk of those funds. In 2012 and 2013, however, RTA’s board was unable to agree on a budget. Based on
this ongoing challenge the State of Illinois developed the Northeastern Illinois Public Transit Task Force to
explore this problem and develop a new approach to funding distribution.
Dallas/ Fort Worth
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) provides public transit service in the Dallas area and consists primarily
of bus and light rail transit lines. Nearby Fort Worth is served by the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.
These two agencies coordinate to provide the Trinity Railway Express, a commuter rail service between the
two cities, with each agency taking a 50 percent stake in the contracted service. The North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG), a very large MPO covering the north-central Texas region, provides
regional coordination. DART is governed by a 15-member board appointed by service area city councils
2
based on population. The 13 cities provide one percent sale tax revenues to support DART, and the agency
has successfully expanded the light rail system over the past two decades.
Denver
The Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) is the primary transit operator in the Denver region, responsible
for operating light rail and bus networks in the many counties surrounding Denver. RTD is governed by a
publicly elected board of directors, with each director representing specific regional districts. The agency is
funded primarily through revenues from a one percent sales tax, with a large portion of the existing sales
tax devoted to the “FasTracks” program, a multi-billion dollar expansion program to build commuter rail,
light rail, and BRT. RTD is the entity in charge of the transit investment and planning. RTD’s elected board
appears to be effective in stabilizing regional funding equity disputes and has been able to raise substantial
revenue for transit expansion. The Denver region lacks many of the jurisdictional complexities that many
other regions face.
Los Angeles
Transit in Los Angeles includes multiple jurisdictions and agencies, with the largest and most influential being LACMTA, or Metro. Metro receives funding primarily through a regional dedicated sales tax and is governed by a 13-member board of directors that are partially elected officials and partially appointed by the Los
Angeles Mayor. Metrolink (commuter rail) and other bus and rail systems are independent of LACMTA but
operate in the region. The coordination of services outside of LACMTA’s network is not very strong. Metro
has a half-percent county sales tax that is used to provide funding for transportation projects and programs.
While Los Angeles has the largest MPO in the United States, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has a relatively small funding stream for transit, in comparison with the MPO in San Diego
or San Francisco. Due to the lack of monetary resources, SCAG does not play a substantial role in transit
planning. While LACMTA has made substantial investment in transit over the past several years, the region
is still heavily auto-dependent and an investigation into the governance structures and transportation agency
relationships in the region might reveal lessons to improve transit services as well as shed light on lessons for
other regions.
Miami
The Miami region, which includes Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, encompasses nearly 100 miles of
urban area stretching along the eastern Florida coast. Transit in the region is primarily operated by county,
with Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties each operating transit within their jurisdictional border. The
largest of these three entities is the Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), operating Metrorail, Metrobus, and Metromover as a department of the county government. The other two counties operate bus-only systems. In 2003
the Florida state legislature created the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) to operate Tri-rail, the region’s commuter rail network, and to “plan, develop, fund and operate a seamless, safe and
efficient regional transportation system.” The efforts of the SFRTA to integrate transit have been somewhat
limited. For example, MDT (instead of SFRTA) is responsible for the regional fare system implemented in
2009. The three county-based MPOs do not wield much planning power, but the Southeast Florida Transportation Council was created in 2005 as an attempt to get the three MPOs to begin working on transportation
issues together.
Minneapolis/ St. Paul
Metro Transit, the Minneapolis/ St. Paul region’s primary transit operator, is an operating division of the
Metropolitan Council (Met Council), the MPO. Metro Transit operates the majority of the region’s bus lines
as well as the new light rail and commuter rail lines. Minnesota state law allows communities in the region to
3
“opt out” of Metro Transit, and several small suburban communities have created their own networks of buses. Metro Transit has made substantial investment in new services over the past two decades, adding a new
light rail line and a new commuter rail line, with another light rail line expected to open in 2014. A 17-member board of appointed members, representing geographic districts in the region, governs the Met Council.
Nashville
The Nashville region has a governance structure for transit that is similar to many growing cities. The primary transit provider is a county-based authority, the Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which
servers Davidson County. MTA’s Board of Directors is a five-member panel appointed by the Mayor and
approved by the Metro Council. The current CEO, appointed in January 2002, reports directly to the MTA
Board of Directors and is responsible for managerial oversight of the entire system. The CEO is the agency’s
only government employee. Other personnel are employees of the Davidson Transit Organization, a private,
non-profit organization that delivers the service. To provide service for the larger region, the Regional Transportation Authority of Middle Tennessee (RTA) was created to oversee the regional bus network and the new
commuter rail system, the Music City Star. Recent agreements have brought the agencies closer together:
since 2008, the MTA has played a greater role in the management of the RTA regional services.
New York/ New Jersey/ Connecticut Metropolitan Region
Transit service in the New York Metropolitan Region has many players, but the largest and most comprehensive provider is the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA is responsible for
developing and implementing a unified transit policy for New York City and the seven surrounding counties within the state. Combined, the MTA is the largest transit organization in the country. Other prominent
transit providers in the region that are independent of the MTA include New Jersey Transit and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), which operates the PATH transit system, but the majority
of local and regional transit services are within MTA’s jurisdiction.
The MTA Board, consists of 17 voting members including the Chairman, has been identified as a useful
example of coordination between multiple operating agencies in a large region. The MTA Board uses a committee structure that helps the Chairman in discharging responsibilities of each operating agency, but these
committees are subservient to the larger MTA Board. The seven subsidiary agencies do not have their own
separate boards, and instead have committees on the MTA board. The subsidiaries operate the New York City
subway network, most of the local and regional bus network, and the two largest commuter rail networks
in the country. While MTA is responsible for distributing funding and coordinating services within is subagencies, coordination with other regional transit providers is somewhat limited.
Philadelphia
The Philadelphia region is served by the regional agencies of New Jersey Transit (NJT), Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO), Amtrak, and the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).
PATCO and NJT operate rail and bus services on the New Jersey side of the Philadelphia region. The larger
SEPTA system is directly responsible for providing public transportation to the five county region within
Pennsylvania and operates the majority of the region’s public transportation. SEPTA is both the oversight and operating agency. SEPTA is governed by a 15-member board, with representatives from the City, the five surrounding counties, and the state government. About one third of SEPTA
capital and operating funding operating revenues is from operating revenues, with another third from state
grants, and the remaining third from local, federal, and other grants. The state provides a substantial amount
of funding, giving the board less of a need to direct local funding back to their district. SEPTA is organized
into four “operating divisions,” which are the City Transit Division (bus, subway, light rail), the Victory Divi-
4
sion (suburban bus and trolley), Frontier Division (suburban bus), and Regional Rail Division (commuter
rail). The creation of these divisions was facilitated, in part, by SEPTA’s procurement of a number of private
transit agencies over the past several decades. The system has become integrated and from a user perspective
there is no remaining difference between the divisions. Internally, SEPTA also the system as “one system, one
operator.” Portland, Oregon
While Portland’s geographic proximity to neighboring Washington inhibits some regional coordination, the
Oregon side has a unique transportation-planning agency: Metro. Metro is the region’s MPO (on the Oregon side) and has one of the only directly elected MPO Boards in the United States. This gives the planning
department of Metro more influence in transportation decision-making even though Metro does not directly
fund transportation agencies or capital programs in the area. Tri-Met, the transit provider in the Portland
region, operates a transit system that includes light rail, bus, streetcar, and a commuter rail line. Portland is
known for effective planning and regional coordination, and a better understanding of how the MPO and the
major transit provider work together could provide valuable insights.
San Diego
The San Diego region of California is comprised of San Diego County and the 18 cities within its jurisdiction. The San Diego transit system consists of three main players: the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
(MTS), the North County Transit District (NCTD), and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO). MTS, governed by a 15-member appointed board, is
the umbrella agency for the main transit operators in the San Diego region. MTS owns transit assets in the
region and contracts out with outside companies and its two operating subsidiaries to provide the service.
NCTD, a much smaller transit operator in the northern half of the county, has a similar structure to MTS.
Funding for MTS and NCTD flows through SANDAG, which has substantial planning power and funding
distribution responsibilities.19 regional elected officials make up the SANDAG governing board and help
distribute transportation funds through the Transportation Development Act (state transit funds) and the
TransNet Program (local multi-modal fund). The division of duties amongst SANDAG and the operators
is based on what SANDAG Executive Director Gary Gallegos termed “regional cooperation” rather than a
struggle for power. The organizations focus on their strengths; SANDAG on long-term planning and system
expansion and MTS and NCTD on operations. San Francisco Bay Area
The public transit sector in the Bay Area is fairly disaggregated with 26 independent operators, including
BART (rail), Muni/SFMTA (light rail), Caltrain (commuter rail), and AC Transit (bus), work alongside a
few dozen smaller bus, ferry, and rail operators in the region. While transit operators play a role, significant
control over the transportation network lies with the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC), which is the MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC’s work is guided by a
21-member policy board appointed by local officials in each county, with some of the larger counties represented by more than one member. MTC controls the Surface Authority for Freeways and Expressways
(SAFE), the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), and the Clipper Card (region-wide transit fare payment system), as well as manages the regional transportation planning. MTC’s funding comes through many sources,
including revenues from BATA, and federal and state grants. MTC is responsible for distributing nearly $1
billion in federal, state, and local funding to transit agencies within the San Francisco region. MTC has the
authority to screen requests from local agencies for state and federal grants to determine their compatibility
with their regional plan. The unique way that the Bay Area uses its MPO to coordinate operators and implement innovative investment plans provides useful lessons.
5
Seattle
Transit services in the Seattle region involve three primary county-based operators and a primary umbrella
agency, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, or Sound Transit. Sound Transit operates some of
the regional transit services, but also contracts with other county-based agencies, such as King County Transit, for operations of some bus and light rail lines. Sound Transit has the authority to levy and collect taxes,
construct new transit infrastructure, and is funded primarily through sales tax revenues, accounting for 70
percent of Sound Transit’s budget. Sound Transit is governed by an 18-member board of regional elected
officials who, among other tasks, ensure regional equity of funds by distributing funds back to the five designated subareas based on sales tax revenue generated.
Sound Transit was created in 1996 with the passing of a 0.4 percent sales tax dedicated to expanding transit
services, including the new light rail lines, in the region. The ballot measure was passed under the requirement that funding from each of the five defined subareas was distributed back to each subarea. Snohomish
and Pierce Counties each received one subarea, and King County was divided into three subareas. Sound
Transit expanded its funding in 2008 with the passage of an additional 0.5 percent sales tax for system expansion , resulting in a total tax of 0.9 percent. The ORCA regional fare card, which is accepted by the seven
transit operators in the region, is a joint effort by Sound Transit and King County Metro. The MPO in the
region is relatively weak compared with other regions, and has no veto power over the planning decisions at
Sound Transit.
Washington, DC
Encompassing two states and the federal district, regional planning is often fragmented and agreements over
broad transit decisions can be difficult. The largest player in the transit arena is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The Metro Board of Directors is composed of eight voting and eight
alternate directors. Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and the federal government appoint two
voting and two alternate directors each. Counties and the District also play a role in providing and planning
transit. For example, the District Department of Transportation operates several “circulator” buses and is
currently building a streetcar network in the city. Other counties provide local and commuter bus service to
supplement WMATA routes. Outside entities play a role in the construction and planning of new lines, such
as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s construction of the Metro Silver Line and the Maryland Transit Authority’s plan to build the Purple Line.
Final Region Selection
While each region has a unique structure and can offer valuable lessons, per the scope and constraints of
this research, the research team ultimately selected six regions. These regions were also thought to be representative of transit structures across the country. Based on this initial review the following six regions were
selected:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chicago
Boston
Dallas/ Fort Worth
Minneapolis/ St. Paul
New York/ New Jersey/ Connecticut Metropolitan Region
San Francisco Bay Area
As the catalyst for this study, Chicago was the team’s initial selection. The case of Chicago is exceedingly
complex and challenging, and demonstrates a structure that inhibits regional coordination. Further, it is the
6
third largest city in the United States and its infrastructure has an added level of complexity due to its history as the Midwestern freight stronghold. While the region is generally not referred to an innovative, it has
successfully updated its farecard and currently has a single medium that can be used across the three primary
operators (however with differing fare schedules). The region is also home to one of the older rapid transit
systems, the ‘L’, which has been in operation since the late 1800’s.
Boston was selected because of its recent consolidation of its primary transit operator into the state DOT, and
it serves as an example of the interesting benefits and challenges of having the state control a transit network.
The New York/ New Jersey/ Connecticut region was selected because it provides an illustration of challenges
and successes that can occur within an extremely complex, old system, with many powerful players. It also
is another case of how to contend with the maintenance costs of a system that was built at the turn of the
century, as well as the experience of an east coast city. Philadelphia was considered to have too many similarities to these regions and was in close proximity to both Boston and New York, and was therefore taken out of
consideration.
Dallas/ Fort Worth, a fast-growing Sunbelt metropolitan region, was selected based on its ability to invest
in an extensive light rail system, as well as the complexity of the region in terms of funding and size. Miami,
Atlanta, and Nashville, other Southern U.S. regions, were considered to have less apparent avenues for lessons
learned than Dallas/ Fort Worth, and were not selected to promote geographic diversity within the cases.
Minneapolis/ St. Paul was selected to explore in detail the implications of an MPO operating a transit system
and the nature of a region with two distinct economic centers. The San Francisco Bay Area was selected as
the polar opposite of Boston in terms of consolidation; in the Bay Area there are 26 operators that are coordinated by an MPO with significant funding capabilities. Because the Bay Area was selected, Seattle, Portland,
Los Angeles, and San Diego were not selected, as they are all West Coast cities. Denver was ultimately not
selected as it lacked some of the inter-jurisdictional challenges that many other regions face.
7