Q Transit in the Nation's Department of Caoital: Wiiat Lies Aliead? Transportation ■ A Study of Projected Transit Service, Cost, and Financial Impacts on the Region Through the Year 2000 February 1986 UMTA Technical Assistance Program Transit in the Nation's Capital: What Lies Ahead? A Study of Projected Transit Service, Costs, and Financial Impacts on the Region Through the Year 2000 Final Report February 1986 Prepared by Federal City Council 11 55 1 5th Street N W, Suite 81 7 Washington, D.C. 20005 Prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Progrann Office of the Secretary of Transportation DOT- 1-87-20 FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL OFFICERS W. Reid Thompson, Chairman Chairman of the Board & CEO Potomac Electric Power Company Harry McPherson, President Verner, Liipfert, Bernard, McPherson & Hand Donald E. Smiley, Vice President Vice President - Washington Office Exxon Corporation Edwin K. Hoffman, Vice President - Project Planning Chairman of the Board Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. Austin H. Kiplinger, Vice President - Membership-Finance President The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. G. Duane Vieth, Vice President - Budget Partner Arnold & Porter Daniel J. Callahan, III, Vice President - Trust Fund Chairman of the Board & CEO American Security Bank, N.A. Carl W. Ruppert, Secretary Managing Partner Price Waterhouse Joseph H. Riley, Treasurer Former Chairman NS&T Bank Roger A. Clark, General Counsel Partner Rogers & Wells PREFACE As Chairmen of the Metro Finance Task Force and its Technical Advisory Committee, we would like to thank the members of our committees for the extraordinary commitment they made to our study of Washington area transit finance. This effort began more than nine months ago, and in the ensuing weeks and months, members of our committees have given literally thousands of hours of their time to the task of reviewing documents, attending meetings, and sharing their insights and judgments with the Federal City Council staff and our consultants. We also would like to thank those who appeared before our committees: representatives of the Federal government, the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, local government officials, and numerous staff members from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Their presentations were uniformly excellent and they have contributed greatly to our efforts. Finally, we would like to single out our consultants for particular praise. Each of them — Jeff Bruggeman, Bob Peskin, Ray Ellis, and Bruce Williams from Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. ; Phil Dearborn from the Greater Washington Research Center; and George Wickstrom, Ron Sarros, and John McClain from the Council of Governments — worked tirelessly to ensure that our final product is worthy of broad-based support. When we began this study last May, we committed ourselves to producing an honest, hard headed, realistic set of numbers regarding our region's future transit costs. We believe that we have accomplished our mission and we have done so by involving all the affected parties in the process and by reaching concensus at every major milestone. We feel confident that this study will enable the region's decision makers and the public at large to make better informed judgments about the future of mass transit in the Washington Metropolitan area. Mac Asbill, Jr. Chairman Metro Finance Task Force Shiva K. Pant Chairman Technical -Advisory Committee * ** *** METRO FINANCE TASK FORCE Mac Asbill, Jr., Chairman Stephen Ailes Mac Asbill, Jr. G. Dewey Arnold Carol D. Barrett Alan S. Boyd Frederick J. Clarke Roger A. Clark Edwin I. Colodny Philip Dearborn James W. Dyke, Jr. Williams H. Edwards, Jr. Nonie England Norman Farquhar Michele V. Hagans Donald J. Heim Judith Richards Hope Chairman Vice Chairman Co-chairman * * * * * * * * * *** Gladys W. Mack William E. Miller John G. Milliken Robert L. Nelson Mandell J Whayne S. Thomas Thomas Walter Donald Ralph L. Robert F David A. Robert B Ourisman Quin, Esquire Quigley Schaef er Scheiber Smith Stanley Tardio Wagner Washington, Jr, J. Hillman Zahn TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL'S METRO FINANCE TASK FORCE Chairman: Shiva K. Pant District of Columbia: Sherri Alston D.C. Dept. of Public Works Barbara Davis Office of the Budget State of Maryland: Larry Sab en Maryland Dept. of Trans. Alexander Eckmann Maryland DOT State of Virginia: Sally Cooper Va. Dept. of Highways & Trans James W. Atwell Va. Dept. of Highways & Trans, Montgomery County, Md. : Edward Daniel Montgomery County Department of Transportation William H. Treworgy Office of Management & Budget Prince George's County, Md. ; Dee Allison Prince George's County Dept. of Public Works & Trans. Robert O. Duncan Prince George • s County Office of Budget Fairfauc County, Va. : Shiva Pant Fairfax County Dept. of Trans. Dr. James P. McDonald Management and Budget Arlington County, Va: Mark Kellogg Public Works Planning City Of Alexandria, Va. : Clifford Rusch Deputy City Manager City of Fairfax, Va.: Richard R. Fruehauf Trans, and Utilities City of Falls Church, Va. : Henry Bibber Planning & Development Northern Virginia Transportation Comm. : Rick Taube Northern Virginia Trans. Commission Washington Suburban Transit Commission: Joanne Price Transportation Planning Board (COG) : Al Grant Trans. Planning Board Greater Washington Board of Trade: Carol Barrett Community Development Bureau William G. Fry Dewberry and Davis Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Harry Barley UMTA Liaison: Sam Zimmerman Director Office of Methods & Support TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ' I.l II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE WASHINGTON AREA II. 1 III. OPERATING STATISTICS III.l INTRODUCTION III.l METROBUS STATISTICS III. 2 Analysis Approach III. 2 Near-Term Changes III. 2 Stark-Harris System Changes III. 3 Full System Changes III. 5 LOCAL BUS SERVICE III. 8 METRORAIL SERVICE III. 9 IV. RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE IV. 1 AREA SYSTEM IV. 1 DATA BASE IV. 2 NETWORK DEVELOPMENT IV. 4 WORK TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING IV. 6 NON-WORK MODELING IV. 8 VERIFICATION OF MODELING APPROACH IV. 10 PROJECTED RIDERSHIP IV. 10 FARE REVENUE ESTIMATION IV. 18 V. OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS V.l INTRODUCTION V.l BASIC COST MODEL STRUCTURE V.2 Union Labor Costs V.2 Front Line Supervisory Non-Union Labor Costs V.3 Administrative Non-Union Labor Costs V.3 Parts, Supplies, and Service Costs V.3 DRIVING VARIABLES V.4 Bus Driving Variables V.4 Rail Driving Variables V.4 INFLATION CONSIDERATIONS V.5 ANALYSIS OF PRIOR WMATA OPERATING COST EXPERIENCE V.6 CALIBRATION OF METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS V.7 Separation of Fixed, Mileage- and Hour- Related Costs V.8 Adjustments to FY86 Calibration V.9 APPLICATION OF WMATA METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS V.9 LOCAL BUS OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS V.13 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE VI. RAIL CONSTRUCTION VI . 1 VII. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COST PROJECTIONS VII. 1 METHODOLOGY VI I . 1 INPUT ASSET VALUES V11.3 METROBU& FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 3 Metrobus Facilities and Equipment, except Buses and New Maintenance Facilities VII. 4 Bus Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs VII. 4 New Metrobus Maintenance Facilities Costs VII. 4 Results VII. 6 METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 6 Metrorail Facilities, except Track VII. 6 Track Replacment Costs VII. 6 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 13 Metrorail Equipment, except Rail Cars VII. 13 Rail Car Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs VII. 13 SUMMARY VII. 19 LIMITATIONS VII . 19 VIII. ALLOCATION OF WMATA SUPPORT VIII. 1 OPERATING SUPPORT VIII. 1 ANNUAL ESTIMATES VI I I. 4 DEBT SERVICE VIII. 10 REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VIII. 10 FEDERAL SUPPORT VIII. 10 STATE SUPPORT VIII. 11 SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS VIII. 12 IX. MEASURING THE WMATA BURDEN: 1980-1985 IX. 1 X. CHANGE IN SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES: 1986 - 2000 X.l REVENUES X.l EXPENDITURES X.4 BASIS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS X.6 XI. THE EFFECTS OF FUTURE WMATA FINANCING ON AREA GOVERNMENTS XI. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION PAGE APPENDICES: - A. PROPOSED METRO BUS CHANGES BY ROUTE A.l NEAR-TERM CHANGES - VIENNA CORRIDOR A.l STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE CORRIDOR A. 3 STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT CORRIDOR A. 3 FULL SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE CORRIDOR A. 4 FULL SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT CORRIDOR A. 5 B. PATRONAGE FORECASTING MODEL B.l C. PATRONAGE RESULTS BY JURISDICTION AND CORRIDOR C.l D. DETAILED OPERATING COST MODEL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS D.l COST MODEL STRUCTURE AND RESULTS D.l INFLATION ANALYSIS D.22 HISTORICAL WMATA COST DATA D.2 3 Allocation of Bus Costs D.23 Analysis of Cost per VehiclQ-Mile D.28 Analysis of Historical Metrorail Maintenance Staffing Levels D.28 ADJUSTMENTS TO FY86 MODEL CALIBRATION D.35 Termination of Old Programs and Initiation of New Programs D.35 Changes in Labor Productivity and Unit Cost D.36 E. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT INPUTS AND DETAILED RESULTS E . 1 METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.l METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.9 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.21 TRACK REPLACEMENT E.43 RAIL CAR REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT E.49 F. RAIL ALLOCATION PARAMETERS F.l G. JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATIONS G.l H. IMPACT OF WMATA SUPPORT ON LOCAL JURISDICTIONS H.l I. HISTORICAL WMATA ASSISTANCE AND ABILITY TO PAY MEASURES I . 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT PAGE 11. 1 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY DECADE II. 2 11. 2 COMPARISON OF 1990 FORECASTS II. 3 111.1 WMATA BUS OPERATING STATISTICS III. 7 111. 2 METRORAIL OPERATING STATISTICS III. 10 IV. 1 AREA SYSTEM IV. 3 IV. 2 TRIP VERIFICATION IV. 11 IV. 3 TRIP TYPE SUMMARY IV. 12 IV. 4 WMATA TRIP TYPES IV. 13 IV. 5 MARKET AREAS IV. 15 IV. 6 WORK TRIPS BY MAJOR MARKET IV. 16 IV. 7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS BY MARKET IV. 17 IV. 8 WORK MODE SPLIT IV. 19 IV. 9 RAIL LOADING INDICATORS IV. 20 IV. 10 METRORAIL REVENUES IV. 22 IV. 11 ALLOCATED METROBUS REVENUES IV. 24 V.l PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST MODEL INPUTS V.IO V.2 PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST MODEL RESULTS V.ll V.3 WMATA SERVICE LEVELS V.12 V.4 WMATA EMPLOYEES V.14 V.5 WMATA OPERATING EXPENSES V.15 VI. 1 RAIL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS VI . 3 VI. 2 ALLOCATED RAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS VI . 4 VII. 1 METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT ASSET CLASSES VII. 5 VII. 2 BUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT VII. 7 VII. 3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES VII. 8 VII. 4 RAIL STRUCTURE REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 9 VII. 5 TRACK REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 12 VII. 6 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES VII. 14 VII. 7 RAIL EQUIPMENT REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII . 15 VII. 8 WMATA RAIL CAR REHABILITATION COSTS BY COMPONENT VII. 16 VII. 9 RAIL CAR REHAB AND REPLACEMENT VII. 18 VII. 10 REHAB AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 20 VII. 11 WMATA REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS VII. 21 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) EXHIBIT PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII. 8 VIII. 9 VIII. 10 VIII. 11 VIII. 12 VIII. 13 VIII. 14 VIII. 15 METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE METROBUS OPERATING ASSISTANCE TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE WMATA COST RECOVERY RATIOS COVERAGE OF WMATA COSTS REGIONAL TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION DISTRICT ALLOCATION MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION PRINCE GEORGES ALLOCATION FAIRFAX ALLOCATION ARLINGTON ALLOCATION ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII. 8 VIII. 9 VIII. 13 VIII. 14 VIII. 15 VIII. 16 VIII. 17 VIII. 18 VIII. 19 VIII. 20 IX. 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS - ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS: 1980 - 1985 IX. 2 IX. 2 CHANGE IN TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENTS - ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS: 1980 - 1985 IX. 4 IX. 3 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY: 1980 - 1985 IX. 5 IX. 4 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY: 1980 - 1985 IX. 6 X.l CHANGES IN REVENUES IN CONSTANT 1986 DOLLARS - SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS:. 1986 - 2000 X.2 INCREASES IN EXPENDITURES IN CONSTANT 1986 DOLLARS - SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS: 1986 - 2000 X.2 X.5 XI. 1 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES XI. 3 XI. 2 NET TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO WMATA AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES XI . 4 XI. 3 NET OPERATING ASSISTANCE, DEBT SERVICE, AND REHAB & REPLACEMENT COSTS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES — . XI . 6 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) EXHIBIT PAGE APPENDICES ; B.l IMPEDANCE WEIGHTING B.2 B.2 TRAVEL TIME/FARE TRADEOFFS B.3 B. 3 NON-WORK FACTORS B.5 C. l WORK PERSON TRIPS C.2 C.2 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.3 C.3 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK PERSON TRIPS C.4 C.4 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.5 C.5 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK MODE SPLIT C.6 C.6 MODEL RESULTS BY JURISDICTION OF PRODUCTION C.7 C.7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS C.8 C.8 CORRIDORS C.IO C.9 TRAVEL TIME CHANGES TO FARRAGUT SQUARE C.12 C.IO TRAVEL TIME CHANGES TO L' ENFANT PLAZA C.13 C.ll FARE CHANGES TO FARRAGUT SQUARE C.14 C.12 FARE CHANGES TO L' ENFANT PLAZA C.15 C.13 GROWTH IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP C.17 C. 14 NETWORK EFFECT ON CHANGE IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP C.18 D. l ANNUAL WMATA OPERATING COSTS D.2 D.2 DETAILED 1986 OPERATING COSTS D.6 D.3 DETAILED 2000 OPERATING COSTS D.14 D.4 BUS COST ALLOCATION (CURRENT YEAR $) D.24 D.5 BUS COST ALLOCATION (1986 $) D.2 5 D.6 RAIL COST ALLOCATION (CURRENT YEAR $) D.26 D.7 RAIL COST ALLOCATION (1986 $) D.27 D.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROVIDED D.29 D.9 BUS OPERATING COST/PLATFORM MILE (CURRENT YEAR $) D.3 0 D.IO BUS OPERATING COST/ PLATFORM MILE (1986$) D.31 D.ll RAIL OPERATING COST/CAR-MILE (CURRENT YEAR $) D.32 D.12 RAIL OPERATING COST/ CAR-MILE (1986 $) D.33 D. 13 ANALYSIS OF WMATA MAINTENANCE STAFFING RATIOS D.34 E. l METROBUS REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.2 E.2 METRORAIL FACILITIES REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.IO E.3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHAB AND REPLACEMENT E.22 E.4 TRACKWORK CALCULATIONS E.44 E. 5 RAIL CAR REPLACEMENT - STRAIGHT-LINE E.50 F. l RAIL ALLOCATION STATISTICS F.2 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) EXHIBIT G.l ANNUAL SUPPORT AND ALLOCATION INPUTS G.2 WMATA COST ALLOCATION INPUTS G.3 FACTORS FOR JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATIONS G.4 TOTAL ALLOCATED WMATA SUPPORT G.5 ALLOCATION PARAMETERS FOR VIRGINIA SUPPORT G.6 ALLOCATION OF STATE SUPPORT G. 7 ALLOCATION OF NET WMATA SUPPORT H. l IMPACT OF WMATA SUPPORT ON LOCAL JURISDICTIONS I. l METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME (RESIDENCE) : 1980 - 1983 1.2 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EARNINGS (PLACE OF WORK) : 1980 - 1983 1.3 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PROPERTY VALUES: 1980 - 1985 1.4 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 1980 - 1985 1.5 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME (RESIDENCE) : 1980 - 1983 1.6 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EARNINGS (PLACE OF WORK) : 1980 - 1983 1.7 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF PROPERTY VALUES: 1980 - 1985 1.8 METRO TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS (AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID) AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES: 1980 - 1985 I . INTRODUCTION The principal goal of the Federal City Council's study of transit finance in the Washington metropolitan area is to achieve a regional consensus regarding what the region's total transit costs and revenues are likely to be through the year 2000. In addition, the study looks at how well prepared the juris- dictions will be to assume their respective shares of the operating deficits and capital costs. The Federal City Council brings to this study impartiality and objectivity and broad familiarity with transit issues in the Washington area. Currently, there is no single set of projections of future tran- sit costs upon which decision makers at all levels of government — local, state, and Federal — can agree. The need for a commonly agreed upon, objective set of numbers is compelling, especially in light of proposed cutbacks in Federal transit assistance. The Council believes that its study is particularly timely inasmuch as portions of the Metrorail system have now been in operation for 10 years and there is a wealth of real data against which to judge projections of future costs and revenues. The study is being conducted under the auspices of the Council's Metro Finance Task Force, which is chaired by Mac Asbill, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan. The Task Force is the policy setting body for the study and is made up of 25 members of the Federal City Council and four public sector officials: Gladys Mack, a member of the WMATA Board and its Chairaan during 1985; John Milliken, a member of the Arlington County Board and a former WMATA Board Chairman; David Wagner, Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation; and Ralph Stanley, Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) . The Task Force, using funds provided by UMTA, retained three consultants to undertake the detailed technical analyses. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. was responsible for the transportation, revenue, and cost analyses; the Greater Washington Research Center undertook the financial projections; and the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments provided data and logistical support . The Task Force's efforts have been supported by the work of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) , which is composed of transportation analysts and finance officers from every local jurisdiction and the States of Maryland and Virginia. The TAC, which is chaired by Fairfax County Transportation Director Shiva K. Pant, advises the Task Force with respect to technical issues and makes recommendations to the Task Force. Since the transit finance study began last May, the members of both the Task Force and the Technical Advisory Committee have held more than 20 meetings and have given literally thousands of hours of their time to this effort on a strictly voluntary basis. -I.l- II. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE WASHINGTON AREA Travel behavior and transit patronage are influenced by a number of factors including population and employment growth, the level of transit service available, and automobile ownership. With respect to population growth, the 1990 population forecasts used in the 1974 Net Income Analysis (NIA) were significantly higher than the 1990 forecasts used in the current study. The current 199 0 forecasts, which are based upon the Round III Update, project a population of approximately 900,000 in the core jurisdictions (D.C., Arlington, and Alexandria) and slightly more than two million in the inner suburbs (Montgomery, Prince George's, Fairfax, Fairfax City, Falls Church). The current 1990 population estimate of slightly more than three million is nearly 20% less than the 1990 estimate that was used in the 1974 NIA. Regarding employment growth, there is dramatic projected increases in the Washington region but most of the employment growth is occurring beyond the Beltway, in areas that are not well served by public transit. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, only modest employment increases are projected within rings 0-3, the so-called 10-mile square comprising the District, Arlington, and Alexandria. Growth continues strong in rings 4 and 5, which are just inside and outside the Beltway, respectively, although at a slightly slower rate than during the past decade. The most dramatic growths are predicted for rings 6-8, the outer-most portions of the region. Furthermore, the distribution of employment growth differs significantly from that projected for the 1974 NIA, as shown in Exhibit 2.2. For example, officials of the District of Columbia now are projecting a 1990 employment base of 692,000 jobs, which is 22% fewer than the 887,000 jobs projected in the 1974 NIA. Rings 4 and 5, on the other hand, are projected to have 84,000 and 89,000 more jobs, respectively, than were projected in 1974. Thus, in comparison to the 1974 estimates, the current study anticipates that nearly 175,000 jobs that were expected to be created in the region's core, in all likelihood will be located in areas that are not well served by transit. The location of both population and employment growth is of critical importance to transit because there is a significantly higher propensity to use transit in the region's core areas than in the outlying areas. For instance, in 1980 more than 40% of the work trips to downtown Washington were made via public transit, while fewer than 10% of work trips in the suburbs were made on public transit. Nearly 9 of every 10 transit work trips in the Washington area have destinations in either the District or Arlington, and 95% of transit work trips have destinations inside the Capital Beltway. Thus, the location of future employment growth is one of the key factors affecting transit patronage; transit captures a significant percentage of work trips destined for the core but has been somewhat limited in its -II. 1- EXHIBIT II. 1 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY DECADE ISO 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1972 - 1980 Rings 0,1 Rings 2,3 Rings 4,5 Rings 6—8 IZZl 72-80 80-90 V77X 90-00 -II. 2- EXHIBIT II. 2 200 COMPARISON OF 1990 FORECASTS (1985 FCC minus 1974 NIA) 150 - 100 - 50 - M ■D C o 0) 3 o r. 1- ■50 -100 - -150 - -200 Rings 0 — 3 Rings 4-5 Rings 6—8 1/ /\ Households |\ \j Employment -II. 3- ability to capture a large percentage of work trips in the less densely populated areas beyond the Beltway. Another factor influencing travel behavior and transit use is automobile ownership. In the last 10 years, there has been a significant decline in the number of households in the Washington area in which there is no automobile. The significant increase in overall auto ownership coupled with the decline in zero-car households are additional factors that explain why current estimates of future transit ridership are substantially lower than forecasts made during the 1970 's. Apart from lower population and employment growth in areas that are well served by transit, the share of trips made by transit is also less than in previous estimates. Earlier projections that showed a higher mode split reflected a significantly greater amount of Metrobus service than is likely to be available in the future. The level of line-haul and feeder bus service assumed in previous studies was 50% higher than is presently forecast. The 1974 NIA projected more than 70 million vehicle miles of Metrobus service upon the rail system's completion, while the present study projects 46 million vehicle miles of service. Regarding Metrorail, earlier estimates of rail running times were understated when compared with actual experience, resulting in "crediting" transit with 10% faster travel times than are actually occurring. Thus, the lower level of bus service and the slightly longer running time for rail service are important factors in explaining the current projections of future transit ridership. As the foregoing makes clear, previous estimates of future transit patronage were based upon a number of assumptions about the way in which the Washington area would evolve that have not proven to be correct. As one assesses travel behavior in the region, it is important to understand the degree to which this behavior is being shaped and will be shaped in the future by the underlying demographic and employment shifts that are occurring. -II. 4- III. OPERATING STATISTICS INTRODUCTION Transit operating statistics are the key to analyzing the finances of transit systems in the Washington area. The operating statistics directly measure the quantity of transit service provided and thus determine operating costs. The operating statistics also are used to determine fleet size and utilization which, in turn, determine the capital requirements for purchasing and rehabilitating the transit fleet. Three sets of transit operating statistics were developed for this study: Metrorail, Metrobus, and local bus. For all three sets, the most important statistics for analyzing cost are vehicle miles and vehicle hours of service. Fleet size is required for capital cost estimation purposes. Operating statistics are developed on a daily basis from schedules of transit service and then expanded to an annual basis for financial analysis. Operating statistics were computed for several key years that correspond to major milestones in the evolution of the Metrorail system. These points are: o current (summer of 1985) conditions; o near term (1987/1988) conditions; o post Stark-Harris (199 3) conditions; and o full system (2000) conditions. The near term conditions include the full impact of opening the Vienna extension of the Orange Line and some other fairly minor adjustments to transit service levels. The post Stark-Harris conditions represent operations after completing 89.5 miles of the rail system while the full system conditions reflect the full 103-mile Metrorail system. The operating statistics summarized in this report were prepared by Peat Marwick based upon inputs received from WMATA and the staffs of the local jurisdictions. The bus statistics adjustments were computed on a route-by-route basis and reflect the approximate effect of changes in route structure due to to Metrorail extensions and other factors. Data for the Vienna corridor were taken directly from a detailed analysis done by V7MATA staff. Impacts for the other system changes were calculated by Peat Marwick and were based on a somewhat less detailed route analysis. 1 -III.l- METROBUS STATISTICS Analysis Approach The bus operating statistics were computed by first assembling weekday, Saturday, and Sunday operating statistics by route groupings from materials developed by WMATA. These statistics, which include miles and hours of services by jurisdiction of allocation and operating division (garage) , were summarized on a LOTUS 1-2-3 microcomputer spreadsheet for further analysis. Changes in bus service concepts were obtained from the staffs of the local jurisdictions. These were converted into approximate changes in miles and hours of service by Peat Marwick, using current schedules and available maps. Preliminary near-term service changes for the Vienna corridor had already been computed by WMATA staff and were used directly in the analysis. Near-term statistics were computed for daily and weekend services. Longer term changes in response to Metrorail extensions were computed only for weekday service. Annualization factors by operating division were computed from the current and near-term service patterns, were assumed to hold for the future, and were applied to the Stark-Harris and full system weekday estimates. In making these calculations, the changes were made to the revenue service components of each route and applied to the daily statistics. Thus, the non-revenue portions were held constant which seems a reasonable assumption since most of the service areas were not changed significantly. For routes that were more extensively modified, the relationship between revenue and total statistics from the 1985 schedules were applied to the revised revenue service estimates. Near-Term Changes Major near-term changes include the shift of major portions of Huntington service from Metrobus to Fairfax County operation in September 1985 and service changes associated with the opening of the Orange Line to Vienna in 1986. Other changes noted by the staffs of the local jurisdictions were very minor. Huntincfton The Huntington changes were anticipated in the July 1985 Metrobus operating plans with route realignments and statistics computed so that entire route groups would switch from Metrobus to Fairfax County bus operation. Services to the Pentagon and beyond still are operated by Metrobus since most are shared routes between Fairfax County and Alexandria. -III. 2- Vienna Proposed changes in Vienna service with the extension of the Orange line have been prepared by WMATA staff for use in preliminary discussions with the affected communities, prior to formal public hearings. The major changes are summarized below; a more detailed analysis is included in Appendix A: o Outlying express routes to Ballston via Arlington Blvd. and 1-66 would be converted to feeders to the Vienna, Dunn Loring, and West Falls Church Metrorail stations. Additional feeder routes would be added particularly in the Oakton/Vienna area and to serve employment centers in the Arlington Blvd. /Beltway area. o Reston services would be terminated at West Falls Church. Additional service changes and extensions would be made in the Reston/Franklin Farms area. o Tysons express to downtown Washington and route 66X express service from West Falls parking lot to Rosslyn would be discontinued. o New express service would be added from Centerville. o Various route modifications would be made throughout the corridor to serve Metrorail stations and provide replacements for revised express services. Other Near-Term Changes Other service changes were identified by the staffs of the local jurisdictions. Some have been implemented recently while others represent likely near-term actions: o L8: Connecticut Avenue service. Reduction in peak service. o N9 : Montgomery Mall express. Reduction in peak service. o A12: Landover area. Extension along Landover Road beyond the Beltway to serve new development. o Cll: Clinton express. Extension southward to serve Clinton area plus additional runs from September schedule. o T19: Bowie area. Deletion of service to Crofton. Addition of service from new park and ride lot near US50 and MD197. Stark-Harris System Changes Changes in Metrobus services to reflect extensions of rail service to Wheaton, Anacostia, Van Dorn, and Greenbelt were -III. 3- discussed with the staffs of the local jurisdictions. The following changes v;ere identified, most of v;hich are consistent with the assumptions being used by MWCOG in its development of a 1990 transit network for regional modeling. Wheaton Wheaton service changes were discussed with staff of Montgom.ery County DOT and include the following: o Y5,7,9: Georgia Avenue. Terminate at Wheaton station. o Q4 : Viers Mill. Terminate at Wheaton station. o Z: Columbia Pike services. Add express service in peak from Br iggs-Chaney Road to Silver Spring. This service is independent of the Wheaton opening and would probably be in place by 1088 or r*oO. Van Porn Discussions with Alexandria and P'airfax staff indicated that major bus service changes would not likely be required for Van Dorn. Therefore, the only service change is the additional service from the Hayf ield area to the station included in the MWCOG network. Anacost ia Anacostia service changes were disc-ussed with District of Columbia and Prince George's County staffs. Ihe changes are summarized below; more detail is provided in Appendix A: o Most Anacostia services in the District v.-est of Pennsylvania Avenue would bo terminated at the Anacostia station. Limited service would be provided between the Anacostia station and downtown to provide local service. Crosstown routes would be bi-oken at the Anacostia stat i on . o Prince George's services in the Indian Head corridor and Clinton express service would be turned back at Anacostia station . o Additional service would be added to serve the proposed development along the F'otomac River south of the Beltway . Greenbelt Greenbelt service changes were discussed with Prince George's staff in detail and discussed briefly with District of Columbia and Montgomery County staff. The changes are summarized below; more detail is provided in Appendix A: -III . 4- o Most seirvices in the Chillum and Hyattsville areas would be rerouted to the Prince George's Plaza or West Hyattsville stations rather than Red Lihe stations in Northeast D.C. o Greenbelt and Laurel services would be rerouted to Greenbelt station. o Additional service added from Laurel area to Greenbelt station. Full System Changes Metrobus service will change with the completion of the full Metrorail system (extension of the Red Line from Wheaton to Glenmont; extension of the Yellow Line from Van Dorn to Franconia; extension of the Green Line from Anacostia to Branch Avenue; and completion of the Green Line from U Street to Ft. Totten) . The following Metrobus service changes were assumed to be made in connection with these rail service changes: Glenmont Glenmont service changes were discussed with staff of Montgomery County DOT and include the following: o Y5,7,9: Georgia Avenue. Terminate at Glenmont station. o Z: Columbia Pike services. Additional express service during peak hours from Briggs-Chaney Road to Silver Spring. This service is independent of the Glenmont opening and would probably be in place by the mid 1990 's. Franconia No plans for service changes for the Franconia station have been developed by Fairfax County. It was felt that users of current Shirley express services would oppose terminating these routes at the Franconia station because this change would result in a longer and more expensive trip to the Pentagon and beyond. Therefore, the only service changes are two additional feeder routes: o West Springfield service from Rolling Valley Mall to Franconia station, tying in with various 18 routes along Old Keene Mill Road. o Local service from Lorton via Alban Road and Loisdale Drive, tying in with Lorton and Saratoga services. Branch Avenue Branch Avenue service changes within the District of Columbia were outlined by D.C. and WMATA staff. Service changes in Prince George's County were discussed with County staff. Incremental i -III.5- li changes beyond those included for the Anacostia opening are summarized below and are described in more detail in Appendix A: o Most Anacostia routes in the District would be revised or extended to serve the Congress Heights, Southern Avenue, or Naylor Road stations. o Indian Head/South Capitol Street regular services from Prince George ' s County would be rerouted to the Southern Avenue station. Oxon Hill express services would remain at the Anacostia station. o Marlow Heights and Hillcrest Heights services would be rerouted to the Suitland station rather than Potomac Avenue . o Clinton express would be rerouted to theBranch Avenue station. Camp Springs and Suitland Road services would be extended to the Branch Avenue station. o New express service assumed from Andrews AFB to the Branch Avenue station. Columbia Heights (Green Line North) Bus revisions with the opening of the Green Line to the Columbia Heights and Georgia Avenue stations were outlined by District of Columbia and WMATA staff. These are summarized as below and described in more detail in Appendix A: o 14th Street services would be revised to serve the Columbia Heights station. Through service to the Navy Yard would be discontinued. o Petworth services would be cut back at the Georgia Avenue station and Petworth express would be eliminated. o Georgia Avenue, 11th Street, and New Hampshire Avenue services would be revised to serve the Georgia Avenue station. Service south of the station would be reduced. o Various crosstown routes and special services would be revised to serve the Columbia Heights station. A summary of the bus statistics for 1985, near-term operations, Stark-Harris system, and full system are shown in Exhibit III.l. -III. 6- EXHIBIT III.l WMATA BUS OPERATING STATISTICS (annual values in thousands) 1985 Nominal Near -Term Stark- -Harris Full System Jurisdiction Mi 1 Hours Miles Hours Miles Hours Miles District 2123 20723 2127 20751 2083 20370 2024 19595 Montgomery 449 6749 446 6699 443 6669 448 6740 Pr Georges 432 6428 438 6540 426 6472 420 6454 Arlington 205 2695 211 2764 211 2764 211 2764 Alexandria 155 2196 151 2131 151 2131 151 2131 Fairfax Co 479 9349 417 7887 418 7900 434 8103 Falls Church 13 168 12 151 12 151 12 151 Fairfax City 7 119 5 80 5 80 5 80 NVTC 1 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 Total 3864 48452 3808 47028 3749 46537 3705 46018 -III. 7- LOCAL BUS SERVICE Montgomery County and the City of Alexandria operate local bus systems and Fairfax County recently began operating a system in the Huntington area. Each of these jurisdictions v;as contacted about anticipated changes in their local bus system's operation. In addition, the staffs of Arlington County, Prince George's County, and the Di <='trict of Columbia were asked about local bus servi'"':" for thei.. jurisdictions. None of these jurisdictions indjf '^.ecific plans for local bus services, but all owledged that the issue is a significant one, given the i ) ■ /. ch of local bus services in the other jurisdictions and its impact on the allocation of remaining Metrobus costs. Montgomery County has extensively expanded Ride-On service over the last few years but foresees only minor changes in the overall level of service in the next few years. Some service adjustments will be made, but within the current overall level of fleet availability and operating statistics. Some minor expansion is ' ' ted following the opening of the Wheaton and Glenmont ions, primarily to provide new service to the northeast. Increasing the fleet growth of about 10 vehicles with the associated increases in miles and hours is expected to provide tor the expanded service in this area and elsewhere in the County . Alexandria is also fairly well set with its system. Most of the other bus routes in the City are jointly allocated with either Fairfax or Arlington counties and do not lend themselves to ;;ubstitu*- irn by City service. A new route will be developed in the Cameron Valley area by 1990, however, and will be extended to servo the Van Dorn station when the Yellow Line extension is opened. No firm plans exist for other major service modifications, although some service adjustments within existing resources will likely continue to be made to tailor service to demand patterns. Fairfax County service in the Huntington area began late in September. No additional major changes to this service are anticipated, although minor route refinement will continue as ridership patterns in the corridor evolve. The County is considering expanding its local bus service to the Vienna and Springfield areas, but no commitment to these chaiiges has been made. In addition, the County is studying the potential for converting some Metrobus service to contract carrier service in areas such ar Reston. Areas being considered for this type of service i, ve a somewhat different service, equipment, and cost pattern tt-.an more localized rail feeder services in the Huntington and Vienna areas. -Ill . 8- METRORAIL SERVICE WMATA provided a set of rail operating assumptions and then computed rail operating statistics for each planned extension of Metrorail service. Among the key assumptions used to generate these statistics are the following: o The construction schedule as included in ICCA-IV. o Hours of operation: o Weekday: 18 o Saturday: 16 o Sunday: 14 o Frequency of service from terminals; o Peak: 6 minutes, all lines o Off-peak: 8 minutes. Red Line, single service 12 minutes, all other lines o Train consists: o Weekday: 4-, 6-, and 8-cars until December, 1993; 6- and 8-cars thereafter, o Weekend: 4-cars. These statistics were based on previous WMATA assumptions concerning future ridership which turned out to be somewhat higher than that produced by the present study. Therefore, Peat Marwick revised the assumed train consists to provide more balanced supply and demand at the peak load points. These adjustments eliminated the need for 8-car trains and retained a mix of 4 -car and 6-car trains throughout the projection period, with most service provided by 6-car trains by the completion of the full system. The final operating statistics for Metrorail service are summarized in Exhibit III. 2. -III. 9- ¥.■/.}{ ILZZ I I : . 2 y.i.-i i".i-Ai I. ''.l Et-.AT IN J CTAT I I :s IV. RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE Patronage and revenue forecasts for the study of transit finances in the Washington area were developed using data developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and a microcomputer based analysis system developed by Peat Marwick. The patronage forecasts were developed using data from the 1980 census. Then techniques were used to project 1985 ridership which was compared with WMATA's 1985 survey results. The techniques were then used to project transit ridership for 1993 and 2 000, years that represent major milestones in the development of the Metrorail system. AREA SYSTEM Analysis of travel patterns requires establishment of an area system to summarize travel data and project transit shares. The geographic coverage of the analysis corresponds to MWCOG 's modeling area, which consists of the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Falls Church, Fairfax City, Prince William County, Loudoun County, and most of Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The extreme northern part of Montgomery County and the extreme southern part of Prince George's County are excluded, based on analysis decisions made for the 1968 home interview survey, the last comprehensive travel survey performed in the metropolitan area. MWCOG has broken up the metropolitan area into a series of small traffic zones (about 1400 in number) and has aggregated the zones into 182 districts (including outer Montgomery and Prince George's counties). The zonal level provides a superior level of detail but requires far too large a data base and very significant computer resources. Therefore, the study was designed to work with district level data. Several shortcomings in the district area system were noted for transit forecasting. The district boundaries did not adequately separate travel by rail corridor, particularly in the eastern portion of the District and northern Prince George's County. Also, the district area system did not honor the political boundaries of Falls Church and Fairfax City and did not reflect the emerging suburban employment centers. Also, the district system included detail in Loudoun and Prince William counties that was not needed for transit demand forecasting. As a result, a revised area system was developed at about the same "grain" as the MWCOG district system but with some boundary adjustments to better reflect transit service areas. A total of 174 districts were identified, the adjustments honoring MWCOG zonal boundaries. District-level travel data were collected from MWCOG, as noted below, and zonal-level socio-economic data were used to adjust the district boundaries to the area system used in the analysis. were prepared to assist in verifying the 1985 model results. MWCOG has also geo-coded the home-end of the rail survey trip records and an additional data summary was made with information aggregated for the 174 districts. Data on on trips made entirely on Metrobus and on trips made on the local and private bus systems are not available in as convenient a form as the information obtained from the rail survey. Data from the 1980 census refers to all transit travel and does not indicate transit mode, nor does it provide information on non-work travel. Thus, the modeling and verification activities were hampered by this lack of consistent information . NETWORK DEVELOPMENT The representation of transit service in the region required the development of transit networks for the years 1980, 1985, 1993, and 2000 that reflect the status of the Metrorail system as well as major Metrobus, local bus, private bus, and commuter rail services. The transit network modeling was undertaken using a microcomputer network analysis package developed by Peat Marwick that performs the same essential functions as the UMTA-supported UTPS package on a mainframe computer. For the modeling activity, the transit networks were coded to the 174 districts used in the analysis. The Metrorail system was represented with rail station locations and station-to-station travel times and headways obtained from WMATA. The bus system was abstracted somewhat since a full level of detail was not required for an analysis at the 174 district level. Most Metrobus routes were represented, although some minor subroutes were combined and some purely local service routes were not included. Similarly, many local and private services were reflected, but in some cases a single representative route from among several serving a particular district was included. This level of abstraction was particularly used in southern Montgomery County where the Ride-On route density is higher than the geographic "grain" of the area system. Current Metrobus and local services were coded from existing schedules to obtain route headways and travel times between major time checks. All services were coded for the A.M. peak condition, since work trip modeling in "production-attraction" format was used, as described in Section 4. Headways were generally rounded to an even number of buses per hour and generally reflected an average over the 7-9 A.M. period. Future Metrobus and local bus service orientation and headways were taken from the inputs received from the local agencies as noted above. Travel times were generally not changed from the current, except for routing changes to serve rail stations and a time savings for a few express services with the extension of the Shirley HOV lanes. A limited amount of additional information for 1980 conditions was obtained from old schedules at WMATA. -IV. 4- These data were particularly useful for identifying service patterns in the Shady Grove and Huntington corridors, the areas most affected by Metrorail openings since 1980. Traditional network analysis includes two alternative transit paths, one for those users who board transit directly from their homes and the other for those who use an automobile to reach a Metrooail station, commuter rail station, or satellite parking lot. In this approach, travel times are computed for both transit paths, transit mode split is determined by a composite impedance, and route assignments are made to both paths and aggregated. Using this approach, the model's initial results overestimated Metrorail ridership. Observation of traveler behavior indicated that the overestimation was due, in part, to the fact that the transit path selection, using ^conventional transit modeling techniques, was based on minimum time. In the Washington network, however, transit fare policies lead to significantly different fares for some interchanges between bus and rail. Since excellent bus service is still provided in many parts of the region, even areas with Metrorail service, it is likely that many users prefer to make their trips entirely on Metrobus, which may be slower but costs less than a combined bus-rail trip. The overestimation of rail ridership was dealt with by developing a third transit path for all-bus travel. This path was determined simply by deleting the rail service and finding the minimum time path from the remaining bus services. The transit networks were also used in developing the fare inputs to the mode split estimation process. Transit fares in the Washington area are dependent upon mode, time of day, trip origin and destination, and sometimes service class and other special features. The network analysis process was adapted to produce a "trail" indicating the transit modes and routes used on all three paths so that the appropriate fare could be computed. Among the outputs produced are the rail boarding and alighting station for computing Metrorail fares, fare "flags" for usage of surcharged services such as the Reston system, and "flags" for usage of private bus services and commuter rail. Treatment of Ride-On, DASH, CUE, and Fairfax Connector services was accomplished largely outside the network process since the services are more geographically isolated. The current transit fare structure was assumed to remain unchanged over the next 15 years. A 1980 fare table was developed from the tariff in effect at that time for use in the "pivot" to create 1985 mode split estimates. The most significant change in fare policy since 1980 was the introduction of a "taper and cap" on rail fares in 1984. Additional specialized usage of the network analysis package was employed in the allocation of bus revenues to jurisdiction. This -IV. 5- application involved "flagging" certain routes with special allocation codes, in order to to identify which interchanges were associated with the particular routes so that revenues could be allocated appropriately. WORK TRAVEL DEMAND MODELING The approach to work travel demand modeling used in the study was based on the application of a "pivot point" technique developed for MWCOG. The pivot technique is used to estimate the change in mode split from a base line value due to changes in transit service measures. The technique is based upon a mode split formulation called a "logit model". A simplified logit formulation was specified for MWCOG for use in pivot applications and was adapted for this study. This model calculates the projected share of travel on an interchange that would be made by transit, termed transit "modal split", as a function of the base mode split and changes in transit travel times and fares, termed "impedances". The "pivot" technique and the associated coefficients used in the study are shown in Appendix B. In applying the model, the base mode splits were taken directly from the 1980 census work trip data, simply by dividing the transit trip estimates by the person trip estimates for the 174 by 58 interchanges used in the analysis. Changes in impedances were determined from the results of the network analysis. Fare changes were converted to 1968 dollars using a simple CPI deflator of .3228. The application of the pivot technique is complicated by the fact that transit travel times and fares are considerably different for users who walk to local services as compared to those who arrive at major transit facilities by automobile, as noted above. However, the 1980 base mode split information from the census is only for total transit travel, completely undifferentiated by mode of access, bus vs rail, Metrobus vs local bus, WMATA vs private services, or any other categorization. In order to deal with the mode of access issues, a weighting procedure was used to combine the impedances. This weighting was accomplished by computing the change in impedance on two paths, weighted by the assumed mode of access percentages estimated from rail survey data. The weighting function is further complicated by changes in the mode of access percentages likely to occur with introduction of new or superior transit services. The weighting procedure adopted is summarized in Appendix B. The weighting procedure also treated the third transit paths for travelers who did not use the rail system. It was assumed that the trade-off between time and cost would occur primarily for those users who were able to access the transit system at their place of residence and thus was only applied to the "walk access" paths. An exception was made for those users with direct access -IV. 6- to Metrorail for a trip which required a bus transfer at the destination end to complete the trip. The time-cost trade-off for making such a trip entirely by bus was included in the analysis. For the mode split estimates in the pivot technique, a "best" path was identified from the "walk access" and "all-bus" impedances. The "best" path was determined by computing the weighted impedance using the model coefficients and the network values for in-vehicle time, out-of -vehicle time, and fare. The pivot technique was applied to estimate a revised mode split. The revised mode split was then multiplied by the future work person trip tables to obtain a total transit trip table. Total transit trips were split between the "walk access" and "auto access" paths using the same mode of access percentages used in the calculation of the weighted impedance. An additional allocation was required between the "walk access" and "all-bus" networks. For purposes of this analysis, allocations were made only for those trips where a time-cost trade-off existed; that is, trips where the "walk access" path was quicker but more costly than the "all-bus" path. For interchanges where the "all-bus" path was quicker, it would have been the minimum time path and no rail would have appeared on the interchange. For interchanges where the "all-bus" path was both slower and more expensive, all trips were assumed to be made on the "walk access" path. For any situations where the impedances were equal, the trips were split 50%-50% to both paths. A simple function was developed for the trade-off interchanges using the impedances and the coefficients. The function is shown in Appendix B together with some typical time-cost trade-off values. Initial model results somewhat overestimated work trips and underestimated non-work trips. One likely explanation is the significant decrease in automobile operating costs between 1980 and 1985. Since a pivot model was being used in the analysis rather than a complete mode split model, no direct mechanism existed for adjusting highway costs. Therefore, a simplifying approach was taken where highway distance was multiplied by an inflation-adjusted cost per mile for out-of-pocket auto operating costs and the resulting cost difference applied using the cost coefficient in the pivot model. A similar adjustment, in the opposite direction, was applied for the forecasts based on the differential fuel inflation rates assumed in the transit operating cost model. One additional shortcoming in the modeling approach was caused by the limitations of the MWCOG modeling area which excludes upper Montgomery County and lower Prince George's County as well as the outer counties where some exurban commuters reside. Data from the Metrorail survey included trip making by these commuters. This information was used as a surcharge to the modeling results. -IV. 7- The results of the analysis using this technique were extremely poor, particularly for non-home based rail trips. The technique applies a ratio of approximately 2 0% to the work mode split. Even in the core area with a high mode split, this would result in only a 10 - 15% mode split for non-home based transit trips. More importantly, in the core area very few non-home based trips are made by private automobile, thus the derived trip market is very small. In reality, of course, many non-home based rail trips in the core are made for business purposes where the modal trade-off is between Metrorail and taxi or Metrorail and long walks rather than between transit and private automobile; the factoring "model" is unable to address this condition. Therefore, an alternative approach was taken, based upon the rail survey. Non-home based trips using rail stations in the core area and other major activity centers such as Bethesda, Silver Spring, and the Medical Center where most activity is within easy walking distance of Metrorail were extracted from the survey. Trips on the remaining interchanges were calculated using the factoring model. Projections of the growth in the activity center trips were made based upon employment trends at both ends. With the opening of the Green line, other areas such as the Waterfront and Navy Yard will probably begin to exhibit a similar non-home based rail travel pattern. Therefore, additional rail trips were added for these areas. The number and distribution of trips from these areas were based on patterns for similar areas with existing rail service. The results of this procedure were still low for both home-based and non-home based rail trips when compared with the survey. An examination of the results showed that that home-based trips were being estimated reasonably well in the District but were significantly underestimated in the suburbs, with the greatest underestimation for Montgomery and Fairfax counties. In all likelihood, this result can be traced back to the structure of the model, which contains relationships based on 1968 bus ridership. With the advent of Metrorail, home-based non-work travel for shopping and other activities, particularly for travel to the core area, becomes viable. However, since auto ownership levels are high in the suburbs, the implied mode split is only 17 - 18% of the work mode split. Coupled with the relatively small size of this market, the result is very few transit trips. No fully satisfactory adjustment process similar to the discrete non-home based adjustments appeared viable. Therefore, a simple adjustment factor was applied to the modeled non-work trips. The factor varied by jurisdiction with 1.5 being applied in Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince Georges County, 2.5 in Fairfax County, and 3.0 in Montgomery County. The factors were assumed to remain constant in future years and were applied to a larger travel market as rail seirvice was extended into more suburban areas . -IV. 9- Ti _ tjased rail trips outside the r.ajor activity centers were also underost iinated by the factoring process. The o- ' ' lation for this effect is probably in part sir.ilar to that f jine--bascd non~v/ork trips. In addition, the rail syster. also aliov/5 for additiona] "r. ide trips", possibly on the v.-'vy to or from v;ork, that are virtually ir.j30ssible by bus. 'Jnlike the home-based non-work trips, the non-ho~e based trips appeared to bo low throughout the region, including the District, lending further support to the stop-over explanation. Since the net shortfall was ap{-)r'_)>: i na te 1 y "^O'k , the model estimates were simply doubled and added to the major activity center estim^ates described above. This doubling factor was also assum.ed to be maintained into the future and to be applied to the additional rail markets as the systei.i expands. V CATION OF MODELING A The model rer.ults 'wore examined in detail tor 1'"'"^ against available d.ita. The err r, i r i sor.s w.-re s;rev.-l:at lifficult since much lor;:-, i n f o r"ma t i r,i-i v.m:; a-.Milalle I r Lus ti'avol than for rail tr.ivel. Tlius, th-' v. ■ r- i ! r ■ i : n wis r- ru i r. i to 1- o rather late i: the an.) l.ys i r. pr: u , a t t • • r tri;.-. hi i I >■'■:-. .-.lie -ate J Ic-tween hus and r.iil sub-;:,i. !• . i'- • -am-.r' t!iis, th" vt- r . 1 i .m t i i n had to inclU'.le ttio nr'tw.u"k .ma lysis \r. i assignm-nt prccr-r^n as well as the basic mode s.f.d i t or.t i r.a tt-s nor"m.illy u-.-.eJ in m.idel validation vor i f i (.-at i on ct i ort s . Checks on the m')iolin<) .i[;p;u"uach tor tr'ipi'S .^ro sumriarized in Kxhibit I V . 1' . A.---^ sdK'Wn, the ra i 1 - r"f"^ 1 a t ed trip totals agree quit* closely w i 1 1) thr' fail r.urv.'y. ?Uis-or-;ly t r i [. s are som.ewhat hiqhe; than e:;timatj-i 1 rom t hu' limited li.ita av.iilaile. The proportion of bus-rail trips is also somewfiat hivjher than rail orily trips. 13oth eftects can br. dut^, i ;i [lar't, to be sub-a 1 1 o.Mt i c n of bus trir>s betv;een V.'y.A! A and U^cil • j-v i (-o-, , f i rt r -u 1 a r 1 y in Montgomery e'r-uiity .\n \ Ai-xirviria, wh.^ro t 'Xt --T.;- i '.'o cverlariing exir.ts LiotwrM:'ri r'v i ( •( •;; . Also, t!.'' i^ietw. r'k n t cor.tain cert.iin priv.iti- s< ■ rv i 'S ,ini p 1 > ^y- r-su: : lici s. • r".' i v". -s . This latt'-r etlt'./t night I <■> r st r. igni t i-vint w 1 1 h. r-;;ri to Feieral go vo run. Ml t shu 1 1 1 • ■ S( • t'.- .is . n ! y .i r- a ;h . i ; ; r x ; r' 1 1 i n of this el loot could ).• ;i.-;ui.-i : r. ,i:-.i:ys;s. Additional chi'.To-. 'W.'ro t io t.ivo r^.-'.'- : . a • s ..ir.i sta.tisti^-s for use in the a 1 1 o. m t i - >!-.s .ml are d.-s.or i la_:' i lelow. As r.o^eJ i :-. thes* latter- seotioiv.-, .id i U'->t n.uit s- wero made to the i"esoalts tor .illocatiion nuipor.':; t v:« rotioot h.iS'.' yoar con.liti ;.s while preserving the i n r. uit s an i cIiisk'S in rilership iro eoted Ly the miTdol s,ysto:", . PROJECTED RIDERSHIP A summary of j>r"oiectod r i.J'U\'diip t ro:n tlie model results : r. shrwn. in Exhibits 1 \' . .md T'.'.-;. As ^;h.own, r.i : 1 riiersh.ip ir.oro'.ses subs.tant i a 1 1 y while ov^'TmII Metrol '-us ri i'^rsh, ip decreases ir. ridersliip exc 1 u s- i \'e 1 y . ui n.or, -V.'."-'. AT. s.er\':oos remains a ver-y small but gT'owmg part ot over, ill regional trar.s^lt travel. The - I\' . 10- EXHIBIT IV. 2 TRIP VERIFICATION WMATA DATA o 382,000 Daily Metrorail Trips from 1985 Rail Survey o 120,000 (approx) Metrobus-Metrorail o 436,000 Daily Metrobus Total o 316,000 Net Metrobus-Only Trips o 698,000 Total WMATA Trips MODEL RESULTS - 1985 o 694,000 Total WMATA from MWCOG Modeling Area o 11,000 Total WMATA from Beyond MWCOG Modeling Area O 705,000 Total WMATA Trips o 390,000 Total Metrorail-Related o 315,000 Total Metrobus-Only (Including Metrobus/Non-WMATA) -IV. 11- EXHIBIT IV . 3 TRIP TYPE ST yj-'. A R Y !•■' >!-'/■. J J, 'j'. i J EXHIBIT IV. 4 WMATA TRIP TYPES 1993 2000 Rail Only Bus— Rail O Bus Only -IV. 13- ridorship increases are made up of network effects, prir.arily increases in the rail system, and demographic trends in the region . The forecast results are also significantly affected by the size of the various major travel markets and the ability of transit to servo these markets. A series of exhibits have been prepared to illustrate the impact of changes in major work trip m.arkets. Exhibit IV. 5 illustrates three market areas defined as follows: o core: District of Colur.bia and Arlington downtown areas o urban: lO-miile square plus .Silver Spring, Bethesda, Alexandria, I'alls Church, Bailey's Crossroads o suburban: ror:t of region Work person trips for major markets are shown in Appendix B. The major travel markets have been summ<^rir:ed as follows: o all work trips from the core o urban to core o urijan to urij.jn pluf", uri'in to sui-urban o suljurb.m to cijr*"- o suburb I in t" u r 1. iri o r.ubu ti . 1 n t (J : i;l ri 1 n The results are r.hown < i fa{ h. i i/a 1 1 y in kxhibit I'.'.'.. As can be :3een, the growth in i_-()ro tripr. is molest. The cjrowth in urban- to-core trips IS much hi(}hor t'ut .i 1 so quite tlat. I'rban-to-other .ind and r,uburli.)n-to-core trips show very r.odest growth while suburban-to-urban show:-, some increase, particularly from 1985 to 19'iJ. The trav.'l patterns ai'e dor.inated, however, ty the suburban-to-suburban mar-ket, t'Oth in absolute m.agnitude and in g rowt h . The patttM'n lor ti'a:;:-.it tra\'t_>l, l. o •.•.■>■•.■ o >■ , i r> rraite different. I'ransit trips. 1_ y maii't" mirkot are sh ^wn in 1-xhibit I'.'.". Here, the ma lor m.irkt^t is. urlan-t o-c.^-re v.-hiv/;-; is- slicwri with relatively little growth s.inc" tk.o pers.o:! trits. ar-^ •-■ory tl.-it ,'.s sh.rwn pffn'ious.ly and r-'^s.t i-t t!ir^ trar.sit :■•>'■ r\' i "'^ ; ~; r"-".'*" r>" nt s in these .ire. IS h.^vo alr<-M iy 1 > <';-i •.-. i i<>. In ,i::-c,-r c, ntra;--t to tii'"^ person trii^ results, noted .^bo\-e, s-i;l vi rd .i ri- 1 o-s.ul: u r b.^. n travel is the smallest transit m.irkot lecaus.e ct the dilficulty of serving dispersed suburban cmploym.c-nt locations. The m.ost significant growth is shown in sul>urban-to-core r.arket, which relates to the increases in population in that m.arket and the i m.prover.ent s in transit service as Metrorail extensions are opened to the outer parts of the region. - I \' . 14- 6 WOP^^ TRIPS Br ^O^ MAT— E r EXHIBIT IV. 7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS BY MARKET Is t- o 180 170 1 60 150 1 4-0 130 120 110 100 90 SO 70 60 50 40 30 1 985 1993 2000 C-A U-C U-0 S-C S-U S-S -IV. 17- These market effects can be summarized in terms of overall m.odal splits as shown in Exhibit IV. 8. The contrast is very m.arked between markets such as urban-to-core whore transit captures nearly half of all work trips and the suburban-to-suburban r.arket where transit attracts less than 3 percent of the market. Additional analysis of the model results include jurisdictional and corridor summaries of travel and are shown in Appendix B. The results of the analysis arc determined by both the demographic factors that lead to the person trip tables shov.-n above and in Appendix B and the impact of changes in assumied transit service lo-zois. These latter effects are also sur,m,arized in Appendix B th - the examination of changes in transit travel times and tares from each origin area to selected core destinations . A final check was made on rail assignm.ents against the existing and proposed rail service. Work trips in production/ attraction format were assigned to the network ani scaleJ by 20%. The peak loads obtained by this m.ethod have generally Leen found to approximate those obtained through a much more extensive process of developing detailed peaking factors by purposes and converting trips from production/attraction format to origin/' destination format. As shown in Kxhibit IW'i, the 10. m:: io] results are generally very similar to the survey assignm.ents. The initial rail operating statistics obtained from V.""ATA were based upon a higher assumed level of ridership. As noted above, adjustments were made to train consists for r<"0 and 2000 to maintain roughly the same loadings by line as cl:servei in 1985. Loadings on the Green Line were adjustr'! to a level sim.ilar to other lines which v/ore operating in 1^*?-. 'Iho r-es.ults are also shown in Exhibit IV. 9 and were used to comj-ute rail operating costs for input to the tincU jurisdictional allocations described bel ow . FARE REVENUE ESTIMATION Initial average weekday fare revenue estimates were obtained by multiplying the transit trip tables by sub-m,ode and zone pair by the equivalent faro matrix obtained from, the tariffs anl used in the mode split estimation. For revenue estim.ation, off-peak fares matrices were developed as well as the peak values and a weighted average revenue for trips by purpose ar.i time of day was computed . For rail trips, thi:; .inalysis is relati\'oly precise since faro collection is a hiijhly controllovl ai;ti\'ity. 1:1 genera"., the only reductions from tho tariff would be exfocte.i to be from, the high-value fare car"d discount and sj-ecial fares an J pass-es. Bus fare revenues are expected to be of greater \-ariance Lecause of the use of flash pas.scs, other discount prci? I'am.s , avoidance of fare zone boundaries, and various types of evasion. Ad'ustm.ents to the results are expected to be required I or tl^.e allocations. - 1 \' . 1 8 - EXHIBIT IV. 8 FROM\TO 1985 WORK MODE SPLIT CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 69.7% 47.8% 24.7% 38.6% 24.6% 7.4% 24.1% 12.8% 2.6% 58.3% 34.6% 9.6% TOTAL 36.8% 14. 7^ 3.9- 18.2% 1993 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 69 48 25 38 24 7 24 13 2 57.6% 34.2% 9.2% TOTAL 37.15 14. 0 = 3.8 = 17. 2000 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 69.5% 48.7% 27.1% 38.6% 24.0% 7.7% 25.5% 13.8% 2.7% 57.5% 34.2% 9.2% TOTAL 38. 0^ 14. 0^ 3.8^ 16.6% -IV. 19- EXHIBIT IV. 9 RAIL LOADING INDICATORS RAIL TRIPS AT MAXIMUM LOAD POINT fCorr:putGd as 2 0% of V.'ork Trir. TRIPS LirJE PEAK LOAD POirJTS SURVEY 1 '^ P ODEL i J ^ >,' -- ' T »/ 0 r r r\ U O 'J ODEL ORANGE WEST BOUrJD 5 , 10 0 , 3 0 0 r> ^. , c 0 I ; EAST BOUfJD 4 , 6 0 0 ? i"i C\ r, o BIJJE WEST BOUND '3 , 7 0 0 J , 9 0 0 , 9 : 0 EAST BOUf.'D 3 , 2 r J 0 J , 9 0 ; J , 5 0 C' REDl A-ROUTE B-ROUTE 4 , C n 0 3 , R • ' ) 1 , *f , RED2 A-ROUTE •"^ " 1 " 1 / *' - B-POUTE y . / ' ■ ' ■ , 2 ' 0 RED TOTAL A-ROUTE B-ROUTE 1 , ■" , 4 YELLOW tJOI-'TH SOUTH iiou;; D [',oi:.';[) •T CR EEN NORTH SOUTH p.' ju:;; ) F'.( ji ';;d • , ■'• SHUTTLE SOUTH px >v]:i') CAP.'-, LINE 198 5 1 '<9 3 2 0 0 0 S.UPVLY ':el V : 0 0 D F " (GRANGE 4 8 I- < ' '■♦ f, f 1 1 C' ' BLUE 4 0 4 >> 5(1 '1 1 , Ri:ni 4 0 4 ' ' ' . I 1 REn2 48 4 (. 't * ■ RED TOTAL 8 8 '"i ( . YELLOW 4 0 4 0 *-t ' ■ 1 1? • ■ GREEN NA 5 0 ( . i ") r t ^ N' A * SHUTTLE NA 4 0 r:A r,'A ?;a . ■ .n .< t\ Rail revenue estimates are summarized in Exhibit IV. 10. Passenger revenue was obtained as noted above and converted to an annual value using a nominal annualization factor of 280. The result, as expected, slightly exceeds the budgeted values and future year values were adjusted simply as the ratio between the 1985 model and survey totals. School subsidy re-imbursement , primarily by the District, was not assumed to change from current levels because of the stability of population. The fare reimbursement reflects the District's policy of providing a 10 cent discount for peak rail boardings at stations east of the Anacostia River. The policy was assumed to continue and to be extended to Anacostia and Congress Heights (Alabama Avenue) stations as the Green Line is extended. The amount of the allocation was taken from the model estimates of boardings at the affected stations. The results were not expected to be overly precise because of the relatively large districts used in the analysis and access splits between adjacent stations which are not subject to the discount. The model underestimation was simply scaled by the ratio of the 1985 results. The max fare reimbursement is a WMATA policy to partially offset the impact of the "taper and cap" on rail fares. The reimbursement is estimated from a comparsion of revenues from the tariff and those that would be collected from the same number of passengers under a straight distance-based fare. Currently, one-half of the difference is then allocated in proportion to the jurisdiction of the benefiting passengers while the other half is absorbed in the system values. As shown, the model estimate is slightly low for the reimbursement and the values were adjusted on a jurisdictional basis. Parking revenues were estimated using a simple index of potential revenue obtained by multiplying the number of spaces by the all- day parking cost. Large, newly-opened parking lots were discounted since volumes build somewhat slowly. This approach was used to compute a scaling factor which was compared to the budgeted revenues for 1985; a value of approximately 86% was obtained by this method. The scaling factor was increased slightly, to 90%, for the 1993 and 2000 analysis, reflecting V7MATA plans to extend the hours during which parking fees are collected. The revised scaling factor was multiplied by the potential revenue index to obtain the values shown in the Exhibit. Estimates for non-fare revenues were provided by WMATA. Investment income and advertising revenues are projected to grow as the system expands. Leverage leasing income terminates in 1987 with the expiration of the tax law. Joint development income shows a substantial increase between 1985 and 1993 as current projects mature. This estimate does not include income from additional rents or future development agreements, which results in a lack of change between 1993 and 2000. -IV. 21- EXHIBIT IV. 10 METRORAIL REVENUES ($198^. rn: 1 1 icns) 1 0 8 S MODELED OPERATIIJG PEVF.NI'ES Pacnenger Rovonue 1 1 i ::chool Subr. idy Fo r o Po i mbu rsomon t f4.-i>: I-.ir c' Po i nljur;-,'-"'' rit i M rk i nq I'rjTAP 11-, (1) 19 9 3 MODEL 2000 MODEL 1 . (J ■/ 1 ] 3 3 . 8 2 C) 162 3 3 1 ( ) . sr.; ij . =r r 4 0 564 ( ) . (1 . r 2 0 1 . / < ■ ■ 1 . ■ ■ 2 1 1 ^. 34 2 1 ■» ' . . 4 ' ' 174 . 9 0 ADJUf.TED OI'EPAT n.'i3 I-'i: P.>r,sonqr'r PovrTiUr. f'chool r.upjsiriy i-'aro i mlH]r;-,r.rir.nt Max V.\ro PT' i niLi: rr.» F'a rk i iKj 'I'OTAI, ?Y 8. L" L ; ; ; (1 . 2 . ' : 1 ■ ■ i 1 r; A : . I 1 6 0 0 0 FY 0 0 ADJ r 8 5*^.4 1 7 ii* ifi-opi:ivA'i' I N(3 hv w'i i;iT I nvc'!->t niont I n(_-or;r> Lr'Vorarjo !,< •ar, i j A( i Vf^ rt i ;; i rv ! , < >t fi. ■ f .loint riovo 1 opniont '](.)'rAL 3 2 . 9 C 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 d 1 1 ' 'ruTAL PEVEND}-: Bus revenue is much more complicated since it is computed in an allocated manner based upon the dedication codes of the buses involved and whether or not a rail transfer is used. An initial calculation of bus revenues using the technique of multiplying projected trips by tariff fares produced a high estimate of 1985 revenue. The result occurs in part because the total Metrobus ridership estimate is somewhat high as well as the lower degree control over fare collection and other factors noted above. Bus revenues derived from the tariff are expected to be high because this procedure assumes that full fare is both paid and collected on all bus trips. The revenue yield is lower due to passes and discounts, fare evasion, passenger confusion, and other factors leading to a less than 100% revenue collection. The effects of these factors were quantified from the Spring 1984 Bus Passenger Survey and other data provided by WMATA. Separate factors were developed on a jurisdictional basis to reflect Flash Pass usage and uncollected revenues. Checks on the modeling approach show that estimates of bus-only and bus-rail trips are higher than the limited data available. Factors were developed for each of the markets and used to reproduce the base year results. These factors were then applied to the future year estimates. Even though some of the factors were somewhat larger than desirable, the results were considered to be acceptable since only minor changes in bus ridership and revenue were projected. The resulting projections are summarized in Exhibit IV. 11. Finally, rail patronage by jurisdiction of residence is required as an input to the Metrorail operating support formula and was computed from the model results. The model results reproduced the 1985 rail survey and 1986 budget distributions quite closely and the minor adjustments required were assumed to continue into the future. The resulting factors are noted in the allocation section of this report below. -IV. 23- ALLOCATED BUS REVENUES ($1986 r. i 1 1 i o r. G j JURISDICTION District o£ Columbia Montgomory Co. V • " - F^r i nee Goorq'-'n Co . . ■• ' Ar 1 i ngton -'t • ' • ' A 1 oxancl r i i Fa i r f a x Co . ' • . ; . Fa 1 1 s Churcii Fairfax City -'.1 1 •- NVTC ' . 14 TOl'AL - 1 (1) Ar.r.umon tul 1 yf ir^ (if rp<-r-it ; :i ■ * .'"tarK syr>tr'rn; r.t .\t \ r.t i''s ur.*' i t ) r' !V'< ■ a:o :- V. OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS INTRODUCTION This chapter documents the transit operating cost models developed and applied by Peat Marwick to project Metrobus, Metrorail, and local bus costs. The cost models consist of LOTUS 1-2-3 microcomputer spreadsheets that, together with projected estimates of transit service to be provided in future years, are used to project future transit operating expenses. The cost models are based on recent operating budget data supplemented by operating experience and discussions with key WMATA and local government transportation management staff. The three major operating cost models are: o Metrobus cost model, which projects the costs to operate and maintain diesel buses including local, express, and feeder routes to Metrorail; o Metrorail cost model, which projects the costs to operate and maintain vehicles, stations, track and structures, and ancillary facilities and systems for Metrorail. These costs are distinct and separate from the rehabilitation and replacement costs documented in Chapter VII. o Local bus cost models, which project the costs to operate the four suburban bus operations: o Montgomery County "Ride-On" o Fairfax County "Fairfax Connector" o City of Alexandria "DASH" o Fairfax City "CUE" The cost models are structured in such a way that once annual operating statistics have been determined, the annual costs can be computed quickly. The primary inputs to the Metrobus, Metrorail, and local bus models include those factors traditionally developed in the urban transportation planning process: peak vehicles, annual vehicle hours, and annual vehicle miles. In addition, the Metrorail model requires descriptors of the physical characteristics of the system including stations, route miles, and yards. The cost models are intended to be used in evaluating alternative regional bus and rail service levels and construction schedules. The models project costs in both base year (1986) and inflated dollars. It must be emphasized that these models are approximations and although they are derived from the most recent operating budgets, they simplify the detailed procedures used to develop annual transit system budgets. To the extent possible, the models reflect the latest available financial, operational, and maintenance data. The remainder of this discusses the following: o cost model . re o driving variables o inflation n n ^ i rV, >- , , r -n ^ o analysis operating cost experience o calibration of Metrobus and Metrorail cost models o application of Metrob'-^- .^!nd Ketrorail cost models o local bus operating c rejections BASIC MODEL STRUCTURE The operating cost models are paramet: ' 'oductivity^ composed of a series of equations tha ^ costs as a function of the quantity of transportation service provided, equations are organized to approxim<^te costs incurred by organizational i;.nit5-, of the transit agency. For each organizational unit, soecific costs were identified that are affected by specific operating characteristics. Each of the; specific costs was modelled as a 5-.oparate equation. These Th equations were, therefore, mutually < capture all costs resulting from tf;e Five general types of (;.,j;;t ec}ua t i f;iis four model variable costs: ■ >: ' : 1 u s i v e a n 1 cpr-r.'ition ol attempted to the deve 1 c j .ed , ;tom . •h i ch o union lahjor (.-(jsts; o front-line supervisory non-union labor costs; o <jdm i nistt-at 1 vo non-unic^n lalor costs; an i o parts, suftt^ 1 i , '^nd servicer; (:o:;ts. The fifth models fixed co: discussed below. .ts. Fac'h of the variable cost 1 s Union .-.3 The union labor cost f or"mul at ions are of the form Un i on Labor Cost rn i t of ■-erv i ce balor Product IV i t' Fa.'t or Cost per I'nit of babor where the factors ai"e del iried as follows o Unit of Service: Generally, the number of vehicle-miles vehicle-hours, or number of vehicles based on the t^stimate used in specifying the service plan. The cost model is intended to model costs per unit of ser\'ice prov i ded rather than cost per unit of service used (e.g. per passenger or per passenger-mile) , since most costs are incurred by supplying the service rather than by how many passengers use it. o Labor Productivity Factor: The number of non-supervisory personnel, or personnel-hours, required to adequately staff each unit of service provided. This factor considers the impact of worker efficiency, need for training, and scheduled and unscheduled absenteeism. o Cost per Unit: The wage per hour (or per year) for the non-supervisory employees providing the basic service. This is usually the wage for vehicle operators and mechanics and includes average wages (straight wages plus overtime, vacation, and sick pay) . It does not include expenses for fringe benefits (such as pension funds, FICA, and insurance) . These data were obtained through a detailed review of operating budgets, supported by discussion and interpretation by knowledgeable staff. All costs are in FY86 dollars. Front-Line Supervisory Non-Union Labor Costs Front-line supervisory non-union labor cost equations are of the form: Front-line Number of Union Employees Avg. Supervisor Supervisory = Union x Front-line x Salary Labor Cost Employees Supervisor Man-Year where the factors are defined as follows: o Number of Union Employees: The number of a particular category of union employee to be supervised (e.g., the number of bus mechanics, cleaners, or janitors) . o Union Employees/Front-line Supervisor: The number of union employees a foreman or supervisor can manage. o Average Supervisor Salary /Man-Year: Annual salary for front-line supervisor, not including fringes. Administrative Non-Union Labor Costs These costs are based on either current (fixed) number of employees in various administrative staff areas or on an exogenously determined number of employees that may change over time. Average salary per employee was determined from operating budgets. Projected number of employees was obtained from knowledgeable staff. Parts, Supplies, and Service Costs The variable parts, supplies, and service cost equations project costs for maintenance parts, fuel, office supplies, and similar non-personnel costs. The equations are generally of the form: -V.3- liu ri i ' r i V ) Kail Tt i V i k ; '.'.i r i i! o Revenue Train Hours; Annual scheduled hours of service (including revenue, layover, and deadheading; not including start-up, training, utility, extra service, special events, and fringe benefits (sick, holiday, vacation, funeral) ) ; o Subway Stations; Stations located in cut-and-cover, earth tunnel , or rock tunnel ; o Other Stations; Stations located at-grade, in cut, in retained cut, or on aerial structure; o Mezzanines; Station entrances with a station agent and fare collection equipment; o Service and Inspection (S&I) Yards; Major maintenance facilities where all maintenance activities can take place and where large numbers of vehicles can be stored; o Route Miles; Length of two-way track in revenue service (between terminals of lines, not including yard, pocket, and other non-revenue track) ; o Manned Interlockings ; Switching points located at terminals, points of route divergence, and yards where an operator is assigned; o Terminals; Number of ends of lines; o Rail Passengers; Annual rail passenger boardings. INFLATION CONSIDERATIONS All of the unit costs in the operating cost models are expressed in 1986 constant dollars. These costs were derived from 1986 budget data and other sources, converted to 1986 dollars using historical rates of Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation. Inflation rates were assumed for the following components; o "Base Line" Inflation; The rate of increase in the Washington, D.C. CPI applied to all labor costs (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and non-personnel costs other than diesel fuel, parts, and electricity. o Diesel Fuel Inflation; Inflation based on the historical and projected incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and diesel fuel price increases. o Electricity Inflation; Based on anticipated incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and PEPCO and Virginia Power rates for WMATA. -V.5- o Parts Inflation: Based on historical and anticipated incremental difference between the base line inflation rate and prices for vehicle and systems maintenance parts . Projected inflation rates were based on short-term budget assump- tions by WMATA and longer-term assumptions approved by the TAC: Year Base Line Diesel Fuel Eletricity Parts FY86 FY87 -J ♦ ^ o 2 . 0% 4 .9% 4 .9% FY88 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 FYS 9 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 5 . 0 FY90 thru 5 . 0 7 . 0 7 . 0 6 . 0 FYOO The inflation rates used in the operating cost analysis use the Washington CPI projection as the "base line" rate of inflation. The incremental differences between the base line rate and the rate for specific cost components is then applied to compute compounded inflation factors for specific cost components. The inflation factors computed in this manner were used to estimate costs in inflated dollars. The "uninflated" or "base year" costs reflect the incremental inflation only, but do not directly include the base line CPI values. A detailed descrip- tion of the inflation calculations is included in Appendix D. ANALYSIS OF PRIOR WMATA OPERATING COST EXPERIENCE In preparing to calibrate the Metrobus and Metrorail cost models, it was recognized that WMATA ' s prior operating cost experience would have to be examined in order to determine the extent to which costs have stabilized. This was important because the basis of the calibration was the FY86 proposed operating budget. This analysis of prior years' cost was also undertaken to address concern regarding the degree to which "fixed" costs have truly been stable over time. The analysis was performed based on data obtained from WMATA • s Office of Budget and Management Analysis in the form of computer printouts of actual costs incurred in fiscal years FY81 through FY85. FY86 budgeted costs were included as well as a basis for comparison. The WMATA data recorded actual expenses and encumbrances by office, by mode (bus and rail), and by line item. The analysis was structured according to the WI«1ATA organizational structure assumed for the FY86 budget. There have been significant changes in the WMATA organizational structure over the past six years and costs for prior years were entered in the analysis according to the new structure. As a result, the totals by department (and occasionally by office) are not always the same as data from other sources. -V. 6- Another important consideration, particularly in reviewing the magnitude of fixed costs, is that it was not always possible to accurately separate fixed from variable costs for a number of reasons: o Aggregation of Fringe Benefits: All fringe benefits, except in FY81, are shown in a single category "Non- Departmental Expenses". As a result, all fringes are shown in a category separate from "fixed" and "variable" expenses. o Aggregation of Salaries: All salaries are aggregated in each office. It was not possible to separate salaries for front-line supervisors. These expenses are legitimately "variable" in nature as they vary with the level of service provided. As a result, there is a trend in the analysis for Metrorail's fixed expenses to increase over time as the level of service increases and the salaries for front-line supervisors increase. The results of the analysis of the operating cost data are shown graphically and discussed in detail in Appendix D. The major conclusions may be summarized as follows: o Bus fixed costs, in base year dollars, have remained relatively constant over the past three years. o Total bus operating costs, in base year dollars, have also remained relatively constant and, indeed, have actually declined somewhat, which reflects a slight decrease in the level of service provided. o Rail costs have significantly increased with the growth of the Metrorail system. o Metrobus costs per vehicle mile increased in real terms through FY84 and have stabilized since, due in part to aggressive cost containment actions. o Metrorail costs per car-mile also increased through FY84 and have declined since, again reflecting aggressive cost containment actions by WMATA. o Metrorail staffing requirements have shown general improvement in productivity since FY84. CALIBRATION OF METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS The Metrobus and Metrorail operating cost models were calibrated based on the WMATA FY86 Approved Budget. The calibration process involved structuring a series of equations, such as those outlined earlier in this chapter, to replicate the budget. The actual equations are summarized in Appendix D. \ : , I I"':'.' : ''■w : ; . r- fj .-J I' at 1 ■ f 1 Adjustments to FYS 6 Calibration The following areas were identified in which modifications to the FY86 cost relationships had to be made to reflect FY87 costs. Greater detail in each area is included in Appendix D. Termination of Old Programs and Initiation of New Programs WMATA i sspending roughly $10 million on programs that are phasing out and will not recur in FY87. Some of these programs, such as the Flxible bus rehabilitation program, were previously addressed in the model. There are approximately $4.3 million in various new programs and enhancements to existing programs that were not reflected in the FYS 6 budget. These are summarized in Appendix D. Changes in Labor Productivity and Unit Costs Various program areas will be affected by changing experience and external factors. These areas include: o workers compensation o third party liability claims o insurance o facilities maintenance o rail car maintenance o rail systems maintenance o electricity In many of these areas, such as workers compensation, facilities maintenance, and electricity, WMATA anticipates continued improvement in productivity. In other areas, such as third party liability claims and insurance, WMATA experience will likely mirror that of other transit systems with significant increases in costs. Rail systems maintenance will generally improve with more efficient use of manpower but extended hours of operation on Sundays will offset these improvements. Although rail car maintenance productivity has improved over the past several years, it seemed prudent to maintain current levels of productivity through FY90 and then gradually show a reduction in productivity as the rail fleet ages. Detailed results in each cost area are summarized in Appendix D. APPLICATION OF WMATA METROBUS AND METRORAIL COST MODELS Exhibit V.l summarizes the driving variables, inflation rates, and labor productivity factor inputs to the Metrobus and Metrorail operating cost models for fiscal years 1986, 1993, and 2000. Exhibit V.2 summarizes the model outputs for these years, including an allocation of fixed and variable costs and a breakdown of salaried and union employees. The cost models were applied to project costs for every year from FY8 6 through FYOO. A detailed set of projections for each -V.9- Mini- INFUTS EXHIBIT V.2 PROJECTED METROBUS AND METRORAIL OPERATING COST MODEL RESULTS This Year Stark-Harris Completion FY86 FY93 (1) FYOO OPERATING EXPENSE IN IS 8 6 $ (Millions) Metrobus $233,766 $232. 976 $233. 444 Metrorail $188,589 $238. 243 $291. 633 Total $422,355 $471. 219 $525. 077 Metrobus Allocation Fixed $53,167 $54. 634 $54. 599 Mileage-Related $76,159 $75. 896 $77. 644 Hour-Related $104,440 $102. 445 $101. 201 Total $233,766 $232. 976 $233. 444 Metrorail "Allocation" Fixed $37,236 $39. 413 $39. 413 Variable $151,353 $198. 831 $252. 220 Total $188,589 $238. 243 $291. 633 EMPLOYEES (Man-Years) Metrobus Salaried 574.3 573.5 573.1 Union 3663.8 3619.5 3580.8 Subtotal 4238.2 4193.0 4153.9 Metrorail Salaried 910.8 1034.6 1141.7 Union 2200.7 2801.5 3391.0 Subtotal 3111.5 3836. 1 4532.7 TOTAL 7349.6 8029. 1 8686.6 (1) FY93 Includes Partial Year of Operation of Final Stark-Harris System Components EXHIBIT V.3 WMATA SERVICE LEVELS 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 □ Metrobus + Metrorall -V. 12- analysis year is included in Appendix D. Exhibit V.3 summarizes the projected vehicle miles of service for Metrobus and Metrorail in each year. Exhibit V.4 summarizes the resulting projected operating costs and Exhibit V.5 summarizes the number of WMATA employees by major category. LOCAL BUS OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS Annual operating costs were projected for the four local jurisdictions that operate bus systems. Cost models were calibrated in a manner similar to that used for the Metrobus and Metrorail cost models. Projections were made for the years 1986, 1993, and 2000. The sources of information for these projections were discussions with knowledgeable staff supplemented by detailed budgets and consultant reports. The following summarizes the level of service assumptions and resulting cost projections: o Montaomerv County; Currently, service is provided with 151 peak-hour buses. Ten buses are assumed to be added by 1993 and 10 more by 2000. Vehicle-miles and vehicle- hours are assumed to expand on the basis of fleet size. Operating costs increase from $6.7 million to $7.6 million from 1986 to 2000 (in 1986 dollars). o Fairfax County; The current Huntington feeder service utilizes 27 peak-hour buses and is assumed to continue unchanged for the base line projections. Operating costs remain constant at $1.0 million (1986 dollars). o City of Alexandria; The current service utilizes 15 peak-hour buses. Three buses are assumed to be added for Cameron Valley service by 1993. Vehicle-miles and vehicle-hours are assumed to expand on the basis of fleet size. Annual operating costs increase from $0.6 million to $0.7 million (1986 dollars). o Fairfax City; Re-orientation of Fairfax City service to serve Metrorail is assumed to be accomplished within the current overall budget of $0.5 million. -V.13- EXHIBIT V.4 Vviviata employees 4 G 6- <r $ B -(^t (f tr^ ♦ EXHIBIT V.S WMATA OPERATINQ EXPENSES 550 -1 (O 400 - 150 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ '—I 1 1 1 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 □ Metrobus + Metrorail o Total WMATA -V.15- VI. RAIL CONSTRUCTION The rail construction necessary to complete the planned 103-mile Metrorail system is broken down into two major groups: those segments that are a part of the 89.5-mile system to be funded on the basis of the Stark-Harris Federal authorization and those segments that comprise the final 14 miles of the system. The Stark-Harris segments are the following: Line Terminal Scheduled Opening Orange Vienna June, 1986 Red Wheaton March, 1989 Green U Street July, 1990 Green Anacostia December, 1990 Yellow Van Dorn December, 1990 Green Greenbelt-'- December, 1992 ^ Shuttle operation from Ft. Totten The following segments complete the 103-mile system: Line Red Yellow Green Green Green Terminal Glenmont Franconia Columbia Hts. Georgia Ave.^ Branch Avenue Scheduled Opening January, 1994 January, 1994 July, 1994 July, 1996 December, 1997 2 Connection between Columbia Heights and Ft. Totten The capital costs for completing the Metrorail system are somewhat difficult to set forth because of the differences between the obligation of funds for segments, when construction is actually performed, when funds are received from Federal and local sources, and other accounting issues. For simplicity, costs were developed based upon the schedule of billings to the local jurisdictions. These billings reflect the construction schedule agreed upon by local officials (ICCA-IV) and assume an uninterrupted flow of Federal funds. For the Stark-Harris (89.5-mile) system, the Federal government is assumed to pay for 80% of the construction costs, although some delays have occurred in recent Federal obligations. For system completion, two alternative funding scenarios were developed. Under the scenario most favorable to the local and state governments. Alternative A, the Federal government is assumed to pay 75% of the post Stark-Harris construction costs, which is in line with current UMTA capital grant matching ratios. Under the scenario less favorable to the local and state governments. Alternative B, no Federal funds are assumed available beyond the Stark-Harris authorization. -VI. 1- A ::chod!jle of biiim'^s to the local ] ur i s i i c 1 1 c ns under tcth alternatives v;aG developed. The totil r. : r.-Fe de ra 1 ccst under A Iter n a t i v e A w o u Id he s 1 i h 1 1 y less t h an S 5 : r. 1 1 1 1 c n ( i n constant 198C dollars), while under Alternative 3, it wculd be just over billion. Moreover, the allocation of these cost to the local jurisdictions wculd change scr.ewhat because of complex, negotiated payrent schedules that take into account th t i m i n g o f 1 o c a 1 c o r, t r i h 'u 1 1 o n s r e 1 a *: : •.• e to t h e pace of rj n s t r u t i o n i n c ■ : h ] u r i r: i i r t : o n . 'I ho locii payr^onts are oft set slight t u n 'J s , v; h i < ; li a re i n t c- r e s t f-~\vv.\ n s I ro.c thf- local qo vf- r nr ("-n t r; :n a lwin- f,ayr.^r.t s . I hesf fur. is .ire i 1 : - it' i ■ irmuil bir-. .ini otJc.<:'t thf .r. i.".'. t- h<'- i r 1 r. 1 i V 1 dua i • "u.t: r i t ; • . hy internally qenerated v.:: 1 A c n funis r e c e i \' e d ! a/f .^1 c:nst ruction t f. ' ;. !' 1 ! ; 1 1 ; t 1 c n s on a n A ci.r r-y ot t h^ 1 i 1 1 i n J s C," i : 1 ! _ r ; ;i L/hi : t 1 t '.' I . 1 t ' r t " r. A > •:h'/..-:i i the 1 • • a 1 sn ir ! * n.-:;..- t !,'• ; ■ 1 ; bi ! ! i n ;u t;. i * : .r- ! ^. I ! I ' " M* 1 <n tjf thf r. n - F 1 ; n i r u i >; r 1 i ' ■ f ) a r" 1 c i r ■ ^ ; :, . ■ ; : c. w :\ ; • ■ :. w t h.' 1 ' . ; 1 r w . . i ■ : i •• i-: .1 I : .u, 1 : n ; * ;. c i . " n r- :n \'' " is shew wti rt' ir^rivc'd hast'd ( c i " C . . n 7 r" a t 1 : s . A n t ^ a : t ; 1 1 1 n ^s for t . : h : s Fxh ih. It . ; , : ; : . ; t ' '^^ .">. ~ U -VI EXHIBIT VI. 1 RAIL CONSTRUCTION CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS (Millions, 1986 Dollars) Fiscal Total Federal Share^ Internally^ Non-Federal Share Year Costs Alt. A Alt. B Generated Alt. A Alt. B 1985 381.99 305 . 59 305.59 15.00 61.40 61 . 40*-^ 1986 312.50 250.00 250.00 17.60 44.90 44.90 1987 332.20 265.76 265.76 18.36 48.08 48.08 1988 287 . 55 230.04 230.04 18 . 04 39.48 39.48 1989 292.56 229. 60 167.46 17.35 45.61 107.75 1990 312 . 98" 234.74 0 00 16 . 69 61 55 296.29 1991 298.08 223.56 0.00 15.90 58.62 282.18 1992 283.89 212.91 0.00 15. 14 55.83 268.75 1993 270.37 202 .78 0.00 14.42 53 . 17 255.95 1994 105.74 79.31 o.bo 13.73 12.70 92.01 1995 28.12 21.09 0.00 7.03 0.00 21.09 1996 17.76 13.32 0.00 4.44 0.00 13.32 1997 14.69 11.01 0.00 3.67 0.00 11.01 TOTAL 2938.43 2279.71 1218.85 177.45 481.34 1542.21 a The Federal share under both Alternatives A and B for Fiscal Years 1985 through 1989 reflects the full Stark-Harris authorization. Internally generated funds are interest earnings by WMATA that are credited to a jurisdiction, such as when a juris- diction is ahead in its payments. These funds are used as part of a jurisdiction's local match. Billings not yet submitted to jurisdictions due to delays in approval of Federal grants. The total cost for 1990 through system completion reflects the schedule in ICCA-IV. Under Alternative A, 75% of these costs would be borne by the Federal government. Under Alter- native B, 100% of these costs would be borne by the local and state governments. -VI. 3- 2 LLOCATED PAIL CONSTPUCION COSTS VII. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COST PROJECTIONS This chapter presents the methodology and results of an analysis of the capital requirements for the rehabilitation and replacement of Metrobus anmd Metrorail facilities and equipment. These projections represent costs that are over and above projections of operating and construction costs. Rehabilitation and replacement (R & R) activities are a natural extension of routine maintenance activities currently being undertaken by WMATA. Rehabilitation and replacement of facilities and equipment occurs for the following reasons: o Functional obsolescence: due to a part or component wearing out o Technological obsolescence: due to a new device becoming available that meets or exceeds the requirements of the current device o Changed requirements; due to changes in policy, such as level of service or safety In these cases, the decision to rehabilitate or replace usually entails comparing the costs to repair (generally considered an operating cost) versus the cost to rehabilitate or replace. This analysis would directly address anticipated functional and technological obsolescence. Rehabilitation and replacement costs due to changed requirements would be addressed in so far as current policy has affected original design requirements, METHODOLOGY The following categories were used to structure the analysis: o Metrobus facilities and equipment o facilities and equipment, except buses and new maintenance facilities o buses o new maintenance facilities o Metrorail facilities o facilities, except track o track o Metrorail equipment o equipment, except rail cars o rail cars The projection of future costs for facilities and equipment except for buses, new bus maintenance facilities, track, and rail cars was structured to take advantage of the following information available from WMATA: -VII. 1- o capital izod asr:ot values ir.-lu i ir.g /'otrcrail sog-ents already in revenue ser'.'ice; , riintriinci t y the vry.ATA Office of Accounting 'ACCT, ani tne :i'fire cf M^.nagor.ent Information f ; e r v i c e 5 'MI :". ■.' , o projected ac::et -.m] les 'mcl u jin': .Y'^-'^ r ? r ^. 1 1 se:r-ents not yet in re- ■/ e n : e r: r •.' 1 c e ^ , p r r ; r i t y " r. e V."?-'. ATA : f f 1 c e of iToqran Cent ro 1 ( t ]■ ' "Z , o reha b 1 1 1 1 a : o n -i n i : to the I r-r ■'■n'^ !'.''■■ 1 en jth, [ :-'•: !: -■ i hy toll r,w 1 r,'| v.':-' A': A '.'■] relatc.i ne cy.rle ! f 1 n the o ; ;• I) 1 r-.f -ur-.r-. i r,r\'; w ; *■ I'. and r.){ 1 i r ,! : , th.it ]>vn ](■'. - t ; : , ■ ; ■.v- .11 hi I .■ ,1 : .:. ♦ ! a ' hj , ■. -t . ■ i I'lar.' ; i' d ; ; ; : < ai t h' • I IS , a : I '> • 1 la ■ : , I ' ; . ; ; I .an r-. : :-. j ar. 1 ; < ■ 1 ■ ! . I \i>- ::..a!-'-.' ■ : .iaa<d d it .i 1 !• Ai -1 Ml I": t 1 : ; J . t a . • 1 1 1 t 1 . • : ; , i n >--d.'d int., r..- a 1 M:-.U 1 t iMt •a r-t . t a:"<' :■>■ i : I n t h.- i-a:w t . 1 1 ! .-It:-., I . 'h-i! ; ; ; t 1* . 1 : ^ ■ a ;■ ; * ; ■ : . s an i a atr. In t!i.- diaaa:- ::ad h.vhd.-a i- a i i :..a:'a; ; . -1 1 . U!-..-d t «•. :-: ni hu ^; ra ; a t I t .d 1 ,v^-,-,i 1 y .1 an.d o>]u 1 pr.s ::t . f * ' n : s It: 1 e s Pot a 1 1 ed taaa: 1 t a- ! t he a. oar.daiatina the an ^lysii=;, ta^p I a^aa-t'^i^t caa ts '.■ iry v.- ~ d. 'a o to t h o v: o \- o n d. i s t r" 1 1 u t : a p. y s : s ^ r e ? ^ r ^ •." t r ; : n A : ; c- r. i i x E . In ; *" -he ^. a : r f"' a ^ t e : y r . This is 1 n a r~ s t class and the differing cycle lengths of the rehabilitation and replacement cycles. For example, the large costs shown for 1987 and 1997 represent the 10- and 20-year R & R cycles for Metrorail assets capitalized in 1977. These assets include a significant portion of the Metrorail system: from Rhode Island Avenue to Dupont Circle and from Stadium-Armory to National Airport. Given that the projected sudden increases and decreases in the magnitude of the capital rehabilitation and replacement program would be difficult to plan for and administer, the realities of the budgeting process in all likelihood would lead to a smoothing out of the stream of expenses. In recognition of this eventuality, the projected costs were averaged using a 7-year "rolling average", which involves averaging three years on either side of the target year. Another advantage of using the rolling average is it addresses some costs that would be incurred just beyond the year 2 000. INPUT ASSET VALUES The input data for all asset categories except buses and rail cars was provided in tabular form by the WMATA Office of Management Information Services (MISV) which displayed the dollar value of all Authority assets. Separate tables were prepared for Metrobus, Metrorail facilities, and Metrorail equipment. The tables aggregated costs into approximately 50 asset classes, tabulated by year of expenditure. In the case of Metrorail facilities and equipment, assets were capitalized in the year the segment (or "phase") opened (or will open) for revenue service. These tables were reviewed for accuracy and completeness by comparing other routinely generated fixed asset accounting reports. There were several instances of assets not coded by year of capitalization. These were examined on a case-by-case basis and were manually assigned to the appropriate year. These data were then converted from year-of-expenditure to base year (1986) dollars using historical inflation rates documented by PROG. METROBUS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS Three separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrobus facilities and equipment R & R costs: o facilities and equipment, except buses and new maintenance facilities o buses o new maintenance facilities -VII. 3- Metrobus Facilities and Equiprr.ent , exrep": Euses ar.i New Eus .Maintenance Facilities /:■ ■■:< for ;■ ■ * .. • : : ' ■ : " ' ; . L u r> R fj hi a b i i i t a t i o n a :. 1 I- . i : r :. \ • EXHIBIT VII. 1 METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT ASSET CLASSES A Office Furn & Equipment C Buses E Service Vehicles F Automobiles G Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - Heavy Duty I Land AA Passenger Station Other AB Parking Facilities AC Building & Structure AI Equipment Parking AJ Equipment Shops AR Equip Bus Cntrl , AIDS AX Fareboxes AX AFC Other AY Equipment Data Processing AZ Equipment Communication BA Equipment Other BB Repairables BC Intangible Assets Note: Buses and some of the building and structure replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis -VII. 5- Results Exhibit VII. 2 summarizes the results of the analysis of Netrobus facilities and equipment rehabilitation and replacement costs for 1986 through 2000. METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS Two separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrorail facilities R & R costs: o Metrorail facilities, except track o track Metrorail Facilities, except Track The detailed claases for Metrorail facilities are shown in Exhibit VII. 3. Current and projected asset values, along with the replacement cycle assumptions, are shown in Appendix E. The sources of the cycle assumptions were PROG and FMNT. It should be noted that the replacement percentages do not include any costs for essentially non-replaceable components of the assets. For example, it is assumed that none of the cost for design, excavation, and ba:->ic concrete structures would be incurred a q a i n . Tho assets Vs/oro c.itoqor i ^.c^l into the followinq major classes: o lino (between stations), by type or construction o stations, by type of construction o other, including maintenance facilities, parking lots, and other structures The results of this analysis on an annual basis are shown in Exhibit VI I. 4. " '^^placement Costs I'he trequoncy and form of track replacement is a function of throe factors: o type of construction o severity of tr-cUtic loads o shai'pnoss of curves The type of cons^ ' ' ^' --^ ^^'^ects wear primarily in that ballasted track provides . le foundation that can respond to train loads than do rigid direct fixation sections. Traffic loads are twice ^s hn-\'" in the center of the system where two lines share tr sharpness of curves affects wear on the inner surface ol the outer rail in response to the centrifugal force of the wheel flange on the side of the rail as the car travels around a curve. -VII . 6- EXHIBIT VII. 2 BUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT (7— Yr Avg, except Maint Facil) □ Bus Other + Buses o New Maint Fac -VII. 7- EXHIBIT VII. 3 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES J Structure Line K Structure Line L Structure Line M Structure Line N Structure Line 0 Structure Line Q Structure Line R Structure Line Cut/Cover Rock/Earth Tunnel At-Grade Aerial Sunken Tube Bridge Xover & Turnout Other S Passenger Station Cut/Cover T Passenger Station Rock U Passenger Station At-Grade V Passenger Station Aerial AB Parking Facilities AC Bldg & Structure AD Track Yard AE Third Rail Note: Track replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis -VII . 8- EXHIBIT VII. 4 RAIL STRUCTURE REHAB 8c REPLACEMENT (7— Year Rolling Averages) 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 D Line + Stations o Other -VII. 9- This latter wear on curved track generally controls its useful life, being more severe than the wear on the top surface of the railo For economic reasons, V7MATA employs a technique, common in the railroad industry, of transposing the inner and outer rails in curve sections. Thus, a given piece of track can have its useful life roughly doubled over that which would be dictated by wear on the inner surface of the outer rail. At the first replacement cycle, the rails are simply transposed and no track is replaced. At the second cycle, the now-worn outer rail is replaced. At the third and succeeding cycles, the outer rail is moved to the inside, a new outer rail is installed, and the inner rail is discarded. For purposes of this analysis, WMATA classified the existing trackage into three categories based on type of construction and traffic loads: o Subsurface, heavy traffic (SSH) o Subsurface, routine traffic (SSR) o Surface (including aerial) (SUR) In addition, all track was categorized by degree of curvature into four groups: o Curve 1: under 900 foot radius o Curve 2: 900 - 1200 foot radius o Curve 3: 1200 - 2000 foot radius o Tangent (including curves over 2000 foot radius) WMATA supplied a summary of the percentages of track by type for each phase of the existing system and each planned extension. These data are summarized in Appendix E. WMATA staff estimated the useful lives for each classification, including the transposition interval for curve sections. They also estimated a difficulty factor for various replacement activities which was applied to the labor and equipment costs used in the replacement activities but not for the materials. Finally, WMATA staff estimated the reclaimed value of materials, the value of materials retained in place, and the ratio of materials cost to labor and equipment costs for the construction contracts. For new construction, an additional factor was applied to back-out the cost for third-rail which is included in the trackwork contract but has an extremely long life. The life expectancies and difficuly factors for the various sections are as follows: -VII. 10- Useful Life Difficulty Factor Type Curvature Transpose Replace Transpose Replace SSH Tangent Curve 1 3 Curve 2 5 Curve 3 8 SSR Tangent Curve 1 5 Curve 2 8 Curve 3 11 18 - 3.0 6 2.0 2.5 10 2.0 2.5 16 2.0 2.5 25 - 3.0 5 2.0 2.5 15 2.0 2.5 21 2.0 2.5 SUR Tangent - 35 - 2.0 Curve 1 10 20 2.0 2.0 Curve 2 20 35 2.0 2.0 Curve 3 20 35 2.0 2.0 In addition, the following factors were assumed to be applied as appropriate: o Materials assumed as 4 5% of total construction cost; labor and equipment comprise the balance o Third rail assumed as 29% of construction estimate for new segments o Reclaim value of materials assumed as 20% o For SUR sections, 35% of the value would be retained in place and reduce both materials cost and labor and equipment cost; this reflects retention of some ties, fasteners, ballast, etc. which are also routinely replaced as part of maintenance activities o For transposition, labor and equipment cost assumed as 15% Applying these various factors resulted in the following replacement cost percentages: First Second Other Type Curvature Cycle Cycle Cycles SSH & SSR Tangent - - 2 01.0% All Curves 30.0% 86.8% 220.8% SUR Tangent - - 94.9% All Curves 30.0% 47.5% 62.5% The results of the analysis for all segments and estimated costs through 2 015 are shown in Appendix E. All values were calculated on an annual basis and converted to a seven-year rolling average for display purposes. The resulting average values for 1986 - 2000 are shown in Exhibit VII. 5. No tangent track replacement is -VII. 11- EXHIBIT VII. 5 TRACK REHAB AND REPLACEMENT (7— Year Rolling Averages) 1 1 _, -VII. 12- shown until 1992 but thereafter costs rise quickly to $8 - $10 million per year through the late 1990 's. Replacement costs for curved track reflect an ongoing program that increases from $4 - $5 million per year in the mid 1980 's to approximately $10 million by 2000. The total costs for the key years of 1993 and 2000 are $15.0 million and $14.5 million, respectively. It should be noted that the track replacement costs reflect only mainline track in revenue service. Yard track is currently replaced less frequently, except at major wear points, and track removed from elsewhere in the system is generally re-used in the yards, often after turning it around using the loop tracks. The labor costs and minor material costs for these activities are currently included in the maintenance budget. METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS Two separate analyses were undertaken to compute Metrorail equipment R & R costs: o Metrorail equipment, except rail cars o rail cars Metrorail Equipment, except Rail Cars The assets were categorized into the following major classes: o escalators and elevators o communications o Automatic Train Control (ATC) o Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) o wayside and power o other, including office furniture and equipment, service vehicles, shop equipment, and data processing equipment The detailed classes are shown in Exhibit VII. 6. Current and projected asset values, along with the replacement cycle assumptions, are shown in Appendix E. The sources of the cycle assumptions were ENGA and RAIL. The results of the analysis are shown on an annual basis in Exhibit VII. 7. Rail Car Rehabilitation and Replacement Costs WMATA currently does not have very much information regarding the rehabilitation and replacement of the rail car fleet. Experience from other properties is of limited value because of the unique features of the ViMATA vehicles. Based on limited information, WMATA estimates a useful life for the rail cars of approximately 35 years, recognizing that the actual life for individual vehicles will vary somewhat from that average. With a current replacement cost of approximately $1.1 million in 1986 dollars, this represents a very significant cost. However, this cost would not be reflected in the analysis unless it is annualized, since the useful lives of the initial fleet would not be reached until approximately 2012. -VII. 13- EXHIBIT VII. 6 METRORAIL EQUIPMENT ASSET CLASSES A Office Furn & Equipment E Service Vehicles F Automobiles G Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - Heavy Duty W Passenger Station Overheads X Passenger Station Kiosk Y Passenger Station Signing Z Passenger Station Elev Structure AA Passenger Station Other AB Parking Facilities AF Equipment Transit Way AG Escalators AH Elevators AI Equipment Parking AJ Equipment Shops AK Equipment Power AL Equipment ATC Stations AM Equipment ATC Xover & Turnout AN Equipment ATC Yard AO Equipment ATC Passenger Car AP Equipment ATC Computer System AQ Equipment ATC Line AR Equipment Bus Control, AIDS AS AFC Vendor AT AFC Addfare AU AFC DADS AV AFC Transfer AW AFC Gates AX AFC Other AY Equipment Data Processing AZ Equipment Communication BA Equipment Other Note: Rail car rehabilitation and replacement costs are computed in a separate analysis -VII. 14- EXHIBIT VII. 7 RAIL EQUIP REHAB AND REPLACEMENT (7— Year Rolling Averages) -VII. 15- EXHIBIT VII. 8 WMATA RAIL CAR REHABILITATION COSTS BY COMPONENT Component of Total % of Cost Freq. Cost Replaced Years Total % Car Body Dest. Signs/Lighting 7.84 2.45 40 lb/20 100 12 & 24 3.136 4.900 Propulsion System Friction Brakes & Pneumatics Auxiliary Systems Truck/Suspension & Primary Power System Coupler/Draft Gear Doors & Controls HVAC Communications ATC System 4.28 13 . 01 4.33 34.02 1.70 3.82 4.22 0.97 23.36 15 15 33.3 10 40 100- 40 100 25 20 20 20 20 15/20 15/20 15/20 15/20 15/20 4.280 1.952 1.443 3.402 0, 680 3.820 1.688 0.970 5.840 TOTAL 100.00 32.111 -VII. 16- In addition to the ultimate replacement of the vehicles, a major rehabilitation is anticipated at approximately half-way through the life of the car or at about 18 years. WMATA estimates that the value of the car components that would be replaced would amount to 32.11% of the total car value when car-borne ATC equipment is included, or about $353,000 per car. Exhibit VII. 8 summarizes the derivation of this replacement factor, on a component-by-component basis. Some of these components have already been replaced on the initial WMATA fleet of Rohr cars through various upgrade programs. For purposes of the analysis, this has been assumed to delay the mid-point for rehabilitation to 23 years for these vehicles . Because of the magnitude of rail car costs and the fact that the replacement costs and most of the rehabilitation costs would not be incurred until after 2 000, it was deemed prudent to treat rail car costs somewhat differently from those for the rehabilitation and replacement of other rail and bus system components. Therefore, simple straight-line, average annual costs were computed for the rehabilitation and replacement of each component of the current and future Metrorail fleet. These calculations were made by estimating the rehabilitation and replacement dates for each fleet component, then spreading these costs uniformly over the respective useful lives. For the current fleet, the costs were computed over a shorter time frame reflecting the age of the fleet and were assumed to start in 1988 since no provision for these costs is currently included in the 1986 or 1987 WMATA budgets . Thus, the rehabilitation year for the initial 24 0 Rohr cars that were capitalized in 1977 would be 2000 with replacment in 2012. The remaining 60 Rohr cars follow one year later. The first Breda cars, capitalized in 1983, would require rehabilitation in 2001 (18 years) but replacement would not occur until 2018. The remaining Breda cars in the current fleet would be rehabilitated and replaced on an annual basis over succeeding years. The final cars purchased are scheduled to begin revenue service in 1997, resulting in rehabilitation in 2015 and replacement in 2032. For each fleet, the rehabilitation and replacement costs were spread over the appropriate years and summed for annual values. The resulting values are shown in Exhibit VII. 9. The rehabilitation costs increase from approximately $16 million to approximately $19 million by the end of the century. The replacement costs increase from approximately $25 million to approximately $30 million over the period. The totals for 1993 and 2000 are $42.2 million and $48.9 million, respectively. A more complete analysis of each fleet component on an annual basis through 2 015 is shown in Appendix E. -VII. 17- EXHIBIT VII. 9 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 1 6 1 4 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 RAIL CAR REHAB AND REPLACEMENT (Annualized Costs) H 1 1 K tJ B B B B- -( h -B B II 1 1 1 1 1 r— 86 88 90 92 — I 1 1 r 94 96 98 Rehab Replacement -VII. 18- SUMMARY A summary of all rehabilitation and replacement costs is shown in Exhibit VII. 10 for buses, other bus costs, rail structures, track, rail equipment, and the annualized rail car values. Costs increase from approximately $100 million in the late 1980 's to almost $160 million by the end of the century. The values for the key years of 1993 and 2 000 are summarized in Exhibit VII. 11. LIMITATIONS This analysis is the first comprehensive analysis of WMATA's capital rehabilitation and replacement costs. Indeed, transit systems rarely have attempted this type of projection. While V7MATA has prepared a Five-Year Metrobus and Metrorail Reliability Program, this program was not intended to address costs beyond the 5-year planning horizon. For this reason, the Five-Year Program was of limited assistance in this analysis. Although it appears possible to model future WMATA capital rehabilitation and replacement costs on experience of other transit systems, the fundamental differences between WMATA and other properties preclude this comparison. These differences include: o Technology; Metrorail is extremely sophisticated in many areas. Some of the systems used are unique to WMATA. Most systems are more advanced than those of the older, Northeastern rail systems. With the exception of BART, no new rail transit system has more experience than WMATA. o Historv of Deferred Maintenance: WMATA has one of the best maintenance programs in the transit industry. Many transit systems are currently investing large sums of money to compensate for years of deferred maintenance. For these reasons, the study relied on the professional judgment of knowledgeable WMATA staff for estimates of the length of rehabilitation and replacement cycles and the relative costs of replacement. Clearly, the level of detail in the projection of Metrorail systems equipment (AFC, ATC, traction power, and communications) far exceeds the detail in the facilities cost projections. Ideally, WMATA should begin to conduct such component-by- component assessments in other maintenance areas in order to further refine these projections. It is also recognized that the magnitude of these rehabilitation and replacement costs suggests a significant increase in the size of the WMATA staff to plan and manage the work. Such an increase in administrative costs is not addressed in the operating cost projections. -VII. 19- EXHIBIT VII. 10 -VII. 20- EXHIBIT VII. 11 WMATA REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS (Millions of 1986 Dollars) Category 1993 2000 Bus : Buses 19.9 19.9 Other 5.0 4.8 Subtotal: Bus 24.9 24.7 Rail Facilities: Stations 1.1 25.7 Line 0.6 4.1 Track (except yards) 15.0 14.5 Other Facilities 2.9 14.6 Subtotal: Rail Facilities 19.6 58.9 Rail Equipment: Rail Cars (Annualized) 42.2 48.9 Other Equipment 26.3 25.0 Subtotal: Rail Equipment 68.5 73.9 Subtotal: Rail 88.1 132.8 TOTAL 113.0 157.5 -VII. 21- VIII. ALLOCATION OF WMATA SUPPORT OPERATING SUPPORT The allocation of Metrorail operating support is based on a formula that gives equal weight to rail system supply, ridership by jurisdiction of residence, and population density. Rail system supply is defined as the number of stations in a given jurisdiction. Population density allocations have been based upon the 1980 census and this study uses the 1980 census allocations as well. The third component — ridership by jurisdiction of residence of passengers — is briefly discussed in Chapter IV. Passengers from outside the WMATA compact are ignored in computing the allocation percentages, although their numbers are substantial, particularly for non-home based trips. The model results, by jurisdiction of residence, were adjusted slightly to match observed data. All of the allocation factors are summarized in Appendix F. Metrorail operating assistance is computed simply as the difference between total Metrorail operating costs and total Metrorail revenues. Exhibits VIII. 1 and VIII. 2 show Metrorail operating assistance allocated by jurisdiction according to the criteria described above. This allocation is presented in constant 1986 dollars. The total WMATA rail assistance is projected to nearly double between 1986 and 2000. The jurisdictional allocation of the Metrorail support varies, with Prince George ' s County and Fairfax County experiencing a greater percentage increase since rail service within these jurisdictions increases dramatically. The other jurisdictions experience lesser percentage increases as their shares computed by the formula decrease. In addition to the operating assistance noted above, the jurisdictions provide Metrorail fare support through two additional programs. The District of Columbia's discount for trips using stations east of the Anacostia River is assumed to expand with the Green Line extension to the Anacostia and Congress Heights stations. Also, the maximum fare reimbursement to WMATA for trips benefiting from the rail "taper and cap" is distributed on the basis of the jurisdiction of benefiting passengers. Both factors are shown in Exhibit VIII. 1. Metrobus operating assistance is computed by allocating costs and revenues separately by jurisdiction. The allocation of Metrobus revenues were derived from the patronage analysis described in Chapter IV. Metrobus costs are allocated on the basis of bus- miles and bus-hours of service within a given jurisdiction. These are then applied to allocate the fixed, miles-related and hours- related Metrobus operating costs. -VIII. 1- EXHIBIT VIII. 1 METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE ($ 1986 Millions) 1 O ^ o r> n n "D T T P\ XT' m BUDGE! TIT) r\ T T5T3<~\ T FKUJ Total Operating Cost 188 . 513 238.243 291.633 Total Metrorail Revenue 122.585 156 .449 loD . 4oo Total Operating Assistance 65.928 81 . 794 106.14 5 Allocated Operating Assistance: District of Columbia 27.861 34 . 109 43.808 Montgomery County ai.933 13.561 16.812 Prince Georges County 9.415 12.067 18.134 Arlington 7.259 8.355 9.949 Alexandria 3.270 3.868 4.706 Fairfax County 5.861 9.421 12 . 209 Falls Church 0 . 165 0 . 189 0.240 Fairfax City 0 . 165 0.225 0.286 TOTAL 65.928 81.794 106. 145 Rail Fare Support Programs: Maximum Fare Reimbursement: District of Columbia 0.091 0. 133 0. 162 Montgomery County 0.733 1. 021 1.277 Prince Georges County 0.222 0.299 0.418 Arlington 0.017 0. 033 0. 039 Alexandria 0.059 0. 085 0.092 Fairfax County 0. 174 0.439 0.575 Falls Church 0.003 0.036 0.051 Fairfax City 0. 001 0. 003 0.003 TOTAL 1. 300 2.049 2.617 DC Fare Reimbursement: 0.225 0. 625 0.598 EXHIBIT VIII. 2 METRORAIL OPERATING ASSISTANCE 110 -1 1986 1993 2000 IZZ DC 1X3 MC PG ^ AX KZI AR f^X -VIII. 3- Exhibit VIII. 3 shows allocated Metrobus costs and revenues. The operating assistance by jurisdiction is simply the difference between costs and revenues. The level of assistance is not expected to change dramatically in future years. Although bus service will be turned-back or eliminated as the rail system expands, many of the routes deleted in the central city are generally more productive than the system-wide average. In addition, some modest increases are projected in new Metrobus services in the outer counties. The total WMATA operating support by jurisdiction is shown in Exhibits VIII. 4 and VIII. 5. These jurisdictional costs represent the sum of Metrorail operating support, Metrorail fare reimbursement, and Metrobus operating support. As the previous exhibits illustrate, most of the increase reflects expansion of Metrorail service. Metrorail, Metrobus, and total WMATA operating support are summarized in Exhibits VIII. 6 and VIII. 7. These Exhibits includes an estimate of the revenues and costs for other Metrobus programs which, following previous WMATA assumptions, are assumed to be self-supporting. These programs include contract and charter service, net investment income, leverage leasing (soon to expire) , and bus advertising and miscellaneous income. The cost recovery ratios decline slightly for both Metrorail and Metrobus. However, since Metrorail, with its higher recovery ratio, becomes a much larger part of overall WMATA services, the overall recovery ratio for the system actually increases slightly. ANNUAL ESTIMATES Annual operating cost estimates were prepared by running the operating cost model described in Chapter V with a set of annual operating statistics as input. The rail statistics were computed based on the schedule of openings of the Metrorail system and reflect partial years of operation as appropriate. Metrobus operating statistics were also estimated on an annual basis tied to rail openings. The changes described in Chapter 3 were applied for each corridor and were assumed to take place with the implementation of the rail service changes. For simplicity, no other modifications to Metrobus services at other times were reflected in the analysis. Bus and rail passenger revenue and rail support program estimates were computed on an annual basis by interpolation between the 1985, 1993, and 2000 values. The interpolation factors included a demographic trend based on increases in core area employment, the single most significant determinant of transit ridership. The interpolations also included the relative ridership changes in various corridors to reflect the different Metrorail extensions during the 1986 - 1993 and 1993 - 2000 periods. -VIII. 4- EXHIBIT VIII. 3 METROBUS OPERATING ASSISTANCE ($ 1986 Millions) 1985 1993 2000 BUDGET PROJ PROJ Allocated Revenues: District of Columbia 46.471 43 . 369 41.593 Montgomery County 7.552 7.349 7.305 Prince Georges County 8.862 8.145 7.777 Alexandria 4.122 4 4 . 262 Arlington 4.906 5.219 5.505 Fairfax City 0. 118 0.074 0 . 079 Fairfax County 9.342 9.356 9.785 Falls Church 0 . 196 0 . 18 0 . 198 NVTC 0 . 014 0 0 TOTAL 81 . 585 77 . 692 76.504 Allocated Costs: • • • District of Columbia 114 .428 113 . 807 111.777 Montgomery County 27. 129 26.979 27.508 Prince Georges County 26.238 26.428 26.418 Alexandria 9.873 10.013 10.048 Arlington 12.996 13.528 13.567 Fairfax City 0.503 0.359 0.360 Fairfax County 33.621 31.996 33.199 Falls Church 0.866 0.766 0.768 N V i U . U / 1 r\ r\r\c\ U . UUU 0.000 TOTAL 225.725 223.876 223.646 Allocated Assistance: District of Columbia 67 . 957 70.438 70.184 Montgomery County 19.577 19.630 20.203 Prince Georges County 17.376 18.283 18.641 Alexandria 5 . 751 6 . 013 5.786 Arlington 8.090 8.309 8. 062 Fairfax City 0.385 0.285 0.281 Fairfax County 24.279 22.640 23.414 Falls Church 0.670 0.586 0.570 NVTC 0.057 0. 000 0.000 TOTAL 144.140 146.184 147.142 -VIII. 5- EXHIBIT VIII. 4 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE ($ 1986 Millions) 1986 1993 2000 BUDGET PROJ PROJ District of Columbia 96. 134 105.306 114.752 Montgomery County 32.243 34.212 38.292 Prince Georges County 27. 013 30. 649 37. 193 Alexandria 9.080 9.965 10.584 Arlington 15. 366 16.697 18.049 Fairfax City 0.551 0.513 0.571 Fairfax County 30.314 32.500 36. 198 Falls Church 0.838 0.811 0.861 NVTC 0.057 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 211.595 230.652 256.501 -VIII. 6- EXHIBIT VIII. 5 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE 260 -T I 1986 1993 2000 [ZZl DC [X3 MC VZZ^ PG AX KZl AR FX -VIII. 7- EXHIBIT VIII. 6 WMATA COST RECOVERY RATIOS ($ 1986 Millions) 1986 BUDGET 1993 PROJ 2000 PROJ METRORAIL Total Operating Cost Fare Revenue Non-Operating Revenue Total Revenue Recovery Ratio METROBUS Total Allocated Operating Cost Non-Allocated Operating Cost Total Operating Cost Total Operating Revenue Other Revenue Total Revenue Recovery Ratio TOTAL WMATA Total Operating Cost Total Revenue 188.513 114.109 8.476 122.585 65.0% 225.725 7.980 233.705 81.585 7.980 89.565 38.3% 422.218 212.150 238.243 145.849 10. 600 156.449 65.7% 223.876 9. 100 232.976 77.692 9. 100 86.792 37.3% 471.219 243.241 291.633 173.388 12 . 100 185.488 63.6 = 223.646 9.800 233.446 76.504 9.800 86.304 37.02 525.079 271.792 Recovery Ratio 50.2% 51. 51.8! -VIII. 8- EXHIBIT VIII. 7 COVERAGE OF WMATA COSTS 300 -T BUS RAIL BUS RAIL BUS RAIL 1 986 1 993 2000 \/ /\ Revenue Assistance -VIII. 9- Annual parking revenue was' computed based on the scheduled opening of parking facilities with some lag to account for maturing of ridership patterns. Other revenues such as joint development, interest earnings, advertising, and bus charter and contract services were projected based on assumptions provided by WMATA. The annual cost and revenue estimates were then used to compute operating support requirements which were, in turn, allocated to the jurisdictions using the formulas described above. The resulting allocations are summarized in Appendix G. DEBT SERVICE Another requirement of WMATA support is the debt payments on the original WMATA revenue bonds. These payments are normally treated as an operating expense by the local jurisdictions. The annual of payments required of the six major jurisdictions are as follows: o $10,085 million - o 4.434 million - o 4,439 million - o 3.093 million - o 2.675 million - o 1.384 million - District Montgomery County Prince Georges County Fairfax County Arlington County Alexandria o $26,110 million - Six Major Jurisdictions Since these payments are fixed, they will decline in constant dollars to $18,825 million by 1993 and $13,378 million by 2000. REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT COSTS Other WMATA capital costs have traditionally been allocated using formulas similar to those described above for operating costs. These formulas have been assumed to apply to the rehabilitation and replacement (R & R) costs described in Chapter VII. The allocation of rail R & R costs is based on an average of the allocation of rail operating support over the past five years. Historical data obtained from WMATA were used together with the annual estimates of operating support derived as noted above. Bus capital costs are allocated simply on the basis of the mileage-related term used in the assignment of operating costs to jurisdiction. This approach was used for all bus R & R costs and is consistent with past WMATA practices. FEDERAL SUPPORT Federal support to WMATA traditionally has been provided in several areas: rail construction support, most recently under the terms of the Stark-Harris authorizations; various other capital grants for bus and rail equipment and facilities; and operating -VIII. 10- support. With respect to continued Federal support of rail construction, two scenarios are set forth in Chapter VI. The concept of two alternative Federal funding scenarios is also appropriate for other forms of Federal aid. Federal operating assistance currently is allocated for the six major jurisdictions as follows: o $7. 805 million - District o 2. 958 million - Montgomery County o 2. 958 million - Prince Georges County o 2. 407 million - Fairfax County o 1. 527 million - Arlington County o 0. 727 million - Alexandria o $18. 382 million - Six Major Jurisdictions Under the favorable funding scenario (Alternative A) , Federal operating assistance is assumed to remain level in year-of- expenditure dollars, thus declining in constant dollars. The Federal operating support in constant dollars therefore drops to $13,253 million by 1993 and to $9,419 million by 2000. Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario (Alternative B) , operating assistance is assumed to be discontinued entirely, in line with the current administration proposal. Federal support for rehabilitation and replacement costs under the favorable funding scenario is assumed to be at a level of 75% of total requirements. This assumption implies a modification of Federal policies regarding major rail rehabilitation and replacement. Currently, discretionary Federal funds for these purposes are limited (at a 75% match) to systems that were not constructed with major Federal participation. Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario, the only Federal funds available are assumed to be those contained in the proposed block grant program. The Washington area's allocation under this program would remain constant in year-of-expenditure dollars and would equal approximately $21.6 million in 1993 and $15.4 million in 2 000. For analysis purposes, these funds were assumed to be allocated proportionally to bus and rail R & R requirements in any given year. STATE SUPPORT Support provided by the states of Maryland and Virginia has become significant to the local governments in the Washington area. The two programs have very different institutional histories and allocation approaches. Of course, no equivalent source of state aid exists for .the District of Columbia. The Maryland aid is provided through the Maryland transportation trust fund and is assumed to be available in the future at currently applied matching ratios. Under the Maryland aid program, the State pays 100% of Metrorail construction costs -VIII. 11- allocated to Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The State pays 75% of incidental capital costs, which are assumed to include all of the projected rehabilitation and capital costs, and 75% of the revenue bond debt service. For operating support, the State pays 75% of the local allocation after accounting for Federal aid and subject to an overall farebox recovery ratio of 50% or higher. Virginia state aid consists of direct appropriations and revenue from a state authorized gasoline tax. This revenue stream is assumed to increase in line with the overall rate of inflation, thus remaining constant in 1986 dollars at a level of $31,602 million. Moreover, Virginia state aid is assumed to be used as it has been in recent years. The Virginia aid is first assumed to be applied to completely fund the debt service on the original Metrorail revenue bonds. The remaining funds are assumed to be allocated between operating support and capital in the same proportions as in recent years, or about 85% for operations and 15% for capital. The allocation to jurisdictions within Virginia is based 75% on total WMATA operating support and 25% on total transit operating costs. For Alexandria and Fairfax County, the latter includes the costs of operating the DASH and Fairfax Connector bus systems. The resulting percentage allocations for the three key years are as follows: 1986 1993 2000 Fairfax 52.45% 52.46% 53.27% Arlington 28.28% 28.48% 28.13% Alexandria 16.80% 16.98% 16.56% Other 2.48% 2.07% 2.04% The capital allocations are assumed to be applied to Metrorail construction until that program winds down in the late 1990 's and are applied to rehabilitation and replacement costs thereafter. SUMMARY OF ALLOCATIONS A summary of allocated WMATA support by category for the region is shown in Exhibit VIII. 8 for the two Federal funding scenarios. Under the favorable Federal funding, the total assistance remains at approximately $300 million per year throughout the projection period. Under the unfavorable scenario, total support increases to just over $600 million during the early 1990 's, dropping back to about $400 million after completion of Metrorail construction. An overall allocation of WMATA support by jurisdiction is shown in Exhibit VIII. 9. Individual summaries for the six major jurisdictions are shown in Exhibits VIII. 10 - VIII. 15. In the latter exhibits, state aid is shown as well, except for the District of Columbia. All data used in preparing these exhibits and other relevant information are summarized in Appendix G. -VIII. 12- EXHIBIT VIII. 8 PROJECTED NON-PEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE REGIONAL TOTAL: ALTERNATIVE A 700 600 - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100 - - Total Cotti Alt. A Rail Construction ^Rahabilitatlon I "tpiacaatnt Opirating Attiitanet Dtet strvict ■ 80 as 90 92 aA- Flacat Y«ar 96 98 OO 700 REGIONAL TOTAL: ALTERNATIVE B (Unfavorable Fmdmral Transit Policl«s) SCO - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - Total Cotti Alt. B Rohabilltation t> Rtplaciaant 100 - Operating Atnittanca Dtbt Strvict r 86 r 88 — I — 90 — I — 92 — 1 — 94- —T — 96 — 1 — 98 OO Flacol Y«ar -VIII. 13- EXHIBIT VIII. 9 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION: ALT. A (rovorobl* F«d«ral Tran«it PollcI««) o 1 00 o o TOO 600 - 500 - 400 - 300 - 200 - 100 - 86 Total Cost! Alt. A Alixandrla Fairfax Prlnci Siorgii nontgoairy District of Coluabia 88 90 — I — 92 — I — 94- — I — 96 — I — 98 OO Fiscal Y«ar M 1 00 700 JURISDICTIONAL ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable F«d«ral Transit Policies) 600 - 500 400 - O 300 - 3 200 - 100 - Princ* Siorq Alixandria Arllngt Fairfax nontgoatry trlct of Coluabla Coatt Alt. B T 1 1 1 1 r- 86 88 90 92 —I f 1 1— 1 — 9A 96 98 OO Fiscol Ysar -VIII. 14- EXHIBIT VIII. 10 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE DISTRICT ALLOCATION: ALT. A 260 Z4-0 220 200 1S0 160 1 4.0 120 100 80 60 4-0 20 O (Favorable Fedarol Transit Policies) Total Cotti Alt. A Rthibilitation li Rtplictatnt Opirating Aitittmct Dabt_ S»rvie» 86 T — " — I r 88 90 92 Racal Yeor T 1 1 1 1 1 — 9'4- - 96 98 00 DISTRICT ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Tronslt Policies) 260 -, 86 88 90 92 96 98 OO Fiscal Year -VIII. 15- EXHIBIT VIII. 11 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION: ALT. A (Favorable Tederal Transit Policies) 90 SO - 70 - 60 - SO - 4-0 - 30 - 20 - 10 O Total Costi Alt. A Stati Rail Construction rr... R«h«bilitatiQn '^'Pl'ctaent Total Local Cotti Alt. A Stati Opirating Atsittano d Debt Servlci Local Rshabilitation i Replacemnt 2:^ 86 — I — as — I — 90 Local Operating Assistance I Debt Service — I — 92 — 1 — 94 ■— J — 96 T — I — 98 00 Fiscal Year 90 MONTGOMERY ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies) TO 86 Total Costi Alt. B State Rehabilitation l Replacement State Operating Assistance li Debt Service Total Local Costi Alt. B Local Rehabilitation It Replaceeent — I — S8 — I — go Local Operating Assistance & Debt Service —r — I — 92 — I — 94 — T — 96 — T — 98 00 Rscal Year -VIII. 16- EXHIBIT VIII. 12 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE S 1 CO 120 1 10 100 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 O PRINCE GEORGES ALLOCATION; ALT. A (rovoroble Federal Transit Policies) Tottl Cotti Alt. A Sttti Rail Conitruction Stati Rihabilitition ti Rtplaciatnt Stati Opiratlng Attlttanca k Dtbt Sirvlct Local Rihabllitation l RtpUctaint Total Local Coiti Alt. A Local Oparating Aiiiitanct I Debt Strvici 86 — 1 — 88 90 I 9A 92 Fiscal Yoor 96 —I — 98 OO o I OO PRINCE GEORGES ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies) Total Coiti Alt. B Stata Rail Conttruction State Rehabilitation V Replaceaent State Operating Ataittance i Debt Service Total Local Coati Alt. B local Kthab i Iitation t R^ejaceaent Local Operating Aisistance k Debt Service 86 —| — 88 — I — 90 T — I — 94- 92 Fiscal Year — I — 96 — I — 98 OO -VIII. 17- EXHIBIT VIII. 13 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FAIRFAX ALLOCATION: ALT. A (Favorable Federal Transit Policies) SO 70 - 60 - 50 40 ID - Total Co«ti Alt. A Tot«l Statt Aid Total Local Coati Alt. A Bthabilitationj:irr"«Pl""»"t Local 0p»ratin9 AsiUtanct S6 — I — 88 ~T— 90 T 1 r -T — 94- 92 Flsca! Year T — T — 96 — 1 T 98 OO FAIRFAX ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies) -| 1 — — I 1 > ! T — 1 1 r-~ — I T 1 1 — — i 86 88 90 92 94- 96 98 OO Fiseol Yeor -VIII. 18- EXHIBIT VIII. 14 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE ARLINGTON ALLOCATION: ALT. A eo 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 (Favorable Tedoral Transit Policies) Total Coitt Alt. A Total Local Cottt Alt. A Total Statt Aid £ocal_R.il CapitaTir:::^^^^ R.h.faTTrutn;r'"TIi^i^^ B6 — f — 88 — I — 90 Local Optrating Astlitanct -r — I 1 — — I — Fiscal Yeor —J — 96 98 OO eo ARLINGTON ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies) 50 - -40 - 30 - 20 Total Cost! Alt. B Total Local Costt Alt. B Local Rahabi 1 i tati on l Raplactatnt Local Oparatinq Ataittanca — I — 96 — I — 98 86 — I — 88 — I — 90 — r- 92 T — I — 9A OO Fiscal Yeor -VIII. 19- EXHIBIT VIII o 15 PROJECTED NON-FEDERAL WMATA OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION: ALT. A (Favorable Tederol Transit Policies) n o 00 o 30 28 - 26 - 24- - 22 - 20 - 1 8 16 1 A 12 ID 8 6 A- 2 O 86 Total Costi Alt. A Total Stat* Aid Total Local Co«t« Alt. A ocal flthabn'»»^'»i '^'Pl'oatnt Loeal Operating Atsittanct 90 —f — 92 — I — Q4- — I — 96 I 98 OO Fiscal Yeor M jg OO ALEXANDRIA ALLOCATION: ALT. B (Unfavorable Federal Transit Policies) Total Cost! Alt. B Total Loeal Costt Alt. B Local Rfbabilitation ti Replaceatnt Local Operating Attittanci 86 T 1 r 88 90 T 1 -T 1 — 92 9<4. — 1 1 1 T 96 98 OO Fiscal Year -VIII. 20- IX. MEASURING THE WMATA BURDEN: 1980 - 1985 Between 1980 and 1985, Washington area governments experienced an 88 percent increase in their transit assistance allocations for WMATA transit services from $118.1 million in 1980 to $221.6 million in 1985 (both figures in year-of-expenditure dollars) . This increase resulted from a 53 percent increase in bus assistance (from $89.1 million to $136.5 million), a 103 percent increase in rail assistance (from $29.0 million to $58.9 million) , and the allocation of debt service on bonds issued to finance rail construction (see Exhibit IX. 1). It should be noted that the costs did not increase uniformly over this period. The largest annual increase (23 percent) occurred in 1981 when debt service payments were first included. The smallest annual increases (4.4 percent and 5.1 percent) occurred in 1984 and 1985, and reflected the effect of lower inflation rates and cost cutting measures. It has been suggested that this rapid growth in transit assistance has placed undue strains on the ability of area governments to pay these costs while meeting their other responsiblities . While undue strain does not lend itself to exact definition, it is possible to compare the operating assistance allocations of the jurisdictions to some simple measures of ability to pay. These measures indicate how large the burden is, as well as whether it is an increasing relative burden. The relative burden may be viewed against four different measures. These measures compare transit assistance allocations to: o Personal Income, which is a good measure of the underlying wealth that is generated in the area, and that is thus available to pay taxes. Personal income is measured at place of residence and includes not only earnings but also unearned income such as interest and rents. (Personal income information is not yet available for 1984 and 1985.) o Earnings . which are measured by place of employment. This measure reflects the extent of jobs and business activity that exists within the jurisdictions in the area. While earnings are not directly taxed by any jurisdiction, they do represent a stream of economic activity within a jurisdiction, and thus enhance the economic base. (Earnings information is not yet available for 1984 and 1985.) o Property Value, which is a tax base common to all area jurisdictions and the one that is used to generate substantial revenues. This measure shows the transit assistance allocation as a tax rate that would need to be applied to property values. -IX. 1- EXHIBIT IX. 1 CHANGE IN TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS 1980 - 1985 (Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars) Bus % Rail % Debt % % Year Operation Chng Operation Chng Service Chng Total Chnq 23 . 0% 18.4 17.3 4.4 5.1 Five-Year Increase 53.2% 103.1% 87.6% 1980 $89, 103 $29, 004 $118, 107 1981 93, 242 4 . 6% 35, 369 21. 9% $16, 669 145, 280 1982 110, 947 19. 0 44, 409 25. 6 16, 669 172, 025 1983 125, 137 12 . 8 50, 769 14. 3 25, 933 55. 6% 201, 839 1984 130, 107 4. 0 53, 134 4. 7 27, 484 6. 0 210, 725 1985 136, 471 4. 9 58, 914 10. 9 26, 189 -4 . 7 221, 574 Sources: Operating Assistance Report. Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C, and special tabulation from WMATA, dated August 13, 1985. o Total Operating Expenditures for each government. This measure relates the transit assistance allocations directly to government budgets, and thus shows how much of a government's actual resources need to be used for this purpose. This measure does not lend itself to comparisons between jurisdictions because there is a wide variance among governments in the services they provide, and, therefore, in the size of their total expenditures. For example, the District's expenditures are relatively large because they include expenditures that are made by state governments in suburban jurisdictions. These measures can be applied against either the gross transit assistance allocations, or the net transit assistance allocations, i.e., after deducting Federal and state operating assistance. The gross allocations are important because they show how the formulas allocate the burden by jurisdiction, and because they represent the maximum potential burden that each jurisdiction might have to incur. The net basis, after reducing the allocations by available Federal aid and state transit assistance payments, results in an actual measure of the financial burden incurred. When only the net assistance allocations are considered, the local area government payments increased only 67 percent from $82.7 million in 1980 to $138.5 million in 1985 (see Exhibit IX. 2). While Federal aid declined over the period, state 'aid increased more than sixfold. In 1985, as in previous years, total state aid was somewhat higher in Maryland than in Virginia, with, of course, no state aid in the District. What do the measures show about the ablity of area governments to bear the costs of WMATA in recent years? A summary of the measures are shown in Exhibit IX. 3 for gross assistance and in Exhibit IX. 4 for net assistance after state and Federal aid is taken into account. More detailed data showing the actual cost elements of the measures are included in Appendix I. The sources of data in all these Exhibits were: o WMATA operating assistance: Operating Assistance Report, Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C, and special tabulation from WMATA, dated August 13, 1985. o Personal Income: Local Area Personal Income, Vol. 3 Mideast Region, 1978-83, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, June 1985. o Property Values and Total Expenditures: Annual financial reports and official statements of jurisdictions. As shown in these Exhibits, the results are mixed, but generally they show the increased burden has not been as heavy as the dollar or percentage increases in transit assistance allocations would suggest. -IX. 3- EXHIBIT IX. 2 CHANGE IN TRJ^SIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BY SOURCE OF PAYMENTS ALL AREA GOVERNMENTS 1980 - 1985 (Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars) Total Assistance % Federal % State % Local % Year Payments Chna Subsidy Chna Aid Chna Payments Chna 1980 $118, 107 $25, 646 $9,750 $82,711 1981 145,280 23.0% 26, 010 1.4% 23,487 140.9% 95,783 15.8% 1982 172,025 18.4 23, 133 -11. 1 42,350 80.3 106, 542 11.2 1983 201,839 17.3 18,486 -20.1 58,497 38.1 124,856 17.2 1984 210,725 4.4 18, 506 0.1 56, 014 -4.2 136,205 9.1 1985 221, 574 5.1 18,506 64, 539 15.2 138,529 1.7 Five- -Year Increase 87.6% -27.8% 561.9% 67.5% Sources: Federal subsidy: Operatina Assistance Report, Fiscal Year 1985, WMATA, Appendix C: State aid, Virginia: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. State aid, Maryland: Maryland Department of Transportation STATE PAYMENTS FOR TRT^SIT ASSISTANCE 1980 " 1985 (Thousands of Year-of-Expenditure Dollars) Year Maryland Virainia * Total 1980 $9,750 $9, 750 1981 23,487 140, 9% 23, 487 140. 9% 1982 29, 112 2 3 o 9 $13,238 42, 350 80. 3 1983 34,215 17 . 5 24,282 83 . 4% 58, 497 38. 1 1984 33,511 -2. 1 22,503 -7. 3 56, 014 -4 . 2 1985 36,790 9. 8 27,749 23. 3 64, 539 15. 2 * Includes money from a state authorized local gasoline tax as well as direct state appropriations. Reflects the actual amounts disbursed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission on behalf of each local government for rail and bus operation and for debt service -IX. 4- EXHIBIT IX. 3 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY 1980 - 1985 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total Six Jurisdictions Personal Income .327% .358% .391% .423% Earnings (Place of Work) .384 .429 .472 .506 Taxable Property Values .176 .187 .188 .199 Total Operating Expend. 3.468 4.019 4.410 4.403 District of Columbia Personal Income .741 .755 .842 .958 Earnings (Place of Work) .432 .450 .507 .576 Taxable Property Values .497 .465 .427 .466 Total Operating Expend. 3.136 3.528 3.957 4.270 Montgomery County Personal Income .155 .196 .208 Earnings (Place of Work) .262 .337 .356 Taxable Property Values .073 .089 .090 Total Operating Expend. 3.033 3.879 4.056 Prince George ' s County Personal Income .234 .291 .315 Earnings (Place of Work) .441 .552 .621 Taxable Property Values .142 .186 .198 Total Operating Expend. 4.700 6.038 6.271 Fairfax County Personal Income .182 .202 .225 Earnings (Place of Work) .379 .417 .459 Taxable Property Values .100 .107 .109 Total Operating Expend. 3.081 3.277 3.655 Arlington County Personal Income .366 .422 .457 Earnings (Place of Work) .287 .333 .351 Taxable Property Values .151 .165 .175 Total Operating Expend. 5.800 6.962 7.662 Alexandria Personal Income .355 .377 .414 Earnings (Place of Work) .494 .526 .559 Taxable Property Values .155 .162 .166 Total Operating Expend. 5.780 5.787 6.251 * Change in accounting Sources: see text .196% .187% 4.308 4.214 .459 3.988 .420 3.831 .209 .349 .089 .091 .098 3.529* 3.603 3.952 .312 .627 .189 .180 .172 4.560* 4.783 4.616 .246 .477 .113 .119 .114 4.022 4.088 4.062 .511 .377 .207 .192 .174 8.689 8.405 7.852 .468 . 626 .194 .193 .177 6.992 6.435 5.716 -IX. 5- I EXHIBIT IX. 4 WMATA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS AFTER STATE AND FEDERAL AID AS A PERCENT OF MEASURES OF ABILITY TO PAY 1980 - 1985 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total Six Jurisdictions Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend. .228% .268 . 123 2.423 .236% .282 . 123 2 . 644 .244% .294 . 118 2.751 . 265% .317 . 125 2.760 2 . 127% .789 2 . lie: , 623 District of Columbia Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend. . 590 .343 .39S 2.496 ^ n '~i . 617 .368 .380 2.882 .735 .442 . 373 3 .455 .879 . 529 ,427 3,918 3 .421 .661 3 , 387 ,527 Montaomery County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend, . 056 .096 . 026 1. 106 . 051 .088 . 023 1. 012 . 047 .081 . 021 0.925 , 044 , 074 ,019 0,751* 1 . 028 .094 1 ,031 .270 Prince Georae ' s County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend, . 104 . 195 . 063 2.083 , 063 . 119 . 040 1. 305 , 079 . 156 .050 1,577 , 075 . 151 . 045 1. 098* 1 .047 .249 1 .039 . 059 Fairfax Countv Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend. . 146 , 302 , 080 2.461 . 170 .350 .090 2 .750 , 138 .282 .067 2.247 . 108 .210 .050 1.768 2 . 067 .305 2 . 056 .006 Arlington County Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend. .293 .229 ,121 4,632 . 360 .284 . 140 5.935 .274 .210 . 105 4 . 588 ,290 ,214 . 118 4 . 626 4 . 109 .760 3 .075 . 397 Alexandria Personal Income Earnings (Place of Work) Taxable Property Values Total Operating Expend. .284 . 395 . 124 2.410 .320 ,446 , 137 2.825 ,248 , 335 .099 2.912 .276 .369 .115 2.887 2 . 095 .916 3 .095 . 065 * Change in accounting Sources: see text -IX. 6- In the gross allocations, there has generally been a year-to-year increase in the burden for all four measures. However, when measured against property values the burden decreased after 1983 for the District, Arlington, Alexandria, and Prince George's County. As a percent of overall operating expenditures, the burden also declined from 1983 to 1985 for the District, Arlington, and Alexandria. There is a wide variance between some jurisdictions for some indicators. For example, the District allocation in 1983 would require almost 1 percent of the total income compared with only 0.2 percent in Montgomery County, but the difference may merely reflect the much greater District of Columbia service received. An important measure from a political viewpoint is the relatively low and stable property tax levy required for the gross operating assistance allocations. In the District, this measure actually declines from .497 in 1980 to .420 in 1985. The largest growth in this measure from 1980 to 1985 was only .030 from .142 to .172 in Prince George's County. While the gross allocations grew as a percent of total expenditures in all jurisdictions, and reached a high of 8.4 percent in Arlington County in 1984, it is probably more important to look at this measure on a net basis after applying Federal and state aid. When this is done two governments, Montgomery County and Prince George's County, have only slightly more than 1 percent of their total expenditures allocated for WMATA operations. Arlington's high 8.4 percent on a gross basis in 1984 drops to 3.4 percent in 1985 on a net basis. The District of Columbia, because it receives no state assistance, reflected the largest increase in net assistance payments as a percentage of expenditures, from 2.5 percent in 198 0 to 3.5 percent in 1985, although this percentage was declining in both 1984 and 1985. The allocations on a net basis, in addition to being lower by all measures than the gross allocations, show slower growth over the period especially after 1981. For example, in 1983 all four measures were lower in Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and Arlington County than they were in 1981, as a result of the rapid growth in state assistance payments in these years. In summary, the measures of burden using either gross or net operating assistance allocations show varying degrees of burden between jurisdictions. There has been some growth in relative burden, although not consistently when Federal and state assistance is taken into account. These results are only historical and are not predictive of future years, but they do show that area governments have absorbed large increases in WMATA transit assistance payments in recent years with small, if any, changes in relative burden. -IX. 7- X. CHANGE IN SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES 1986 - 2000 Projecting the six major area governments' revenues and expenditures for fifteen years on both a current and constant dollar basis results in an immense quantity of numbers that defy easy understanding. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce results to a relatively few numbers that best illustrate what is likely to occur to these governments' finances over the 1986 - 2000 period. To do this, the change in total revenues and expenditures in constant dollars only (i.e., after discounting inflation) is used for each government separately and for all governments combined. Tax rates are assumed to remain constant and expenditures are projected at current service levels. To provide an understanding of what is causing the changes, the amount of revenue expected from local sources is shown separately from intergovernmental aid. Similarly, key elements of government spending, such as general payrolls (including retirement and fringe benefits) , school expenditures, and debt service, are discussed individually. The relationship between each individual government's revenues and expenditures is not shown on either a current or constant dollar basis. As a practical matter, all governments will operate with generally balanced budgets over the period, and it would not be realistic to present a picture that would show otherwise. While there are differences that the governments will need to address, their decisions on how to do so will be political and it would not be appropriate to make such estimates in these projections. The constant dollar changes in revenues will be reviewed first, followed by a discussion of expenditures. REVENUES Preliminary projections estimate that the total revenue of the six major governments will increase 19.8 percent ($1.1 billion in constant 1986 dollars), from 1986 to 2000 (see Exhibit X.l). The principal factors used in the projections to translate economic growth rates into increases in sales, income, and personal property tax revenues are the changes in employment, which COG projects to increase 3 0.4 percent, and changes in population, which COG expects to increase 11.0 percent. Based on historical trends, property taxes are expected to have real growth from new construction averaging about 2.5 percent per year, except for D.C. residential, which is experiencing little growth from new construction. The result is total area real growth in property taxes of 4 6.4 percent, with a range from 18.0 percent in the District to 69.0 percent in Fairfax County. The expected favorable performance of the local economy results in real growth of 3 3.0 percent or $1.4 billion in locally raised -X.l- EXHIBIT X.l CHANGES IN REVENUES IN CONSTANT 1986 DOLLARS SIX AREA GOVERNMENTS 1986 - 2000 (Thousands) Intergov- Local ernmental Total Revenues Revenues Revenues Jurisdiction Chancre % Change* % Chancre i Dist. of Columbia $370 Montgomery County 3 36 Prince George's Co. 132 Fairfax County 448 Arlington County 46 Alexandria 39 Total $1,374 * Does not include WMATA ,037 20. 6% $-174, 014 ,903 42. 6 -30, 726 ,906 27. 2 -28, 490 ,453 59. 4 3, 274 , 133 25. 4 -5, 780 ,601 27. 0 -5, 090 ,033 33. 0% $241, 276 Federal or state aid 18.2% $196,023 7.1% 29.7 306,177 34.3 14.7 103,966 15.1 1.5 451,727 46.6 10.5 40,354 17.1 11.9 34,511 18.2 15.3% $1,132,758 19.8% -X.2- revenues, but the overall growth in revenue is greatly reduced because intergovernmental revenue from the state and Federal governments is expected to decline by $241 million or 15.3 percent in 1986 dollars. Several factors account for this decline. They include the elimination of the Federal revenue sharing program after 1986 and the expectation that, because of Federal budget restraints, other Federal aid will only increase at three-quarters of the inflation rate. State aid is also expected to grow slowly because it is dominated by aid for schools. School enrollments are expected to be stable or declining in future years, except in Montgomery and Fairfax counties. This results in a slow real growth in school aid. The projected revenue growth varies among governments in proportion to each jurisdiction's expected real growth in employment and population, and to each government's sensitivity to changes in intergovernmental aid. Because the District is projected to have the slowest rate of real growth in its employment and population, it has the lowest rate of real growth in its local revenues and it is also hardest hit by the projected decline in Federal aid, which in 1986 constituted over a third of its revenue. As a result, the District's total revenue growth of $196 million or 7.1 percent in constant dollars from 198 6 to 2 000 is less than half the 15.1 percent growth in the second lowest growth jurisdiction. Prince George's County. In sharp contrast, Fairfax County revenue is expected to increase $452 million or 46.6% in 1986 dollars. This results from a rapid growth in employment, population, and new construction. Fairfax County is also the only government expected to have a real growth in intergovernmental aid over the period. This results from the County being affected only slightly by the decline in Federal aid (which accounts for only 3.4 percent of total County revenues), and an increase in state school aid as a result of some growth in school enrollments. Montgomery County also is expected to have a rapid growth in local revenue, but it also has the largest percentage reduction in intergovernmental aid because of a projected $17 million loss of state school aid in 1986 dollars between 1986 and 2000. This results from an anticipated state policy that will result in less school aid in real dollars on a per pupil basis. However, because intergovernmental aid is a relatively unimportant source of County revenues (11.6 percent in 1986), the County's total revenue growth is still expected to be second only to Fairfax County with a 34.3 percent real growth. It is important to realize, of course, that the projected revenue growth shown in these tables depends on a variety of assumptions. The key ones are expected growth in population, employment, and new construction; estimated changes in Federal aid policies and state aid policies; and estimated changes in school enrollments. -X.3- growth, and, therefore, their school spending will grow more rapidly. The District expects only a very minor year-to-year growth in enrollments. Because of the high percentage of suburban government spending for schools, and because school spending is closely tied to changes in enrollments, the differences in assumptions about school enrollments have a major effect on these governments' year 2000 spending levels. Debt service is not a substantial part of most governments total spending, and it is projected to grow by only 3.5 percent in constant dollars for all governments combined, despite an assumption of 8.5 percent interest costs on new debt for all governments, except the District, for which 9.0 percent is assumed. The District's higher rate assumption results from its lower bond rating and its use of level debt service repayments rather than equal principal payments. There is a very wide variance between a 35.4 percent increase in Fairfax County's debt service, and Arlington County's 47.6 percent decrease. This difference occurs for several reasons. Arlington County, Alexandria, and Prince George's County are projecting relatively low levels of capital spending in future years. In the case of Arlington and Alexandria, this reflects the fully developed nature of the jurisdictions, and the belief that capital needs will be low. Montgomery County's decline in real debt service payments results from a projected leveling off of a recent large capital spending program. In contrast, Fairfax County's growth reflects an expected rapid expansion in capital spending, in part because of highway spending needs. The District's growth reflects the city's continued effort to catch up on its capital needs, and the effects of issuing debt on a level debt service basis. The overall results of the financial projections seem reasonable based on the assumptions about the area's future growth, and based on recent trends. It should be emphasized, however, that the projections of each individual government's finances also depend on assumptions about where in the area future growth will occur, and on a continuation of current government policies regarding services and taxes. BASIS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS Revenue and expenditure projections for the six major Washington area governments were prepared using a projection method developed by the Greater Washington Research Center. The approved 1986 Budgets for each jurisdiction provided the base information for projecting operating revenues and expenditures, property values, and bonded debt. The base information actually used was reviewed and approved by each jurisdiction. The projection logics for each major revenue and expenditure component were developed from historical trend information and from discussions with officials in each government. In most instances, the basis for the projections was similar to that used by the government for its own planning purposes. -X. 6- The projection logics first increased most revenues and expenditures by the assumed inflation rate. There were some exceptions, such as Federal general revenue sharing, which was assumed to be discontinued after 1986, and general Federal aid, which was increased at only three-fourths the inflation rate because of Federal deficit problems. The projection logics next adjusted for real growth or decline in revenues and expenditures. For income, sales, and personal property taxes this was done by using the combined projected changes in population and employment. Real estate property taxes were increased by a factor representing the historical percentage growth from new construction combined with local views on the outlook for development. State school aid changes are related to changes in school enrollments. Other taxes were increased to reflect population growth. For real changes in expenditures, pay related expenditures were changed in relation to population change for general employees, and to school enrollments for school employees, plus a factor for both called "creep". Creep adjusts for merit increases and other non-general pay raises. This creep factor was obtained from the actual experience reported by the governments. The population change factor was doubled for Fairfax and Arlington counties because of the reported effects on county employment being caused by rapid urbanization. Other general expenditures were changed in relation to projected population changes, and other school expenditures were related to projected school enrollments. Debt service was determined by adding to existing debt service requirements the debt service needed for new issues planned by the governments in their approved capital improvement plans. For bond sales beyond the capital improvement plan, an annual growth in bond sales equal to inflation was assumed. For all suburban governments, 20-year bonds with equal principal payments and 8.5 percent interest rates were used. For the District of Columbia, 2 0-year bonds with level debt service payments and 9 percent interest rates were used. The revenue and expenditure projections do not include WMATA operating revenues from state and Federal aid or WMATA assistance programs. The projected revenue and expenditures for each year were converted to 1986 constant dollars by reducing the current dollar projections using the assumed inflation rate as a deflator. The results in constant dollars for all six governments combined showed that total revenue growth and total expenditure growth were within 1 percent of each other over the projection period. This indicates that the revenue and expenditure projections have a reasonable budgetary relationship to each other. The project- ions of real growth in total government revenue and expenditures of just under 20 percent for the fifteen years also is reasonable in view of real economic growth of 1 percent to 2 percent per year in the region, and in the context of relatively conservative taxing and spending policies being followed by the governments. \ I l' -X.7- t At the individual government level, the variations in real growth in revenues and expenditures was much greater than at the regional level, both in terms of the divergence in growth between revenue and expenditures for governments and in the differences in growth rates between governments. However, such diversity seems reasonable in view of the differences in economic growth that are occurring across the region, and the related differences in the spending demands that are facing the governments. What could not be projected, because it will require political decisions, is the extent to which the individual governments will use either changes in tax rates or changes in expenditure growth rates to bring revenues and expenditures into alignment. Since the purpose of the projections is to show natural growth in revenues with no changes in tax rates, and expenditures required to maintain current service levels, it is not necessary to project actual future budget actions affecting tax rates or service levels. The projections assume no year-to-year variations in growth rates as a result of variations in the national and local economies caused by recessions and expansions. To do so would have required assumptions about when such critical events will occur, and it was deemed impractical to make such assumptions. The immediate implications of not doing so is that projections probably understate the revenue growth that will be included in the area government's 1987 Budgets as a result of the current very strong Washington area economy. However, over the fifteen-year projection period, this current, better than projected growth is certain to be offset by some slow growth periods. In fact, the effects of Federal budget reductions may make even 1987 a less strong revenue growth year than was initially expected by the governments. Past experience, both nationally and locally, in projecting local government revenues and expenditures has shown that things seldom work out exactly as projected. This is so because some economic assumptions do not materialize, some unexpected events occur, and some political actions intervene. The projections made in this study face all these hazards, but because they were prepared in close consultataion with area officials who are closely familiar with their governments' outlook, they present a reasonable view of the future. -X.8- XI. THE EFFECTS OF FUTURE WMATA FINANCING ON AREA GOVERNMENTS The local governments in the Washington area contribute to the support of the WMATA bus and rail systems through payments for: o bus and rail operating support o rail fare support o debt service on the original WMATA revenue bonds o bus and rail rehabilitation and replacement costs o rail construction In the past, the local governments have received significant financial assistance from the Federal government. However, future Federal assistance is in doubt and the analysis has been structured to reflect two alternative Federal support scenarios: o Favorable Federal aid scenario (Alternative A): o continued operating support, although at a diminished level in constant dollars. o Federal assistance for rehabilitation and replacement equal to 75% of costs. o Federal rail construction assistance equal to 80% of the costs authorized by the Stark-Harris legislation and 75% of the costs to complete the final 14 miles of the 103-mile system. o Unfavorable Federal aid scenario (Alternative B) : o an end to Federal operating assistance. o Federal assistance for rehabilitation and replacement limited to the Washington region's entitlement under a proposed formula-based block grant. o rail construction assistance equal to 80% of the costs authorized by the Stark-Harris legislation but no Federal support for remainder of 103 -mile system. In addition, the states of Maryland and Virginia contribute significantly to WMATA support. Support in Maryland flows from a state trust fund which has been assumed to be adequate to cover all requirements in accordance with current policies and matching ratios. Support in Virginia is from state appropriations and a local gasoline tax and has been assumed to remain fixed in constant dollars. The burden on local jurisdictions is unequal across the region since the District receives no state aid and the impact of the state formulas, particularly under unfavorable Federal funding conditions, varies significantly in Maryland and Virginia. -XI. 1- The impact of WMATA support on local governments can be examined either in absolute dollar terms or relative to the projected operating budgets and total tax bases of the local jurisdictions. These latter two measures were discussed in Chapters IX and X and were selected for their reasonableness and because the data were available based on projections done for the local jurisdictions. Operating assistance payments to WMATA frequently are compared to overall local government financial resources since these payments are made annually and generally funded as line-items in the local governments' operating budgets. An allocation of total operating assistance payments for three key years is shown in Exhibit XI. 1. On a regional basis, operating assistance is projected to increase slightly in relation to total operating expenditures (from 3.78% to 3.84%), but to decline slightly in relation to property values. The regional pattern is mirrored in the experience of Arlington and Alexandria. In the District, operating assistance payments increase in relation to both property values and operating expenditures. In Prince George's County, operating assistance remains level relative to property values but increases in relation to operating expenditures. In rapidly growing Montgomery and Fairfax counties, operating assistance declines in relation to both operating expenditures and property values. The impact of the net operating support burden (after accounting for Federal and state aid) is shown in Exhibit XI. 2. This Exhibit also shows the effect of the two alternative Federal funding scenarios in future years. On a regional basis, the percentage of operating expenditures devoted to operating assistance increases from 2.38% to 2.56% under the favorable Federal scenario and to 2.66% under the unfavorable alternative. The impact of Maryland's state assistance programs is clearly shown with the Maryland counties showing far lower values than the other jurisdictions. The impact of the Federal cutbacks under Alternative B is also less in Maryland since state aid is assumed to make up much of the shortfall while Virginia state aid is assumed to be a constant value under either Federal funding scenario. Debt service on the original WMATA revenue bonds is also generally shown as an operating expense by the local governments. The payments are assumed to continue to be funded fully by state aid in Virginia and 75% from state aid in Maryland. Since these payments remain level in year-of-expenditure dollars, they will declinein constant dollars, dropping to nearly half their 1986 value by 2000. Also, since total financial resources of the local governments will be increasing over this period, the burden of debt service will be further reduced. Overall, the total local burden (without consideration of state aid) will decrease from about 0.47% of operating expenditures to about 0.20% and from 0.020% to 0.008% as compared to property values. -XI. 2- EXHIBIT XI. 1 TOTAL WMATA OPERATING ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES MUD PROPERTY VALUES (Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars) 1986 1993 2000 District of Columbia Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Montgomery County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Prince Georges County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Fairfax County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Arlington County Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Alexandria Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values TOTAL SIX JURISDICTIONS Total Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values $96.1 3 . 61% 0.38% $32.2 3.64% 0.09% $27.0 3 .97% 0.15% $30.3 3 . 17! 0. 09! $15.4 6.67% 0. 14% $9.1 4.93% 0. 13% $211.6 3 .78! 0. 16! $105.3 3 .74^ 0. 39: $34.2 3.30% 0.08% $30.6 4.35% 0. 14% $32.5 2.88! 0.07! $16.7 7.26% 0. 13% $10.0 5. 15% 0. 13% $230.7 3 .78 = 0. 15! $114.8 3 .82! 0.40! $38. 3 3.21! 0.07! $37.2 5.01% 0. 15% $36.2 2.79! 0.07! $18.0 7.60! 0.12! $10. 6 5. 15% 0. 12% $256.5 3.84% 0. 14% -XI. 3- EXHIBIT XI. 2 NET TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO WMATA AS A PERCENT OP NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES (Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars) 1986 1993 Alt. A Alt. B 2000 Alt. A Alt. B District of Columbia Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Montgomery County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Prince Georges County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Fairfax County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Arlington County Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Alexandria Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values TOTAL SIX JURISDICTIONS Net Op. Asst. % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values $88.3 3.32% 0.35% $8.5 0.96% 0. 02% $6.3 0.93% 0.04% $17.0 1.78% 0.05% $8.0 3.46% 0.07% $4.9 2.65% 0.07% $133. 1 2. 38% 0. 10% $99.7 3.54% 0.37% $8.7 0.84% 0.02% $7.0 1.00% 0.03% $19.7 1.74% 0.04% $9.6 4.16% 0.08% $5.9 3.03% 0.08% $150.5 2.46% 0. 10% $105.3 3.74% 0.39% $9.3 0.90% 0.02% $7.6 1.07% 0. 04% $21.4 1.90% 0.05% $10.7 4.64% 0.08% $6.4 3 .30% 0.08% $160.6 2.63% 0.10% $110.8 3.69% 0.38% $10.3 0.86% 0.02% $8.2 1. 11% 0.03% $23.5 1.81% 0.04% $11.2 4.73% 0.08% $6.7 3.24% 0.08% $170.7 2.56% 0. 09% $114.8 3 .825 0.40S $10.7 0.89% 0.02% $8.6 1. 16% 0.03% $24.8 1.91% 0.04% $12.0 5.065 0.085 $7.0 3.42^ 0.08^ $177.8 2.66% 0.09% Alternative A (Favorable Federal Policy; continuation of Federal transit operating assistance) Alternative B (Unfavorable Federal Policy; no Federal transit operating assistance) -XI. 4- The costs for rehabilitating and ultimately replacing components of the bus and rail systems will become significant in the future although the magnitude of these costs will be greatly influenced by Federal funding policies. The figures shown in Exhibit XI. 3 are payments to WMATA for operating support, debt service, and the local share of rehabilitation and replacement costs. State aid has been taken into account in the calculations, as has Federal aid under the two Federal funding scenarios. On a regional basis under the favorable Federal funding scenario, total support increases slightly in relation to total regional expenditures from 1986 to 1993 then increases again very modestly by the end of the century. Under the unfavorable Federal funding scenario, however, total support increases dramatically due to increasing rehabilatation and replacement costs. Federal aid is much less important to the Maryland jurisdictions since state aid is assumed to cover 75% of rehabilitation and replacement costs, irrespective of how large these costs may be. The impact of Federal aid is more severe in Virginia where, for example, the 1993 ratio for operating expenditures for Arlingtor is 60% higher under the unfavorable Federal scenario than under the favorable alternative. Arlington and Alexandria also show the greatest relative impact on long-term funding for the year 2000. It should be noted that Exhibit XI. 3 does not include the local share of rail construction capital costs. These costs are excluded because it is difficult to assess how they will be paid; some jurisdictions may pay their respective shares out of current revenues while others may elect to sell bonds. Suffice it to say that Exhibit XI . 3 gives an incomplete picture of the total magnitude of WMATA costs owing to the exclusion of these rail construction costs. The annual values used to compute these exhibits are summarized in Appendix H. Other data used in the analysis is discussed in Chapter VIII and included in Appendix G. EXHIBIT XI. 3 NET OPERATING ASSISTANCE, DEBT SERVICE, AND REHAB & REPLACEMENT COSTS AS A PERCENT OF NON-TRANSIT OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY VALUES (Millions, 1986 Constant Dollars) 1986 1993 Alt. A Alt. B 2000 Alt. A Alt, B District of Columbia Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Montgomery County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Prince Georges County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Fairfax County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Arlington County Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values Alexandria Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values TOTAL SIX JURISDICTIONS Total Support % of Op. Expend. % of Prop. Values $103.8 3,90- 0.41 = $10. 0 1. 13% 0.03% $7.9 1. 16% 0.04% $18.8 1.96% 0. 06% $9.0 3.92% 0. 08% $5.4 2.93% 0.08% $154.9 2.77% 0. 12% $118.7 4.21% 0.44% $10.7 1. 03% 0. 02% $8.8 1.25% 0.04% $23 . 3 2.07% 0. 05% $12.4 5. 38% 0. 10% $7.2 3.72% 0.09% $181. 1 2.96% 0. 11% $150.5 5.34% 0.56% $13.8 1.33! 0. 03 = $11. 5 1. 63% 0.05% $33.2 2.94: 0. 07: $19.9 8.64i 0. 16 = $10.8 5.56! 0. 145 $239. 6 3.92% 0. 15% $132.3 4.41% 0.46% $12.4 1.04% 0.02% $10.3 1. 39! 0. 04! $26.5 2.05% 0.05% $13.8 5.79% 0.09% $7.8 3 .81 = 0.09! $203.1 3.04% 0. 11% $178.9 5.96 = 0. 622 $16.9 1.42% 0.03% $14.7 1.98! 0. 06! $40.8 3. 14! 0.07! $23.9 10.09! 0.16! $12.9 6.28% 0. 15% $288.2 4.32! 0. 15! Alternative A (Favorable Federal Policy; continuation of Federal transit operating assistance; 75% R & R support) Alternative B (Unfavorable Federal Policy; no Federal transit operating assistance; formula R & R support) -XI. 6- APPENDIX A PROPOSED METROBUS CHANGES BY ROUTE NEAR-TERM CHANGES - VIENNA CORRIDOR o 1: Wilson Boulevard-Fairfax services. Routes lA, IH, IM, IW, and IX, outlying Fairfax express services to Ballston and the Pentagon, would be discontinued. Routes 10, IE, and IF would operate similar to current service via Wilson Blvd. with increase in frequencies. Routes IV and IZ would also operate via Wilson Blvd. but without stops between McKinley and Ballston. Route IB would serve the Dunn Loring station and the new Fairview Park development with service in the counterflow direction. o 2: Washington Boulevard-Vienna services. Routes 2E, 2F, 2M, and 2V, outlying express services to Ballston and the Pentagon, would be discontinued. Route 2A would be modified to run between Dunn Loring station and Ballston with additional service. Route 2B would operate from Fair Oaks to Ballston via Vienna and East Falls Church stations. Route 2C would be modified slightly to serve Metrorail stations and with increased service. Routes 2W and 2X would be modified to operate between Vienna and the Vienna station. Route 2P would be added to operate between Vienna and Dunn Loring. o 3: Lee Highway services. Routes 3C and 3E services to Roslyn would be discontinued. Route 3B and 3F would be modified to serve the East Falls Church and West Falls Church stations with increased peak service. Routes 3X and 3Z, express services to Ballston, would be changed to terminate at West Falls Church with some other routing changes in the Tysons Corner area. Route 3A would be added from Annandale to Rosslyn via Annandale Road and East Falls Church station. o 4: Pershing Drive/ Arlington Boulevard services. Minor changes in routing to provide replacement service on Wilson Boulevard from Barton Street to Rosslyn. o 5A-H: Reston services. All routes would operate to West Falls Church Metrorail station. Many relatively minor service changes within Reston. Route 3F would be extended to Franklin Farms. "Straggler" service would be added at the end of the morning and evening rush periods. o 5K,L,M: Chain Bridge Road services. Relatively minor routing changes in Tysons Corner and McLean areas; direct services to Rosslyn and Farragut Square via George Washington Parkway maintained. -A.l- o 5S: Herndon service. Route changed to terminate at West Falls Church rather than Ballston; minor re-routing in Tysons Corner area. o 5Y: Herndon express. Route changed to terminate at West Falls Church rather than Ballston. o 5Z: Tysons Corner express. Discontinued. o 10: cross-county service. Minor changes in north Arlington. o 12C: Centerville service. New route from Centerville to Vienna station via 1-66. o 22: Walker Chapel-Shirlington services. Extension of route 22B to East Falls Church station via Williamsburg Blvd. and Sycamore St. Elimination of Culmore branch of route 22C. o 23: Glebe Road services. Relatively minor changes in Tysons Corner area and service to the CIA. o 23X: Great Falls express. Route changed to terminate at West Falls Church rather than Ballston. o 24: Seven Corners-Pentagon service. Routes 24A and 24B from Tysons Corner and East Falls Church to the Pentagon will be replaced by other services. Route 24E will be extended from East Falls Church to Seven Corners. Route 24T would operate from from McLean Hamlet to East Falls Church station. o 26: Tysons Corner-Springfield service. Rerouted in Tysons Corner area and to serve Dunn Loring station. Additional peak period service will be provided. o 28: Alexandria-Tysons Corner service. Rerouted to serve West Falls Church station. o 29Z: Chantilly express. Extended to Chantilly and changed to Vienna station instead of Ballston and the Pentagon. o 38B: Route 38C branch will be eliminated and 38B service will be increased. o 66X: West Falls Church express. Discontinued. -A. 2- STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE CORRIDOR o A2,4,6,8: Martin Luther King Drive services. All services to terminate at Anacostia station. o V3,7: Anacostia expresses. Combined with A routes and terminated at Anacostia station. o AlO: New route from Anacostia station to Federal Triangle. o V5: Fairfax Village express. Terminated at Anacostia station. o W7 : New route from Naval Research Laboratory to Anacostia station; replaces routes P5, P9 and W3. o 92,94,B2,B4: Crosstown routes. Revised to serve Anacostia station in statistics shown here; actually proposed to be broken into multiple routes at Anacostia station. o VI, 9: Anacostia expresses. Combined with crosstown routes above and terminated at Anacostia station. o Cll: Clinton express. Turned back at Anacostia station rather than Federal Center SW. o P17: Oxon Hill-Ft. Washington seirvice. Turned back at Anacostia station rather than extending to Farragut Square. o D12,S12: Eastover-Marlow Heights service. Turned back at Anacostia station rather than Federal Center SW. o W13: Bock Road service. Turned back at Anacostia station rather than Farragut Square. o W12-17: Indian Head service. Turned back at Anacostia station rather than Federal Center SW. o New route added to serve proposed development along Potomac River just south of the Beltway. Routed to Anacostia station via 1-295 as P17 . STARK-HARRIS SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT CORRIDOR o 84,85: Riverdale services. Rerouted to West Hyattsville station rather than to Rhode Island Avenue. o 89: Laurel express. Rerouted to Greenbelt station rather than Rhode Island Avenue. o R2 : Baltimore Avenue service: Teirminated at Prince George's Plaza station instead of Brookland. -A. 3- o R4 : Hyattsville service: Rerouted to West Hyattsville station rather than Brookland. o R7 : Highview services Terminated at West Hyattsville station rather than Brookland. o R9 : Calverton-Riggs Road service: Some runs rerouted to Prince George's Plaza station rather than Fort Totten. o Rll,15: Greenbelt express service. Rerouted to Greenbelt station rather than to New Carrollton. o New Laurel services. Assumed at 1.5 times miles and hours of revised Laurel express service (route 89) . • PULL SYSTEM CHANGES - BRANCH AVENUE CORRIDOR o A2 : Congress Heights service. Extend from Southeast Community Hospital to Southern Avenue station. o A6,A8: Livingston Loop service. Reroute to Congress Heights (Alabama Avenue) station rather than Anacostia. o A9 : South Capitol Street service. Extend to Southern Avenue station via Southern Avenue. o W2 : Washington Overlook loop. Extend to Congress Heights Station. o W4 : Anacostia cirosstown service. Reroute via Congress Heights station; no significant impact assumed on operating statistics. o 32: Shipley Terrace service. Extend to Southern Avenue station. o 34: Naylor Gardens service. Extend to Naylor Road station. o 92: Garfield service. Extend to Congress Heights station. o 94: Stanton Road service. Extend to Southern Avenue station. o Cll: Clinton express. Reroute to Branch Avenue station rather than Anacostia. o D12,S12: Eastover-Marlow Heights service. West end rerouted from Anacostia station to Southern Avenue station via Southern Avenue. East end extended to Suitland station. -A. 4- Wll-17: Indian Head Highway services. West end rerouted from Anacostia station to Southern Avenue station. East end of Wll-15 extended to Branch Avenue station. C12,14: Hillcrest Heights service. Reroute to Suitland station rather than Potomac Avenue station. Hll-17: Marlow Heights-Temple Hills service. Reroute to Suitland station rather than Potomac Avenue station. Mil: Suitland Road service. Reroute via Suitland station. Extend south end to Branch Avenue station. PULL SYSTEM CHANGES - GREENBELT CORRIDOR o 42>46: Columbia Road service. Rerouted to Columbia Heights station. No significant impact on statistics assumed. o H8 : Park Road-Brookland crosstown service. Cut back at Columbia Heights station. Mt. Pleasant loop replaced by new route 4 8 with improved headways. o K4: New Hampshire Avenue service. Cut back at Georgia Avenue station; some reduction in peak service. o P2: Petworth service. Cut back at Georgia Avenue station. o P7 : Petworth express. Discontinued. o S3,S5: 16th Street special services. Reroute to Columbia Heights station. o 50: 14th Street service. Revise into two routes, one from 14th and Colorado to the Bureau of Engraving and the other from Takoma station to Columbia Heights station. o 52,54: 14th Street service to Navy Yard. Discontinued. o 60: 11th Street service. Break into two routes at Georgia Avenue station with different service frequencies . o 72: Georgia Avenue special service. Cut back at Georgia Avenue station. o 73: Georgia Avenue service to L' Enfant Plaza. Discontinued. -A. 5- APPENDIX B PATRONAGE FORECASTING MODEL As noted in the text, work trip mode splits were computed using a "pivot" model which relates changes in transit share to changes in transit impedances. The pivot formulation can be expressed as follows: Pi = k*Po/l + (k-l)*Po where: P^ = new transit share Pq = original transit share k = exp (c*v) c = logit disutility coefficient V = change in impedance variable For the MWCOG model, the impedance variables used were transit in-vehicle time, transit out-of -vehicle time, and transit fare. The coefficients used in the model are as follows: o -0.025: transit in-vehicle time (minutes) o -0.055: transit out-of-vehicle time (minutes) o -0.009: transit fare (1968 cents) Thus, the transit out-of-vehicle time is weighted 2.2 times as heavily as in-vehicle time. For consistency in transit path selection and mode choice modeling, this multiplier of 2.2 was used in the network analysis process to apply to all out-of- vehicle time components. Calculation of the mode splits to be used in the pivot model required combining of "walk access" and "auto access" impedances obtained from the network analysis. The weighting factors used in the combining process are shown in Exhibit B.l. In the analysis process, a time/fare tradeoff was required for those users who had multiple transit opportunities. A simple function was developed, as shown in Exhibit B.2, which computed the proportion of users who would select a faster but more expensive rail path as opposed to a slower but less expensive all-bus choice. Some typical impedance tradeoff results are also shown in the Exhibit. -B.l- EXHIBIT B.l IMPEDANCE WEIGHTING Define terms as follows: BW = base year impedance variable from "walk access" network BA = base year impedance variable from "auto access" network FW = future year impedance variable from "walk access" network FA = future year impedance variable from "auto access" network BW% = base year percent on "walk access" network BA% = 1.0 - BB% FW% = future year percent on "auto access" network FA% = 1.0 - FB% Weighted change in impedance: If FW% greater or equal to BW%: BW% * (FW - BW) + FA% * (FA - If FW% less than BW% : FW% * (FW - BW) + BA% * (FA - BA) + (FW% - BW%) * (FW - BA) BA) + (BW% - FW%) * (FA - Bw) For second phase analysis, the same formulas are used with the following changes in definitions: BW = base year impedance from the "best" of the "walk access" and "all-bus" networks FW = future year impedance from the "best" of the "walk access" and "all-bus" networks -B.2- EXHIBIT B.2 TRAVEL TIME/FARE TRADEOFFS Define terms as follows: ITW = time impedance on the "walk access" path ITB = time impedance on the "all-bus" path IFW = fare impedance on the "walk access" path IFB = fare impedance on the "all-bus" path IDEL = (ITW - ITB) - (IFW - IFB) Proportion on the walk access path: (ITW - ITB) / IDEL TYPICAL IMPEDANCE TRADEOFFS Bus access path: wait time 10 12 10 10 10 run time 10 10 8 10 12 fare 120 120 120 90 120 All-bus path wait time 10 10 10 10 10 run time 15 15 15 15 15 fare 80 80 80 80 80 Impedances ITW 0.800 0.910 0.750 0.800 0.850 ITB 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 IFW 0.338 0. 338 0.338 0.253 0.338 IFB 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 Percent bus access 52 . 6% 11.8% 60.8% 81. 6% 40.0 -B.3- The non-work modeling approach developed for MWCOG and used as the base estimate of transit travel utilizes factors which are applied to work mode split estimates. The home based non-work factors differ for households with and without access to an automobile and by trip distance. The non-home based factors differ only by broad distance ranges. The factors used in the model are shown in Exhibit B.3. The impact of car ownership is very pronounced, as the ratio for households with cars is less than a third that for households without cars for all but the shortest trips. -B.4- EXHIBIT B.3 NON-WORK FACTORS PERCENT TRANSIT HOME BASED OTHER / PERCENT TRANSIT HOME BASED WORK RATIO FOR RATIO FOR DISTANCE RANGE 0 CARS OWNED 1+ CARS OWNED 0- 1 MILE 0.5521 0.2689 1- 5 MILES 0.6746 0.2046 5-10 MILES 0.6545 0.1820 10 - 30 MILES 0.5411 0.1714 30 - 50 MILES 0.0 0.0 PERCENT TRANSIT NON-HOME BASED / PERCENT TRANSIT HOME BASED WORK RATIO FOR ALL CAR DISTANCE RANGE OWNERSHIP GROUPS 0-10 MILES 0.2081 10 - 40 MILES 0.1987 40 - 50 MILES 0.0 -B.5- APPENDIX C PATRONAGE RESULTS BY JURISDICTION AND CORRIDOR In addition to the regional patronage results shown in the main text of this report and in Exhibit C.l and C.2, an analysis of a number of market segments is necessary for various purposes. These market segments can best be displayed in "production- attraction" format. In this format, trips are summarized with the home end of the trip recorded as the "production" and the destination end of the trip as the "attraction". Thus, a round trip by a commuter from Arlington to the District would be shown as two trips "produced" in Arlington and two trips "attracted" to the District. Trips from the District to Arlington would, therefore, represent reverse commuting. One market segmentation that is of importance because of WMATA's funding arrangements is the jurisdictional distribution of travel. A summary of jurisdiction-to- jurisdiction work trips, in "production- attraction" format, is shown in Exhibits C.3, C.4, and C.5 for person trips, transit trips, and work mode split, respectively. The differential growth rates are clearly shown with work trip productions in the District increasing by only 17,000 from 1985 to 2000 while growth in Fairfax and Montgomery counties is over 150,000 for each jurisdiction. Similarly, the effect of differential employment growth can be- seen with work trip attractions increasing only about 40,000 each in Arlington and the District, over 100,000 in Montgomery County, and nearly 200,000 in Fairfax County. Exhibit C.6 shows an allocation of model results between rail-related and non-rail related trips, by purpose and jurisdiction. The shift between bus and rail as the Metrorail system expands is very evident for the District, while overall growth in suburban jurisdictions tends to mask the shifts in those areas. Additional detail, focusing on transit trips, is shown in Exhibit C.7, which summarizes transit trips to the District core, the Arlington core, and the rest of the region from major corridors. The corridor boundaries, defined in terms of the districts used in the analysis, are shown in Exhibit C.8. As expected, mode splits are relatively constant for corridors where no transit improvements are included and the transit share increases in corridors with rail extensions. In many cases, however, the resulting trip increases are rather modest, because of the small changes in the size of the various markets. -C.l- EXHIBIT C.l WORK PERSON TRIPS FROM\TO SUB- 1985 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE 39,000 14,000 5,000 58,000 URBAN 353,000 228,000 108,000 689,000 SUBURB 423,000 358,000 806,000 1,587,000 TOTAL 815,000 600,000 919,000 2,334,000 SUB- 1993 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE 43,000 16,000 6,000 65,000 URBAN 349,000 247,000 116,000 712,000 SUBURB 453,000 434,000 1,005,000 1,892,000 TOTAL 845,000 697,000 1,127,000 2,669,000 SUB- 2 000 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE 45,000 17,000 7,000 69,000 URBAN 351,000 255,000 123,000 729,000 SUBURB 473,000 470,000 1,179,000 2,122,000 TOTAL 869,000 742,000 1,309,000 2,920,000 CHANGE SUB- 1985-1993 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE 10.3% 14.3% 20.0% 12.1^ URBAN -1.1% 8.3% 7.4% 3.3^ SUBURB 7.1% 21.2% 24.7% 19. 2^ TOTAL 3.7% 16.2% 22.6% 14.4^ CHANGE SUB- 1993-2000 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE 4.7% 6.3% 16.7% 6.2% URBAN 0.6% 3.2% 6.0% 2.4% SUBURB 4.4% 8.3% 17.3% 12.2% TOTAL 2.8% 6.5% 16.1% 9.4% -C.2- EXHIBIT C.2 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS FROM\TO SUB- 1985 CORE URBAN URBAN TOTAL CORE XJRBAN SUBURB 27 , 000 169, 000 104, 000 5, 000 56,000 27, 000 1, 000 14, 000 21, 000 33 , 000 239, 000 152, 000 TOTAL 300 , 000 88,000 36, 000 424 , 000 1993 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 30 , 000 169, 000 115, 000 6,000 59,000 32,000 1 , 000 15, 000 26, 000 37 , 000 243,000 173,000 TOTAL 314,000 97 , 000 42 , 000 453 , 000 2000 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 31,000 171, 000 128, 000 7, 000 61, 000 36, 000 2, 000 17,000 31, 000 39,000 249,000 196, 000 TOTAL 330,000 104,000 50,000 484, 000 CHANGE 1985-1993 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 11. 1% 0.0% 10. 6% 20 5 18 0.0% 7.1% 23.8% 12. 1% 1.7% 13.8% TOTAL 4.7% 10.2! 16.7% 6.8! CHANGE 1993-2000 CORE URBAN SUB- URBAN TOTAL CORE URBAN SUBURB 3 1 11 16.7% 3.4% 12.5% 100.05 13 . 3^ 19.2? 5 2 13 TOTAL 5.V 7.2- 19.0- 6.8- -C.3- EXHIBIT C.3 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - PRINCE 1985 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 315,300 30,300 25,700 27,300 MONTG 141,500 261,200 31,900 11,700 PR GEO 204,100 54,600 179,300 24,200 A n T ARL 63 , 600 4 , 000 4 , 4UU j6 , DVV ALEX 45,800 2,100 4,400 22,900 FFX CO 138,100 24,100 14,200 71,500 FLS CH 2,400 500 200 1,600 FFX CT 2,600 900 300 1,300 LOU/PW 29,600 6,000 2,900 15,900 TOTAL 943,000 383,700 263,300 212,900 1993 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 316,500 31,600 28,300 29,800 MONTG 156,900 322,800 41,200 14,500 PR GEO 209,400 57,800 204,600 27,100 ART D ^ , \J\J\J A nnn Zi Ann '4 , DUU jy , jUU ALEX 42,400 2,000 4,300 23,200 FFX CO 141,500 25,300 15,500 80,500 FLS CH 2,100 500 200 1,700 FFX CT 2,300 800 300 1,300 LOU/PW 34,600 7,200 3,700 20,200 TOTAL 967,700 452,000 302,700 237,600 2000 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 315,800 32,600 30,400 31,200 MONTG 164,100 364,200 47,400 16,100 PR GEO 215,800 60,500 226,200 29,700 ARL 62,000 4,100 4,900 41,900 ALEX 42,700 2,100 4,600 24,800 FFX CO 141,800 25,900 16,500 85,400 FLS CH 2,100 500 200 1,800 FFX CT 2,200 800 300 1,400 LOU/PW 38,700 8,100 4,300 23,700 TOTAL 985,200 498,800 334,800 256,000 WORK PERSON TRIPS FAIRFAX LOUDN/ A T CV ALEX iUiAL T5TT rW •TT^T A T iUiALi 5,900 7,600 400 412,500 2,100 11,400 700 460,500 8,200 9,500 600 480,500 8,000 16,500 700 133,700 ib , jUU i , UUU 1 no nnn LVy , uuu 41,800 218,400 20,800 528,900 600 4,600 200 10,100 800 9,700 800 16,400 8,800 56,300 62,600 182,100 92.500 350,500 87,800 2, 333,700 FAIRFAX LOUDN/ AT CY TOT AT LKJ Li\Li pij rw TOTAT 8,800 9,000 500 424,500 3,500 16,600 1,000 556,500 12,800 11,500 700 523,900 11,400 18,500 800 140,600 0 0 7nn 1 7 ^;on 1 / , DUU 1 nnn 1 , UUU 1 1 9nn 64,300 276,900 27,400 631,400 800 5,100 200 10,600 1,100 10,700 900 17,400 15,500 84,400 85,200 250,800 140,900 450,300 117,700 2 668,900 FAIRFAX LOUDN/ A T ITV TAT A T PI.T r w THTAT 9,500 9,700 500 429,700 4,000 19,900 1,300 617,000 14,700 13,000 800 560,700 12,400 19,700 900 145,900 24,900 19,200 1,200 119,500 70,500 323,100 33,600 696,800 900 5,700 300 11,500 1,100 12,400 1,000 19,200 18,900 113,300 112,300 319,300 156,900 536,000 151,900 2, 919,600 -C.4- EXHIBIT C.4 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - PRINCE 1985 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 165,400 9,100 4,500 11,400 MONTG 42,800 16,300 1,100 1,100 PR GEO 44,400 3,800 6,900 4,100 ARL 26 ,400 400 400 7,300 ALEX 15,100 300 200 5,000 FFX CO 28,000 200 200 9,000 FLS CH 500 0 0 200 FFX CT 600 0 0 100 LOU/PW 3,100 200 0 800 TOTAL 326.300 30,300 13,300 39,000 PRINCE 1993 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 167,400 9,700 5,300 12,700 MONTG 48,000 18,800 1,400 1,300 PR GEO 47,200 4,200 7,600 4,700 ARL 26,700 400 500 7 , 900 ALEX 14,300 300 200 5,000 FFX CO 31,100 200 300 10,900 FLS CH 500 0 0 200 FFX CT 600 0 0 100 LOU/PW 3,800 300 0 1,000 TOTAL 339,600 33,900 15,300 43,800 PRINCE 2000 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL DIST 168,500 10,300 6,400 13,600 MONTG 52,000 21,000 1,700 1,400 PR GEO 53,100 4,700 9,300 5,500 ARL 27,200 500 600 8,300 ALEX 14,700 300 300 5,300 FFX CO 32,500 300 400 11,700 FLS CH 500 0 0 200 FFX CT 600 0 0 100 LOU/PW 5,400 400 100 1,600 TOTAL 354,500 37,500 18,800 47,700 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS FAIRFAX LOUDN/ ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL 1,600 1,200 100 193,300 100 200 0 61,600 400 400 0 60,000 700 900 0 36 , 100 2,100 800 0 23,500 1,400 4,100 100 43,000 0 200 0 900 0 200 0 900 100 100 300 4,600 6,400 8,100 500 423,900 FAIRFAX LOUDN/ ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL 2,600 1,600 100 199,400 200 200 0 69,900 700 500 0 64,900 1 , 100 1 , 100 0 37 , 700 2,900 800 0 23,500 2,300 6,400 100 51,300 100 200 0 1,000 0 200 0 900 200 200 400 5,900 10,100 11,200 600 454,500 FAIRFAX LOUDN/ ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL 2 , 900 1,700 100 203 , 500 200 300 0 76,600 900 600 0 74,100 1,200 1,300 0 39,100 3,200 900 0 24,700 2,700 7,700 100 55,400 100 200 0 1,000 0 300 0 1,000 300 300 500 8,600 11,500 13,300 700 484,000 -C.5- EXHIBIT C.5 JURISDICTION SUMMARY - WORK MODE SPLIT PRINCE FAIRFAX LOUDN/ 1985 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL DIST 52 5% 30 0% 17 5% 41 8% 27 1% 15 8% 25 0% 46 9% MONTG 30 2% 6 2% 3 4% 9 4% 4 8% 1 8% 0 0% 13 4% PR GEO 21 8% 7 0% 3 8% 16 9% 4 9% 4 2% 0 0% 12 5% ARL 41 5% 10 0% 9 1% 20 0% 8 8% 5 5% 0 0% 27 0% ALEX 33 0% 14 3% 4 5% 21 8% 12 9% 4 8% 0 0% 21 6% FFX CO 20 3% 0 8% 1 4% 12 6% 3 3% 1 9% 0 5% 8 1% FLS CH 20 8% 0 0% 0 0% 12 5% 0 0% 4 3% 0 0% 8 9% FFX CT 23 1% 0 0% 0 0% 7 7% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 5 5% LOU/PW 10 5% 3 3% 0 0% 5 0% 1 1% 0 2% 0 5% 2 5% TOTAL 34 6% 7 9% 5 1% 18 3% 6 9% 2 3% 0 6% 18 2% PRINCE FAIRFAX LOUDN/ 1993 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL DIST 52 9% 30 7% 18 7% 42 6% 29 5% 17 8% 20 0% 47 .0? MONTG 30 6% 5 8% 3 4% 9 0% 5 7% 1 2% 0 0% 12 .6% PR GEO 22 5% 7 3% 3 7% 17 3% 5 5% 4 3% 0 0% 12 4% ARL 43 1% 10 0% 10 9% 20 1% 9 6% 5 9% 0 0% 26 8% ALEX 33 7% 15 0% 4 7% 21 6% 12 8% 4 5% 0 0% 20 8% FFX CO 22 0% 0 8% 1 9% 13 5% 3 6% 2 3% 0 4% 8 1% FLS CH 23 8% 0 0% 0 0% 11 8% 12 5% 3 9% 0 0% 9 4% FFX CT 26 1% 0 0% 0 0% 7 7% 0 0% 1 9% 0 0% 5 2% LOU/PW 11 0% 4 2% 0 0% 5 0% 1 3% 0 2% 0 5% 2 4% TOTAL 35 1% 7 5% 5 1% 18 4% 7 2% 2 5% 0. 5% 17 0% PRINCE FAIRFAX LOUDN/ 2000 DISTRICT MONTG GEORGES ARL ALEX TOTAL PW TOTAL DIST 53 4% 31 6% 21 1% 43 6% 30 5% 17 5% 20 0% 47 4% MONTG 31 7% 5 8% 3 6% 8 7% 5 0% 1 5% 0 0% 12 4% PR GEO 24 6% 7 8% 4 1% 18 5% 6 1% 4 6% 0 0% 13 2% ARL 43 9% 12 2% 12 2% 19 8% 9 7% 6 6% 0 0% 26 8% ALEX 34 4% 14 3% 6 5% 21 4% 12 9% 4 7% 0 0% 20 7% FFX CO 22 9% 1 2% 2 4% 13 7% 3 8% 2 4% 0 3% 8 0% FLS CH 23 81 0 0% 0 0% 11 1% 11 1% 3 5% 0 0% 8 7% FFX CT 27 3% 0 0% 0 0% 7 1% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 5 2% LOU/PW 14 0% 4 9% 2 3% 6 8% 1 6% 0 3% 0 4% 2 7% TOTAL 36 0% 7 5% 5 6% 18 6% 7 3% 2 5% 0 5% 16 6% -C. 6- EXHIBIT C.6 MODEL RESULTS BY JURISDICTION OP PRODUCTION WORK HSO NHB TOTAL 1985 1993 2000 Rail Other Rail Other Rail Other District 69,200 124,100 88,500 110,800 100,400 103, 100 Monugonieiry 4U , y UU 4 / , dUU O O 1 A A , J UU oZ , dUU -i A AAA Z 4 , U U U Pr Georges 37, 300 22,700 44,300 20,600 56, 000 18, 100 Arlington 29 , 700 6,500 3 0,800 6,900 31 , 700 •~7 T A A / , J UU Alexandria 16,500 7,000 16, 100 7, 300 16,900 7, 900 Fairfax 28,200 14,900 37,200 14, 100 39,700 15, 600 Falls Ch 600 300 700 300 700 300 Ffx City 400 600 700 300 800 300 Loudoun/PW 1,200 3, 600 1,600 4,400 2,400 6, 200 Total 224, 000 200,400 267,600 186,800 301,200 182,800 District 29,300 68, 300 33,900 59,800 40,200 51, 800 won ugomery ± U , fl u u 1 / n r\r\ ±j , XUU A Q n A ±4 , o U U TO Q A A X J , y UU T c A r\r\ XD , 4 U U Pr Georges 5,900 9, 600 6,300 9,800 7,900 10,900 An ing uon 1 , UUU A o 1^ r\ 4 , o UU O , lUU A AAA 4 , y UU O 'T A A o , / UU C T A A 5 , XUU Alexandria 2, 600 4, 000 3, 100 4, 000 3,500 4, 200 Fairfax 4,900 4,700 7,700 5, 100 8,900 5, 600 Falls Ch 100 200 100 200 100 200 Ffx City 0 100 100 100 100 100 Loudoun/PW 100 300 200 300 300 400 Total 60, 100 106, 600 72,600 99, 000 83,600 93,800 District 59, 600 13,900 73,200 14,200 86, 600 15,200 non ugoinery -7 r\r\r\ 1 , UUU A "5 A r* 4 , J UU o , y UU A C A A 4 , DUU T A ^ A A J.U , 4UU A AAA 4 , y UU Pr Georges 6, 000 3,300 7,200 3,600 9,400 3,800 Arl mgton Ll flOO 1, 300 21, 600 1,300 —J r- CT A A 25 , 500 T C A A X , 5UU Alexandria 2, 100 1, 300 2,800 1,400 3,200 1,500 Fairfax 1,500 1,400 2,700 1, 600 3, 100 1,800 Falls Ch 0 0 0 0 100 100 Ffx City 0 100 100 100 100 100 Loudoun/PW 0 100 100 100 100 100 Total 94, 000 25,700 116,500 26,700 138,500 28,800 District 158, 100 206, 300 195,700 184,700 227, 100 170, 100 jyion L.goinery Do , JUU jy , /UU by , bUU >l T C A A 41, DUU Id Q A A / b , y u u A A T A A 4 4 , J U U Pr Georges 49,200 35,700 57,800 34,000 73, 300 32,700 Arlington 54,400 12,600 60,400 13,100 66, 000 13 ,900 Alexandria 21, 100 12,300 22,000 12,800 23, 600 13,600 Fairfax 34,600 20,900 47,600 20,900 51,800 23,000 Falls Ch 700 500 800 500 900 600 Ffx City 500 800 900 500 900 500 Loudoun/PW 1,300 3,900 1,800 4, 800 2,800 6,700 Total 378,200 332,700 456,700 312, 600 523,400 305, 300 -C.7- EXHIBIT C.7 WORK TRANSIT TRIPS TO DC CORE 1985 MS 1993 MS 2000 MS 1 Q X7 f T n n J u u / z • D '6 9 n Ann 1 u u 7 9 / z 45- 9 1 Z X , T nn J U w 7 9 / z ► Q ^ In w n AA u u u D J. • J. ^ 7 nn O X 43- 9 R z o , Rnn ZJ U w O X RS: "7 n n OA • D -6 o n 7 nn 9 O Z • y ^ 9 n Z w , R n n o u u fi4 1 5- > X -o Ann »i u u D A • Q5- i7 '6 1 T T n n J u u O J ns- 1 4 X 4 , nnn u u u D J n5- 0 nn Vj u O o • 9 5- "5 A nnn u u u R« 45- 9 1 z o , Q nn w u RR R5- Q n n y u u Z> A • D -8 z z , Ann 4 u u 3 J R5- 9 9 Z Z , n n D U U > y ^ T?nPTr\7TT T T? X / , inn i u u ■J / » D ■& Xi7 , Q n n O U (J T Q J O n5- 9 9 Z Z , nnn U w 45- xy , D n n o u u Q9- Z X , Ann D u u J o 9 5- . Z 9 9 Z Z , R n n o u u fi5- PPTT'P'MP'PT T 1 1 T nn J VJ u T n o X Z , nnn U U <J J ■J 45- 1 9 X z , finn D w U OS: O O 1 nnn u u u O Q D -6 Q o , 7 nn J u u 9 Q Z 7 45- o o , R nn o u u T O 45- ar>nT<;nM AUU J. OV^lN A 0 nn z w u t 7 nn J u u T7 79- 1 nn 9?: q Z> w U 54 Z 4 • Q Ron <J KJ \J 9 A 7% 1 9 X ^ , 4 nn H yj \j 9Q A *4 / •J \j \j 1 Q X 7 • 7% •x , ^ w X o 4 800 \J \J \J 1 9 X ^ 2% APT. PORF A H f 1 nn X 7 1 / X • J. ^ ^ , nnn www 79 / ^ • X ^ *± \j \j / ^ 2% CIOTTTH ART. Q / 4 X • 1 3: X ^ O / nn ~j \j \j 4 1 *l X 6% • vl O Q 4 00 *t \J \J 4 ? 4% NORTH ARL 11/ 700 47. 3% 11/ 400 48 .2% 11/ 500 49 .0% ALEX CBD 7, 300 43. 2% 7, 000 44 .5% 7, 300 45 .3% WEST ALEX 6, 500 31. 9% 6, 100 31 .9% 6, 200 32 .6% HUNTINGTON 7 , 700 27. 0% 8, 100 27 . 6% 8, 400 28 .5% CHTRT.FY 8, 700 22. 9% 9, 500 23 .7% 1 n / 1 00 X w w 9 4 9% V J. Hi IN IN r\ 6, 900 22 . 4% 8, 200 27 . 0% o o , 4 O O 9 R z o 05- fiF/MPT.FAM 3, 400 19. 6% 3 / 900 21 .5% A H , nnn w U W 9 9 T.OTTnnTTM 900 17. 6% 1, 100 18 .1% X , T n n J u u 1 Q X y Q5- . y ^ PR WTT.T.T AM 2, 100 11. 0% 2, 500 11 .3% -} o , R nn o u u 1 R X o 9 5- • z ^ TOTAT. 269, 800 40. 0% 281, 500 40 .4% 9 Q R Z 7 Q , T nn J w U 4 1 ** X R5- WORK TRANSIT TRIPS TO ARLINGTON CORE 1, 800 73 . 1% 1, 900 73 .3% ^ / 1 nn X 1.1 W 7 T 75- NW DC 1, 000 27. 1% 1/ 000 27 .0% J- / nnn \j \j \j 97 » X ^ 1, 100 45. 9% 1/ 200 45 .9% J- / T nn J w u 4 7 R5- NF nr 800 45. 8% 900 44 .3% -L / nnn \j \j \j 4 T o ^ FA*?T DP 1, 900 43 . 1% 2, 000 43 .4% ^ / 1 nn X U V/ 44 4§: 2, 000 39. 1% 2, 200 41 .2% ^ / 4 nn 4 u u 4 9 t z . 45- ROPTTVTT.T.F 200 5. 1% 300 5 .2% Ann 1 u u Z3 < R5- ■c;TT.VR cipRMri 800 23 . 5% 900 22 . 1% Q n n y u u 9 9 Z Z < 1 5- X -6 nRFFMRFT T 1, 300 27 . 9% 1/ 300 28 . 8% -L / Ann u u T n A5- MFW PARRTTKr 700 19. 5% 800 18 .7% Q n n o u u 1 Q X? . n5- AnnT<^nM rVUl^XOv^ii 300 20. 6% 400 20 .2% Ann 9 1 Z X • A 5- RRAMPH DxvrilN V^n 700 14. 6% 800 14 .7% -L / nnn u u u 1 "7 X / « R 5- O -b TMDTAN HFAn 300 8. 3% 300 8 . 5% Ann 4 u u Q R5- ART PHRF 900 39. 4% 1/ 200 40 .3% 1 1 / T n n J u u D -6 CnTTTH ART 1, 800 19. 9% 1/ 700 19 .4% J- / "7 n n xy . 9 SJ- Z -iS NORTH ARL 2, 400 25. 7% 2, 300 25 .6% 9 ^ / 400 "x V 25 . 6% ALEX CBD 2, 000 25. 6% 2, 000 26 .3% 2, 200 26. 5% WEST ALEX 2, 100 26. 2% 2, 000 25 .1% 2, 000 24 . 4% HUNTINGTON 1, 700 16. 2% 1/ 900 16 .8% 2/ 000 16. 9% SHIRLEY 3, 400 18. 4% 3/ 800 18 . 6% 4, 000 18. 9% VIENNA 1, 600 13 . 8% 1/ 900 15 .8% 2/ 000 15. 8% GF/MCLEAN 500 9. 8% 600 10 .4% 600 10. 6% LOUDOUN 0 1. 1% 0 1 .1% 0 1. 2% PR WILLIAM 800 8 . 3% 900 8 . 3% 1/ 400 10. 9% TOTAL 30, 200 21. 7% 32, 300 21 .7% 34, 700 22 . 1% -C.8- EXHIBIT C.7 (Con'd) WORK TRANSIT TRIPS TO NON-CORE 1985 MS 1993 MS 2000 MS DC CORE 5 000 40 . 7% 5 700 41 . 6% 6,200 42 . 4% NW DC 7 800 24 . 9% 7 ^ 900 24 . 7% 8 , 000 25 . 0% NORTH DC 12 700 36 . 0% 13 , 100 36 . 5% 13 600 37 . 7% NE DC 6 200 27 . 3% 6 , 800 27 . 1% X o 7,200 26 . 9% EAST DC 14 400 35 . 4% 14 ^ 800 35 . 2% 15,000 35 . 3% ANACOSTIA 11 100 30 . 2% 12 , 200 31 . 4% 12 800 32 . 4% ROCKVILLE 10 800 5 . 5% 13 , 000 5 . 1% 14 , 900 5 . 0% STTjVR sprng 12 900 8 . 2% 14 300 7 . 9% 15 600 8 . 0% GREENBELT sJXXJ_J XJ Xl XJ XJ XJ X 7 800 6 . 5% 8 500 6 . 8% 9 , 300 7 . 2% NEW CARRLTN x*! XJ ri NmtXvxvxxxj X XI 3 900 5 . 0% 4 ^ 200 4 , 8% 4,600 4 . 8% ADDISON 1—' X^ X U> \-/ XI 2 300 9 . 4% 2 / 800 8 . 4% 3,300 8 . 5% BRANCH X^XXaaXi ^^XX 4 200 5 . 9% 4 ^ 700 6 . 0% 6,300 7 . 3% INDIAN HEAD 1 . 400 3 . 9% 1, 700 4 . 3% 2 , 000 4 . 4% ARL CORE 800 17 . 3% 1, 100 18 . 3% 1,300 18 . 4% SOUTH ARL 2 . 500 9 . 9% 2 , 800 10 . 0% 3 , 100 10 . 2% NORTH ARL 3, 300 10. 5% 3, 700 10. 7% 3,900 10. 8% ALEX CBD 2, 800 12. 5% 3, 400 13. 2% 3,700 13 . 3% WEST ALEX 2, 700 8. 2% 3, 200 8. 3% 3,500 8. 5% HUNTINGTON 3, 000 5. 4% 3| 700 5. 5% 4,300 5. 9% SHIRLEY 2 , 800 2. 3% 3, 700 2. 4% 4 ,200 2 . 5% VIENNA 3 , 900 2. 7% 5< 700 3. 1% 6,800 3 . 2% GF/MCLEAN 1 , 200 1. 7% 2< 300 2. 6% 2 , 600 2 . 5% LOUDOUN 300 0. 9% 500 0. 8% 600 0 . 8% PR WILLIAM 700 0. 6% 1, 000 0. 7% 1, 400 0 . 8% TOTAL 124 , 300 8. 2% 140, 600 7. 7% 154 , 100 7 . 5% WORK TRANSIT TRIPS TO ALL AREAS DC CORE 25, 100 63. 4% 28, 000 62. 9% 29, 600 63 . 5% NW DC 37 , 800 46. 0% 37, 600 45. 6% 37 , 500 45 . 8% NORTH DC 34 , 500 48. 7% 35, 000 49. 0% 35, 700 50. 2% NE DC 19, 400 40. 4% 21, 000 40. 3% 22 , 200 40. 1% EAST DC 40, 500 46. 7% 40, 800 46. 5% 41, 000 46 . 8% ANACOSTIA 35, 000 41. 9% 36, 800 42. 8% 37, 800 43 . 3% ROCKVILLE 28, 100 11. 3% 33, 100 10. 6% 37,300 10. 4% SILVR SPRNG 33 , 500 15. 8% 36, 800 15. 2% 39 , 300 15. 2% GREENBELT 20 , 400 12. 7% 21, 800 13. 2% 23 , 300 13 . 8% NEW CARRLTN 12 , 600 11. 6% 13, 300 11. 1% 14 ,200 11. 0% ADDISON 6 , 800 18. 3% 8, 500 17. 4% 9 , 800 17 . 5% BRANCH 14 , 400 12. 6% 15, 300 12. 5% 19 , 700 14 . 8% INDIAN HEAD 6 , 000 9. 9% 6, 200 9. 3% 7, 200 9 . 7% ARL CORE 5 ^ 800 45. 7% 7, 300 44. 9% 8 , 000 45 . 0% SOUTH ARL 13 , 000 23. 4% 12, 800 22. 4% 13 200 22 . 4% NORTH ARL 17 , 400 26. 6% 17, 400 25. 9% 17,800 25. 7% ALEX CBD 12, 100 25. 8% 12, 400 25. 6% 13,200 25. 3% WEST ALEX 11/ 300 18. 2% 11, 300 17. 5% 11,700 17. 3% HUNTINGTON 12, 400 13. 3% 13, 700 12. 7% 14,700 12. 9% SHIRLEY 14, 900 8. 3% 17, 000 8. 0% 18, 300 7. 9% VIENNA 12, 400 6. 5% 15, 800 7. 0% 17,200 6. 7% GF/MCLEAN 5, 100 5. 5% 6, 800 6. 0% 7,200 5. 7% LOUDOUN 1, 200 2. 5% 1, 600 2. 3% 1,900 2 . 1% PR WILLIAM 3, 600 2. 7% 4, 400 2. 4% 6,600 2 . 9% TOTAL 424, 300 18. 2% 454, 400 17. 0% 484,000 16. 6% -C.9- -C.IO- The network effects that were used to generate the results are selectively summarized in Exhibits C.9 through C.12. These Exhibits summarize the travel times and fares used in the model from each production zone to Farragut Square and L' Enfant Plaza. The times and fares shown are from the free-choice, walk access network described in the text, and thus represent travel characteristics for a commuter who boards a transit vehicle near his home and travels to one of the destinations noted above. Exhibit C.9 summarizes weighted travel time changes to Farragut Square. The weighted time is computed as it is used in the model with transit out-of-veTiicle time weighted by 2.2 compared to in- vehicle transit running time. Differences under one minute have been ignored. In a few instances, travel time increases, generally because of a reduction or reorientation of feeder bus service. Travel time improvements are broadly classified into 2 to 10 minutes and over 10 minute ranges. A similar display for travel to L' Enfant Plaza is shown in Exhibit C.IO. In some instances, the travel time effects are not due to Metrorail changes but to changes made in Metrobus service. For example, increases in travel time from Kensington are due to reductions in Connecticut Avenue bus service and improvements along Colesville Road are largely due to the institution of express service. Similarly, improvements from Lorton reflect extension of the Shirley HOV lanes. Other changes are due to operational revisions. For example, with the opening of Van Dorn, the Blue Line is extended to Huntington, providing commuters in that corridor better access to Farragut Square but poorer access to L' Enfant Plaza. Some increases in travel time in northeast D.C. and adjacent areas of Prince George's County are due to revisions to bus service with the opening of the Green Line. Also shown on each of the Exhibits is a notation for those zones where neighborhood bus service was assumed to be introduced between 1985 and 2000. No changes are shown since there is no relevant basis for comparison . Equivalent fare changes are shown in Exhibits C.ll and C.12, excluding changes of 10 cents or less. In most cases, fares increase with extension of Metrorail as the fare for a bus/rail trip will often be higher than for an all-bus trip that is replaced. In a few cases, fares decline, particularly for those people who can walk directly to rail and avoid a bus/rail transfer. The analysis assumed symmetry in rail access and egress with the average of the morning and evening conditions applied. In actual practice, Metrobus access and egress is influenced by the way in which the bus/rail transfer operates. -C.ll- « ta 0 « c g« o o S c ^ 0 0 0 (0 O C »H H 0) 4J >i>i u 0 o> (0 as u 10 (d « > )4 b ^ u u u 0) « o c CO O Q H •C.12- 01 9 ■P CO 9 0) C O o 6 c u 0 0 0 n o C fH iH 4J >i >, X JQ jQ H <D (0 go (0 U (d 40 (9 •H Q) 0) 0) > )>4 V4 »4 O U 0 Q) <0 q) C CO Q Q H -C.13- Two additional analyses were undertaken to determine the relative contribution of network effects, primarily increases in the Metrorail system, and demographic trends in the region. The first analysis was accomplished by multiplying 1985 person trips by the year 2000 mode splits obtained from the modeling process. Exhibit C.13 illustrates the results of this analysis. As expected, the network effect is most important for rail-related travel, while the demographic effect of regional growth and changing development patterns is more significant overall. The second analysis was done by multiplying the year 2000 person trips by the 1985 mode splits. These results are summarized in Exhibit C.14 and show a similar pattern with the network effect being very pronounced, as expected, for the increase in rail trips and decrease in bus trips. -C.16- EXHIBIT C.13 GROWTH IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP - 1985 LAND USE W/ 2000 NETWORK LAND USE 1985 2000 NETWORK EFFECT EFFECT METRORAIL ONLY (1) 245, 800 364 , 500 298 , 100 52 ,300 66, 400 METRO BUS /METRORAIL 143 , 800 171, 700 168 , 100 24,300 3, 600 TOTAL RAIL-RELATED 389 , 600 536, 300 466,200 76, 600 70, 100 METRO BUS ONLY (2) 315 , 400 281, 500 278,900 (36, 500) 2, 600 TOTAL BUS-RELATED 476 , 500 474 , 200 465, 700 (10 , 800) 8, 500 TOTAL WMATA 705, 100 817,700 745, 100 40,000 72, 600 NON-WMATA ONLY 17,300 23,900 18,900 1,600 5, 000 TOTAL TRANSIT 722,300 841, 600 764, 000 41,700 77, 600 (1) Includes Metrorail/non-WMATA (2) Includes Metrobus/non-WMATA -C.17- EXHIBIT C.14 NETWORK EFFECT ON CHANGE IN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 2000 Land Use w/ 1985 Network Land Use 1985 2000 Network Effect Effect Metrorail Only (1) 245, 800 364, 500 289, 300 75, 200 43, 500 Metrobus/Metrorail 143, 800 171, 700 154, 500 17, 200 10, 700 Total Rail-Related 389, 600 536, 200 443, 800 92, 400 54, 200 Metrobus Only (2) 315, 400 281, 500 322 , 500 (41, 000) 7, 100 Total Bus-Related 476, 500 474, 200 494, 500 (20, 300) 18, 000 Total WMATA 705, 100 817, 700 766, 300 51, 400 61, 200 Non-WMATA Only 17, 300 23 , 900 22, 100 1/ 800 4, 800 Total Transit 722, 300 841, 600 788, 400 53, 200 66, 100 (1) Includes Metrorail/non-WMATA (2) Includes Metrobus/non-WMATA -C. 18- APPENDIX D DETAILED OPERATING COST MODEL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This Appendix contains four sets of materials pertaining to the development and results of the operating cost model: o Cost model structure and results o Inflation analysis o Historical WMATA cost data o Adjustments to FY86 model calibration Each of these topics is described in the sections which follow. COST MODEL STRUCTURE AND RESULTS Exhibit D.l summarizes the results of the WMATA Metrobus and Metrorail operating cost model for the years 1986 through 2 000. Page D.1.1 shows the bus and rail inputs or "driving variables" for the years 1986 through 1993. The baseline, diesel fuel, electricity, and parts inflation factors are also shown together with the changing productivity of rail car mechanics per vehicle mile. Page D.1.2 summarizes the cost results for the years 1986 through 1993 for Metrobus and Metrorail; the allocation of Metrobus costs between fixed and variable components for the allocation formulas; an approximate breakdown between fixed and variable costs for Metrorail; and estimates of WMATA employees, broken down into salaried and union positions. Pages D.l. 3 and D.l. 4 show similar data for the years 1994 through 2000. Exhibits D.2 and D.3 illustrate the detailed workings of the operating cost model as applied for Metrobus and Metrorail operations for the years 1986 and 2000, respectively. In each Exhibit, pages 1-4 summarize bus-related costs and pages 5-8 summarize rail-related costs. Each mode is further broken down into fixed and variable components plus a total. The costs are summarized into major WMATA organizational units: o Independent Offices o Finance o Administration o Design, Construction, and Facility Maintenance o Bus Service o Rail Service Each department is further broken down into offices. The final breakdown represents the major components that fall under each office. For fixed labor costs, the number of salaried and union positions are shown, together with the total labor costs. Non-labor costs are shown as a lump-sum. Variable cost relationships include the identification of the relevant driving variable (vehicles, miles, hours, etc.), in addition to the resulting labor and non-labor cost components. -D.l- D.1.1 EXHIBIT D.l: WStJAL fSWTA (HRATIffi COSTS l8-f1ar' WJ1ATA (€TR0BIS m FETRORAIL OPERATING COST HODEL 1 1 £ 7 i < J 0 7 Q 0 inis lear Vietffla Vienna Vienna/ttieat itieaton itieaton/u bt u bt/ftia/vanu flra/vanu/wit r Too r ID/ riDB r 107 r I7V rvoi r 171 CV07 CVOT ate WTUTMR U£iPT^^ PQ* KJj UnlVlTO VW\iWH_LDt Po^lf Uohir lac 1 , J^O 1 TT^ 1 1 ,01/ i TA7 1 ,ov/ PI •(nr»-44mre r i dCTuTII riOUTa T fl17 AM T QfHl TAA T 7fl1 7l"K") 0,/JU,Ow \ 7^9 RiVI PI triTA— Hi 1 PC 47 Afi<5 pro 47 119 619 47 O'^l 000 47 018 000 46 954 000 4A 790 000 7\), / 7 V , V\A/ 4A 000 7u,.iOv , VVA/ TU. JJZ , VW □ 7 7 7 □ 7 g 7 g 7 g 7 g 7 AIL DRIVING VARIABLES: PqjI' Pare Til din 41? 41? 141 AAA too 17R T/D PoaL' Trai nc rev. iraiifa 79 00 DO B6 70 70 101 Rev Train-Hours 571,091 624,618 624,618 624,618 624,618 675,459 711,774 733,563 Sched Car-fliles 28,733,000 35,927,000 36,036,000 36,587,000 37,082,000 40,835,000 42,605,000 43,928,000 Qiihuau Qf 1 nnc DuONdy jlaLlunb oc 00 JO i>7 /in TV 4S 4A TO 47 ULlici jLdLIUiib Li. 77 LI 97 oV Mezzanines 76 B2 82 83 84 90 91 95 Yards 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 [7i m 1 u Mi 1 oc 07. J/ A9 S7 07. J/ 71 4? 77 14 7fl 00 /0.7U RO RA w. DO 00. JO T n^ 1 1 nnc iniBT luCKlnyS i 7 J J L 0 A 0 7 Teriinals 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Passengers 105,100,000 108,100,000 112,700,000 113,700,000 115,100,000 116,900,000 121,900,000 127,0t»,000 Baseline I 0.00 3.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Baseline Factor 1.0000 1.0350 1.0868 1.1411 1.1981 1.2580 1.3210 1.3870 uiesei A 0 AA C AA ^ AA 7 AA 7 I'lA Diesel Factor 1.0000 1.0200 1.0710 1.1246 1.1808 1.2634 1.3519 1.4465 Djesel Incr Factor 1.0000 0.9855 0.9855 0.9855 0.9855 1.0043 1.0234 1.0429 Elec I 0,00 4.90 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Elec Factor 1.0000 1.0490 1.1015 1.1565 1.2143 1.2994 1.3903 1.4876 Elec Incr Factx 1.0000 1.0135 1.0135 1.0135 1.0135 1.0328 1.0525 1.0726 Parts X D.00 4.90 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Parts Factor 1.0000 1.0490 1.1015 1.1565 1.2143 1.2872 1.3644 1.4463 Parts Incr Factor 1.0000 1.0135 1.0135 1.0135 1.0135 1.0232 1.0329 1.0428 PRODUCTIVITY FACTOfS RCfWT ttech/Veh-l1ilexl(>- 16.82 13.75 13.75 13.75 13.75 14.06 14.36 14.67 -D.2- D.1.2 EXHIBIT D.l: AfWJAL lilATfi [FERATIN6 COSTS lB-i1dr-66 iWTft ftnmJS (M) lOSRAIL OFtRATING COST MOOS. I BASE VEflR DOLLARS OrePATIie Eff (Billions) tletrobus Hetrorail Total This Year FYB6 $233,766 $186,569 $422,355 Vienna FY87 $234,817 $201,511 $436,328 3 4 Vienna Vienna/iieat FY88 FY89 $234,023 $200,712 $434,735 $234,004 $202,969 $436,972 5 6 7 8 Hheaton Hheaton/U St U St/(^a/VanD Ana/VanD/Gblt FY90 $233,344 $204,648 $437,993 FY91 $233,351 $221,571 $454,921 FY92 $232,273 $228,304 $460,577 FY93 $232,976 $238,243 $471,219 Hetrobus Allaation Fixed flileage-felated Hrair-fielated Total $53,167 $76,159 $104,440 $233,766 $54,867 $75,765 $104,185 $234,817 $54,475 $75,624 $103,923 $234,023 $54,512 $75,604 $103,888 $234,004 $54,122 $75,503 $103,719 $233,344 $54,548 $75,583 $103,219 $233,351 $54,198 $75,561 $102,515 $232,273 $54,634 $75,896 $102,445 $232,976 Hetrorail 'Allocation* Fixed $37,236 $40,062 $39,317 $39,317 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 Vari^le $151,353 $161,448 $161,394 $163,651 $165,236 $182,158 $188,891 $198,831 Total $188,589 $201,511 $200,712 $202,969 $204,648 $221,571 $228,304 $238,243 E)fU)YEES (Han-Years) Hetrobus Salaried 574.34 573.92 573.85 573.84 573.80 573.67 573.50 573.50 Ma\ 3663.81 3670.37 3662.76 3661.72 3656.72 3642.08 3621.54 3619.54 Subtotal 4238.15 4244.29 4236.61 4235.56 4230.52 4215.76 4195.04 4193.04 Hetrxail Salaried 910.75 945.30 945.42 951.16 954.28 998.03 1006.81 1034.59 Union 2200.74 2327.52 2329.08 2365.61 2384.55 2593.11 2669.94 2801.51 Subtotal 3111.49 3272.83 3274.50 3316.78 3338.83 3591.14 3676.75 3836.10 TOTAL 7349.64 7517.12 7511.12 7552.34 7569.35 7806.90 7871.79 8029.14 -D .3- D.1.3 EKHIBIT D.l: WWJAL ilATA OPERATING COSTS 18-flar-B6 MHATA imm »ffi ItTRORAIL OPERATING COST l«Da 9 BASE YEAR DOUJRS Gblt/Glen/FSP R94 BUS DRIVING VARIABLES: Peak Vehicles 1,306 Platfort-Hours 3,757,500 PUtforHliles «),i>54,000 Operating Garages 9 RAIL DRIVING VM^IWLES: Peak Cars 498 Peak Trains 105 Rev Train-Hours 762,615 Sched Car-tliles 46,690,000 Subway Stations 48 Other Stations 32 tezanines 97 Ya-ds 7 Route-Hiles 91.30 Interlockings 7 Teriinals 6 Passengers 128,900,000 ItfLATION FACTORS Baseline I 5.00 Baseline Factor 1.4563 Diesel I 7.00 Diesel Factor 1.5478 Diesel Incr Factor 1.0628 Elec I 7.00 Elec Factor 1.5918 Oec Incr Factx 1.0930 Parts 1 6.00 Pjfts FKtor 1.5331 Parts Incr Factor 1.0527 PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS ROUT Hech/Veti-f1ilexl(h 14.98 10 11 12 Glen/FSP Glen/FS'/Ft.T Ft.Totten FY95 FY96 FY97 1,312 1,305 1,291 3,769,700 3,748,900 3,707,000 46,813,000 46,541,000 45,995,000 9 9 9 514 526 538 107 108 109 777,141 784,404 791,667 48,607,000 49,521,000 50,844,000 49 49 50 3? 99 99 100 7 7 7 94.60 95.25 96.70 7 7 / 7 / 6 7 7 131,400,000 133,400,000 135,700,000 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.5292 1.6056 1.6859 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.6561 1.7720 1.8961 1.0830 1.1036 1.1247 7.00 7.00 7.00 1.7032 1.8224 1.9500 1.1138 1.1350 1.1566 6.0C 6.00 6.00 1.6251 1.7226 1.8259 1.06Z7 1.0728 1.0831 15.29 15.59 15.90 13 14 15 ..Tot/Branch 103-HiIe Syst 103-flile Syst FY98 FY99 FYOO 1,290 1,290 1,290 3,706,300 3,705,400 3,705,400 46,006,000 46.021.000 4fc.021 000 9 9 9 566 588 588 111 113 113 806,193 820,719 820,719 53,680,000 55,863,000 55,863,000 51 51 51 35 36 36 104 105 105 8 8 8 101.59 103.54 103.54 8 8 8 8 8 8 138,100,000 142,100,000 147,500,000 J. w J. w J. w 1.7702 1.8587 1.9516 7.00 7.00 7.00 2.0288 2.1708 2.3228 1.1461 1.1679 1.1902 7.00 7.00 7.00 2.0865 2.2325 2.3888 1.1787 1.2011 1.2240 6.00 6.00 6.00 1.9355 2.0516 2.1747 1.0934 1.1038 1.1143 16.21 16.51 16.82 -D.4- EXHIBIT 0.1: mm. HfttTA OPERATING COSTS 18-«ar-B6 HMTA ICTRQBUS M) rCTRORAIL QPERATINB COST mi 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BASE YE« OGLLARS Gblt/6Ien/FSP Slen/FSP Glen/FSP/Ft.T Ft.Totten Ft.Tot/Branch 103-flile Syst 103-tliIe Syst FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FYOO 0PERATII6 EXP (Hillians) ffetrobus f233.293 1234.694 $233,722 $232,503 $232,551 $233,379 $233,444 ftetrorail $249,683 $257,605 $261,839 $267,532 $281,298 $289,532 $291,633 Total $482,976 $492,299 $495,560 $500,035 $513,849 $522,911 $525,077 netrobus Allocation Fixed $54,302 $54,747 $54,402 $54,819 $54,487 $54,929 $54,599 Bileage-Related $76,410 $77,026 $76,962 $76,461 $76,852 $77,256 $77,644 toir-telated $102,581 $102,921 $102,357 $101,223 $101,211 $101,194 $101,201 Total $233,293 $234,694 $253,722 $232,503 $232,551 $233,379 $233,444 Hetrorail 'AllDcation' Fixed $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 $39,413 Va-iable $210,270 $218,193 $222,426 $228,120 $241,885 $250,120 $252,220 Total $249,683 $257,605 $261,839 $267,532 $281,298 $289,532 $291,633 ElfLDYEEB (I1at-Ye«) Netroims Salaried 573.57 Union 3623.98 Subtotal 4197.56 Hetrxail Salaried 1060.36 Ihion 2937.69 Subtotal 3998.06 TOTAL 8195.62 573.69 573.49 573.09 3634.22 3616.69 3581.60 4207.91 4190.18 4154.68 1072.23 1084.39 1091.36 3027.14 3066.04 3125.27 4099.37 4150.42 4216.63 8307.29 8340.60 8371.31 573.09 573.10 573.10 3561.26 3580.83 3580.83 4154.35 4153.94 4153.94 1130.34 1140.43 1141.73 3286.89 3373.64 3390.95 4417.22 4514.07 4532.69 8571.58 8668.01 8686.62 -D.5- D.2.1 EJHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 (DERATING COSTS Bus Fixed Costs Bus Variable Costs ftjs Total 13-Har-66 Eaployees Eeployees Eaployees DEFT/LHtice Conponent Salaried Man Cost Cost Driver Salaried Ibion Cost Salaried Union Total Cost INDEPENDENT QFICES feneral Manager Total 11.72 $572,600 11.72 0.00 11.72 $572,&00 ftudit <( Inspec Total 9.18 $355,400 9.18 0.00 9.18 $355,400 Board of Dir Total 0.00 $132,800 0.00 0.00 0.(X) $132,800 General Council Total 9.71 $463,600 9.71 0.00 9.71 $463,6<;n) &)vt Relations Total 1.30 $69,100 1.30 0.00 1.30 $<>9,1W Public Affairs Total 3.99 $212,600 3.98 0.00 3.99 $212,600 Secretary Total 0.00 $0 O.OO 0.00 0.00 $0 TOTAL 35.89 0.00 $1,806,100 0.00 0.00 $0 35.89 0.00 35.89 $l,806,liX> FINANCE Aen Total 0.90 $50,300 0.90 0.00 0.90 $50,300 Accounting Payroll Clerks PlatfxHtours 10.90 $219,171 O.OO 10.90 lO.S) $218,171 Balance 15.98 9,29 $687,129 15.98 9.29 25.27 $687,129 Budget h Hgt Anal Total 9.35 $378,900 Bus SiFvey $0 8.35 0.00 8.35 $378,900 flarketing Total 28.75 41.00 $2,788,600 28.75 41.00 69.75 $2,798,600 Risk nanageient Hcrk^s' Caap Claiis PlatforHliles $9,774,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $9,774,600 In5ur:Fixed Costs IHile-Related) $4,200 0.00 0.00 0.00 $4,200 Southern RR 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Me-Related PlatforHliles $810,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 $810,918 Veh-Related Peak Vehicles $296,997 0.00 0.00 0.00 $296,997 Gar/Sta-Relate Garages $10,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 $10,000 BI ClaiK, Suits PlatforHliIes $6,134,900 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,134,900 Balance 18.35 2.70 $1,541,685 19.35 2.70 21.05 $l,541,6ffi Transit Police Tr/Sta Patrol Off 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Mobil B Patrol Off 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Sargeants 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Rev Protect Officers 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Spec Police Officers 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance Alloc=>Plat-Mi 61.20 5.25 $1,915,900 61.20 5.25 66.45 $1,915,900 Treasurer Revemffi Attendent 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supervisor Rev Serv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Farecards 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 13.48 21.66 $980,700 13.48 21.66 35.14 $980,700 TOT«. 85.81 74.65 $6,427,214 61.20 16.05 $19,165,686 147.01 90.70 237.71 $25,592,900 ADMINISTRATION A6n Total 1.05 $50,300 1.05 0.00 1.05 $50,300 Adiin Services Total 11.90 12.54 $1,669,300 11.90 12.54 24.44 $1,669,300 Civil Rights Total 3.05 $133,700 3.05 0.00 3.05 $133,700 Labor Relations Total 3.20 $294,700 3.20 0.00 3.20 $294,700 Hgt Info Serv Total 25.85 6.40 $2,076,200 Systet Upgrade $0 25.85 6.40 32.25 $2,076,200 Materials Hgt Stock Clerks Garages 54.00 $1,019,592 0.00 34.00 34.00 $1,019,592 Balance 9.40 3.40 $394,308 9.40 3.40 12.80 $394,308 Personnel k Train Total 16.18 $744,900 16.18 0.00 16.19 $744,800 Planning Total 28.64 56.40 $2,411,200 28.64 56.40 85.04 $2,411,200 TOTAL 99.27 78.74 $7,774,5M 0.00 34.00 $1,019,592 99.27 112.74 212.01 $8,794,100 -D.6- D.2.2 EXHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 OFtRATING CIKTS Bus Fixed Costs Bus Variable Costs Bus Total 18-l1ar-86 Eaployees E^iloyees Eaployees rePT/Otfice Coiponent Salaried linion Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Uiion Total Cost DESia, CCNSTRUCTI», 4 FACIL NAM Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Constniction Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Contract Adtin Total 0.(X) 0.00 0.00 $0 Engg k Arch Total 3.16 1131,900 3.16 0.00 3.16 $131,900 Facilities Haint llechanics, Etc. Garages 68.04 $1,9^,747 0.(X) 68.04 68.04 $1,9^,747 Bldg Naint Supv (Hechanics) 3.96 $144,287 3.96 0,0<) 3.96 $144,37 Janitor Garages 25.65 $5ffi),870 0.00 3.65 25.65 $a0,870 Siaiv CiBtodial Serv (Janitors) 3.00 $91,569 3.00 0,00 3.00 $91,569 Cleaning llach Op 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Track !i Str Union 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supv Track ic Way - O.OO 0.00 0.00 $0 Insp Tr li Way lltn 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Elevator k Esclator 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Track k Str Hater ial 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Hat 'Is k Sup Garages $794,200 0.00 0.00 0.00 $794,200 Utilities Garages $1,194,400 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,194,400 Balance 33.57 28.77 $2,333,727 33.57 28.77 62.34 $2,3;3,727 Prograi Control Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Real Estate Total 0.55 $21,900 0.55 0.00 0.55 $21,900 TOTAL 37.28 28.77 $2,492,527 6.96 93.69 $4,791,073 44.24 122.46 166.70 $7,283,600 US SERVICE Support Services Total 17.54 2.00 $880,900 17.54 2.00 19.54 $^,900 Transp Sup(Hrt Total 22.10 $898,100 22.10 0.00 22.10 $898,100 OA ti Training Total 25.10 2.00 $1,172,900 25.10 2.00 27.10 $1,172,900 lint Ada (< Tech SupTotal 5.78 3.00 $355,800 5.78 3.0O 8.78 $355, H)0 Heavy flaint Hechanics PlatforHliles 176.50 $5,541,218 0.00 176.50 176.50 $5,541,218 Supervisors (Hechanics) 6.30 $249,650 6.30 0.00 6.30 $249,650 Parts-Routine PlatforHliles $7,028,300 0.00 0.00 0.00 $7,02,300 Parts-Special ,R8f urb $570,100 (Flxible Rehab) $1,944,300 0.00 A AA 0.00 $2,514,400 Balance 1.96 32.00 $1,455,032 1.96 32.00 33.96 $1,455,032 Sffvice Vehicles Nechanics Peak Vehicles 10.86 $344,881 0.00 10.86 10.86 $344,K1 Sasoline Peak Vehicles $241,300 0.00 0.00 0.00 $241,300 Haterials k Supplies Peak Vehicles $149,100 0.00 0.00 O.iX) $149,100 Balance 0.71 0.00 $27,619 0.71 0.00 0.71 $27,619 Regions/Divisions Full-Tiie Qperatxs Platfort-ttours 2214.26 $71,840,212 0.00 2214.26 2214.26 $71,840,212 Part-Tiie Operators Platfori-Hours 239.89 $7,783,187 0.00 239.89 239.89 $7,783,187 Street Stj^ja-visors Garages 58.00 $1,912,492 58.00 0.00 58.00 $1,912,492 Hechanics Platfort-Hiles 411.00 $11,784,603 0.00 411.00 411.00 $11,784,603 Cleaner Shifters Peak Vehicles 101.00 $2,337,948 0.00 101.00 101.00 $2,337,948 Garage 9iift Supv Platfor»-HiIes 29.00 $913,210 29.00 O.OO 29.W) $913,210 Diesel Fuel Platfors-fliles $12,776,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $12,776,600 Other Fuel k Lubr PlatforHliles $913,800 0.00 0.00 0.00 $913,800 Tires PlatforHliles $1,916,300 O.M 0.00 O.tXt $1,916,31X1 Parts-tten-AyC PlatforHliles $4,189,700 0.00 0.00 0.» $4,189,700 Parts-A/C PlatforHliles $703,400 0.!» 0.00 0.00 $703,41X1 Balance Garages 70.67 121.00 $7,651,247 70.67 \2\M 191.67 $7,651,247 TOTAL 73.19 39.00 $5,360,451 163.97 3274.51 $140,221,449 237.16 3313.51 355ij.67 $145,581,900 -D. 7- D.2.3 EXHIBIT D.2: IHAILED m OPERATING COSTS !B-nar-B6 &is Fixed Costs Bus Variable Costs Bus Total DEPT/Office Co^Kinent Employees Salaried Union Cost Esoloyees Cost Driver Salaried iAiion Cost Eaployees Salaried Union Total Cost RAIL 3ERVIS Rail Ca- Haint Rail Transput TOTAL aJBTOTAL Total 2.13 174,400 2.13 0.i)0 2.13 $74,400 ttechanics O.W O.iX) 0.00 $0 Supv Car Insp 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Cieaner5:Car -Miles 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ".Cars 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Sup Car Clean 0.00 0.00 OM $0 Contract rtaint 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Materials Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Hydraulic 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 AFC Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 tfZ Si^jv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 IfZ Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Com Mechanics Peak Vehicles 16.60 $524,394 0.00 16.60 16.60 $524,394 Com Supv (Mechanics) 1.20 $44,180 1.20 0.00 1.20 $44,180 Com Parts Peak Vehicles 123,800 0.00 0.00 0.00 $23,800 Potter Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Po«r Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Potter Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 8.00 7.80 1533,926 8.00 7.80 15.80 $533,926 occ 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Depot Clerks 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Station ftttendents 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supv Pass Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operatcrs-Revenue 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Yards 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Interlock 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 (^erators-Sap 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Spares 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-Yard 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-line 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-Teri 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Traisp Supv-Spares 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 10.13 7.90 1608,326 1.20 16.60 $592,374 11.33 24.40 35.73 $1,200,700 341.57 228.96 124,469,126 233.33 3434.85 $165,790,174 574.90 3663.81 4238.71 $190,259,300 -D.8- 0.2.4 EXHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 LHRATilC COSTS lS-!^ar-86 Bus Fixed Costs fejs Variable Costs Bus Total Eiployees Ejoployees E^loyees DEPT/Wnce Coiponent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaripri llninrt Pjict xMk W 1 CU Union Total Cost «K-DEIWTrtNTflL Fringe Benet'its Salaried -0.56 $2,975,396 (Salaried Ei^l) $2,032,524 -0.56 0.00 -0.56 $5,(X)7,9I9 Union-fill 1-TiM $2,336,528 (R Union Eipl) $32,604,407 0.00 0.00 0.00 $34,940,934 Unior-Part-Tise (PT Operators) $1,516,522 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,516,522 Electricity Propulsion 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Subway Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Stations 0.00 0.00 O.iXi $0 Bar ages Garages $1,495,998 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,495,998 Depr of tepairbles 0.00 O.iX) 0.00 $0 COL Contingency (Salaried Lipl) ^545,298 0.00 0.00 OM $545,298 Property Loss 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 TOTAL -0.56 0.00 $5,311,923 0.00 0.00 $38,194,748 -0.56 0.00 -O.K $43,506,672 gm TOTN. 341.01 228.96 $29,781,050 233.33 5434.85 $203,984,922 574.34 3663.81 4238.15 $233,765,972 -D.9- D.2.5 EKHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 OPERATlffi uSTS 16-l1ar-3fc Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable Costs Rail Total Eflployees Enployees Eaployees D£PT/iH<ice Coepcxient Sallied Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Union Total Cost IKDEPEfffiENT QFICES General llanager Total 15.04 $731,800 15.04 0.00 15.04 $731, KiO Audit d Inspec Total 9.22 $353,400 9.22 0.00 9.22 $353., 400 Board Oir Total 0.00 $97,600 0.00 0.00 0.(X) $97,600 General Council Total 4.31 $247,500 4.31 0.00 4.31 $247,500 Govt Relations Total 1.10 $58,500 1.10 0.(X) 1.10 $58.!^X) Public Affairs Total 4.12 $216,000 4.12 0.00 4.12 $216, '.XAi Secretary Total 0.(X) 0.00 0.00 $0 TOTAL 33.79 0.00 $1,704,800 0.00 0.00 $0 33.79 0.00 33.79 $l,7i;t4,3()0 ima. A6n Total 0.90 $50,300 0.90 0.00 0.90 $50,3(X) Accounting Payroll Clerks Rev Train-tfours 7,20 $145,447 0.00 7.20 7.20 $145,447 Balance 11.75 6.79 $505,653 11.75 6.79 18.54 $505,653 Budget t flgt Anal Total 6.80 $408,500 6.80 0.00 6.80 $4(»,500 darketing Total 17.75 30.00 $1,746,000 17.75 30.00 47.75 $1,746,000 Risk nanageient Uorkers' Co^i ClaiK Sched Car-fliles $2,443,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2,443,600 Insur:Fixed Costs $300,900 0.00 0.00 0.00 $300,900 Southern RR $0 Van Darn St. Opens 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Hile-fielated Sched Car-fliles $1,114,007 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,114,007 Veh-Related Peak Cars $510,599 0.00 0.00 0.00 $510,599 Gar/Sta-Relate Stations $56,300 0.00 0.00 0.00 $56,300 61 ClaiK, Suits Sched Car-Niles $672,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $672,600 Balance 3.20 0.30 $373,094 3.20 0.30 3.50 $373,094 Transit Police Tr/Sta Patrol Off Stations 95.00 $2,154,125 95.00 0.00 95.00 $2,154,125 Hobile Patrol Off Teriinals 51.00 $1,156,425 51.00 0.00 51.00 $1,156,425 Sargeants (Officers) 18.25 $498,225 18.25 0.00 18.25 $498,225 Rev Protect Officers Itezanines 32.00 $649,600 32.00 0.00 32.00 $649,600 Spec Police Officers Yards 23.25 $388,787 23.25 0.00 23.25 $388,797 Balance 48.00 0.50 $1,992,569 48.00 0.50 48.50 $1,992,569 Treasurer Revenue Attendent Mezzanines 27.00 $736,533 0.00 27.00 27.00 $736,533 Supervisor Rev Serv (Rev Attendants) 5.0O $165,260 5.00 0.00 5.00 $165,260 Farecards Passengers $710,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 $710, 5(H) Balance 13.49 23.58 $1,036,307 13.49 23.58 37.07 $1,036,307 TOTW. 101.89 61.17 $6,413,322 224.50 34.20 $11,402,008 326.39 95.37 421.76 $17,815,330 DtllNlSTRATION A6n Total 1.35 $64,600 1.35 0.00 1.35 $64,600 Adiin Services Total 14.24 8.43 $2,342,000 14.24 8.43 22.67 $2,342,000 Civil Rights Total 2.75 $122,800 2.75 0.00 2.75 $122,800 Labor Relations Total 3.00 $265,900 3.00 0.00 3.00 $265,800 Ngt Info Serv Total 28.78 7.20 $2,358,100 Systei Upgrade $0 28.78 7.20 35.98 $2,358,100 Materials Ngt Stxk Clerks Yards 27.00 $809,676 O.OO 27.00 27.00 $81)9,676 Balance 11.60 3.40 $457,124 11.60 3.40 15.00 $457,124 Personnel k Train Total 14.64 $722,000 14.64 0.00 14.64 $722,000 Planning Total 16.34 13.60 $1,034,500 16.34 13.60 29.94 $1,034,500 TOTAL 92.70 32.63 $7,366,924 0.00 27.00 $809,676 92.70 59.63 152.33 $8,176,600 -D. 10- D.2.b EiHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 IHRATIN6 COSTS Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable Costs Rail Total 18-Har-66 Eiployees Eaplovees Esployees DEPT/Of^icB Cowonent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Unim Total Cost DESia, CONSTRUCTION. & FflCIL HAINT A6n Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 LrUlau UL'.IUII O.iX) 0.i» 0.00 $<!l Contract Adiin Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Engg li Arch Total 6.61 $277,800 6.61 0.1)0 6.61 $277, 8fX) Facilities Haint Mechanics, Etc. Stations 147.95 $4,379,764 0.00 147.95 147.95 $4,379,764 Bldg Haint Supv (Hechanics) 8.04 $292,945 8.04 0.00 0.04 $292,945 Janitor Stations 107.65 $2,437,842 0.(» 107.65 107.65 $2,437,842 Supv Custffljial Serv (Janitors) 11.55 $352,541 11.55 0.00 11.55 $352,541 Cleaning Hach Op Stations 13.00 $301,912 0.00 13.00 13.00 $301,912 Track t Str Union Route-Hi les 183.10 $4,911,108 0.00 183.10 183.10 $4,911,108 Supv Track i iiay -■ (Hechanics,etc) 22.00 $801,592 22.00 O.OO 22.00 $801,592 Insp Tr 4 Hay htn Route-Hi les 4.75 $173,071 4.75 0.00 4.75 $173,071 Elevator i Esclatw $0 Stations $4,684,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $4,684,600 Track li Str Haterial $0 Route-Hi les $388,900 0.00 0.00 0.00 $388,900 Other Hafls k Sup Stations $2,633,300 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2,633,3(X) Utilities Yards $769,100 0.00 0.00 0.00 $769,100 Balance 65.S 43.25 $4,143,425 65.58 43.25 108.83 $4,143,43 Prograi Control Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Real Estate Total 0.89 135,500 0.89 0.00 0.89 $35,500 TOTAL 73.08 43.25 $4,456,725 46.34 451.70 $22,126,675 119.42 494.95 614.37 $26,583,400 tJS SERVICE Sipport Services Total 0.06 $4,300 0.06 0.00 0.06 $4,3JX) Transp Support Total 0.90 $32,200 0.90 0.00 0.90 $32,200 OA & Training Total 0.05 $1,700 0.05 0.00 0.05 $1,700 Mnt Ada b Tech SupTotal 0.13 $4,800 0.13 0.00 0.13 $4,800 Heavy Haint Hechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supervisors 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-Routine O.OO 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-Special ,Refirb 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.12 2.00 $20,300 0.12 2.00 2.12 $20,300 Service Vehicles Hechanics Route-ffiles 16.70 $530,609 0.00 16.70 16.70 $530,609 Baseline Route-Hi les $436,000 0.00 0.00 O.OO $436,000 Haterials & Supplies Route-fliles $266,800 0.00 0.00 0.00 $266,800 Balance 1.06 2.16 $103,291 1.08 2.16 3.24 $103,291 Regions/Divisicrs Full-TiK Operators 10.75 $320,834 0.00 10.75 10.75 $320,834 Part-Tiie Operators 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Street Supa^sors 4.71 $157,489 4.71 O.OO 4.71 $157,489 Hechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Cleaner Sifters 0.00 0.00 0.i» $0 Garage Shift Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Diesel Fuel 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Fuel I Lubr 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Tires 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-Non-A/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-A/C 0.00 O.tX) 0.00 $0 Balance $15,378 0.00 0.00 0.00 $15,378 TQT«. 7.05 14.91 $660,291 0.00 16.70 $1,233,409 7.05 31.61 38.66 $1,893,700 -D. 11- D.2.7 EXHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 iHRATINB CESTS 18-«ar-56 Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable Costs Rail Total Eaployees Eapioyees Eaployees DEPT/QHice RAIL SERVICE Rail Car Maint Rail Transport TDTflL SUBTOTAL Coi^Jtsient Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Union Total Cost Total 72.90 9.00 $3,361,000 72.90 9.(X) 81.90 $3,361. C-OO (techanics Sctied Car-«iles 483.29 $14,516,665 0.00 483.29 483.29 $14,516 665 Supv Car Insp (Mechanics) 36.24 $1.3«2,33S 36.24 0.00 3^.24 $1,382. 338 Cleaners; Car -fliles Scheti Car-fliles 16.20 $363,107 O.iX) 16.20 16.20 $343 107 :Car5 Peak Cars 37.80 $847,249 0.00 37.80 37.80 1847. 249 Sup Car Cleoi (Cleaners) 3.00 $^,260 3.00 0.00 3.00 m 260 Contract Hamt Sched Car-fliles $602,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 $602, 500 (laterials k Supplies Sched Car-niles $6,402,700 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,402 700 Hydraulic Sched Car -fliles $101,200 0.00 0.00 0.00 $101 200 Balance 18.90 5.00 $636,484 18.90 5.00 23.90 $636 484 AFC ffechanics Mezzanines 55.00 $1,753,235 0.00 55.00 55.00 $1,753 235 AFC Supv (Mechanics) 7.80 $284,201 7.80 0.00 7.80 $284 201 AFC Parts Mezzanines $930,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 $930 000 AE Hechanics Stations 109.75 $3,498,501 0.00 109.75 109.75 $3,498 501 ATC Supv (Mechanics) 7.50 $273,270 7.50 0.00 7.50 $273 270 ATC Parts Stations $200,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 $200 000 Com flechanics Stations 67.40 $2,148,510 0.00 67.40 67.40 $2,148 510 Com S(4)v (Mechanics) 8.80 $329,525 8.80 0.00 8.8C $329 525 Com Parts Stations $315,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 $315 000 Pot<er Hechanics Stations 81.19 $2,588,094 0.00 81.19 81.19 $2,588 094 Power Supv (Mechanics) 9.00 $327,924 9.00 0.00 9.00 $327 924 Po<er Parts Stations $490,000 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $490 000 38.10 44.30 $2 000.141 35.10 44.30 82.40 $2,000 141 occ ^.00 0.00 $l,028,ffll Green Line oper 0.00 $0 28.00 0.00 28.00 $1,028 881 Depot Clerks Tertinals 20 $633,680 0.00 20.00 20.00 $633 680 Station Attendents Mezzaiines 289.00 $7,927,559 0.00 ^.00 289.00 $7,927 559 Supv Pass Stations (Sta Attendents) 22.00 $727,144 22.00 0.00 22.00 $727 144 Operators-I^venue Rev Train-Hours 188.80 $6,840,979 0.00 Iffi.SO mso $6,840 979 Operators-Yards Yards 40.00 $1,449,360 0.00 40.00 40.00 $1,449 360 Operatxs-Interlock Inter lockings 16.80 $608,731 0.00 16.80 16.80 $608 731 Operators-Sap 6.80 $246,391 Green Line Oper 0.00 $0 0.00 6.80 6.80 $246 391 Opa-atcrs-Spares (Subtotal Oper) 37.61 $1,362,674 0.00 37.61 37.61 $1,362 674 Transp Supv-Yard Yards 17.00 $549,049 17.00 0.00 17.00 $549 04'? Transp Supv-Qne Peak Trains 17.00 $549,049 17.00 0.00 17.00 $549 049 Transp Supv-Teri Teriinals 20.00 $645,940 20.00 0.00 20.00 $645 940 Transp Supv-Spares (Subtotal Supv) 5.00 $161,480 5.00 0.00 5.00 $161 480 Balance 21.00 11.24 $2,948,382 21.00 11.24 32.24 $2,948 382 17B.90 76.34 $10,221,280 153.34 1442.84 $58,897,923 332.24 1519.18 1851.42 $69,119 .203 487.41 228.30 $30,323,342 424.18 1972.44 $94,469,691 911.59 2200.74 3112.33 $125,293 033 -D. 12- D.2.8 EXHIBIT D.2: DETAILED 1986 OPERATING COSTS Rail Fixed Costs Rail V^lable Costs Rail Total DEPT/OfHce Coqxnent E^)loyees Cost Cost Driver E^)loyees Cost E^)loyees Cost Salaried Union Salaried Union Salaried Union Total l«-D£P«TTtNTAL Fringe Benefits Salaried -0.84 $4,075,791 (Salaried Eipl) $3,547,059 -0.84 0.00 -0.84 $7,622,850 Union-Full-TiK $2,236,526 (FT Union E^il) $19,322,640 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $21,559,166 Unlon-Part-Tiie 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Electricity Propulsion Sched Car-Kles $22,553,700 0.00 0.00 0.00 $22,553,700 Subway Stations Subitay Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,615,868 Otha- Stations Other Stations $2,062,732 0.00 0.00 0.00 $2,062,732 6ara^ 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Oepr d l^airbles Peak Cars $2,000,000 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $2,000,000 COL Contingency Salaried E^)l $781,489 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $781,489 Property Loss «00,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 $100,000 TOTN. -0.84 0.00 $6,412,316 0.00 0.00 $56,883,488 -0.84 0.00 -0.84 $63,295,805 GRIW) TOTAL 486.57 228.30 $37,235,658 424.18 1972.44 $151,353,180 910.75 2200.74 3111.49 $188,588,838 D.3.1 EKHiBil D.J: DHAi!^ 2^) '3^Hj^T;NG COSTS 18-^3J-56 ftis Fixed Costs &is Variable Costs Bus lotal Diployees tBployees E^lovees DEPT/OHice Coaponent Salaried l^ion Cost Cast Driver Salaried Uniwi Cost Salaried Uiim Total Cost INDEPENDENT OFFICES General flanaqer Total U.i2 i572,e00 11.72 O.CjO 11.72 $572, sO*') Audit i Inspec Total 7. 10 *7^ lAA 7. Id 0,w 0 Id 7.18 Eioard d Dir Total »i:>2,ow 0.00 u.OO O.W) $1^2, 8(X) SenH^al Council Total Q 71 7. /I *Z.Q7 077 9,71 0.00 9.71 $653,237 Covt Relations Total >67,1W 4 TA A AA i TA $69,1(X) Public Wfairs Total 7 OQ 3,98 O.W 3.98 $212,6''.i<) Secretary Total n AA U. Uv <A HI A A r\C\ u. w A (Vl tA HI TOTAL JJ.D7 A AA »1 ,77J, /i/ U.IA> A AA <A 7^ 00 >SD.07 0, W TP OO 30.07 >, OQC 777 $l,77t),/:.7 Total A OA 0.7V 7AA A OA U.7U A /V\ A DA O.tO *CA TiV, Accountii^ Payroll Clerks riatTori-nours A iV\ lA A^ lA AL tOl 1 OiO Balance 1 C DO □ TO >68/,i27 Ij.tB 7.29 TC 07 a, 11 $687,127 Budget !> figt Total ♦o/OiOiX) PUS ixTvey $<) a. 3d A AA 0.00 0 0.33 *T7n Q/x/\ »3/d,oIXI Marketing Total 28.75 41.00 I2,K2,174 28.75 41.00 69.75 $2,^2,174 Risk Hanagaefit Workers' Cotp Claias PlatforHliles $6,794,327 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,794,327 lnsur:Fixed Costs (mle-fwl ated) $7,531 0.00 0.00 A AA 0.00 $7,531 Southern RR O.iXi OM 0.00 $0 llile-Related PlatforHliles $1,411,208 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,411,208 Veh-Related Peak venicles $477,720 0.00 0.00 O.iW $477,720 Gar/Sta-ftelate Garages $10,963 0.00 0.00 0.00 $10,9(>3 BI Claiis.Suits rlattxt-mles to A^i 7Q7 $7,424,27/ 0,00 A ^M^ O.w *n jojt 007 »7,424,27/ Balance 10 7C lo.3o T 7A $1,d4i,6oj 18.35 1 7A 2./0 Oi AC 21.05 »l,j41,6oa Transit Police Tr/Sta Patrol Off 0.00 0.1)0 0.00 #A $IJ Mobile Patrol Off 0.00 0.00 A AA 0,(X) i-A Sargeants O.iX) O.IX) A #A Rev Protect Officers A A^l u. w A IV^ u. w ft iY\ v« w *y Spec Police Officers 0.00 0.00 O.OO $0 Balance Alloc=>Plat-fli 61.20 5.S $1,915,900 61.20 5.25 66.45 $1,915,900 Treasure Revenue Attendent 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supervisor Rev Serv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Farecards 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 13.48 21.66 $1,122,705 13.48 21.66 35.14 $1,122,705 TOTAL 85.81 74.65 $6,632,793 61.20 15.71 $20,253,194 147.01 90.36 237.37 $26,^5,997 DfllNISTRATION Total 1.05 $50,300 1.05 0.00 1.05 $50,300 ftdsm Services Total 11.90 12.54 $1,984,541 11.90 12.54 24.44 $1,984,541 Civil Rights Total 3.05 $133,700 3.05 0.00 3.05 $133,700 Labor Relations Total 3.20 $294,700 3.20 0.00 3.20 $294.70) Mqt Info Serv Total 25.85 6.40 $2,076,200 Syste* Upgrade $0 25.85 6.40 32.25 $2,076,200 Materials Hgt Stock Clerks Sarages 34.00 $1,019,592 0.00 34.00 34.00 $1,019,592 Balance 9.40 3.40 $394,308 9.40 3.40 12.80 $394,308 Personnel 4 Train Total 16.18 $744,800 16.18 0.00 16.18 $744,800 Planning Total 28. M 56.40 $2,623,IK 28.64 56.40 85.04 $2,623,188 TOTAL 99.27 78.74 $8,301,737 0.00 34.00 $1,019,592 99.27 112.74 212.01 $9,321,329 -D. 14- D.3.2 EXHIBIT D.3: DETAILED 2000 (HftATM CKTS lB-?(ar-86 Bus Fixed Costs ftjs Variable Costs Esjs Total Eiployees Eipioyees Esployees DEPT/Office Cotponent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Uniai Cost Salaried Union Total Cost DESIGN, CaeTiaXTIQN, FfCIL IttINT Total 0.00 0.00 O.IX) $0 rjTn^tnirti nn Total 0.i)0 O.iW 0.00 $ij Contract Adain Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Engg & firdi Total 3.16 $131,900 3.16 O.iX) 3.16 $131,900 Facilities Haint Mechanics, Etc. Garages 68.04 $U9ffi,747 0.00 68.04 68.04 $l,9ffi,747 Bldg Haint Supv mechanics) 3.96 $144,37 3.96 0.00 3.96 $144,287 Janitor Garages 25.65 $£80,870 0.00 25.65 25.65 $580,870 Supv Custodial Serv (Janitors) 3.00 $91,569 3.00 0.00 3.00 $91,569 Cleaning Hach Op 0.00 0.00 0.(X) $0 Track l Str Union 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supv Track k Hay - 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Insp Tr k Hay Htn 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Qevator k Esc 1 at or 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Track k Str Hater lal 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Hat Is k Sup Garages $^,974 0.00 0.00 0.00 $884,974 Utilities Garages $1,194,400 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,194,400 Balance 33.57 28.77 12,338,727 33.57 28.77 62.34 $2,338,727 Program Control Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Real Estate Total 0.55 «1,900 0.55 0.00 0.55 $21,900 TOTAL 37.2fl 28.77 $2,492,527 6.96 93.69 $4,ffll,S47 44.24 122.46 166.70 $7,374,374 US SERVICE Suoport Services Total 17.54 2.00 I8a),900 17.54 2.00 19.54 $^,900 Transp Support Total 22.10 $898,100 22.10 0.00 22.10 $898,100 OA k Training Total 25.10 2.00 $1,172,900 25.10 2.00 27,10 $1,172,900 nnt Adt J< Tech SupTotal 5.78 3.00 $355,800 5.78 3.00 8.78 $355,800 Heavy Haint Hechanics PlatforHhles 170.32 $5,347,310 0.00 170.32 170.32 $5,347,310 Supervisors (Hechanics) 6.08 $240,914 6.08 0.00 6.08 $240,914 Parts-Routine Platfort-fliles $7,557,555 0.00 O.OO O.OO $7,557,555 Parts-Special, Refurb $635,260 (Flxible Rehab) $0 0.00 0.00 0.00 $635,^60 Balance 1.96 32.00 $1,4S,032 1.96 32.00 33.96 $1,4S,032 Service Vehicles Hechanics Peak Vehicles 10.21 $324,270 0.00 10.21 10.21 $324,270 Gasoline Peak Vehicles $270,022 0.00 0.00 0.00 $270,022 Haterials k Supplies Peak Vehicles $156,212 0.00 0.00 0.00 $156,212 Balance 0.71 0.00 $27,619 0.71 0.00 0.71 $27,619 Regions/Divisions Full-Tiie Operators PI atf art-Hours 2143.99 $69,560,544 0.00 2143.99 2143.99 $69,560,544 Part-Tiie Operators Platforr^tours 232.28 $7,536,207 0.00 232.28 232.28 $7,536,207 Street Supervistrs 6ar^ 58.00 $1,912,492 58.00 0.00 58.00 $1,912,492 Hechanics Platfort-fliles 396.62 $11,372,218 0.00 396.62 396.62 $11,372,218 Cleaner Shi^t^-s Peak Vehicles 117.45 $2,718,725 0.00 117.45 117.45 $2,718,725 Garage Shift Supv Platfort-Hiles 27.99 $881,24 27.99 0.00 27.99 $ffll,254 Diesel Fuel PlatforHliles $14,674,(S4 0.00 0.00 0.00 $14,674,054 Other Fuel k Lubr Platfort-Hiles $881,823 0.00 0.00 0.00 $K1,823 Tires Platfort-fliles $1,849,242 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,849,242 Parts-lton-A/C Platfori-Miles $4,505,199 0.00 0.00 0.00 $4,505,199 Parts-A/C Platfxt-Hiles $7^,368 0.0*) 0.00 0.00 $756.3*8 Balance Garages 70.67 121.00 $7,651,247 70.67 121.00 191.67 $7,651,247 TQTfiL 73.19 39.00 $5,425,612 162.73 3191.88 $13,195,655 235.92 3230.88 5466.80 $143,621,267 -n. 15- D.3.3 EXHIBIT D.3: DETAILED 2000 (JtRATINB COSTS lB-«ar-86 Bus Fixed Costs Bus Variable Costs Bus Total Eiployees E^)loyees Eiployees DEPT/W^ice RAIL SERVICE Rail Car Haint Rail Transport TOTW. SUBTOTAL Ccaipanent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Union Total Cost Total 2.13 $74,400 2.13 0.00 2.13 $74,400 llechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supv Car Insp 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Cleaners'.Car-Hiles 0.00 0.00 O.iW $0 :Car5 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Sup Car Clean 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Contract tlaint 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Haterials k Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 $C Hydraulic 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 (ft Hechanics 0.00 0.00 o.oo $0 flf C Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 AFC Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 ATC Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Com Hechanics Peak Vehicles 15.61 $493,055 0.00 15.61 15.61 $493,051 Com S^)v (Hechanics) 1.13 $41,540 1.13 0.00 1.13 $41,540 Com Parts Peak Vehicles $24,935 0.00 0.00 0.00 $24,935 Power Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Power Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 PoNGT Parts 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 8.07 8.7? 1533,926 8.07 8.79 16.86 $533,926 OCC 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Depot Clerks 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Station Attendents 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supv Pass Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-I^evemie 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Yards 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Interlock 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Gap 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Operators-Spares 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-Yard 0.00 0.00 o.oo $0 Transp Supv-line 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-Teri 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Transp Supv-Spares 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 10.20 8.79 $606,326 1.13 15.61 $359,530 11.33 24.40 35.73 $l,167,ffi6 M1.64 229.95 $25,456,732 232.02 3350.88 $164,909,818 573.66 3580.83 4154.50 $190,366,550 -D. 16- i D.3.4 EXHIBIT D.3: DETAILED 2000 CftRATIMB C£BTS 18-l1ar-86 Bus Fixed Costs Bus Variable Costs Bus Total Eiployees Eaployees Esployees DEPT/Office Coiponent Salaried Union Cost Cost DrivB" Salaried Union Cost Total Cost NQK-BEPAfiTltNTflL Fringe Benefits Salaried -0.56 $2,976.02) (Salaried Eiipl) $2,021,139 -0.56 0.00 -0.56 $4,997,159 Union-Fuil-Tiie J2,346,652 (FT Union Eipl) $31,83,189 0.00 0.00 0.00 $54,171,841 Union-Part-Tiie (PT Operators) $1,468,399 0.00 0.00 0.(X) $1,468,399 Electricity Propulsion 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Submy Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Stations 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Garages Garages $1,896,085 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,896,085 Depr d Repairbles 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 COL Contingency (Salaried Ei^l) $544,127 0.00 o.oo 0.00 $544,127 Property Loss 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 TOTAL -0.56 0.00 $5,322,672 0.00 0.00 $37,754,938 -0.56 0.00 -0.56 $43,077,610 GRM) TOTN. 341.08 229.95 $30,779,404 232.02 3350.88 $202,664,756 573.10 3560.83 4153.94 $233,444,160 -D. 17- D.3.5 EXHIBIT D.3: DETfllLED 2M) CITING CKTS 16-Har-86 Rail Fned Costs Rail Variable Costs Raii Total Eiployees Esployees Ei^lovees DEPT/Whce Coeponent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Ibior Cost Salaried Union Total Cost INDEPENDENT (FFICES General llanaQer Total 15.04 $731,800 15.04 0.00 15.04 $731,800 Audit & Inspec Total 9.22 $353,400 9.22 0.00 9.22 $353,400 Board o^ Dir Total 0.00 $97,600 0.00 0.00 0.00 $97,600 General Council Total 15.31 $650,531 15.31 O.W 15.31 $650,531 Govt Relations Total 1.10 $58,500 1.10 0.00 1.10 $58,500 Public W^airs Total 4.12 $216,000 4.12 0.00 4,12 $216,000 Secretary Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 TOTAL 44.79 0.00 $2,107,831 0.00 0.00 $0 44.79 0.00 44.79 $2,107,831 INWCE A^ Total 0.90 $50,300 0.90 0.00 0.90 $50,300 Accoi^ting Payroll Clerks Rev Train-Hours 10.35 $209,023 0.00 10.35 10.35 $209,023 Balance 11.75 6.79 $505,653 11.75 6.79 18.54 $505,653 Budget k Hgt ka\ Total 6.80 $408,500 6.80 0.00 6.80 $408,500 Harketing Total 17.75 30.00 $1,914,976 17.75 30.00 47.75 $1,914,976 Risk llanagewnt Workers' Coap Claiis Sched Car -Miles $1,206,499 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,206,499 lnsur:Fixed Costs $609,533 0.00 0.00 0.00 $609,533 Southern Rfi $95,329 Vai Oom St. Opens 0.00 0.00 0.00 $95,329 I1ile-«elated Sched Car-fliles $3,532,949 0.00 0.00 0.00 $3,532,949 Veh-Related Peak Cars $1,402,803 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,402,803 Sar/Sta-ftelate Stations $139,825 0.00 0.00 0.00 $139,825 BI ClaiK, Suits Sched Car -Miles $1,317,435 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,317,435 Balance 3.20 0.30 $373,094 3.20 0.30 3.50 $373,094 Transit Police Tr/Sta Patrol OH Stations 129.14 $2,928,264 129.14 0.00 129.14 $2,928,264 Hobile Patrol Off Terunals 61.20 $1,387,710 61.20 0.00 61.20 $1,387,710 Sargeants (Officers) 23.79 $649,537 23.79 0.00 23.79 $649,537 Rev Protect Officers flezranines 44.21 $897,474 44.21 0.00 44.21 $897,474 Spec Police Officers Yffl-ds 46.50 $777,573 46.50 0.00 46.50 $777,573 Balance 48.00 0.50 $1,992,569 48.00 0.50 48.50 $1,992,569 Treasurer Revenue Attendent Mezzanines 37.30 $1,017,578 0.00 37.30 37.30 $1,017,578 Supervisor Rev Serv (Rev Attendants) 6.91 $228,320 6.91 O.OO 6.91 $228,320 Farecards Passengers $997,134 0.00 0.00 0.00 $997,134 Balance 13.49 23.58 $1,289,588 13.49 23.58 37.07 $1,289,5^ TOTAL 101.89 61.17 $7,239,541 311.75 47.65 $16,692,124 413.64 108.82 522.46 $23,931,665 DfllNISTRATION ten Total 1.35 $64,600 1.35 0.00 1.35 $64,600 Adiin Services Total 14.24 8.43 $2,342,000 14.24 8.43 22.67 $2,342,000 Civil Rights Total 2.75 $122,800 2.75 0.00 2.75 $122,800 Labor Relations Total 3.00 $265,900 3.00 0.00 3.00 $265,800 Hqt Info Serv Total 28.78 7.20 $2,358,100 Systet Upgrade $0 28.78 7.20 35.98 $2,358,100 Haterials Hgt Stock Clerks Yards 54.00 $1,619,352 0.00 54.00 54.00 $1,619,352 Balance 11.60 3.40 $457,124 11.60 3.40 15.00 $457,124 Pffsonnel 8t Train Total 14.64 $722,000 14.64 0.00 14.64 $722,000 Planning Total 16.34 13.60 $1,130,435 16.34 13.60 29.94 $1,130,435 TOTAL 92.70 32.63 $7,462,859 0.00 54.00 $1,619,352 92.70 86.63 179.33 $9,082,211 -D. 18- EXHIBIT D.3: DQAILED 2000 OPEPi^TINB CKTS 18-?lar-86 Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable Costs Rail Total E^)lQyees Enployees Eiployees DEPT/Wfice Coiponent Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Ihion Cost Salaried Union Total Cost DESI3N. CONSTRUCTION, & FftCIL HAINT Aen Total 0.00 0.00 O.OO $0 Construction Total 0.00 0.00 O.iX) $0 Contract Adain Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Engg & Arch Total 6.61 1277,800 6.61 0.00 6.61 $277,800 Facilities Haint Mechanics, Etc. Stations 201.12 $5,953,741 0.00 201.12 201.12 $5,953,741 Bldg Haint Supv (Mechanics) 10.93 $398,223 10.93 0.00 10.93 $398,223 Janitor Stations 146.34 $3,313,941 0.00 146.34 146.34 $3,313,941 Supv Custodial Serv (jMiitors) 15.70 $479,235 15.70 0.00 15.70 $479,235 Cleaning Hach Op Stations 17.67 $410,412 0.00 17.67 17.67 $410,412 Track t Str Uniw RoutHhles 297.66 $7,983,757 0.00 297.66 297.66 $7,983,757 Supv Track ic Hay - (Mechanics, etc) 35.76 $1,303,110 35.76 0.00 35.76 $1,303,110 Insp Tr !i Hay Htn Itaute-Miles 8.13 $296,391 8.13 0.00 8.13 $296,391 Elevatx k Esclator $0 Stations $6,436,097 0.00 0.00 0.00 $6,436,097 Track k Str llaterial $0 Route-Miles $742,128 0.00 0.00 0.00 $742,128 Other Hat 'Is k Sup Stations $4,254,702 O.OO 0.00 0.00 $4,254,702 Utilities Yards $1,538,200 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,538,200 Balance 65.56 43.25 14,903,425 65.58 43.25 108.83 $4,903,425 Pro^aa Control Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Real Estate Total 0.89 $35,500 0.89 0.00 0.89 $35,500 TOTAL 73.06 43.25 t5,216,725 70.53 662.79 $33,109,937 143.61 706.04 849.64 $38,326,662 US SERVICE Suppxt Services Total 0.06 $4,300 0.06 0.00 0.06 $4,300 Transp Support Total 0.90 $32,200 0.90 0.00 0.90 $32,200 OA t[ Training Total 0.05 $1,700 0.05 0.00 0.05 $1,700 Hnt Ada b Tech SupTotal 0.13 $4,800 0.13 0.00 0.13 $4,800 Heavy Haint nechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Supervisors 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-Routine 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Pals-Special (Re^irb 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance 0.12 2.0O $20,300 0.12 2.00 2.12 $20,300 Service Vehicles Mechanics Route-Miles 28.60 $908,688 0.00 28.60 28.60 $908,688 Gasoline Route-Miles $888,651 0.00 0.00 0.00 $888,651 HatB-ials k Supplies Route-Miles $509,128 0.00 0.00 0.00 $509,128 Balance i.oe 2.16 $103,291 1.08 2.16 3.24 $103,291 Regions/Divisions FulI-Tiie Operators 10.75 $320,334 0.00 10.75 10.75 $320,834 Part-Tiie Operators 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $0 Street Supe^sors 4.71 $157,489 4.71 0.00 4.71 $157,489 Mechanics 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Cleans' Shifters 0.00 O.OO 0.00 $0 Garage Shift Supv 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Diesel Fuel 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Other Fuel k Lubr 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Tires 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-toi-A/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Parts-A/C 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Balance $15,378 0.00 0.00 0.00 $15,378 TOTM. 7.05 14.91 $660,291 0.00 28.60 $2,306,466 7.05 43.51 50.56 $2,966,757 -D. 19- EXHIBIT I'. y. DETAiLtD CP&ATINS CCSIS Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable ijjsts Rail Total Eiployees Esployees CCPT/EHtice RAIL SERVICE Rail Car Mamt Rail Transport TDTAL SUBTOTAL Coapoient Salaried Union Cost Cost Driver Salaried Ikiicxi i3ost Salaried Union Total Cost Total 72.% 9.00 $3,3a1..C>00 72.90 9.00 81.90 $3,3bl,iXn:' Mechanics Sched Car-Miles 939.62 $28,223,453 0.00 939.62 939.62 r28,223.453 5upv Car Insp il^hanics) 70. lb $2,b87,55o 70.46 0.00 70.4b $2,667.5:* Cleaners: Car -fliies Sched Car-Miles 31. 5i) $7i)5,956 0.00 31.50 31.50 $705,956 :Car5 Peak Cars 64.bl $1,448,205 0.00 64. bl 64.61 $1,418,205 Sup Car Clean (Cleaners) 5.34 $157,083 5.34 0.00 5.34 $157, C«3 Contract Mamt Sched Car -Miles $1.171.3B7 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1.171,:a7 Materials 4 Supplies Sched Car -Miles $12,175,468 O.O<0 O.iXi O.W $12,175.4o8 Hydraulic Sched Car -Miles $196,754 0.00 O.'OO 0.00 $196,754 Balance 18.90 5.iXi 1636,484 18.90 5.00 23.90 $6.36,484 AFC Mechanics Mezranines 81.95 $2,612,359 0.00 81.95 91.95 $2,612,359 PFl Supv (Mechanics) 11.62 $423,465 11.62 0.00 11.62 $423,465 tfC Parts Mezzanines $1,431,724 0.00 0.00 0.00 $1,431,724 ATC Mechanics Stations 152.25 $4,K3,273 0.00 152.25 152.25 $4,853,273 ATC Supv (Mechanics) 10.40 $379,092 10.40 0.00 10.40 $379,092 ATC Parts Stations $323,146 0.00 0.00 0.00 $323,146 Coat Mechanics Stations 97.73 $3,115,339 0.00 97.73 97.73 $3,115,339 Con Supv (Mechanics) 12.76 $477,811 12.76 0.00 12.76 . $477,811 Com Parts Stations $508,955 0.00 0.00 0.00 $509,955 Power Mechanics Stations 117.73 $3,752,736 0.00 117.73 117.73 $3,752,736 Power Supv (Mechanics) 13.05 $475,490 13.05 0.00 13.05 $475,490 Power Parts Stations $791,708 0.00 0.00 0.0<) $791,709 Balance 36.10 44.30 »2, 000,141 TO i A 38.10 44, oO 82.40 $2,000,141 (XC 28.00 0.00 $1,029,881 Green Line oper 15.00 $546,540 43.00 O.iX) 43.00 $1,575,421 Depot Clerks Teriinals 26.66666 $844,907 0.00 26.b7 26.67 $844,507 Station fittendents Mezzanines 399.28 $10,952,549 O.O) 399.28 399.28 $10,952,549 Supv Pass Stations iSta Attendents) 30.39 $1,004,607 30.39 0.00 30.39 $1,004.61)7 Operators-Revenue Rev Train-Hours 271.33 $9,831,221 0.00 271.33 271.33 $9,831,221 Operators-fards Yards 80.00 $2,898,720 0.00 90.00 80.00 $2,898,720 Operators-Interlock Interlockings 33.60 $1,217,462 0.00 33.60 33.60 $1,217,462 Operators-Sap 6.80 $24b,391 Breen Line Oper 15.00 $543,510 15.00 21.80 36.80 $799,901 Operators-Spares (Subtotal Oper) 58.37 $2,114,875 0.00 58.37 58.37 $2,114,975 Transp Supv-Vard Yards 34.00 $1,098,098 34.00 0.00 34.00 $1,099,099 Transp Supv-Line Peak Trains 24.32 $795,349 24.32 0.00 24.32 $785,349 Transp Supv-Teri Terminals 26. b7 $861,253 26.67 0.00 2b. 67 $861,253 Transp Supv-Spares (Subtotal Supv) 7.87 $254,132 7.87 0.00 7.87 $254,132 Balance 21.00 11.24 $2,948,382 21.00 11.24 32.24 $2,948,392 178.90 76.34 $10,221,280 261.98 2369.62 $98,864,182 440.78 2445.96 2886.74 $109,085,462 498.41 228.30 $32,908,527 644.16 3162.65 $152,592,061 1142.57 3390.95 4533.53 $135,5(aj,5ffl -D. 20- D.3.8 EXHIBIT D.3: DETAILED 2000 tPERATINS COSTS 13-flar-5i! Rail Fixed Costs Rail Variable Costs Rail Total Ei^iloyees Eaployess Enployees D£PT/(H^icB Cosponent Salaried liiion Cost Cost Driver Salaried Union Cost Salaried Union Total Cost ffi»l-CEF«TttNTflL cringe Benefits Salaried -0.B4 $4,167,774 (Salaried Ei^il) $5,386,581 -0.84 0.00 -0.84 $9,5^.4,355 Unior-Full-TiK t2,236,526 (FT Union Etpl) $30,982,368 0.00 0.00 0.<00 $33,218,694 Union-Part-Tiie 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Electricity Propulsion Sched Cffl-Miles $45,585,519 0.00 0.00 0.00 $45,585,519 Siii)Hay Stations Subway Stations $9,618,756 0.00 0.00 0.00 $9,618,756 Other Stations Other Stations $3,656,520 0.00 0.00 0.00 $3,656,520 Bar ages 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0 Oepr d Repairbles Peak Cars $3,418,605 0.00 0.00 0.00 $3,418,605 COL Contingency Salaried Eipl $979,505 0.00 0.00 0.00 $979,505 Property Loss $100,000 0.00 0.00 0.1)0 $100,1X10 TOTd -0.84 0.00 $6,504,300 0.00 0.00 $99,627,855 -0.84 0.00 -0.84 $106,132,154 m TOT«. 497.57 23.30 $39,412,827 644.16 3162.65 $252,219,916 1141.73 3390.95 4532.69 $291,632,742 -p. 21- INFLATION ANALYSIS The inflation rates used in the operating cost analysis use the Washington CPI projection as the "base line" rate of inflation. The incremental differences between the base line rate and the rate for specific cost components is then applied to compute compounded inflation factors for specific cost components. The general form of the equation for computing the cost factors is: CTIFin = (1.0 + CPIi + INCRin) ^ (^-O + CPI2 + INCR2n) X X (1.0 + CPIi + INCRin) where : CTIF^j^ = compounded total inflation factor for cost component n, in year i CPl£ = inflation rate of consumer price index expressed as a fraction (e.g., 3% = 0.03), in year i INCRj^ri ~ incremental ("real") inflation rate for cost component n, expressed as a fraction, in year i The inflation factors computed in this manner were used to estimate costs in inflated dollars. The so-called "uninflated" or "base year" costs reflect the incremental inflation only, but do not directly include the base line CPI values. The inflation factors are computed as follows: CIIFin = (1.0 + CPIi + INCRin) / (1.0 + CPIi) x (1.0 + CPI2 + INCR2n) / (1.0 + CPI2) X X (1.0 + CPIi + INCRin) / (1-0 + CPIi) where: CIIFj^j^ = compounded incremental inflation factors for cost component n , in year i Thus : CTIFin = (CIFFiri) x (1.0 + CPIi) Note that CIIF-^j^ cannot be computed simply as: CIIF = (1.0 + INCR^j^) X (1.0 + lNCR2n) x x (1.0 + INCRi^) -D.22- HISTORICAL WMATA COST DATA As described in Chapter V, historical data on WMATA operating costs were obtained for fiscal years 1981 through 1985. The following information was used to convert from current year (year of expenditure) dollars to 1986 dollars: Year Consumer Price Index Annual Inflation Rate Inflation Factor ri986 Base) 1981 267.3 1.2604 1982 281.9 5.46 1. 1951 1983 294.7 4.54 1. 1432 1984 308.9 4.82 1.0906 7/84 308.3 7/85 323.3 4.87 1985 4.87 1.0400 1986 4.00 1. 0000 The inflation rate assumed by WMATA is 4.00 percent in FY86. The results of the analysis of the operating cost data are shown graphically in Exhibits D.4 through D.12 and are discussed below. Allocation of Bus Costs Exhibits D.4 and D.5 show the allocation of Metrobus operating costs, in year of expenditure and base year (1986) dollars, respectively, based on the definition of fixed, mileage-related, and hour-related costs used in the allocation of operating costs. An important exception is that fringe benefits could not be allocated due to the level of aggregation in the data analyzed. The most significant findings are: o fixed costs, in base year dollars, have remained relatively constant over the past three years. o total operating costs, in base year dollars, have also remained relatively constant. Indeed, over the past several years, total costs have actually decreased, reflecting a slight reduction in the level of service provided. Exhibits D.6 and D.7 show an allocation of Metrorail operating costs, in year of expenditure and base year (1986) dollars, respectively. The allocation separates fixed from variable costs, with the fixed costs defined in a similar manner as in the allocation of Metrobus costs.. Again, the level of aggregation in the data prevented the allocation of fringe benefit expenses. In base year dollars, the level of fixed and total expenditure has been increasing due to the significantly increasing level of service. -D.23- 240 220 200 180 1 80 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 EZEIBIT D.4 BUS COST ALLOCATION rCurrent Year $) m m W P m P i i 1 m # i P m m 4 '/ /// % / / V/ z; i Pi'SI ri'32 FY83 ri-a4 Fiscal Year FYS 6 Fringes Mileage-Related Hour-Related 1^//^ Fixed 240 220 200 ISO 1 60 ^ 140 i. c =■2 120 0 = ^ 100 SO 60 40 20 0 EXHIBIT D.5 BUS COST ALLOCATION a 986 S) m # i ''vvvO 1 i i i v7// P w m 1 i // /// V/// 1 1 i i % 1 V/ V/ V/ 77 PfSl ^82 Pi'83 FYS4 Fiscal Year FYS5 FYS6 Fringes ^N^vj Mileage-Related Hour-Related Y/\ ^^^^^ -D.25- EXHIBIT D.6 190 180 170 1 50 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 50 20 10 0 RAIL COST ALLOCATION (Current Year $) m m m / / . /V V/ V/ n-si FYS2 FY33 FYS4 IZZl Fixed Fiscal Year FT^ Varioble FYSS Fringes -D.26- EXHIBIT D.7 ta <s ^ c o o 190 180 170 1 60 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 rrsi RAIL COST ALLOCATION 0 985 S) FfS2 FT'a3 FYa4 [Zyi Fixed Fiscal Yeor Variable v//< y///: vv m. //// m m i V\ // rrss U77X Fringes FYS 6 -D.27- Analysis of Cost per Vehicle-Mile Exhibit D.8 summarizes the level of Metrobus and Metrorail service provided during the period FY81 through FY86. Exhibits D.9 and D.IO present Metrobus operating expenses per platform- mile in year of expenditure and base year dollars, respectively. In base year dollars, it can be seen that Metrobus costs were increasing in real terms until FY84. Since then, real costs have stabilized, due in part to WMATA's aggressive cost containment approach to managing costs. Exhibits D.ll and D.12 present Metrorail operating expenses per car-mile, in year of expenditure and base year dollars, respectively. Metrorail expenses are shown to increase in real terms through FY84. Since then, real costs have declined, again due in part to aggressive cost containment by WMATA. Analysis of Historical Metrorail Maintenance Staffing Levels Additional investigation of historical maintenance staffing levels was undertaken because of the magnitude of Metrorail maintenance expenses and the concern that shifts in productivity levels in the rail car maintenance area may occur particularly as facilities and equipment have aged. The WMATA operating budgets for FY82 through FY86 were the source of information for the following analysis. Staffing levels were investigated for the following maintenance areas: o Facilities Maintenance o Building and Support Equipment o Custodial o Track and Structures o Rail Systems Maintenance o Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) o Automatic Train Control (ATC) o Power The staffing levels used in the analysis address positions allocated to Rail Operations only; they do not include capitalized positions. The driving variables are year-end values, rather than weighted averages for the year (such averages would be lower if a Metrorail phase opened in the middle of a fiscal year) . Exhibit D.13 presents a summary of the historical trends in labor productivity in the above noted maintenance areas. The following observations can be noted: o Building & Support Equipment: The ratio has dropped since a high in FY83/84. The projected FY87 value is close to the FY85 value, but significantly lower than the FY86 value. -D.28- EXHIBIT D.8 LEVEL OF SERVICE PROVIDED (Matrsbua 4e Matronail) BO 90 40 30 20 10 O 1 1 D a~-.^_ ° = ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 FTBI Pr'B2 FYB3 FYB4. FYB5 PTBS riscoi Year □ Bus Plot-Hra 4- Rait Schsd Cor^Miltt D.29 EXHIBIT D.9 0 P ERATI Tn'G C OST/PLATFO R M -MIL ('Current Yr except Inflatian) A a X -C'iJ X I K.X.>i R' \' "/< ii I X X rvvv ^NNNN fx XI ! X. X 1^ I \ "v ■% 4^ N\1 k \ \ \ 1/ ,/ FtB1 vA Y/A Y / ..i 1 s \ i K \ N ^1 ^^^^ Ft B4. Y /A FYBS V// 'V' A ^ / ■ FtBS FtB2 FtB3 Inflation k'V^X-j Other Mileage-Related N Hour-Related Fringes Fuel, Parts, Tires V7\ ^^""^^ -D.30- EXHIBIT D.IO BUS 0 P ERATi NG C OST/PLATFO R M - M ! I C1986 %y F-CBI FrB2 FYB3 FrB4. FtBS FrBS Fiscal Yeor Fringes Fuel, Parts, Tires [•'^//j Fixed Inflation r'SS^sl Other Mileage-Related [,Jv>J Hour-Related -D.31- EXHIBIT D.ll RAIL OPERATING COST/CAR- MILE (Current Yr except Inflotian) t I FYBI 1\ \ l\ \ 1 JO V. / FrB2 FrB3 FTB4. FYB5 FYBS K>\^N Other Variable Costs !<>^ Fringes "'-^5^^'^ Electricity Vehicle & Systems Maint. Y//\ Fixed -D.32- EXHIBIT D.12 RAIL OPERATING CO:: CI 986 S) /CAR -MILE IX XI m 1^ 1 -K-^ /A Y'/A V/A FtBI FrB2 FrB3 F-fB4. Fiscal Year FtB5 FtBS Inflation tv-^-Sj Other Variable Costs Fringes Electricity Vehicle & Systems Maint. Fixed -D.33- EXHIBIT D.13 ANALYSIS OF VMATA MAINTENANCE STAFFING RATIOS MAINTENANCE AREA/Measurc FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 BUILDING S SUPPORT EQUIPMENT Mechanics, Helpers, Laborers n / a 125 50 135 . 68 130 . 68 138 . 71 Cfaf inns siat ions d i H H d 7 9 1 X n 0 u 6 U Esp loyees/Stat ion n / a 2 . 67 2 . 66 2 . 18 2 . 31 2 . 16 CUSTODIAL Jani tors n / a 92 00 104 00 98 75 107 . 65 Stat i ons 44 47 51 60 60 Janitors/Stat ion n/a 1 . 96 2 . 04 1 . 65 1 79 1 . 68 TRACK S STRUCTURES Repairers, Laborers .Mechanics 1 27 00 U3 00 163 . 00 174 . 00 179 . 35 Route-Mi 1 es 39 20 42 . 37 46 . 77 60 . 46 60 . 46 Employees/Route-Mi le 3 24 3 . 85 3 49 2 . 88 2 . 97 2 . 87 AUTOMATIC FARE COLLECTION Mechan 1 cs 4& 00 47 00 51 . 00 52 . 80 54 . 40 Mexzanines 59 00 61 . 00 66 . 0 0 76 . 00 76 . 00 Fare Collection Equip 9 39 0 0 97 1 00 1054 00 1186. 00 1186. 00 Mechanics/Mezzanine 0.78 0 77 0 77 0 . 69 0 . 72 0 . 78 Mechan i cs / Fa r e Collect Equip 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 4 8 4 0 0484 0 0445 0 .0459 AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL Mechan i cs 9 3 00 99 57 108 . 00 100 07 109 . 75 Stat ions 44 47 51 60 60 Mechanics/Station 2.11 2 . 12 2 . 12 1 67 1 . 83 1 . 75 POWER Mechan i cs -"S 00 80 79 87 09 80 45 81 . 19 Stat ions 44 47 51 60 60 Mechan i cs / St a t i on 1.77 1 . 72 1 71 I 34 1 . 35 1 33 -D. 34- o Custodial ; Similar to the above-noted trend. o Track & Structures: Similar to the above trend. It should be noted that there have been several large, capitalized projects conducted in this area. o Automatic Fare Collection; Productivity improved from FY82 through FY86. The increase in staffing required in FY87 is due to the extended hours of Sunday service. It should be noted that positions are budgeted on the basis of the number of AFC machines (farecard vendors, faregates, addfare machines, and kiosk equipment) , rather than on the number of mezzanines, as is done in the cost model . o Automatic Train Control; There has been an improvement in productivity since FY84, although FY86 was higher than FY85. The increase in FY87 is due to the extended hours of Sunday service. o Power; There is a significant and steady improvement in productivity beginning in FY85. ADJUSTMENTS TO FYS 6 MODEL CALIBRATION As noted in Chapter V, several changes were made to the FYS 6 cost model to better reflect the realities of the FY87 budget. These changes were generally in two areas; o termination of old programs and initiation of new programs o changes in labor productivity and unit cost These are described in more detail below. Termination of Old Progreuns and Initiation of New Programs There are approximately $10 million in old programs that will not recur in FY87. Some of these programs, such as the Flxible bus rehabilitation program, were previously addressed in the cost model . There are many new programs and enhancements to existing programs whihc were not reflected in the FY86 budget. These new programs include the following; -D.35- Office/Cost Area Mode $ Change Justification General Counsel Bus Rail $189, 637 $403,031 Increase work load Shift from capitalized Treasurer Bus Rail $142,005 $253,281 Expanded programs Expanded programs Budget & Mgt Analysis Bus $386,473 Bus survey conducted every other year Marketing Bus Rail $ 63,574 $168,976 Expanded programs Expanded programs Facil Maint Rail $600, 000 $400, 000 $345, 000 Expanded contr maint Escalator step replace (FY87 only) Track & Struct parts (FY87 only) Admin Services Bus $315, 241 Expanded programs Mgt Infor Svc Bus Rail $425, 475 Mew wvo ins uaiiai-ion New MVS installation (both FY87/88 only) Planning Bus Rail $211, 988 $ 95,935 New programs New programs Changes in Labor Productivity and Unit Cost Workers' Compensation Due to the aggressive management WMATA has undertaken in this area, substantial reductions in unit costs are anticipated. These management actions have included the contracting-out of the administration of workers' compensation claims administration and data processing, initiation of an in-house orthopedic clinic, and a broad range of loss control programs. This has resulted in a reduction of both the claims rate and average loss per claim: Unit Cost Mode FY8 6 FY87 Metrobus $ . 2050/platf orm-mi $ . 1476/platf orm-mi Metrorail $.0850/sched car-mi $.0216/sched car-mi Third Party Liability Claims WMATA continues to experience losses in the third party liability area, despite aggressive management actions to control these costs. These actions hae included contracting out the -D. 36- supervision of WMATA claims adjusters and data processing activities. However, defendant judgments have been frequent and have been growing in size. This is a growing trend in the industry and is characteristic of jury decisions in the region. It is partially due to the "deep pocket syndrome" common to public entity liability. The projected changes are as follows; Unit Cost Mode FYS 6 FY87 Metrobus $ . 1286/platform-mi $ . 2048/platform-mi Metrorail $.0071/sched car-mi $.0236/sched car-mi Insurance The entire transit industry has been experiencing drastic increasing insurance premium costs. This has been the result of several factors, including: major losses in the entire insurance industry lower interest rates poor claims experience on the part of transit properties fewer insurance carriers in the market place The following changes in premium rates are projected: Unit Cost Insurance Type METROBUS Fixed premiums Mileage-related Vehicle-related Garage-related METRORAIL Fixed premiums Mileage-related Vehicle-related Station-related FYS 6 $4,200 $ . 0170/platf orm-mi $216/peak veh $llll/garage $300,900 $.0382/sched car-mi $14S4/peak car $938/st?»tion FYS? $7,900 $ . 0322/platf oinn-mi $3SS/peak veh $1278/garage $639,400 $.0663/sched car-mi $2503/peak car $1686/station Facilities Maintenance The extension of the Orange line to Vienna will result in a very small addition to the staffing in this area. This is due primarily to the effiencies anticipated from satellite -D.37- dispatching centers for facilities maintenance crews. This arrangement will reduce the travel time for personnel to reach job sites. The effective changes in labor productivity are as follows: Labor Productivity Measure FY86 FY87 Bldg & Struc Mech/Station 2.47 2.31 Janitors/Station 1.79 1.68 Track & Str Crew/Route-Mi 3.03 2.87 Rail Car Maintenance With 7 million additional rail car-miles projected in FY87, the Budget staff anticipates approving only 9 additional positions. This results in a greatly enhanced level of productivity and is based on the effectiveness of a $35 million capital program undertaken during the past several years to increase rail car reliability. This program centered on correcting design deficiencies in many components of the 300 Rohr car fleet and the first of the Breda cars. These components included traction motors, compressors, lighting ballast, defrosters and other items with either frequent repair intervals or whose design made repair and replacement time consuming. This chaiivje in labor productivity will save more than $4 million in mechanics' wages in FY88. As seen below, the proposed staffing level results in the most efficient use of mechanic labor since before FY82: Mechanics, Scheduled Mechanics per Year Helpers Car-Miles Million Car-Miles FY82 298 17,440,000 17.087 FY83 Note 1 342 17,397,000 19.659 FY84 Note 2 370 17,840,000 20.740 FY85 456.97 26,516,000 17.234 FY86 483.41 28,733,000 16.824 FY87 Request 515 36,810,800 13.990 FY87 Mark-Up 492 35,788,800 13.747 Note 1: Total mechanics & helpers = 359. Assumes 17 assigned to capitalized projects. Note 2: Total mechanics & helpers = 422. Assumes 52 assigned to capitalized projects. It is reasonable to anticipate that as the Metrorail fleet ages, these dramatically increased levels of productivity will not continue. Most rail transit properties experience significant -D. 38- increases in maintenance work loads as vehicle age. While there is no definitive data for determining the exact magnitude of the increase (either within WMATA or from other transit properties) , the study asuumes maintaining the FY87 ratio through FY90, then increasing the ratio linearly to the FY86 value by FY2000. Rail Systems Maintenance Only limited additional staffing is anticipated for the Vienna extension. This is due to more efficient use of manpower previously authorized. Extended hours of service on Sundays will result in additional staffing requirements in some areas: Old Staffing New Staffing Section Ratio Ratio Comment AFC 0.72 Mech per Mezzanine 0.78 Mech per Mezzanine Extended Sunday svc ATC 1.83 Mech per Station 1.75 Mech per Station Extended Sunday svc Power 1.35 Mech per Station 1.3 3 Mech per Station New Programs Electricity Major reductions in the cost of electricity consumed by Metrorail are anticipated in FY87. Much of this results from the implementation of the recommendation of the Carnegie-Mellon study conducted several years ago and the absence of a utility rate increase. A slight increase in electricity use in bus garages is due to new maintenance facilities: Unit Cost Electricity Use Propulsion Subway Stations Other Stations Bus Garages FYS 6 FY87 $.7849/sched car-mi $174, 102/station $ 93 , 760/station $156 , 722/garage $.6757/sched car-mi $156, 167/station $ 84 , 102/station $172 , 121/garage -D.39- i I APPENDIX E REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT INPUTS AND DETAILED RESULTS This Appendix presents the detailed input data, assumptions, and results for the following rehabilitation and replacement analyses: o Metrobus facilities and equipment o Metrorail facilities, except track o Metrorail equipment, except rail cars o Track o Rail cars METROBUS REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT Exhibit E.l summarizes Metrobus rehabilitation and replacement costs for bus facilities and equipment. The Exhibit is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes inputs and the second section summarizes the replacement cost outputs. The inputs for 1973 through 1985 are shown on page 1 and include costs in year-of-expenditure dollars plus totals. Data for 1986 through 1998 are shown on page 2 and data for 1999, 2000, and totals for each category are shown on page 3 . The outputs are summarized on page 4 for 1973 through 1978. This page also shows the range of asset categories from the WMATA accounting system, the percentage of each asset category that is to be replaced, the replacement cycle, and the source of assumptions from within WMATA. This page also includes totals and various rolling averages. Results for 1979 through 1989 are summarized on page 5, for 1990 through 2000 on page 6, and 2001 through 2010 with totals by category on page 7. -E.l- E.1.1 EXHIBIT E.l: fCTmiS REHAB AND REPUCQCNT 19-l1ar-fl6 Original Cost by Year Asset ms Capitalized Year of Expenditure Dollars INPUT DATA 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 19K FROfI niSC FIXED ASSET SYSTEM: A Office Furn & Equipaent $0.7 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $.0 $0.1 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 C Buses E Service Vehicles $.0 $.0 $0.1 $.0 $0.1 $0.3 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $.0 $0.5 F Autonbiles $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $0.2 $0.4 $.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 6 Trucks - Pick Up $.0 $.0 $0.1 $0.1 $.0 $0.1 $.0 II T 1 _ 11 ft- 1. H Trucks - Heavy Duty $.0 $.0 $0.3 $t).l $0.1 $.0 $.0 $0.5 $0.1 $0.3 $0.1 $0.3 $0.5 I Land $25.3 $.0 $4.1 $.0 $2.5 $1.6 $3.6 $0.2 AA Passenger Station Other $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.2 $0.4 $0.1 $0.2 $0.5 $0.1 $0.1 $.0 $0.1 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 AB Parking Facilities $.0 AC Building k Structure $8.8 $0.2 $1.3 $2.4 $9.1 $1.0 $0.8 $1.8 $2.6 $11.4 $5.4 $19.4 AI Equiptsnt Parking $.0 AJ Equiptent Shops $.0 $.0 $.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.5 $0.7 AR Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS $0.2 $5.0 $.0 $.0 $0.4 Alt Fare<)Dxes $0.6 $0.6 $0.2 $0.9 $0.6 $0.1 AX AFC Other 0.0098 0.0003 0.0887 0.0466 0.1794 0.1139 0.0079 0.006 0.0254 0.0912 0.0184 AY Equipment Data Processing $.0 $0.1 $.0 $0.2 $0.2 $.0 $0.1 AZ Equip«nt CoMunication $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 ♦0.4 $0.2 W\ Equipient Other $.0 $.0 $.0 $0.1 $0.2 $.0 $.0 $0.3 $0.2 BB Repairables 60 Intangible Assets $4.1 $0.6 TOTAL $39.8 $1.8 $2.6 $8.9 $10.4 $2.5 $6.6 $3.1 $7.1 $14.6 $10.5 $2.1 $21.3 OiOATIVE $39.8 $41.6 $44.3 $53.2 $63.5 $66.0 $72.7 $75.8 $82.9 $97.5 $108.0 $110.1 $131.4 -E.2- L1.2 «««« EXHIBIT E.1: ICTROBUS REHM M) REPUCQCNT — Projected Costs »»»»> i9-nM-fl6 IW^ DATA 1986 1987 m 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 FRQfl niSC FIXED ASSET S^'STEH: A Office Furn i. Equipwit C Buses " E Service Vehicles F AutoKbiles 6 Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - Heavy Duty I Land AA Passed^ Station Other AB Parking Facilities AC Building k Structure $10.1 $26.0 AI Ei^ptent Parking AJ Equipaent Shops Afi Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS AX Fareboxes AX AFC Other AY Equipient Data Processing AZ Equipient CoHUfiication BA Equipaent Other BB Repairables BC Intangible Assets TDTW. $10.1 $26.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 OIUj^TIVE $141.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 $167.5 -E.3- E.1.3 EXHIBIT E.l: fCrroajS REHftB REPLACetNT 19-flar-B6 im DATA 1999 2000 TOTAL FRffl niSC FIXED ASSET SYSTDI: A Wfice Furn & Eqiupient $2.5 C ^ses $0.0 E Service Vehicles fl.4 $0.0 F Autoubiles $1.0 G Trucks - Pick Up $0.3 H Tnaiks - Heavy Duty $2.3 1 Land $37.3 AA Passenger Station Other $2.4 $1.0 AB Parking Facilities $.0 AC Building k Structure $100.5 AI Equipoent Parking $.0 AJ Equipaent Shops $2.4 AR Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS $5.7 AX Fareboxes $3.0 AX AFC Other AY Equipaeflt Data Processing $0.7 AZ Equipaent Gcmunication $0.9 BA Equipaent Other $0.8 BB Repairables $0.0 BC Intangible Assets $4.7 TOTAL $0.0 $0.0 $167.5 CUnULATIVE $167.5 $167.5 -E.4- E.1.4 EXHIBIT E.1: fOVSUS REHAB AM) REPLACQENT 19-I1ar-B6 Range of HHATA Fixed Asset Classes Frot To REPUCEIBfr COSTS Detailed Asset Description Sub Sub Group Sroup Group Group Replaceient Life 1 Years Sou-ce 1973 1974 1975 A Office Fim & Equipcnt 1 1 11 1 100 30 (m $0,000 C Buses 12 4 12 8 E Service Vehicles 100 6 PUfi fO.OOO F AutoKtiles 13 30 100 6 PU€ $0,000 G Trucks - Pick Up 13 31 100 6 PU6 10.000 H Trucks - Heavy Duty 13 32 100 6 PLN6 10.000 I LVKl 59 1 59 7 0 0 ACCT AA Passenger Station Other Repl Paving Top Surf 61 11 61 22 10 15 FIfJT $0,000 RepI Paving Subgrade 20 30 FmT $0,000 nechanical, Structures 5 20 FIKT $0,000 AB Parking Facilities Repl Paving Top Sirf 62 1 62 2 10 15 FftJT $0,000 Repl Paving Subgrade 20 30 FIKT $0,000 Lighting 5 30 FMT $0,000 AC Building tt Structure Roof 63 1 64 2 9 20 FIKT $0,000 nechanical 14 20 FWT $0,000 Electrical 8 30 m $0,000 Arch k Struct 20 20 Fmr $0,000 AI Equipment Parking 72 1 72 6 0 0 FWT AJ Equipeit Shops 74 1 74 99 100 30 PING $0,000 flfi Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS 76 6 76 6 100 20 EN6A $0,000 AX Faretxses 77 7 77 7 100 20 ENGA $0,000 AX flfC Other 77 20 77 99 100 30 ACCT $0,000 AY Equipment Data Processing 79 I 78 10 100 10 PLN6 $0,000 AZ Equipaent CoMunication 79 1 79 9 100 12 ENGA $0,000 BA Equipment Other 80 1 90 99 0 0 B8 Repairables 90 1 90 99 0 0 BC Intangible Assets 99 1 99 10 0 0 999 TOTAL ClIULATM 3-YEI« ROLUNG WtRAGE 5-YEAfi ROLLI* AVEMfiE 7-YE« ROLLING AVERAGE 9-YEPfi ROLLING AVERAGE 1976 1977 1978 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $.0 $0.0 $0.0 $.0 $.0 i.0 $.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 -E.5- E.1.5 EXHIBIT E.1: ICTRDBUS REHAB AM) REPLACOENT 19-«ar-e6 REPLACEltNT COSTS AB Parking Facilities AC Building I Structure AI Equipnent Parking M Equipment 9iops AR Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS AK Fareboxes AX AfC Other AY Equip»efit Data Processing A2 Equipiaent Cowunicatian BA Equipient Other BB Repai rabies K Intangible Assets TOTAL OHULATIVE 3-YEAfi RQLIIf« AVERAGE 5-m( ROLLING AVERAGE 7-YEAft ROLLING AVERAE 9-YEW ROLLINS A^^AGE Detailed Asset Description 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 A Office Furn & Equipaent C Buses E Service Vehicles F AutoMbiles 6 Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - tteavy Duty I Land AA Passenger Station Other Repl Paving Top Surf Repl Paving Subgrade Mechanical (Structures Repl Paving Top Surf Repl Paving Subgrade Lighting Roof nechanical Electrical Arch i Struct JO.OOO $0,000 *0.078 $0,088 $0,100 $0,007 $0,168 $0,364 $0,257 $0,258 $0.1B6 $0,007 $0,025 $0,007 $0,013 $0,028 $0,000 $0,308 $0,025 $0,495 $0,024 $0,184 $0,000 $0,000 $0,018 $0,000 $0,000 $0,035 $0,000 $0,093 $0,171 $0,050 $0,068 $0,101 $0,023 $0,591 $0,192 $0,184 $0,044 $0,171 $0,675 $0,698 $0,533 $0,257 $0,040 $0,050 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,003 $0,144 $0,037 $0,000 $0,000 $0,002 $0,001 $0,016 $0,000 $0,108 $0,048 $0,694 $0,293 $0,312 $0,087 $0,648 $1,161 $1,767 $0,959 $0,746 1979 198t) 1981 1992 1983 1984 1995 1996 1987 1998 1989 $0.1 $0.2 $0.8 $1.1 $1.5 $1.5 $2.2 $3.4 $5.1 $6.1 $6.8 $0.1 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.2 $0.3 $0.6 $1.2 $1.3 $1.2 $0.8 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5 $0. $0.9 $1.1 $1.1 $1.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 $0.5 $0.7 $0.7 $0. $0.9 $1.1 $1.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.9 $1.1 $2.5 -E.6- EXHIBIT E.1: rETROBUS REMB MD REPLACEICNT l'Hlar-86 tPL«BO(T COSTS A6 Parking Facilities AC Building I Structure AI Equipient Parking U Equipient Shops Afi Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS AI Farebffies AK AFC Other AY Equiptent Data Processing AZ Equipment CoMunication BA Equipaent Other M Repairables BC Intangible Assets Detailed Asset Description 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 A Office Fum k Eguipient C Buses E Service Vetiicles F AutoHbiles 6 Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - Heavy Duty I Land AA Passenger Station Other $0,032 $0,690 $0,364 $0,257 $0,256 $0,186 $0,032 $0,690 $0.3M $0,257 $0.23 $0,090 $0,518 $0,025 $0,495 $0,024 $0,184 $0,090 $0,518 $0,025 $0,495 $0,024 $0,056 $0,000 $0,093 $0,171 $0,050 $0,068 $0,056 $0,000 $0,093 $0,171 $0.09) $0,348 $0,675 $0,675 $0,698 $0,533 $0.S7 $0,348 $0,675 $0,675 $0,698 $0,533 Repl Paving Top Surf $0,141 $0,066 $0,072 $0,033 $0,053 $0,014 $0,026 $0,053 $0,012 $0,023 $0,000 Repl Paving Subgraile Nechanical, Structures $0,020 $0,025 $0,071 $0,033 $0,036 $0,016 $0,026 $0,007 tepi Paving Top Surf $0,000 $.000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Repl Paving Subgrade Lighting Roof Hechanical Electrical Arch k Struct $1,978 $0,051 $0,252 $0,423 $1,467 $0,148 $0,115 $0,235 $3,076 $0,079 $0,392 $0,659 $2,283 $0,231 $0,178 $0,366 $4,395 $0,113 $0,560 $0,941 $3,261 $0,329 $0,254 $0,522 $0,444 $0,000 $0,000 $9,702 $0,022 $0,056 $0.(X)0 $0,000 $1,430 $1,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,159 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,279 $0,235 $0,026 $0,112 $0,003 $0,144 $0,037 $0,000 $0,000 $0,028 $0,050 $0,002 $0,084 $0,068 $0,161 $0,429 $0,171 $0,002 $0,001 $0,016 TOTAL CUULATIVE 3-YEAfi ROLLIMB AVERAGE ^ym ROIIMB AVERAGE 7-'fEAfi ROLLIf€ AVERAGE 9-YEi« ROLLING AVERAGE $0,696 $1,999 $1,510 $13,316 $2,280 $2,257 $12,741 $9,319 $2,147 $2,220 $2,011 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 '996 1997 1998 1999 2000 $7.5 $9.5 $11.0 $24.3 $26.6 m.9 $41.6 $50.9 $53.1 $55.3 $57.3 $1.1 $1.4 $5.6 $5.7 $6.0 $5.8 $8.1 $8.1 $4.6 $2.1 $2.3 $8.0 $1.2 $3.7 $4.0 $4.3 $6.4 $5.7 $5.7 $5.7 $3.7 $3.1 $3.0 $3.1 $2.7 $2.8 $3. $5.0 $6.2 $6.2 $6.3 $4.7 $4. $5.4 $4.8 $4.1 $5.0 $5.1 $5.3 $5.3 $5.4 $4.7 $5.4 $5.4 -E.7- E.1.7 EXHIBIT E.1: rCTROBUS REMB AND REPUKSENT 19H1ar-86 REPLACEJtNT COSTS Detailed tsset Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 TOTftL A Ofhce Furn ( Equipaent C Buses E Service Vehicles F Autonbiles 6 Trucks - Pick Up H Trucks - Heavy Duty I Land AA Passenger Station Other AB Parking Facilities AC Building & Structure AI Equipment Parking AJ Equipient Shops Afi Equip Bus Cntrl, AIDS AX Fareboxes AX AfC Other AY Equiptent Data Processing AZ Equipient CoHunication BA Equipwnt Other B6 Repairables BC Intangible Assets $0,186 $0,184 $0,068 $0,257 Repl Paving Top Surf Repl Paving Subgrade nechanical , Structure Repl Paving Top Surf Repl Paving Subgrade Lighting Roof nechanical Electrical Arch ii Struct $0,013 $0,000 $0,308 $0,479 $0,544 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,032 $0,090 $0,056 $0,348 $0,000 $0,000 $0,026 $0,000 $1,209 $1,881 $0,685 $2,688 $0,000 $0,000 $0,279 $0,028 $1,606 $1,591 $0,599 $0,464 $0,383 $0,173 $0,077 $0,109 $5.0 $0,690 $0,518 $0,000 $0,675 $0,040 $0,080 $0,006 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,534 $0,830 $1,758 $1,186 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,235 $0,050 $0,364 $0,025 $0,093 $0,675 $0,050 $0,099 $0,012 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,045 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,023 $0,026 $0,002 $0,257 $0,495 $0,171 $0,698 $0,141 $0,282 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $1,828 $2,844 $0,224 $4,062 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,001 $0,112 $0,084 $0,258 $0,024 $0,050 $0,533 $0,066 $0,132 $0,000 $.000 $0,001 $.000 $0,909 $1,414 $0,376 $2,020 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,171 $0,003 $0,068 $0,186 $0,184 $0,068 $0,257 $0,072 $0,144 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $2,343 $3,644 $1,304 $5,206 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,084 $0,144 $0,161 $0,032 $0,090 $0,056 $0,348 $0,033 $0,066 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,132 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $1,430 $0,301 $0,037 $0,429 $0,690 $0,518 $0,000 $0,675 $0,053 $0,106 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,102 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $1,000 $0,179 $0,000 $0,171 $0,364 $0,025 $0,093 $0,675 $0,014 $0,029 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,209 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,011 $0,000 $0,002 $8.0 $5.8 $1.9 $14.7 $1.1 $0.9 $0.3 $.0 $.0 $.0 $11.8 $18.4 $4.1 $26.2 $0.0 $10.8 $5.0 $0.8 $1.9 $2.0 TOTAL QHLATIVE 3-YEflfi ROLLING MtRAEE 5-YE/« ROLLING AVERAGE 7-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE 9-YE« ROLLING AVtRAGE $2,725 $6,638 $8,209 $3.0<H $11,798 $6,490 $14,180 $3,127 $3,570 $1,531 $118.6 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL $60.0 $66.7 $74.9 $77.9 $89.7 $96.2 $110.4 $113.5 $117.1 $118.6 $3.8 $5.9 $6.0 $7.7 $7.1 $10.8 $7.9 $7.0 $2.7 $4.4 $4.5 $6.5 $7.2 $8.7 $7.7 $7.8 $5.8 $3.9 $5.2 $5.8 $7.6 $7.6 $7.2 $6.2 $5.3 $5.0 $6.4 $6.5 $6.6 $6.5 -E.8- METRORAIL FACILITIES REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT Exhibit E.2 summarizes rehabilitation and replacement costs for Metrorail facilities other than track. The Exhibit is divided into two sections, summarizing inputs and outputs. Inputs for 1973 through 1983 are shown on page 1 and include a summary of existing assets from the WMATA accouting system and additional assets for the uncompleted sections of the system. Inputs for 1984 through 1994 are summarized on page 2 and inputs for 1995 through 2000 with totals by category on page 3. Output summaries begin on page 4 with data for 1973 through 1978. Also shown are the categories within the WMATA asset accounting system, the percentage of each asset that is replaced, the replacement cycle, and the source of assumptions. As shown, many of the asset categories included in the inputs have been broken down into three separate useful life categories. The data on page 4 summarizes line structures, other special structures, and passenger stations. Similar information for parking facilities, buildings, yards, and third-rail are summarized on page 5, together with totals and rolling averages. Similar results for 1979 through 1989 are summarized on pages 6 and 7, for 1990 through 2000 on pages 8 and 9, and for 2001 through 2010 with totals by category on pages 10 and 11. -E.9- E.2.1 EXHIBIT E.2: (CTRORAIL FACILITIES REW» I REPIJCEJtHT 19-Har-B6 Original Cost by Year Asset was Capitalized Year oif Expenditure Dollars IIWT DATA Description 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 FROM niSV FIXED ASSET SYSTEJ1: J Structure Line Cut/Cover $238.7 $11.8 $64.1 $15.5 $14.7 $96.7 K Structure Line Rock/Earth Tunnel $168.7 $10.8 $22.2 $86.8 $33.0 $66.5 L Structure Line At-6rade $13.0 $88.4 $2.0 $18.4 M Structure Line Aerial $17.9 $32.0 $2.6 $19.9 N Structure Line Sunken Tube $20.3 0 Structire Line Bridge $16.5 Q Structure Line Xover & Turnout $3.0 $2.9 $0.5 $0.5 $0.2 $2.0 R StructiFe Line Othe- $0.5 $38.9 $4.2 $5.8 $3.3 $9.1 $7.8 S Passenger Station Cut/Cover $405.8 $84.2 $37.3 $66.5 T Passer^ Station Rock $50.2 $95.9 U Passenger Station At-6rade $3.0 $44.7 $4.4 $12.1 V Passenga- Station Aerial $15.3 $26.8 $13.1 AB Parking Facilities $.0 $2.9 $13.6 $0.7 $2.9 $0.2 $16.0 (C Bldg tt Structure $8.4 $16.6 $36.5 $9.0 $6.5 $2.5 $1.4 $1.4 $4.8 $16.5 $.0 $1.6 AD Track Yard $14.0 $12.4 d Third Rail $16.6 $11.2 $2.2 $3.0 $0.9 $5.8 TOTW. ADDITIONAL SEGHENTS Line Stations Finish Parking Yard Rak Tunnel Earth Tunnel Cut tt Cover Surface Aerial Rock Tunnel Earth Tunnel Cut i Cover Surface Aerial Rock Tunnel Earth Tunnel Cut i Cover Surface Aerial Surface TOTW. CUMULATIVE $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $1,022.1 $289.5 $182.1 $159.8 $1S.6 $0.0 $416.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $1,022.5 $1,312.0 $1,494.2 $1,654.0 $1,809.6 $1,809.6 $2,226.5 -E. 10- L2.2 EXHIBIT E.2: ICTRORAIL FWILITIES REHAB k REPINBGCT 19-«ar-e6 «««« Projected Costs »»»»> Detailed Asset IlfUT DATA Description 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ran HISV FIKED ASSET SYSTEM: J Structure Line Cut/Cover $61.1 K Structire Une Rock/Earth Tunnel ^ $144.5 L Structire Line At-firade $33.9 H Structire Line Aerial $15.4 N Structure Line Sunken Tube 0 Structure Line Bridge $0.7 D Structire Line lover k Turnout $1.2 R Structire Une Other $12.9 S Passenger Station Cut/Cover T Passenger Station Rock $147.8 U Passenger Station At-Grade $33.9 V Passenger Station Aerial $.0 AB Parking Facilities $31.6 AC Bldg & Structire $32.5 $10.3 M) Track Ya-d AE Third Rail tbJ TOTM. ADDITim SEEfENTS Line Rock Tunnel 0.0 82. 1 0.0 0.0 61.2 Earth Tunnel 0.0 0.0 146.9 63.2 0.0 Cut k Cover 0.0 0.0 123.2 80.5 9.5 Surface SB.7 0.0 42.8 119.0 27.4 Aerial 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 Stations Rock Tunnel 0.0 S0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Earth Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cut tt Cover 0.0 0.0 152. B 8.9 31.2 Surface 22.0 0.0 5.0 28.3 4.9 Aerial 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Finish Rock Tunnel 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Earth Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cut k Cover 0.0 0.0 23.7 3.9 7.8 Surface 14.8 0.0 4.9 13.7 4.0 Aerial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 1B.8 0.0 5.2 7,9 6.1 Yard Surface 29.1 0.0 0.0 $1.0 17.4 14.0 TOTAL $532.5 $.0 $143.4 $0.0 $0.0 $152.7 $0.0 $504.5 $0.0 $351.1 $166.1 CUfUATIVE $2,759.0 $2,759.0 $2,902.4 $2,902.4 $2,902.4 $3,055.1 $3,055.1 $3,559.6 $3,559.6 $3,910.7 $4,076.8 -E.ll- E.2.3 EXHIBIT E.2: ttTOJRfilL FACILITIES R£W» t REPUCEffNT 19-Har-fl6 Detailed Asset im DATA Description 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 m TOTAL HISV FIXED PS3l\ SYSTEM: J Structure Line Cut/Cover $502.5 k Structire Line Rock/Earth Tunnel $532.6 L Structure Line At-6radB $155.8 H Structire Line Aerial $107.9 N Structure Line Sunken Tube $20.3 0 Structire Line &-idge $17.2 Q Structure Line Hover i Turnout $10.2 R Structure Line Other $82.4 S Passenger Station Cut/Cover $593.8 T Passeiger Station Rock $293.9 U Passenger Station flt-€rade $98.2 V Passenger Station Aerial $55.1 A6 Parking Facilities $68.0 AC Bldg i Structure $94.0 $35.9 $18.1 AD Track Yard $26.4 f£ Third Rail $46.6 $0.0 ma. ADDITIfflW. ^6l€NTS Line Rock Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 Earth Tunnel 68.6 78.5 0.0 Cut Cover 9.7 8.7 17.8 Surface 0.0 0.0 70.8 Aerial 0.0 0.0 18.1 Stations Rock Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 Earth Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cut tt Cover 23.4 22.0 16.5 Surface 0.0 0.0 18.9 Aerial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Finish Rock Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 Earth Tunnel 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cut t Cover 5.5 5.8 3.8 Sirface 0.0 0,0 9.4 Aerial 0.0 0.0 0.0 Parking 0.4 0.6 9.9 Yard Surface 0.0 0.0 24.5 $1.0 TOTAL $107.6 $0.0 $115.6 $189.7 $0.0 $0.0 $2,759.0 OWJLATM $4,184.4 $4,184.4 $4,300.0 $4,489.7 $4,489.7 $4,489.7 -E. 12- E.L4 EXHIBIT E.2: CTRQRAIL FACILITIES & REPLACE)GfT 19-te-e6 Range of M1ATA Fixed Asset Classes Froa To Repla:eient Life Detailed Asset Sub REPUCEltNT COSTS Description group Sroup Group Group ! Years Source 1973 J structure Line Cut/Cover 10-Year Cycle 60 1 0.5 10 PROG 10.000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 K Stnjctire Line Rock/Earth Timnel 10-Yea- Cycle 60 2 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-YBa- Cycle 1.5 30 PWffi $0,000 L Structure Line ftt-firade 10-Year Cycle 60 3 0.5 10 PMB $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 H Structire Line Aerial 10- Year Cycle 60 4 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Yea- Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 N Stnictire Line Sunken Tube 10-Year Cycle 60 5 0.5 10 PWIG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 0 Structure Line Bridge 10-Year Cycle 60 6 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 Subtotal - Structire Line $0,000 Q Structure Line Xover d Turnout 60 19 100 5 FIKT $0,000 R Structire Line Otiw 60 7 60 17 1 10 F)KT $0,000 S Pass Station Cut/Cover-Structure 10-Year Cycle 61 1 61 2 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,001) 30- Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 Pass Station Cut/Cover-Finish 10-Year Cycle 5 10 PROG $0,000 20- Year Cycle 50 20 PROG $0,000 3'>-Year Cycle 20 30 PROG $0,000 T Pass Station Rock/Earth-Structur 10-Year Cycle 61 3 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 0.5 30 PROG $0,000 Pass Station Rock/Earth-Fini* 10-Year Cycle 5 10 rmJb $0,000 20-Year Cycle 50 20 PROG $0,000 30-Yea- Cycle 20 30 PROG $0,000 U Pass Station At-firade-5tructure 10-Year Cycle 61 4 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 Pass Station ftt-Grade-Finish lO-Year Cycle 5 10 pra» $0,000 20-Vear Cycle 45 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 25 30 PROG to.m V Pass Station Aerial-Structure 10-Year Cycle 61 5 0.5 10 PROG $0,000 20-Year Cycle 1 20 PROG $0,000 30-Year Cycle 1.5 30 PROG $0,000 Pass Station Aerial-Finish 10-Year Cycle 5 10 PHK $0,000 20-Year Cycle 45 20 PROG $0,000 30-YBa- Cycle 25 30 PROG $0,000 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.1)00 $0,000 Subtotal - Passenger Station $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 -E. 13- E.2.5 EKHIBIT E.2: ttTRORAIL FftCILITIB REHflB k REPLACEIBfT 19-Har-86 AB Parking Facilities ftC Bidg & Structure AD Track Yard AE Third Rail Subtotal - Other TOTAL imATIVE 5-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE 7-YEAR Rdllie A\eAG£ YEAR Repl Top SiK-face 62 1 62 2 10 15 FI«T W.OOO Repl Subgrade 20 30 FtKT JO.OOO Lighting 5 30 pmT to.ooo Roof 9 20 FMNT fO.OOO Mechanical 14 20 FMNT $0,000 Electrical B 30 F1*T $0,000 Arch & Struct 20 20 FmT fO.OOO 64 3 0 0 FIKT 65 3 0 0 R«T $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $t).i»0 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 -E. 14- E.2.6 EXHIBIT E.2: ICTRORAIL FM:ILITIE5 REMB I REPLACEICKT REPLACaOT COSTS Detailed Asset Description J Structire Line Cut/Cover 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle K Structure Line Rock/Earth Tunnel 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Yea- Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Ye«' Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Yea- Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Yea- Cycle 30-Year Cycle L Structure Line ftt-firade n Structure Line Aerial N Structire Line Sunken Tube 0 Structure Line Bridge 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 m 1999 .$0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $2,143 $0,099 $0,504 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $1,515 $0,090 $0,175 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,117 $0,742 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,161 $0,436 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 SiAtotal - structire Line $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $3,935 $1,367 $0,679 0 structure Line Xover k Turnout R Structure Line Otha- S Pass Station Cut/Cover-Structure Pass Station Cut /Cover-Finish T Pass Station Rwk/Earth-Structur Pass Station RKk/Earth-Finish U Pass Station At-€rade-Structure Pass Station At-Grade-Finish V Pass Station Aerial-Structure Pass Station Aerial -Finish Subtotal - Passenge- Station 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 3fr-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Yea- Cycle 30-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $4,833 $0,784 $0,690 $0,268 $5,311 $7,057 $2,009 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,009 $0,698 $0,070 $0,091 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $2,878 $0,000 $0,524 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $7,649 $0,000 $1,392 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,356 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,946 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,021 $0,297 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,056 $0,788 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,109 $0,177 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,289 $0,471 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $12,303 $1,733 $1,915 -E.15- E.2.7 EIHI6IT E.2: nETRORAIL FM:ILITIE5 REHW k REPLACEKNT 19-HM-86 OS Parking Facilities AC Bldg d Structure hD Track Yard fi£ Third Rail Subtotal - OthB- TUTAL CUHULATM 5-YEAR raiilNG AVERAGE 7-YEW! ROIING AVERAGE RepI Tap Sirixe Repl Subqrade Lighting Rd(H NKhanical Electrical kth t> Struct $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $4,833 $0,784 $0,690 $0,277 $6,009 $7,127 $2,099 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $4,833 $0,784 $0,690 $0,277 $22,247 $10,227 $4,693 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.3 $10.1 $10.9 $11.6 $11.9 $34.1 $44.4 $49.1 $0.0 $1.1 $2.0 $2.2 $2.3 $2.4 $5.8 $6.8 $7.6 $8.0 $8.4 $0.8 $1.4 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $4.9 $6.3 $6.3 $5.9 $6.1 $6.9 YEW 1979 1980 1961 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 -E.16- E.2.8 mmi E.2: fETRDRAIL FACILITIES i imACEfCNT 19H1»-96 REPLflBtNT COSTS Detailed Asset Description 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 J Structure Line Cut/Cover 10-Year Cyc 20-Year Cyc 30-Year Cyc K Structure Line Rock/Earth Tunnel 10-Year Cyc 20-Year Cyc 30-Year Cyc 10-Year Cyc 20-Year Cyc 30-Year Cyc 10-Year Cyc 20-Yeffl- Cyc 30-Year Cyc IHear Cyc 20-Year Cyc 30-Year Cyc 10-Year Cyc 20-Yea- Cyc 30-Year Cyc L Structure Line At-6rade n Structure Line Aerial N Structure Line Sunken Tube 0 Structure Line Bridge $0,111 $0,095 $0,000 $0,535 $0,325 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,620 $0,214 $0,000 $0,368 $0,769 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,014 $0,000 $0,000 $0,102 $0,180 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,019 $0,000 $0,000 $0,110 $0,082 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,113 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,091 $0,004 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $2,143 $0,099 $0,504 $0,111 $0,000 $4,285 $0,198 $1,008 $0,221 $0,000 $1,515 $0,090 $0.5ffi $0,620 $0,000 $3,029 $0,181 $0,349 $1,241 $0,294 $0,117 $0,742 $0.0(X) $0,014 $0,000 $0,234 $1,483 $0,000 $0,029 $0,000 $0,161 $0.43* $0,000 $0,019 $0,000 $0,322 $0,872 $0.iOOO $0,037 $0,000 $0.(K)0 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Subtotal - structure Line $0,764 $0,309 $0,000 $1,320 $1,360 $0,000 $0,294 $11,806 $4,101 $2,447 $2,293 Q Structure Line lover k Turnout R Stnjctire Line Other S Pass Station Cut/Cover-Structure Pass Station Cut/Cover-finish T Pass Station Rock/Earth-Structur Pass Station Rock/Earth-finish U Pass Station At-Grade-Structure Pass Station At-€rade-finish V Pass Station Aerial-Structure Pass Station Aerial -finish Subtotal - Passefiger Station 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30- Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-YBar Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-YBar Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20- Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle lO-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle $0,690 $0,047 $0,211 $0,268 $0,118 $0,000 $0,560 $0,000 $0,000 $0,491 $0,000 $1,304 $0.02 $0,000 $0,067 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $7,057 $2,009 $0,690 $0,268 $5,311 $7,057 $2,009 $0,690 $0,000 $0,086 $0,138 $0,000 $0,009 $0,698 $0,070 $0,091 $0.i»7 $0,000 $0,291 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $2,878 $0,000 $0,524 $0,211 $o.iyx) $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,755 $0,000 $1,047 $0,421 $0,000 $0,773 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $7,649 $0,000 $1,392 $0,560 $0,000 $0,000 $0.i>» $0,000 $76,494 $0,000 $13,916 $5,601 $0,000 $0,000 $0,621 $0,000 $0.i») $0,000 $0,000 $1,651 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,053 $0,142 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,141 $0,378 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,057 $0,000 $0,000 $o.iyjo $0,000 $0,152 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,356 $0,000 $0,253 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,711 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,946 $0,000 $1.(X>0 $0,000 $0.i»0 $0,000 $9,456 $0,000 $0.iX)0 $0,000 $0,000 $0,110 $0,021 $0,297 $0,000 $0,025 $0,000 $0,000 $0.M2 $0,593 $0,000 $0,050 $0,000 $0,740 $0,056 $0,788 $0,000 $0,067 $0,000 $0,000 $0,506 $7,094 $0.0X1 $0,600 $.000 $0,000 $0,109 $0,177 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,217 $0,355 $0.0<Xl $0,000 $.000 $0,000 $0,289 $0,471 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.0(» $2,597 $4,243 $0,000 $0,000 $0,862 $1,795 $0,000 $1,467 $2,793 $.i»0 $0,850 $108. (»2 $14,018 $18,131 $7,535 -E.17- E.2.9 EXHIBIT E.2: OORAIL FftCILITIES REHM k REPLACEJfNT 19-Nar-fi6 I AB Parking Facilities Repl Top Str^Ke W.OOO $0,004 $0,524 $2,289 $0,114 $0,415 $0,028 $0,000 $1,772 $3,360 $0,000 Repl Subgrade i if^f inn AC Bldg & Structure Roof $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,477 $3,494 $0,348 $0,180 HprhjanirAl 1 ICU lOJ lit. OA $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $8,520 $5,435 $0 S47 $0.^ Electrical IVch k Struct $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $12,171 $7,764 $0,774 $0,400 AD Trttk Yard AE Third Rail Subtotal - Other $0.7J7 $0,391 $5,836 $9,432 $2,260 $1,105 $0,305 $32,177 $25,592 $7,123 $1,598 TOTAL f2.364 $2,495 $5,836 $12,218 $6,413 $1,105 $1,448 $152,065 $43,711 $27,701 $11,426 CUMULATIVE J51.4 $53.9 $59.8 $72.0 $78.4 $79.5 $80.9 $233.0 $276.7 $304.4 $315. B 5-YEflfi ROLLINS AVERAGE $5.1 $5.5 $5.9 $5.6 $5.4 $34.6 $40.9 $45.2 $47.3 $51.7 $22.3 7-YEAfi ROLLING A^^RAGE $8.6 $6.3 $5.0 $4.6 $25.9 $31. B $35.0 $34.8 $37.3 $37.9 $44.3 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20O0 E.2.10 EXHIBIT E.2: ICTFORAIL FACILITIES REHftB 4 REPUCEICNT 19-flar-86 REPLACEItMT COSTS Detailed Asset Description 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20O6 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL J Structure Line Cut/Cover 10-Yea- Cycle 10.711 $0,000 $0,938 $0,373 .$0,049 $0,000 $2,186 $0.1% $0,504 $0,111 $11,727 20-Year Cycle $0,190 $0,000 $1,071 $0,650 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $t).000 $0.0*30 $0,000 $7,624 JO-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $6.4^ $0,297 $1,512 $0,332 $8,569 K Structire Line Rock/Earth Tunnel 10-Year Cycle $0,949 $0,000 $0,684 $1,074 $0,343 $0,000 $1,907 $0,090 $0.5K $0,620 $12,815 20-Year Cycle $0,428 $0,000 $0,737 $1,537 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,821 $0,000 $8,323 30-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $4,544 $0,271 $0,524 $1,861 $7,201 L Structure Line ftt-firade 10-Year Cycle $0,214 $0,000 $0,697 $0,317 $0,000 $0,294 $0,117 $1,095 $om $0,014 $5,071 20-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,204 $0,361 $0,000 $0,587 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.1300 $2,898 30-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,351 $2,225 $0,000 $0,043 $2,619 H Structire Line Aerial 10-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,152 $0,082 $0,000 $0,000 $0,161 $0,526 $0,000 $0,019 $2,364 20-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,220 $0,164 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $o.m $1,616 30-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,483 $1,308 $0,003 $0,056 $1,847 N Structure Line Sunken Tube 10-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,113 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,225 20-Yea- Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,225 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.(»0 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,225 30- Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 Q Structire Line Bridge 10-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,091 $0,004 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,190 20-Year Cycle $0,000 $0,000 $0,183 $0,007 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,190 30-Year Cych $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.0i» $0.0M $0,000 Siitotal - Structire Line $2,492 $0,000 $5,314 $4,570 $0,392 $0. $16,178 $6,001 $3,946 $3. OS $73,504 Q Structure Line Xover k Turnout R Structire Line Other S Pass Station Cut/Cover-Structure Pass Station Cut/Cover-Finish T Pass Station Rock/Earth-Structur Pass Station Rock/Earth-finish U Pass Station ftt-6rade-Structure Pass Station At-6rade-Finish V Pass Station Aerial-Structure Pass Station Aerial -finish 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Yea- Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Yey Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 3i3-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Year Cycle 10-Year Cycle 20-Year Cycle 30-Yea- Cycle $0,268 $0,118 $0,764 $0,000 $1,185 $0,000 $0,491 $0,981 $1,304 $13,044 $0,025 $0,000 $0,245 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $7,057 $0,086 $0,335 $0,581 $0,000 $0,968 $7,729 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,195 $0,106 $0,000 $0,826 $1,269 $0,000 $0,057 $0,114 $0,000 $0,152 $1,368 $0,000 $2,009 $0,138 $0,156 $0,000 $0,000 $0,390 $0,000 $0,000 $0,621 $1,242 $0,000 $1,651 $16,513 $0,000 $0,167 $0,285 $0,000 $0,578 $3,405 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,690 $0,000 $0,117 $0,000 $0,000 $0,275 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $.000 $.000 $0,000 $.000 $0,001 $0,000 $0,268 $0,009 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $O.OiXJ $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,110 $0.22f3 $0,000 $0,740 $6,660 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $5,311 $0,698 $2,988 $0,000 $8,633 $7,939 $0,000 $30,598 $0,356 tS).m $0,356 $0,946 $0,000 $3,783 $0,021 $13,000 $0,063 $0,056 $0,000 $0,281 $0,109 $0,000 $0,326 $13,289 $0,000 $1,443 $7,057 $0,070 $0,083 $0,000 $0,000 $0,190 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,391 $0.00*3 $0,890 $1,258 $0,000 $3,941 $0,177 $0,000 $0,532 $0,471 $0,000 $2,357 $2,009 $0,091 $0,524 $0.00(3 $1,571 $1,392 $0.0(X) $5,566 $0.33 $0,506 $0,000 $1,000 $10,000 $0.00*3 $0.0X3 io.m $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0.1300 $0,000 $i3.00i3 $0,000 $0.0013 $0,000 $0,000 $0,690 $0,047 $0,211 $0,000 $0,632 $0,560 $0,000 $2,240 $0,000 to.m $0,000 $0,000 $o.ow $0,000 $0,025 $0,000 $0,075 $0,067 $0,000 $0,333 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $13.00*3 $88,291 $3,429 $12,691 $7,805 $10,836 $32,874 $103,740 $38,404 $3,797 $3,441 $0,356 $10,748 $49,013 $3,783 $1,924 $1,296 $1,028 $6,852 $19,533 $4,555 $0,972 $0,686 $0.^ $2,584 $8,208 $3,800 Subtotal - Passenger Station $18,040 $0,000 $13,699 $25,006 $0,393 $7,730 $58,184 $10,290 $2*3.811 $4,143 $329.7K -E.19- E.2.11 EXHIBIT E.2: \fmiAli FACILITIES REHAB k REPUCE)ENT 19-ttar-B6 AB Parkitrq Facilities Repl Tap Surface $1,880 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,524 $0,524 $3,079 $0,724 $0,455 $15,692 Repl Subgrade $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,009 $1,049 $4,577 $0,227 $0,830 $6,692 Lighting $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,002 $0,262 $1,144 $0,057 $0,208 $1,673 AC BIdg k Structure KOOt $0,165 $0,000 $4,275 $4,098 $0,000 $2,619 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $20,656 nechanical $0,257 $0,000 $6,650 $6,374 $0,000 $4,074 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $32,132 Electrical $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $4,868 $3,106 $0,309 $0,160 $8,444 Arch I Struct $0,367 $0,000 $9,500 $9,106 $0,000 $5,820 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $0,000 $45,903 AD Track Yard $0,000 flE Third Rail $0,000 Subtotal - Other $3,056 $5,311 $27,568 $21,724 $0,690 $13,326 $12,713 $19,033 $3,417 $2,390 $222,912 TOTAL $23,587 $5,311 $46,562 $51,302 $1,474 $21,936 $87,075 $35,324 $28,174 $9,591 $626,201 DJOATIVE $339.4 $344.7 $391.3 $442.6 $444.1 $466.0 $553.1 $588.4 $616.6 $626.2 5-YEAR ROLLING AVERAff $22.9 $27.6 $25.7 $25.3 $41.7 $39.4 $34.8 $36.4 7-YE« ROLLING AVERAGE $29.9 $23.9 $23.1 $33.9 $35.6 $38.8 $33.6 YEW 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 TOTN. -E.20- METRORAIL EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT Exhibit E.3 summarizes rehabilitation and replacement costs for Metrorail equipment other than rail cars. The Exhibit is divided into two sections, summarizing inputs and outputs. Inputs for 1973 through 1983 begin on page 1 and summarize existing assets from the WMATA accouting system. Inputs for the uncompleted section of the system that are part of the Stark-Harris system are shown on page 2 and inputs for the remaining parts of the 103-mile system are shown on page 3 together with totals. Inputs for 1984 through 1994 are summarized on pages 4-6 and inputs for 1995 through 2000 with totals by category on pages 7-9. Output summaries begin on page 10 with data for 1973 through 1979. Also shown are the categories within the WMATA asset accounting system, the percentage of each asset that is replaced, the replacement cycle, and the source of assumptions. As shown, some of the asset categories included in the inputs have been broken down into several separate useful life categories. The data on page 10 summarizes miscellaneous equipment and facilities, elevators and escalators, power, and automatic train control (ATC) . Similar information for automatic fare collection (AFC) , data processing, and communications is shown on page 11. Totals and rolling averages are shown on page 12. Similar results for 1980 through 1990 are summarized on pages 13 - 15, for 1991 through 2001 on pages 16 - 18, and for 2002 through 2010 with totals by category on pages 19 - 21. -E.21- E.3.1 EXHIBIT E.3: ICT1SRAIL EOUIPtCNT REHW Ic REPUCOCNT Original Cost by Vnr Asset ms Capitalized Year Expenditure Dollars Detailed Asset ItfUT DftTft Description 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 rnUn nloU rJALl/ nOOCI 910iuli A nXXi^a LiiPR T. 1 ni 1 1 dm nfi f H UTTlCe rurn if uJlUpKni tn 1 ♦V. i t n t A C DcTViCc VenlLin ?v.D tn 1 W. 1 $0 7 1 0 to 1 Vim I $.0 $.0 $.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.5 to 7 Wa L to 1 ♦ .V t 0 R Triir^c - Pirt Ih t 0 i 0 1 0 10 1 to 1 t 0 M Tntrtc - tkuw f^ifv n irLH.K3 ncoVy Uul,]r $.0 1.0 to 1 10 1 $0.4 10 4 to 1 12.3 $4.7 $1.1 $0.4 $1.3 $0.3 $0.1 1 r a33miUCT t/LOL 1 U 1 ^1 UN 1 1 lU $1.1 $0.3 $0,2 $15.2 $8.6 $3.2 $1.7 $2.3 $4.6 rVI rQ33CllUCi ^kOLlUII uliio $0.7 $0.6 $0.1 $0.1 AH Par^i rvn Pari 1 1 f i dc rnJ raTKlliy raL.llll.ic3 f? 9 10 7 19 9 10 9 11A 0 AP Pniii naent Trsnci f Uau n CljUlpKIIL irdilslL My J to 1 ii 4 11 0 11 \ 10 7 HD C.3Lold(.Ur3 90. 0 iA S #o« J IS 1 111 1 via ^ W Plouafrrc rfl ClcVdluTb *T. 0 10 i 11 1 Wa *f HI ci^uipflcnr. rdTKinij 10 1 1 0 to 7 ♦Va 4 AJ Equiptent Shops $3.8 $0.1 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3 fiK Equipient Power $22.5 $12.4 $3.8 $3.9 $7.9 $3.3 AL Equipient ATC Stations $45.7 $22.8 $12.1 $1.8 $4.0 $13.4 Afl Equipient ATC Xover & Turnout $1.3 $0.6 $2.5 $6.0 HN LqUipieni HIL TdTO tT 1 ATI PninnBonf ATf Pacopfinpr fjir $5.3 $5.7 AP rnin n^mf ATP Pr^artiifv QucfoA n Ll^LlipKIll HIL LUVULin Oybltril in 9 to k Cdi FmnnBPnf ATf 1 inp $1.5 $2.0 $2.3 $i).4 $16.1 EquipKnt Bus Control, AIDS ftS AFC Vendor $9.1 $2.4 $0.5 $0.4 $0.2 $1.3 AT tfZ Addfare $3.0 $0.8 $0.3 $0.2 $0.2 $0.5 AU N'e DADS $0.8 $0.2 $0.1 $.0 $0.1 AV AfC Transfer $0.3 $0.1 $.0 $.0 AH (fZ Bates $<'.3 $2.7 $0.9 $0.7 $0.4 $1.3 AK AFC Other $.0 $1.1 $.0 AY Equipment Data Processing $.0 $.0 $0.: $0.1 AZ Equipient Coaaunication $16.9 $2.9 $5.8 $4.9 $0.8 $1.0 $1.1 BA Equipnent Other $.0 $0.1 $.0 -E.22- E.3.2 EXHIBIT E.3: (PRORAIL EDUIPItNT REHAB k REPUttEItNT 19-Har-B6 Original Cost by Year Asset was Capitalized Year of Expenditure Dollars Detailed Asset IlfUTDATA Description 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 FROn PR06RM CONTRO.: VIOM AE Substations Escalators Bevatxs CoMunications AFC Niscellaneous M€ATQN ATC Substations Escalators Elevatxs CoHunications PR Hiscellaneous U STREET ATC Substations Escalators Elevators CoMunications PfC niscellaneous AftfCtKTIA ATC Substations Escalators Devators CoMuni cations AFC Miscellaneous VAN m AE Substations Escalators Elevators CoMunications tfC niscellaneous GREENBELT ftTC Sdistations Escalators Elevators CoMunications PFZ niscellaneous -E.23- E.3.3 EXHIBIT E.3: (ORORAIL EQUIPttNT REHAB k REPLflCEIfNT 19-Har-e6 O'lginal Cost by Year Asset was Capitalized Year of Expenditure Dollars Detailed Asset im DATA Description 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 GUMVNT ATC Substations Escalatn-s Elevators Coaimicatians niscellaneous SPRItCFiaJ) AE Substations Escalators Elevators CoMunications flfC niscellaneous coLuneiA KTS./n. totten ATC Substations Escalatxs Elevators CoHuni cat ions tfC niscellaneous mO\ AVE ATC Substations Escalators Elevators CoHuni cations AFC niscellaneous TOTN. ADDITIONW. SEGMENTS AE JO.O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Substations fO.O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Escalators fO.O $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Elevattrs $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 CoMunicattons $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 AFC $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 niscellaneous $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 TOTAL $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.4 $223.0 $86.9 $41.3 $27.8 $22.1 $7.8 $67.0 CUmtATIVE $0.1 $0.3 $0.5 $0.9 $223.8 $310.7 $352.1 $379.9 $401.9 $409.7 $476.7 -E.24- E.3.4 EXHIBIT E.3: F€TRQRAIL EQUIPfENT REHM & REPLACEiefT 19-lto-86 «««« FVojected Costs »»»»> Detailed Asset IlfUTMTA Description 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 FROH niSC FIHEL ASSET SYSTEB: A fl/ / Z — — C f 1 i 1 1 ■iTf 1 1 H uTTlce riFn & tquipKnC t service venicies tt\ 7 HI./ t C\ tn 1 W. 1 r RutQiGOues D IrUCKS rlCt n injCKS neavy ujiy < n i raSSaiQei sidllon UVernedOS X PassenQer Station Kiosk Y Passenqer Station Siynin^ Z Passenger Station Elev Stj'ucture flfl rassenger btation utner AB Parking Facilities (f Equiptent Transit Hay J2.6 A6 Escalator 114.1 $7.9 Rn elevators Al Equipment Parking $1.7 AJ Equipient Shops $0.3 $0.4 AJ Cniii nKcnf ATP CfafiiVte HL C^Uipielll niL JLdLlQliS AM Pniii nacmf ATT Tnuor L TiiT'nn rfl Ci^Ui^ncnC MIL AUYCi tt lUilfUUC AN Equiptent ATC Yard AO Equipient ATC Passenge- Car AP Equipment ATC Coaputer Systet AC Equipaent ATC Line (H Equipaent Bus Control, AIDS AS ffC Vendor $1.9 AT PfC Add^are $0.8 AU AFC DADS S0.3 AV tfC Transfer M M'C Gates 12.0 AX flfC Other AY Equipaent Data Processing $.0 $.0 AZ Equiiwnt Coaaunication $8.3 $0.1 BA Equipaent Other $0.1 $.0 I -E.25- E.3.5 EKHIBIT E.3: ItTRORAIL EQUIPItNT REHftB !t REPLftCEftNT 19H1ar-e6 «««« fYojected Costs /»»»» Detailed Asset im DATA Description 1994 19ffi 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 FROn PKim OWTROL: ATC $29.3 Substations $12.3 Escalators $4.8 Elevatxs $0.8 Conunications $6.1 WX $5.3 Hiscellaneous $1.2 WCATQN ATC $8.1 Substations $3.4 Escalators $2.9 Elevatxs $1.3 CoMunications $2.2 AFC $2.2 Miscellaneous $0.5 u smj ATC $7.4 Substations 14.4 Escalators $6.6 Elevatxs $1.2 CoMunications $3.0 AFC $4.1 Miscellaneous $2.5 AfWCtSTIA ATC $8.2 Substations $5.2 Escalatxs $7.8 Elevatxs $1.4 Coaounications $2.2 AfC $4.1 Miscellaneous $3.8 VAN DQRN AE $5.3 Substations $4.4 Escalatxs $1.1 Elevatxs $0.2 CoMunications $0.5 AFC $0.8 Miscellaneous $0.7 SftEENECT ATC $22.2 Substations $13.0 Escalatxs $8.2 Elevatxs $1.5 CoMunications $6.0 tfC $3.0 Miscellaneous $2.1 -E. 26- E.3.6 EXHIBIT E.3: (tTPORAIL EQUIP!€NT REHAB k REPLACEItNT 19-«a-86 «««« ProjKted Costs »»»»> Detailed Asset IffUTDATA Description 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 aDHNT ATC $6.3 Substations $2.6 EKalators $0.6 QevatTS $i).4 CoMunications $1.0 AFC $0.7 ftscellaneous $0.3 SPRINfflELJ) ATC $6.3 Substations $2.6 Escalators ^ $0.9 Elevators $0.2 Coauiuations $0.4 AFC $0.7 IHscellaneous $0.1 CaUWIA HTS./FT. TOTTEN ATC SiAstatlons Escalators Eevatxs Coaasiications (ft lliscellaneous BRPNCH Al€ ATC S(i>statiQns Escalators Elevatcrs CoMunications flfC niscellaneous TOTH. ADOITIOW. SESJtKTS ATC $0.0 $0.0 $29.3 $0.0 $0.0 $8.1 $0.0 $20.9 $0.0 $22.2 $12.6 Siistations $0.0 $0.0 $12.3 $0.0 $0.0 $3.4 $0.0 $14.0 $0.0 $13.0 $5.2 Escalators $0.0 $0.0 $4.8 $0.0 $0.0 $2.9 $0.0 $15.5 $0.0 $8.2 $1.5 Elevators $0.0 $0.0 $0.8 $0.0 $0.0 $1.3 $0.0 $2.8 $0.0