Massachusetts Department of Transportation
MEMORANDUM
TO: Massachusetts Department of Transportation Board of Directors
FROM: Rachel Bain, Assistant Secretary for Performance Management and Innovation
DATE: June 24, 2015
RE: MassDOT Quarterly Performance Report
Background:
The Office of Performance Management and Innovation (OPM&I) was created by
Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009: AN ACT MODERNIZING THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS OF THE COMMONWEALTH. On an annual basis, OPM&I publishes a
Performance and Accountability Report, which, in great detail, defines the goals and
measures of the department, the method by which data is collected, and the
performance for the most recent fiscal year as well as the 4 years prior. In 2014, the
report also incorporated requirements from Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2013: AN ACT
RELATIVE TO TRANSPORTATION FINANCE to the extent that MassDOT had data
available to report on those measures. The annual report is submitted no later than
December 31st to the Joint Committee on Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Ways and Means. It is also made available to the public via MassDOT’s
website.
DRAFT 3rd Quarter Performance and Accountability Report:
The Quarterly Performance and Accountability Report is intended to give the public a
sense of the operational health of MassDOT. To facilitate these reviews, OPM&I works
collaboratively with each Division to collect, collate, and analyze performance data and
report on progress against the Divisions’ organizational goals and objectives.
For the draft before the Board, staff reported on measures only. We hope to begin a
dialogue with the Board on the future format of the report, the existing measures, future
performance measures, and, most importantly, setting performance targets.
OPM&I requests that the MassDOT Board of Directors review the following document
and provide feedback. The 4th Quarter Report will incorporate as many of the Board’s
comments and suggestions as possible. It is our intention that target setting for each
performance measure will be concluded by the time MassDOT files its FY2015 Annual
Performance Report with the legislature in December.
Leading the Nation in Transportation Excellence
Ten Park Plaza, Suite 4160, Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 857-368-4636, TTY: 857-368-0655
www.mass.gov/massdot
Performance and Accountability
Report
Fiscal Year 2015
Quarter 3
January - March 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
*Data between January 1, 2015 - March 31, 2015, unless otherwise noted.
Prepared by:
Office of Performance Management & Innovation
June 2015
Inside This Issue
Highway Division
Aeronautics Division
Registry Division
Rail & Transit Division
3
5
6
9
Highlights
3
bridges
28%
Three bridges removed
from the list of structurally
deficient bridges
Twenty-eight percent of
the aeronautics capital
funds were disbursed
Eight-four percent of RMV
customer calls conducted through
the virtual hold call back program
were successful
84%
Eighty-six percent on-time
performance for customers of
the Blue Line
86%
DRAFT
2
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
Highway Division
Bridge Condition
Figure 1: Number of Structurally Deficient Bridges by
Quarter, FY2014 Q2 to FY2015 Q3
Number of Structurally
Deficient Bridges
Bridge condition is critical to the safety of the Com445
monwealth’s infrastructure. MassDOT vigilantly
444
maintains over 5,000 bridges. There are a number
444
443
of strategies that civil engineers and transportation
443
442
442
departments use to measure the condition of bridg442
es. OPM&I is in the process of working closely with
441
441
the Highway Division and the MassDOT leadership to
determine the most appropriate and useful metric (or
440
439
metrics) to use going forward, based on factors related
439
to public interest and federal reporting requirements.
438
In the meantime, two measures for which data exist
FY2014 Q2 FY2014 Q3 FY2014 Q4 FY2015 Q1 FY2015 Q2 FY2015 Q3
are being included in this report. A third measure,
the Bridge Health Index, is the in the process of being
re-evaluated for data collection accuracy and method- Figure 2: Number of Structurally Deficient Bridges by Year,
FY2011 Q3 to FY2015 Q3
ology and therefore not included in this report.
Structural deficiency (SD) is a key indicator of bridge
safety and capacity. A bridge is given a structurally
deficient rating when inspections determine that the
condition of one or more significant bridge element is
deteriorated. A structurally deficient rating does not
mean that it is unsafe, but that it will likely require
significant repair to remain in service.
The number of structurally deficient bridges in the
Commonwealth continued to decline this quarter,
marking three consecutive quarters of decreases.
Number of Structurally
Deficient Bridges
500
Structurally Deficient Bridges
490
487
480
465
470
465
460
450
441
439
FY2014 Q3
FY2015 Q3
440
430
420
410
FY2011 Q3
FY2012 Q3
FY2013 Q3
Percent of Bridge Deck Area that is Structurally
Deficient
DRAFT
Since March 2011 (FY2011 Q3)1, the number of structurally deficient bridges has been trending downward.
1
Unless otherwise specified, Fiscal Year (FY) refers to
the MA Fiscal Year:
FY 2015 Quarter 1: July 1 through September 30, 2014
FY 2015 Quarter 2: October 1 through December 31, 2014
FY 2015 Quarter 3: January 1 through March 31, 2015
FY 2015 Quarter 4: April 1 through June 30, 2015
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
This metric is calculated by comparing the amount
of bridge deck area that is structurally deficient to
the total area of bridge deck in the Commonwealth.
Reporting this measure will be required of all State
DOTs, per the National Highway Performance Program
outlined in MAP-21 Federal transportation legislation.
States reporting more than 10 percent of bridge deck
area as structurally deficient on NHS bridges will be re-
3
quired to allocate a certain percentage to the Highway
Bridge Program until the standard is met.
As of CY2014, 83% of MassDOT-owned pavement was in
good or excellent condition according to this measure.
Percent of bridge deck area deemed to be structurally deficient increased by one percentage point in
the most recent quarter, and has increased by two
percentage points within the past year.
Highway Project Planning
Figure 3: Percent of Bridge Deck Area that is Structurally Deficient by Quarter, FY2014 Q2 to FY2015 Q3
16%
Structurally Deficient
Bridge Deck Area
15%
15%
14%
14%
14%
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
FY2015 Q2
14%
13%
13%
FY2014 Q2
FY2014 Q3
13%
12%
FY2015 Q3
Pavement Condition
The quality of the pavement on roadways across the
Commonwealth has a direct impact on many elements
of the transportation system and MassDOT goals - from
safety, to customer service, to fiscal responsibility.
MassDOT measures the overall condition of highway
pavement using two measures: Pavement Serviceability
and Customer Ride Satisfaction.
Pavement Condition (PSI)
The Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) is measured on
a five-point scale, with 0 being impassable and 5 being
perfectly smooth. Based on this scale, roadway conditions are classified as poor, fair, good, or excellent.
At the end of CY2014, the Highway Division was maintaining 66% of pavement in good or excellent condition.
Customer Ride Satisfaction (CRSI)
The number of STIP highway projects advertised
for bid during the second quarter fell short of the
planned target.
Responsibly managing highway project planning is
measured by using two metrics at different stages
of project development. The first tracks the number
of projects in the State Transportation Improvement
Plan (STIP) advertised for bid during the current federal fiscal year. The number of projects advertised is
compared to the total number of projects in the STIP
as originally approved. The projects on the STIP are a
summation of all the projects recommended by the 13
Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The STIP reflects
the priorities for transportation investment and only
lists projects for which the Commonwealth has the
funds.
It is the goal of the Highway Division to advertise 80
percent of their projects by September 30th, the close
of the federal fiscal year. In addition, MassDOT Highway Division sets quarterly targets in order to meet the
overall goal. The first quarter’s target is to advertise 15
percent of projects on the STIP or 14 of the 91 projects
on the STIP. During the second quarter, the Highway
Division strives to advertise 18 percent (or 16 of the
91 projects on the STIP). After meeting the stated goal
during the first quarter of this year, the Highway Department advertised only 8 during the second quarter.
As this measure is calculated on the federal fiscal year
calendar, third quarter data is still unavailable.
Figure 4: STIP Projects Advertised per Quarter,
FFY2015 Q1 to FFY2015 Q4
target: 15%
FFY2015 Q1
advertised: 15%
target: 18%
DRAFT
The Customer Ride Satisfaction Index (CRSI) is an
indicator of pavement smoothness as measured by a
combination of lasers and accelerometers. Thresholds
classify roadway conditions as Excellent, Good, Fair,
or Poor and most closely align with the conditions a
customer experiences on the road.
4
FFY2015 Q2
advertised: 9%
target: 11%
FFY2015 Q3
target: 36%
FFY2015 Q4
0%
10%
20%
STIP Projects Advertisement Target
30%
40%
STIP Projects Advertised
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
Aeronautics Division
The Aeronautics Division regulates 36 of the 39 public
use general aviation airports, private use landing areas
and seaplane bases throughout the Commonwealth.
The Aeronautics Division certifies airports and heliports, licenses airport managers, conducts annual
airport inspections, and enforces safety and security
regulations.
Airport Inspections
The Aeronautics Division performs all airport inspections by calendar year as directed in the FAA contract.
A comprehensive airport inspection includes the following areas: paved and unpaved aprons, runways, taxiways, safety areas, markings and lighting, navigable
airspace, navigational aids, traffic and weather indicators, fueling operations, construction safety, wildlife
hazard management, airport operations, and compliance with MassDOT Aeronautics Regulations.
The Aeronautics Division did not conduct any airport
inspections in the months of January through March
2015 due to weather conditions. The Division will begin
airport inspections in the spring 2015 and complete all
36 by the end of the 2015 calendar year.
Figure 5: Airport Inspections Completed by FY2015 Q3
Airport Pavement Condition
Pavements represent one of the largest capital investments in the Massachusetts aviation system. The
condition of these pavements is important from both
cost-effectiveness and safety standpoints. Pavement
rehabilitation costs increase as conditions deteriorate.
Additionally, airport pavement weaknesses, such as
cracks and loose debris, pose a significant safety risk to
aircraft.
During evaluation, the types, severities, and amounts
of distress present on runway pavements are quantified. This information is used to develop a composite
index that represents the overall condition of the pavement, ranging from 0 (failed) to 100 (excellent). The
average PCI for all airports is adjusted to account for
the relative size of the pavement sections.
The current runway Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
in the Commonwealth’s airports is 70, within 5 points
of the 2018 target.
Figure 6: Pavement Condition Index in FY2015 Q3
70 PCI
75 PCI
Current rating
TTarget by 2018
(last measured in 2012)
Capital Budget Disbursement
DRAFT
0 of 36
Airport Inspections
Completed
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
The Aeronautics Division is on track to disburse 90%
of its capital budget by the end of the State Fiscal
Year.
28% of capital funds were disbursed by the third quarter of 2015. The pace of disbursement will increase as
the spring 2015 construction season begins.
5
Registry Division
Call center wait time
Figure 7: RMV Contact Center Performance by Quarter,
FY2014 Q4 to FY2015 Q3
Wait Time
(minutes)
Call center customer wait times1 have continued to
increase over the first three quarters of FY 2015,
while call volumes have simultaneously decreased.
Average call center wait times this quarter worsened
despite a decrease in the number of customer calls received. Looking at the data monthly, the average wait
times were quite variable this quarter: 14:02 in January; 21:05 in February; and 13:11 in March.
of call backs that successfully connected with customers also increased. Call center staff can more efficiently process customer requests when managed through
this system. OPM&I, in partnership with the RMV, will
continue to monitor this metric monthly to identify the
factors that will support this positive trend.
25
22
19
16
13
10
7
5
2
95,000
21:39
12:30
16:06
13:59
90,000
85,000
Virtual hold success rate
The number and percentage of successful calls completed through the Registry’s virtual hold program
increased over the course of the quarter.
The number of call center customers selecting virtual
hold call back option through virtual hold more than
doubled between February and March. The percentage
Volume of Virtual Hold Calls
The substantial increase in wait times in February –
80,000
which had a significant impact on the quarter’s average
75,000
wait time - was due to the extreme weather events
70,000
throughout the Commonwealth. Due to office closures,
82,919
91,100
79,413
76,723
65,000
the call center was open 16 days in February, compared
FY2014 Q4 FY2015 Q1 FY2015 Q2 FY2015 Q3
to the normal 19 days. The offices also experienced
Calls Received
Wait Time
four hours of system outages, which impacted productivity. Finally, on many days 20 to 30 percent of the
staff was unable to get to work due to transportation
challenges resulting from the storms. Summer interns
Figure 8: RMV Virtual Hold Success Rate by Month,
and the hiring of new staff are expected to reduce the FY2015 Q3
average wait time to under 10 minutes. OPM&I will
continue to monitor these results, and look closely at
84%
40,000
what is driving the increase in wait time, especially
35,000
Unsuccessful
given the decrease in call volume.
30,000
25,000
20,000
82%
Successful
82%
15,000
10,000
DRAFT
1
Call center wait time is measured from the point at
which the system receives the call to when it is routed to a customer service representative.
6
Calls Received
Call Center Efficiency
5,000
69%
70%
77%
-
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15
Same-Day Call Back
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15
Scheduled Appointment
Call-Back
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
Branch Efficiency
Applying tier-based wait time targets to the branches
shows great variability among facilities of all sizes.
The Registry’s 30 branch locations vary significantly in
staff size, customer volume, and in some cases, the
types of transactions they can process. Historically,
MassDOT has reported a statewide average customer
wait time.
There are many additional variables that impact the
amount of time a customer is required to wait to be
served. These include: the types of transactions that
customers are processing, employee availability, facility design and elements (e.g. number of counters,
dual workstations available, etc.), and the presence
of a Customer Advocate to triage and help customers
with paperwork. OPM&I will be studying these factors
closely, and determining how changes to these factors
could reduce wait times and improve the customer
experience.
To provide a more context-based picture of the branch
operations, the Registry and OPM&I developed a tiered
system for analyzing the branch wait times. Each
branch is assigned to one of three tiers, based on customer volume: Tier 1 branches serve more than 10,000
customers per month; Tier 2 branches serve more than
5,000 customers per month; and Tier 3 branches serve
less than 5,000 customers per month. The following
graphs show the wait times at individual branches,
grouped by tier and with their individual target.
Tier 1 Branches
Figure 9: Tier 1 Branch Average Wait Time by
Quarter, FY2014 Q4 to FY2015 Q3
43
28
20,000
29 min
16,000
target = 25 mins
21
12,000
14
8,000
07
4,000
00
FY2014 Q4 FY2015 Q1 FY2015 Q2 FY2015 Q3
Number of Customers
Average Wait Time
50
43
36
28
20,000
43
35
30
16,000
33
26
25
target = 25 mins
21
14
19
19
12,000
8,000
4,000
7
0
0
Number of Customers
31 min
Average Wait Time
(minutes)
Average Wait TIme
(minutes)
36
24,000
36 min
Number of Customers
36 min
Figure 10: Tier 1 Average Wait Time by Branch, FY2015 Q3
0
Target (25 mins)
Number of Customers
Average Wait Time
Target (25 mins)
DRAFT
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
7
Tier 2 Branches
12,000
36 min
36
10,000
29 min
27 min
28
8,000
target = 20 mins
21
6,000
14
4,000
07
2,000
00
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
Number of Customers
FY2015 Q2
12,000
40
26
23
10,000
34
34
28
29
25
28
8,000
20
6,000
target = 20 mins
4,000
16
2,000
0
0
FY2015 Q3
Average Wait Time
50
44
38
33
27
21
15
10
4
Number of Customers
40 min
Number of Customers
Average Wait TIme
(minutes)
43
Average Wait Time
(minutes)
Figure 12: Tier 2 Average Wait Time by Branch, FY2015 Q3
Figure 11: Tier 2 Branch Average Wait Time by
Quarter, FY2014 Q4 to FY2015 Q3
Number of Customers
Target (20 mins)
Average Wait Time
Target (20 mins)
Tier 3 Branches
Figure 14: Tier 3 Average Wait Time by Branch, FY2015 Q3
40
7,000
36
21
6,000
21 min
21 min
5,000
16 min
17
12
16 min
4,000
3,000
target = 10 mins
8
2,000
4
1,000
0
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
Number of Customers
FY2015 Q2
FY2015 Q3
Average Wait Time
Number of Customers
Average Wait TIme
(minutes)
25
Average Wait Time
(minutes)
35
6,000
30
24
25
15
15
10
19
19
20
11
07
08
5,000
4,000
3,000
09
target = 10 mins
05
2,000
5
1,000
0
0
0
Target (10 mins)
Number of Customers
Average Wait Time
DRAFT
8
23
Number of Customers
Figure 13: Tier 3 Branch Average Wait Time by
Quarter, FY2014 Q4 to FY2015 Q3
Target (10 mins)
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
Rail & Transit Division
Passenger Wait Time
Disruptions that cause delay in passenger wait times
include but are not limited to, mechanical failures,
medical emergencies, and customer injuries. Some
waits are also caused by factors such as increased
dwell time, slow operators, and early or late starts.
Passenger wait time performance1 declined significantly in February because of the winter weather’s
impact. This had a considerable impact on the average passenger wait time performance for the quarter.
Despite the drop in February to a monthly average of
70 percent, March on time performance rebounded to
87 percent.
The Orange Line’s passenger wait time performance
dropped to 72 percent in the third quarter.
100%
95%
≤ Scheduled Headway Time
80 percent of Red Line passenger trips in the third
quarter of this year were completed with a wait time
equal to, or less than, the scheduled headway (i.e.
passenger wait time).
Figure 15: Trips with Passenger Wait Time within
Scheduled Headway Time, by Quarter
95%
93%
92%
90%
85%
80%
Red
Line
Orange
Line
87%
86%
86%
85%
82%
80%
80%
80%
75%
72%
70%
This drop was a function of the winter’s severe storms,
and a monthly average of 60 percent in February. January and March’s performance were on par with previous
quarters, at 78 and 79 percent respectively.
65%
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
FY2015 Q2
FY2015 Q3
Figure 16: Trips with Passenger Wait Time within
Scheduled Headway Time, FY2015 Q3
This quarter the Blue Line’s passenger wait time peformance dropped to an average of 86 percent.
100%
≤ Scheduled Headway Time
95%
Consistent with the other subway lines, February’s
performance of 75 percent heavily impacted the performance. January and March averages were consistent
with previous quarters, at 91 and 93 percent respectively.
Blue
Line
90%
85%
80%
Blue
Line
91%
Red
Line
84%
Orange
Line
93%
87%
79%
78%
75%
DRAFT
1
The passenger wait time performance measure correlates Automated Fare Collection data and track circuitry data
to determine the percent of passengers trips that include a
platform wait time within the expected arrival of the next train.
Data presented in this document is the monthly amalgamation of
daily reports. The MBTA is leading the nation in using customer
wait times to track system performance.
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
75%
70%
70%
65%
60%
60%
55%
50%
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
9
On-Time Performance
The Silver Line and key bus route on time performance3 dropped marginally this quarter.
The commuter rail on time performance2 decreased
significantly this quarter, driven by a severe disruption in service due to the February storms.
The Silver Line and key bus routes had an average on
time performance of 69 percent during the third quarter.
This quarter’s on time performance dropped to an average of 65 percent.
The February storms also impacted bus routes, although not as severely they impacted the rail services.
February’s the monthly average dipped to 62 percent.
During the month of February, only 33 percent of trains
that ran were on time. In January and March, the on
time performance rates were 83 and 80 percent respectively.
Figure 17: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Commuter Rail by Quarter
89%
90%
86%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
65%
60%
Trips Completed on Time
75%
FY2015 Q1
FY2015 Q2
83%
33%
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
71%
69%
65%
FY2015 Q3
80%
72%
72%
70%
60%
FY2014 Q4
Figure 18: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Commuter Rail FY2015 Q3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Trips Completed on Time
80%
91%
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
FY2015 Q2
80%
78%
76%
74%
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
74%
72%
62%
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
DRAFT
2
On time performance for the commuter rail is measured
by the difference between the scheduled arrival time, and the
actual arrival time. Commuter rail trips are considered on time
if they leave their origin and arrive at their terminal point no
more than 04:59 minutes beyond their scheduled arrival time.
10
FY2015 Q3
Figure 20: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Silver Line and Key Bus Routes FY2015 Q3
Trips Completed on Time
Trips Completed on Time
95%
Figure 19: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Silver Line and Key Bus Routes by Quarter
3
Key bus and silver line trips are considered on time
if: the trip leaves its origin between 0 minutes before and 3
minutes after its scheduled departure time; the trip leaves the
mid-route timepoint(s) between 0 minutes before and 7 minutes
after its scheduled departure time; and, the trip arrives at its
destination timepoint between 3 minutes before and 5 minutes
after its scheduled arrival time.
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
On-time performance averaged 84 percent this quarter.
It was February’s performance of 73 percent that
brought this average down. January and March’s on
time performance were in line with previous months:
92 and 87 percent respectively.
Trips Completed on Time
Figure 21: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Paratransit by Quarter
95%
92%
93%
90%
90%
84%
85%
80%
75%
70%
FY2014 Q4
FY2015 Q1
FY2015 Q2
FY2015 Q3
Safety
Incidents of crime5 on the MBTA’s system decreased
slightly this past quarter.
Incidents of crime decreased for the second quarter in
a row, from 2.6 to 2.41 crimes per 1 million unlinked
trips.
Figure 23: Number of Part I Crimes per 1 Million Unlinked Trips
Number of Crimes per 1 Million
Unlinked Trips
On-time performance of the RIDE4 decreased significantly due to weather-related issues.
3.50
3.00
3.10
2.53
2.58
2.56
2.20
2.50
1.85
2.00
2.41
2.08
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
FY2013
Q4
FY2014
Q1
FY2014
Q2
FY2014
Q3
FY2014
Q4
FY2015
Q1
FY2015
Q2
FY2015
Q3
Figure 22: Percent of Trips Completed on Time,
Paratransit FY2015 Q3
Trips Completed on Time
95%
92%
90%
87%
85%
80%
73%
75%
70%
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
DRAFT
4
Paratransit on time performance is measured by how
promptly vehicles arrive at the starting point of each scheduled
trip. A trip is considered on time if this occurs within 15 minutes
of the scheduled reservation start.
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
5
The crime rate measures the number of Part 1 crimes,
per 1 million unlinked trips. Part 1 crimes are defined by the FBI
as: homicide, rape and attempted rape, robbery and attempted
robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and attempted burglary,
larceny and attempted larceny, vehicle theft and attempted
vehicle theft, and arson.
11
Division/Performance Measure
SFY2014
Total
SFY2015
Q1
SFY2015
Q2
SFY2015 Q3
(Current)
Reporting
Schedule
442
442
439
Quarterly
418
418
422
Quarterly
25
26
23
Quarterly
14
14
15
Quarterly
Highway Division
Reliably maintain and improve bridges in the Commonwealth
Number of structurally deficient bridges
452
Number of bridges posted for
weight restriction
Number of bridges closed
Percent of bridge deck area on structurally
deficient bridge (MAP-21 measure)
Reliably maintain and improve all MassDOT-owned pavement
PSI
66%
CSRI
82%
Responsibly manage highway project planning
Number of STIP projects advertised in the
Federal Fiscal Year
Average days from ad to Notice to Proceed
163
66%
83%
14
State FY
State FY
8
4
(to date)
205.4
(to date)
Maintain and improve reliability of system for customers
Increase the percentage of customers
76%
using EZ pass from the previous year
Maintain and improve safety of system for customers
Number of fatalities per 100 million
0.62
miles traveled
(2012)
Road safety audits conducted each year
64
(cumulative, based on calendar year)
76%
Federal FY
Calendar
Year
76%
79%
State FY
Federal FY
22
17
3
Quarterly
22
36
0
Quarterly
70%
70%
70%
Other
2
2
2
State FY
28%
Quarterly
Aeronautics Division
Reliably monitor conditions of each general use airport
Inspection of each general use airport
36
Reliably maintain and improve all airport pavement condition
Runway pavement condition
70%
Responsibly manage airport project planning and implementation
Number of projects under construction during
3
year
Disbursement of capital budget by end of SFY
92%
DRAFT
12
7%
22%
Volume 3
January 1 - March 31, 2015
Stephanie Pollack
Secretary & CEO
Division/Performance Measure
SFY2014
Total
SFY2015
Q1
SFY2015
Q2
SFY2015 Q3
(Current)
Reporting
Schedule
31:28
29:05
16:54
13:59
29:07
27:59
16:25
16:06
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
4,108
5,095
State FY
38,152
51,206
38,593
2,952
14,508
2,227
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
80%
72%
86%
65%
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
69%
Quarterly
84%
Quarterly
2.4
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Registry of Motor Vehicles Division
Improve the efficiency of the Branches and Call Center
Branch Wait Time - Tier 1
36:18
29:01
Branch Wait Time - Tier 2
36:42
(average)
Branch Wait Time - Tier 3
21:18
Call Center Wait Time
21:56
12:30
Maintain safety of the Commonwealth's school buses and inspection stations
Conduct public school bus inspection
26,816
8,845
Rail & Transit Division
Reliably operate equipment on the transit system (MMBF: mean miles between failures)
Red Line
56,584
48,354
60,172
Orange Line
41,986
42,813
41,731
Blue Line
56,986
41,633
53,655
Green Line
5,491
4,565
5,606
Bus
13,359
13,109
12,194
Commuter Rail
5,773
5,750
3,396
Provide reliable on-time performance of the transit system
Red Line Passenger Wait Time
86%
86%
85%
Orange Line Passenger Wait Time
82%
80%
80%
Blue Line Passenger Wait Time
93%
92%
93%
Commuter Rail On Time Performance
90%
89%
86%
Key Bus Routes & Silver Line On Time Perfor73%
71%
72%
mance
Paratransit On Time Performance
93%
93%
90%
Provide a safe and comfortable environment for customers of the transit system
Average rate of crime in transit locations
2.1
3.1
2.6
(per million unlinked passenger trips)
Operate an efficient and fiscally responsible transit system
Ridership on all lines (in thousands)
351,600
100,774
100,879
Farebox recovery
Maintain accessibility for all users
Elevator availability
Escalator availability
Maintain the efficiency of the customer service call
Commuter Rail Call Center Wait Time
MBTA customer inquiries closed within 5 days
31%
45%
42%
86,536
38%
99%
99%
center
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
Quarterly
Quarterly
0:52
89%
0:48
86%
0:59
84%
Quarterly
Quarterly
DRAFT
Office of Performance Management
& Innovation
87%
13