Page images
PDF
EPUB

8. Please explain the “de-programming" of $94 million from FY '75 in the Metro capital budget summary. (p. 1189)

9. Please submit a reconciliation of the Metro Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2 capital budget summary and statements 15 and 16 of the September Comptroller's report? (p. 1189)

10. Please explain why the Transition Quarter Funding of $26.7 million was included in FY '78 instead of FY '77. (Office of Budget 11/10/75 Revision Number 2) (p. 1190)

11. To date, only $286.6 million of the $476 million in "Highway Fund Transfer" have been transferred to the Authority. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the funds to be transferred and the funds already transferred. (Include Route, Base Amount, Dollar Escalation and Total) (pp. 1190, 1192)

12. When and under what conditions does the Authority expect to receive the second phase of Interstate Highway transfer funds which the District of Columbia is withholding? (p. 1193)

DOT POLICY

1. Please supply the average operating speed, the average headways, average expected trip lengths, average vehicle occupancy, fleet utilization, fares as seen for the rail system in 1972 and 1975. (p. 1271)

2. Please submit a summary of your inputs to the submission to the Washington Area phased implementation plan for improving efficiency of transit services under section (5) (d) (a) of the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974. (p. 1276)

ROHR

1. On May 29, the Transit Authority approved an advance to Rohr of $22.5 million to help assure timely delivery of the cars. Please detail the current status of the advance payment and provide the Committee with a reconciliation of the original delivery schedule with the currently anticipated schedule, and show the effect that the currently anticipated schedule will have on the liquidation of the advance. (p. 1283)

2. Will Rohr's current litigation with the BART system in anyway affect the delivery schedule? (p. 1294)

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS 1. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on regional taxes. (p. 1194)

2. Please provide any studies done by the Authority on driving disincentives, e.g., parking spaces, gasoline taxes, automobile excise taxes, etc. (p. 1267)

3. Submit a complete schedule of local payments, noting those that will require a bond issue or additional local legislation. Submit a legal opinion on whether the local jurisdictions are liable for operating deficits and capital costs if local funds have not been appropriated. (pp. 1200, 1229, 1294)

4. Land around a proposed Vienna subway stop was rezoned to increase its value as a means of cutting Fairfax County's financial obliga to Metro. What action has the Authority taken to assure this does not happen in the future? Please include a description of the process Metro uses in acquiring land. (p. 1268)

MARKETING AND THE MARKETING PLAN

1. Describe how the fare structure fits into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

2. Describe how special and charter services and services to special events and district areas fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1294)

3. Describe how promotions and promotional fares and material fit into the marketing plan. (pp. 1295, 1303)

4. Describe how services to distant areas, special events and population centers fit into the marketing plan. (p. 1296)

5. Submit a comparison of marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures before and after submission to the Director of Budget, Comptroller/General Manager, and Board. (p. 1296)

6. Provide a comparison of some of the larger transit systems (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles) marketing expenditures as a percentage of total expenditures and revenues and explain any material differences in marketing department structure. (pp. 1297, 1327)

7. Describe how media is selected for various promotions. (p. 1298)

8. Describe how specific marketing inputs such as survey data, ridership studies, idea generation, and implementing and reviewing plaus fit into the overall management structure. (p. 1298)

9. Describe how market and market potential are identified and how specific segments have been identified and penetrated in the past. (p. 1298)

10. Please submit documentation of the correlation between ridership changes and marketing efforts. (p. 1301)

11. How does the impact of national energy and transit policy figure as an input into future marketing plans? (p. 1302)

RIDERSHIP ESTIMATION

1. Please submit the results of the ridership count conducted during the week of November 15th and the actual percentage of increase over the same period last year. (p. 1313)

NOTE.- For the following, please exclude charter and special ridership and provide all figures for the period since public takeover, except where otherwise indicated.

2. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with total number of buses in the fleet indicated for each year. (p. 1346)

3. Please submit a total ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1316)

4. Please submit a base-day ridership, curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (pp. 1317, 1318)

5. Please submit a base-day ridership curve, by year, with yearly fare box revenues indicated. (p. 1348)

6. Please submit a total fare box revenue curve, by year, with number of buses indicated for each year. (p. 1348)

7. Please submit a base-day ridership as a percentage of total ridership curve, by year, excluding charter ridership. (p. 1319)

8. Please submit a farebox revenues from base-day ridership as a percentage of total fare box revenues curve, by year. (p). 1319)

9. Please submit a total ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (pp. 1319, 1351-1351)

10. Please submit a base-day ridership curve for the five years prior to takeover. (p. 1319)

11. Please submit a base-day ridership curve as a percentage of total ridership for the five years prior to takeover. (p. 1349)

12. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in base-day ridership, by year, since 1988. (p. 1319)

13. Please submit a curve indicating percent increase in total ridership, hy year, since 1968. (pp. 1349, 1351-1354)

14. Please show the effect of the revised fare system both on total revenues and on total ridership. Show by week for the three month period from the beginning of the program. (p. 13.50)

15. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fare increased, by month and week since the program began. (p. 1355 )

16. Please indicate ridership trends in areas where fares decreased, by month and week since the program began. (p. 1355 )

1974 NET INCOME ANALYSIS 1. Please submit the complete revised 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 1639)

2. Please submit a list of the total amount of the established parking spaces available for each year since 1969, broken down by station. (This was agreed to by Mr. Herman in a November 17th meeting with Subcommittee staff.) (pp. 1356, 1448)

3. Please quantify the effects which the deletion of 1-95, North Central Free way, and Three Sisters Bridge from the assumptions produced in the ridership estimates included in the 1974 Net Income Analysis. (p. 13:57)

4. Please comment on the changes in the demand for bus and rail transit and the ridership effects of long-term land use patterns these deletions might cause. (p. 1358)

5. Please detail the change in assumptions from the 1971 Net Income Analy. sis to the 1974 Net Income Analysis concerning land use and long-term growth patterns. (p. 1357)

6. The Congressional Budget Office (1976 Budget : Alternatives and Analyses, April 15, 1975) suggested that Metro's ridership estimate may be 15% too high. Please submit your comment on the CBO analysis in general and this point in particular. (p. 1359)

7. How much of the seven percent ridership increase would you attribute to the 600 new buses, and the increased size of the fleet. (p. 1360)

GAO HEABING 1. Submit for the record your analysis of the costs of dividing bus and rail management, along with other documents submitted to the board regarding this recommendation. (p. 1459)

2. Submit for the record the articles and memorandum submitted to the board regarding the organizational position of the internal auditor. (p. 1451)

3. Submit for the record the Ernst and Ernst audit report of April 30, 1969, regarding the organization and operation of the internal audit function. (p. 1454)

4. Submit for the record your reconciliation of the problem in reconciling individual contract costs with the total cost noted on page 7 of the GAO's Maç S, 1975 report to Senator Byrd. (p. 1461)

5. Please reconcile for the record data for internally generated funds in Four Sorember 10, 1975 Revision Sumber 2 with the data presented in the GAO's statement on November 18, 1975. (p. 1530)

6. Please submit for the record the Bechtel test plan of October 27, 1975. Also submit a summary of the tests performed since March 22, 1975. (p. 1531)

7. Please submit for the record an analysis of possible increases in cost or further delays in the delivery of cars from Rohr industries. (p. 1567)

8. On November 5, 1970), Metro testified that specifications for the cars must be met before shipment (p. 36 lines 22–24 of unedited transcripts) and on November 18, 1975 the G10 testified that Metro allowed shipments with known defects. Please reconcile these statements for the record. (p. 1566)

9. Please submit for the record a detailed schedule of safety related tests of the subway system and its components (cars, ATC, etc.). (p. 1567)

10. On November 18, 1975, General Graham stated that: “There is not a single case in established transit property where these functions (bus and rail management) have been separated organizationally.” (p. 187. lines 2-3) (p. 1460)

However, the Cresap report. Appendix A notes that:

(1) Toronto has a General Manager of Subway ('onstruction and a General Manager of Operations reporting to their Board. They operate 1.311 buses and 959 rail cars, and are constructing additional subway.

(2) Pittsburgh has a Director of Construction and Development, and a Director of Transit Operations reporting to the Executive Director. They operate 915 buses and 95 rail cars.

(3) Philadelphia (SEPTA) has an Assistant General Manager Transit Operations, Assistant General Manager Railroad Operations, and an Assistant General Manager Planning and Development. They operate 1,500 buses and 1,150 rail cars.

Please reconcile for the record the General Manager's statement with these facts, (p. 1460)

11. In the May 8th report to Senator Byrd the GAO identified possible increases and decreases on various route realignment possibilities. Please provide a de. scription of the current status of these routes and your latest estimates of the possible cost consequences of the rarious locations possibilities now under consideration. (p. 1615)

12. The GAO has noted that the Authority's schedule for beginning of serp. ice on the various system phases does not allow for “any time for delays due to lawsuits, strikes, and adverse weather". Please describe how this has been changed in the Authority's current startup estimates. (p. 1622)

13. In the lay Sth report to Senator Byrd the GAO discussed (on p. 20 to 21) sereral specific contract cost orerruns. Were these reflected in the $139.9 mil. lion increase noted in the Angust, 1975 Office of Program control report? (p. 1623)

14. Are there now any delays or cost overruns which the staff foresees but which have not been publicly reported? If so, please submit a description of these for the record. (p. 1624)

.

Staff summary of cost changes from GAO report to Senator Byrd

Billion Metro estimate..

$4, 453 Contingency allowance ?

. 414 Route realignments

.273 Revised inflation..

489 Estimate Cost overruns under contract.

2

. 184

Subtotal (July 7, 1975).

5. 813

5

Report"

Total cost (this is not the maximum possible cost).

. 312 6. 125

1 This was developed by the GAO by studying past contracts and determining and applying appropriate contingency factors by type of contract. . The report notes costs from route realignment as follows:

Million B-Route

- $20 E-Route

+227 F-Route

+ 69.5 J- & M-Route

- 3.5 K-Route**

Total

273.0 *Undetermined further increases for right-of-way and bridge costs since 1-95 is cancelled in Maryland.

**Undetermined increase due to uncertainty over 1-66 land rights and construction. (Minimum dally inflation delay is $37,500/day.)

3 Based on GAO comparison of WMATA rates with other estimates.
* Contracts let at more than estimates.
5 Obtained by rising design estimates for fiscal year 1976 program.

TABLE IV.-OPERATING DEFICITS, POSSIBLE INCREASES FROM METRO PROJECTIONS

fin millions)

[blocks in formation]

1 Neither of these items has yet been approved by UMTA. In testimony before this committee on Nov. 5, 1975, General Graham admitted that these funds may not be available.

? Given that 85 percent of system operating costs are labor and fuel, a 10 percent underestimation in these volatile commodities is not unlikely. Also the rail costs, with no past experience as a basis for forecasting, are even more vulnerable to fluctuation. The 10 percent allowance also parallels BART's early experience.

3 The Congressional Budget Office noted in the “1976 Budget: Alternatives and Analyses" that a 15 percent variation in system revenue was likely based on their analysis of population trends.

Note: This amount is not the maximum deficit conceivable. Fares could be lower, risership lower, or cost higher. Further, no attempt is made to allow for interactions between costs.

November 18, 1975 Request
Page 1

Questions 1 - 4.

Questions I through 4 deal with.cost estimates by contract.

This information is currently being developed in line with the new

GAO reporting system, the so called Defense Selected Acquisition
Report (SAR). The report will be completed in January and will

be forwarded to the Committee at that time.

62-418 0 - 76 - Pt. 2 - 2

« PreviousContinue »