Contents. Appendix. Cost Model Structure. Tables

Transcription

1 Alternatives Analysis Alt ti A l i Technical Methodology Report: Operating and Cost Estimating and Results Prepared for: Washington County Regional Railroad Authority on behalf of the Gateway Corridor Commission Submitted by August 2012

2 Contents Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary... 1 Results Introduction Key Assumptions Methodology for Leveraging Previous AA Studies Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives Light Rail Transit Alternatives Commuter Rail Alternative Bus 2008 O&M Cost Estimate Roll Up Commuter Rail 2010 O&M Cost Estimate Roll Up Supply Variables by Mode by Alternative Summary O&M Cost Results Appendix A Tables Cost Model Structure ES O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative... 1 ES O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Key Anticipated BRT Variable Cost Drivers Cost Item Detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M Costs O&M Costs for Bus Operations O&M Costs for Commuter Rail Operations Supply Variables in Excess of the No-Build Scenario O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Figure 1 O&M Cost Based on Fixed Cost and Variable Cost Factor... 4 REVISED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT PAGE III

3 Executive Summary This technical memorandum summarizes the methodology for estimating operating and maintenance costs for the Gateway Corridor AA Study. Estimates of operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are an important part of the Federal Transit Administration s (FTA) New Starts planning projects. Annual O&M costs consist of ongoing costs to operate and maintain each Gateway Corridor alternative, including operating, maintaining, and managing a transit system. These costs typically consist of: Labor costs Fuel and electricity Parts and materials Non-labor operating costs to maintain support facilities (stations, bus stops, transit centers, maintenance facilities, etc.) Administrative costs, including labor, supplies, building operating, communications, etc. Insurance O&M costs for each alternative are compared against the Transportation System Management (TSM) baseline to determine each alternative s relative costs and benefits. Results Based on the assumptions and approach outlined in the previous sections, the estimated operating and maintenance costs in years 2020 and 2030 are shown in the tables below for each alternative. TABLE ES O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Alternative 1 (No Build) 2 (TSM) 3 (BRT) 4 (BRT) 5 (LRT) 6 (LRT) 7 (CR) 8 (BRT/ML) Bus $0.0 $5.8 $3.0 $3.0 $4.6 $5.1 ($0.3) $3.0 Light Rail $0.0 $11.5 $16.0 Commuter Rail $0.0 $33.3 Bus Rapid Transit $0.0 $8.5 $10.0 $7.8 TOTAL $0.0 $5.8 $11.5 $13.0 $16.0 $21.0 $33.0 $10.8 REVISED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT PAGE 1

4 TABLE ES O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Alternative 1 (No Build) 2 (TSM) 3 (BRT) 4 (BRT) 5 (LRT) 6 (LRT) 7 (CR) 8 (BRT/ML) Bus $0.0 $13.3 $8.6 $8.6 $12.5 $13.6 ($0.6) $8.6 Light Rail $0.0 $15.6 $21.8 Commuter Rail $0.0 $53.5 Bus Rapid Transit $0.0 $15.0 $18.1 $13.3 TOTAL $0.0 $13.3 $23.6 $26.7 $28.1 $35.4 $53.0 $ Introduction The alternatives considered in the Gateway AA would potentially affect O&M costs for Metro Transit (bus and rail). The FTA New Starts program requires an O&M cost analysis for the following two reasons: Cost Effectiveness Projection of design year O&M costs is a key input in determining the cost effectiveness of New Starts Projects. Financial Planning Annual O&M cost projections are key to developing financial plans that cover multiple years of construction and operation of New Starts projects. The FTA requires the development of a resource-driven, allocated cost model for O&M costing of New Starts projects. This means that specific costs are assigned to specific service characteristics (e.g., LRT operator costs are assigned to annual revenue LRThours). Costs for that item (e.g., LRT operators) are then determined by each alternative s service characteristics (e.g., annual revenue LRT-hours). According to FTA guidance (Chapter 4, Estimation of Operating and Maintenance Costs included in the Procedures and Technical Methods for Transit Project Planning Manual available on the FTA website at it is important that the cost model reflect the current operating characteristics of the transit agency. The most current operating statement is the best source of expense data for the current operations of the transit system since it includes line-item detail of the expenses for the management centers for different modes, including wages, salaries, materials and supplies, and fringe benefits. Another source of cost data is the National Transit Database (NTD) which is the FTA's primary database for statistics on the transit industry. Therefore a recently completed AA study within the Twin Cities Metropolitan region for the Bottineau Transitway, which contains detailed Metro Transit bus and LRT O&M costs, will be leveraged for estimating most costs for the Gateway AA. The Bottineau Transitway Operating and Maintenance Cost Methodology Memo (February 2009) was transmitted to the FTA, as was the follow-up Bottineau Transitway Operating and Maintenance Cost Report in January Receipt of both reports was acknowledged by the FTA. (Source: HCRRA Bottineau Corridor Project PAGE 2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

5 Manager, December 15, 2011). This technical memorandum describes how the results of the 2009 Bottineau AA study were leveraged and how the National Transit Database for 2010 Northstar Commuter Rail O&M costs was used to complete the Gateway AA O&M cost study. 2. Key Assumptions The cost structure, allocations, productivity factors and cost results of the 2009 Bottineau AA study are still valid. The bus service profile reflected in the Bottineau AA study operating costs is similar to those of the Gateway alternatives. The commuter rail service profile reflected in National Transit Database operating costs is similar to those of Gateway Alternative 7. Pre-2011 O&M costs were inflated to determine future year costs using a compounded annual escalation rate of 3.15 percent, as directed by Metro Transit for the Central Corridor LRT project on October 12, The relationship between O&M cost and its corresponding cost driver is linear. In other words, the equation O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) is applicable for all department expense line items. Examples of cost drivers include Annual Revenue Bus-Miles and Annual Revenue Train-Hours. Department expense line items include rail operator regular pay and garage building maintenance mechanics regular pay. Cost drivers for the Gateway no-build alternative (Alternative #1) are based on operational metrics for 2010 obtained from the National Transit Database The annual operating and maintenance cost estimates for the Gateway Corridor AA assume all service identified in the Metropolitan Council s 2030 regional transportation network is operational. A component of the Council s Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), the 2030 Transit Plan includes an assumed goal that transit ridership will double through a combination of improved bus service and the implementation of numerous transitways. The TPP assumes that several additional transitways could be built and operating as part of the regional transit system. These potential corridors include Cedar Avenue, I- 35W and Bottineau Boulevard BRT lines, Red Rock Commuter Rail, and Rush Line Commuter Rail lines. While several corridors are within the 2030 regional network, Bottineau, Rush Line and Red Rock are not part of the 2030 No Build system. Year 2021 will be considered the year of opening. O&M costs differentials with respect to the No-Build alternative for each alternative will be calculated for that year and for 10 years after, specifically Year Methodology for Leveraging Previous AA Studies The O&M Gateway Corridor cost estimates for bus and BRT alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, and 8) were built on the results of the 2009 Bottineau AA study. The analysis followed the steps listed below: Step 1: Start with the 2008 fixed and total variable O&M baseline costs by department expense line item from the Bottineau AA study. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE 3

6 Step 2: Identify the 2008 values for each cost driver (e.g., Annual Revenue Bus-Miles ). Step 3: Determine whether each expense line item is fixed or variable. For Year 2030 analysis, all costs become variable as suggested by the FTA 1. Step 4: Determine 2008 variable cost slope for each department expense line item (i.e., the slope in the O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) equation). The figure below conceptually illustrates how the O&M Cost line will be updated and used to calculate future O&M costs (dashed line) based on inflated 2008 costs (solid line). Fixed cost from 2009 Bottineau Transitway AA Study Typical O&M Cost ( Fixed + Variable) O&M Cost Based on Fixed Cost and Variable Cost Factor 2009 Bottineau Transitway Study Future Year Gateway Study total future year O&M cost is this total 2008 O&M cost is this O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) Increase in fixed cost from 2008 to future year Typical O&M Cost Driver For these O&M cost driver values Slope = Variable cost from 2009 Bottineau Transitway AA Study Updated Slope = Inflated variable cost for future year from 2009 Bottineau Transitway AA Study FIGURE 1 O&M Cost Based on Fixed Cost and Variable Cost Factor Step 5: Determine how the 2008 O&M costs apply to each of the Gateway alternatives under consideration. Step 6: Identify the key cost drivers and their values for each Gateway alternative. This will come from the forecasted service and operating statistics such as peak vehicles or revenue miles. Step 7: Identify O&M costs by alternative by using the applicable O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) equation by department expense line item. Step 8: Inflate fixed and total variable O&M costs to the years of comparison (2020 and 2030) by expense line item. 4. Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives The O&M cost estimates for the Bottineau AA Study alternatives were based on a resource build-up structure and based upon Metro Transit s bus and rail costs for the Central Corridor LRT project. In the Bottineau AA Study, BRT Bus, Stations and Busway/Bus Lane Maintenance O&M costs were derived from available Bus and Rail O&M costs by relating 1 Fully allocated operating cost analysis is based on the assumption that, in the long-term, all costs, including fixed administrative and overhead costs are variable and directly related to the quantity of service provided. This assumption is strongly supported by the cost experience of transit properties that have implemented new fixed guideway systems. PAGE 4 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

7 BRT Bus, BRT station costs results by making the following adjustments to known 2008 Metro Transit costs: BRT Buses. The Metro Transit bus O&M cost model used reflects a total of $78.1 million in expenses for Metro Transit bus maintenance and fuel. This figure accounts for adjustments to diesel fuel costs. Approximately 70.4 percent of this cost was assigned to annual revenue bus-miles as a cost driver, equating to a cost of $2.27 per annual revenue bus-mile. This portion of costs for bus maintenance was adjusted to account for possible unique features of BRT buses. Until more is known about those unique features, bus maintenance and fuel line item unit costs that are driven by bus-miles was increased by 25%, or $2.84 per annual revenue bus-mile therefore an additional $0.57 per revenue BRT bus-mile is added to reflect potential higher vehicle maintenance costs for unique BRT components on the bus and for possible higher fuel costs for larger BRT buses. BRT Stations. The Metro Transit O&M cost model does not specifically identify costs related to BRT station maintenance. However, the cost model does assign $1.1 million in LRT costs to LRT station maintenance, which equates to $64,763 per station. For Gateway, BRT station maintenance costs were estimated on the basis of this estimate. Until more is known about possible BRT station features, BRT station maintenance costs are assumed to be equivalent to costs assigned for Metro Transit LRT stations, or $64,763 a year per BRT station. Busway/Bus Lane Maintenance Costs. An additional $15,000 per lane mile was added for BRT alternatives, all of which include exclusive bus lanes. Shoulder Bus Lane Maintenance Costs. It is assumed that MnDOT will fund shoulder bus lane maintenance costs, as the agency does currently. Similar adjustments were made for the Gateway analysis and inflation is factored from 2008 to 2020 and Each Gateway BRT Alternative includes a detailed definition of the BRT service plan, which identifies the estimated BRT run time, and proposed service frequencies by time period and day of week. Vehicle requirements are based on required cycle times needed to accommodate proposed service frequencies, while still providing enough time to accommodate the estimated run times and required layover/recovery time. BRT bus frequencies will be adjusted if necessary based on a review of travel demand ridership forecast results (peak period line loads). The approach described here is also applicable to estimate O&M costs for the BRT/Managed Lane Alternative. The key anticipated BRT variable cost drivers are shown below. TABLE 1 Key Anticipated BRT Variable Cost Drivers Cost Drivers Bus Rapid Transit Peak BRT buses Annual Revenue Bus-miles Annual Revenue Bus-hours BRT stations OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE 5

8 5. Light Rail Transit Alternatives The O&M costs for LRT Gateway Corridor alternatives were not estimated using the Bottineau AA Study methodology. Rather, LRT alternative costs were based on guidance from Metro Transit O&M personnel during the ongoing coordination process, the method to calculate LRT O&M costs was modified from the methodology used to estimate costs for other modes. The updated methodology relies on annual Light Rail platform hours (72,216 hours in 2010) and annual O&M costs ($25.7 million in 2010) to develop an O&M per platform hour unit cost ($356 in O&M expenses per Light Rail platform hour). The calculated unit cost was then used to estimate LRT O&M costs for 2020 and 2030 using appropriate inflation factors and anticipated Light Rail platform hours for 2020 and 2030.Commuter Rail Alternative. 6. Commuter Rail Alternative O&M cost estimates for the commuter rail alternative were modeled on the actual performance of the Northstar commuter rail service, which is now operating in the Twin Cities. This cost model is broken down into the following five steps: Step 1: Assemble recent cost and operational data The cost and operations data were compiled from the 2010 National Transit Database. The main source of costs was the Operating Expense table which included salaries & wages, fringe benefits, service costs, fuel costs, tire costs, other material costs, utility costs, insurance costs, transit provider payments, miscellaneous expenses and transfer expenses. These costs were mapped to the categories Vehicle Operations, Vehicle Maintenance, Non-Vehicle Maintenance and General Administration. The costs shown on the NTD are based on actual Northstar Commuter Rail O&M costs. Step 2: Select key driving supply variables O&M costs are related to or are driven by different supply variables. These supply variables can be considered causal in that increases in the supply variables will drive increases in the related expense items. Step 3: Assign a key driving supply variable to each expense line item. The primary assumption of a fully allocated cost model is that expense line item is logically linked or driven by one of the key supply variables. For example, Mechanics Wages will be linked to a measure of revenue miles. The table below shows an example of the cost item detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M costs with cost items mapped to key supply variables. TABLE 2 Cost Item Detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M Costs Expense Line Item General Administration Annual Expense (2010) Cost Drivers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Peak Vehicles Operator Salaries & Wages $0 X Other Salaries & Wages $386,492 X PAGE 6 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

9 TABLE 2 Cost Item Detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M Costs Expense Line Item Annual Expense (2010) Cost Drivers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Peak Vehicles Fringe Benefits $259,263 X Service Costs $300,812 X Fuel Costs $0 X Tire Costs $0 X Other Material Costs $102,009 X Utility Costs $594,658 X Casualty Liability Costs $2,577,771 X Taxes $160 X Purchased Transportation Expenses Purchased Transportation Expenses (Separate) $495,590 X $0 X Miscellaneous Expenses $542,762 X Expense Transfers $1,694,540 X ADA Related Costs $0 X Non-Vehicle Maintenance Operator Salaries & Wages $0 X Other Salaries & Wages $202,090 X Fringe Benefits $135,564 X Service Costs $69,654 X Fuel Costs $0 X Tire Costs $0 X Other Material Costs $100,094 X Utility Costs $0 X Casualty Liability Costs $13,797 X Taxes $0 X Purchased Transportation Expenses $1,357,922 Purchased Transportation Expenses (Separate) $0 X X Miscellaneous Expenses $0 X Expense Transfers $0 X OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE 7

10 TABLE 2 Cost Item Detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M Costs Expense Line Item Annual Expense (2010) Cost Drivers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Peak Vehicles ADA Related Costs $0 X Vehicle Maintenance Operator Salaries & Wages $0 X Other Salaries & Wages $1,357,883 X Fringe Benefits $910,882 X Service Costs $0 X Fuel Costs $17,556 X Tire Costs $0 X Other Material Costs $34,201 X Utility Costs $0 X Casualty Liability Costs $122,475 X Taxes $0 X Purchased Transportation Expenses $0 Purchased Transportation Expenses (Separate) $0 X X Miscellaneous Expenses $0 X Expense Transfers $0 X ADA Related Costs $0 X Vehicle Operations Operator Salaries & Wages $0 X Other Salaries & Wages $0 X Fringe Benefits $0 X Service Costs $47,121 X Fuel Costs $888,326 X Tire Costs $0 X Other Material Costs $893 X Utility Costs $0 X Casualty Liability Costs $0 X Taxes $0 X Purchased Transportation Expenses $3,378,700 X PAGE 8 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

11 TABLE 2 Cost Item Detail based on the Northstar Commuter Rail O&M Costs Expense Line Item Annual Expense (2010) Cost Drivers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Peak Vehicles Purchased Transportation Expenses (Separate) $0 X Miscellaneous Expenses $0 X Expense Transfers $0 X ADA Related Costs $0 X Step 4 Determine whether each expense line item is fixed or variable. For Year 2030 analysis, all costs become variable as suggested by the FTA 2. Step 5 Determine 2010 variable cost slope for each expense line item (i.e., the slope in the O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) equation). This is similar to the bus, light rail variable cost calculation described in Section 3, Step 3. Step 6 Apply the key cost drivers and their values for Gateway Alternative #7. This will come from the forecasted service and operating statistics such as vehicles available for maximum service and vehicle revenue miles. Step 7 Identify O&M costs for Alternative # 7by using the applicable O&M Cost = Fixed Cost + (Variable Cost) (Cost Driver) equation by expense line item. Step 8 Inflate fixed and total variable O&M costs to the years of comparison (2020 and 2030) by expense line item. Metro Transit is assumed to function as the operation and maintenance agency for commuter rail service in the Gateway Corridor. Actual train operations and track maintenance is assumed to be contracted to one of the applicable railroads: Union Pacific (UP), Canadian Pacific (CP) or Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). 7. Bus 2008 O&M Cost Estimate Roll Up The table below shows the 2008 O&M costs for bus operations that were used as the basis for estimates for Alternatives 3, 4, and 8. 2 Fully allocated operating cost analysis is based on the assumption that, in the long-term, all costs, including fixed administrative and overhead costs are variable and directly related to the quantity of service provided. This assumption is strongly supported by the cost experience of transit properties that have implemented new fixed guideway systems. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE 9

12 TABLE O&M Costs for Bus Operations PAGE 10 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

13 8. Commuter Rail 2010 O&M Cost Estimate Roll Up Alternatives Analysis The table below shows the 2010 O&M costs for commuter rail operations which are the basis for the O&M costs calculations for Gateway Alternative 7. TABLE O&M Costs for Commuter Rail Operations The O&M expense line items shown in the table above are defined as follows: Ada_Related_Amt: American with Disabilities Act related expenses Casuality_Liability_Amt: Casualty and liability expenses Expense_Transfer_Amt: Expense transfers Fringe_Benefit_Amt: Fringe benefits expenses Fuel_Lubricant_Amt: Fuel and lubricants expenses In_Report_Amt: Purchased Transportation In-Report expenses Misc_Expense_Amt: Miscellaneous expenses Op_Sal_Wage_Amt: Operators salaries and wages expenses Other_Mat_Sup_Amt: Other materials and supplies expenses Other_Sal_Wage_Amt: Other salaries and wages expenses Sep_Report_Amt: Purchased Transportation filing Separate Report expenses Service_Costs_Amt: Services expenses Tax_Amt: Taxes expenses Tire_Tube_Amt: Tire and tubes expenses Utility_Amt: Utilities expenses 9. Supply Variables by Mode by Alternative The table below summarizes the supply variables in excess of the No-Build scenario (Alternative 1) for each alternative for each mode. These supply variables drive costs for line items as described in Sections 3 through 6. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS

14 TABLE 5 Supply Variables in Excess of the No-Build Scenario PAGE 12 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

15 10. Summary O&M Cost Results Based on the assumptions and approach outlined in the previous sections, the estimated operating and maintenance costs for 2020 and 2030 are shown below. TABLE O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Alternative Bus $0.0 $5.8 $3.0 $3.0 $4.6 $5.1 ($0.3) $3.0 Light Rail $0.0 $11.5 $16.0 Commuter Rail $0.0 $33.3 Bus Rapid Transit $0.0 $8.5 $10.0 $7.8 TOTAL $0.0 $5.8 $11.5 $13.0 $16.0 $21.0 $33.0 $10.8 TABLE O&M Cost Estimates (in millions) in Excess of No-Build by Alternative Alternative Bus $0.0 $13.3 $8.6 $8.6 $12.5 $13.6 ($0.6) $8.6 Light Rail $0.0 $15.6 $21.8 Commuter Rail $0.0 $53.5 Bus Rapid Transit $0.0 $15.0 $18.1 $13.3 TOTAL $0.0 $13.3 $23.6 $26.7 $28.1 $35.4 $53.0 $21.9 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS

16 APPENDIX A COST MODEL STRUCTURE

17 Appendix A: Cost Model Structure Based on the analysis detailed in the 2009 Bottineau AA Study, the cost element structure identifies costs by category (e.g., labor, services, etc.) for cost centers. These cost centers were grouped into the following five functional areas: Executive, Administration, Engineering & Facilities, Bus Operations, and Rail Operations. In addition, two other cost centers were combined in the model and categorized as Indirect. The table below presents the grouping of Metro Transit Cost Centers used in the Gateway Corridor cost model. TABLE A-1 Grouping of Metro Transit Cost Centers Division/Department Function Grouping Department # Department Name 1. Executive Internal Audit Internal Audit Executive Executive/Office of Gen. Mgr AGM/Admin Grants Business Development Tax Base Admin AGM Bus Ops Workforce Diversity Police/Security Patrol Services Police Admin & Investig Police Training Safety Safety Facility & Asset Security Services 2. Administration Customer Relations Customer Relations Transit Information Center Transit Info. Center/Schedule Dist. Marketing Mktg., Mcs., Grfaphics & Mailroom Service Development Route & System Planning Service Analysis Service Scheduling Service Data Collection Finance Finance Admin Revenue Admin. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE A-1

18 TABLE A-1 Grouping of Metro Transit Cost Centers Division/Department Function Grouping Department # Department Name Budget Accounts Payable & Receivable Revenue/Ridership Analysis Sales Operations Revenue Collection Financial Reporting Money Counting Farebox Repair Payroll Central Stores Purchasing Purchasing Human Resources Human Resources Admin Staffing & Compensation Information Services Information Services 3. Engineering & Facilities Eng. & Fac. Admn Eng. & Fac. Admin. System Facilities Engineer System Facilities Engineer Garage Bldg. Maint Nicollet Bldg. Maint./Janitors Ruter Bldg. Maint./Janitors South Bldg. Maint./Janitors East Metro Bldg. Maint./Janitors Janitorial/Bldg. Maint. Floaters Other Facilities Maintenance Public Facilities Maint th Garage bldg. Maint./Janitors th Office Bldg. Maint./Janitors Policy Bldg. Maint./Janitors OSC (M&M) Bldg. Maint./Janitors Control Ctr. Bldg. Maint./Janitors Fac. Landscaping & Phone Admin Facilities Landscaping/Phone Admin. PAGE A-2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT

19 TABLE A-1 Grouping of Metro Transit Cost Centers Function Division/Department Grouping Department # Department Name 4. Bus Operations Bus Transp. Admin Bus Transp. Admin. Bus Transportation Operating Division (Garages) Nicollet Bus Transp Ruter Bus Transp Heywood Bus Transp South Bus Transp East Metro Bus Transp. District Street Supervision District Street Supervision Transit Control Center Transit Control Center Operator Instruct. & Dev Operator Instruction & Dev. Ctr. Bus Maintenance Parts Warranty Admin Bus Maint. Parts Warranty Admin. Maintenance Garage Divisions Nicollet Bus Maint Ruter Bus Maint Heywood Bus Maint South Bus Maint East Metro Bus Maint. Non-Rev. Vehicles Non-revenue vehicles Heavy Maint. Functions Unit Overhaul Brake Shop Body/Paint Shop Electronics Shop Risk Management Risk Mgmt. Admin. & Gen. Liability Workers Compensation 5. Rail Operations AGM Rail Operations AGM-Rail Operations Rail Transp. Admin Transp. Admin. of Rail Ops. Rail Operators Transp. Rail Operators HLRT Vehicle Maint HLRT Vehicle Maint. HLRT System Maintenance HLRT System Maint. Stores Stores Rail Ops. Rail Facility Maint. Admin Fac. Maint. Admin. of Rail Ops. Janitors Janitors Rail Ops OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY & RESULTS PAGE A-3

20 TABLE A-1 Grouping of Metro Transit Cost Centers Division/Department Function Grouping Department # Department Name Indirect Metro Transit Agency Indirect Services PAGE A-4 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATING METHODOLOGY REPORT