Appendixes to TCRP Report 135: Controlling System Costs: Basic and Advanced Scheduling Manuals and Contemporary Issues in Transit Scheduling (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-1 Transit Cooperative Research Program Project A-29 Controlling System Costs: Basic and Advanced Scheduling Manuals and Contemporary Issues in Transit Scheduling Appendix B Transit Agency Survey Results B.1 Introduction and Methodology The Transit Agency Survey, undertaken as a Phase I task of TCRP Project A-29, was developed as a tool for understanding the state of the practice in scheduling at transit properties of different sizes, for identifying the challenges facing transit operators as they schedule their system, and to assist in identifying agencies for detailed case study analysis in Phase II of the project. The survey, provided in the final section, included nearly 200 questions organized in topic groups, including general scheduling issues, organization, schedule writing, running time and layover, blocking, runcutting, rostering, and computerized scheduling. Survey results will guide the team as it designs a scheduling manual to address basic and advanced scheduling techniques and to shed light on contemporary scheduling issues. A total of 60 agencies were included in the survey sample, including: ƒ 15 small agencies with fewer than 100 peak vehicles in service; ƒ 19 medium agencies with 100 to 500 peak vehicles in service; ƒ 21 large agencies with over 500 peak vehicles in service TCRP panel members reviewed preliminary lists of agencies and recommended additions to ensure a representative sample across several key criteria including agency size, operational complexity, computerized/manual methods, and a range of scheduling approaches & issues. Team members sent emails to each agency in the sample describing the project, soliciting participation, and asking for the most appropriate contact at each agency. The team also prepared a brief article for Passenger Transport encouraging participation by agencies not included in the sample, but due to space considerations, the article never appeared. The majority of respondents elected to complete the survey on-line using the webpage established on the “Survey Monkey” website for this purpose. Alternate formats (electronic or hard copy) were available upon request. Daily tallies of completions were compiled, and agencies that had not yet completed the survey received at least two personal phone calls and/or e-mails requesting that they complete the survey. Where necessary, substitutions were made to ensure that a well-balanced response could be maintained. The survey period began on Monday, February 5, 2007 and was officially closed on Friday, March 30, 2007. Of the 60 agencies that were contacted about the survey, 51 fully completed the survey (85 percent). Another four agencies partially completed the survey, and the remaining five did not respond to the survey. Three of the five non-responding agencies were in the midst of organizational changes. Overall, 55 of the 60 agencies in the sample (92 percent) provided at least a partial response, reflecting a very high level of interest in this topic.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-2 Each section of this report presents survey results related to a specific topic area. Results are generally summarized by agency size. Topic areas include: • General scheduling practices • Schedule writing • Running time and layover/recovery time • Blocking • Run cutting • Rostering • Computerized scheduling • Organization and training • Other issues Among all the information provided by transit agencies in this survey, responses regarding constraints that limit a scheduler’s ability to produce efficient schedules are essential in deepening our understanding of how scheduling functions in the real world and enabling us to provide useful guidance in the new manual. Constraints take the form of contract rules, past practices, insufficient training or resources, and reluctance to explore new techniques. Constraints and factors affecting each element of scheduling are included in the following sections. The final section of this report (“Toward the Manual”) presents agency issues and needs as reported on the survey and also summarizes all survey results in terms of aspects of scheduling that will require particular attention in the manual.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-3 B.2 General Scheduling Practices Participating transit agencies were asked to rank the primary reasons that they revise their schedules. Service changes are the primary reason for revising schedules. The second most common motivation for updating schedules was ridership growth for both large and small operators, and bid requirements for the medium sized agencies. Labor agreement changes were among the least common reasons for updating schedules Q11. Please rank from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important) the following as driving forces causing the need to update schedules blocks and runs Small Agencies Service changes 1.43 Most Important Labor agreement changes 4.71 6th Regular bid requirements 3.62 5th Budget issues 3.29 3rd Ridership growth 2.79 2nd Other 3.40 4th Medium Sized Agencies Service changes 1.39 Most Important Labor agreement changes 4.53 5th Regular bid requirements 2.88 2nd Budget issues 3.28 4th Ridership growth 3.22 3rd Other 5.00 6th Large Agencies Service changes 1.62 Most Important Labor agreement changes 4.90 6th Regular bid requirements 3.15 3rd Budget issues 3.33 4th Ridership growth 2.62 2nd Other 3.90 5th

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-4 With service changes being a primary reason for updating schedules, agencies were asked how much of their service changes in any given year. Almost half the agencies surveyed indicated that no more than one-quarter of their routes undergo service changes in any given year. This implies that on average routes are being addressed every four years. Small agencies reported fewer service changes. Q14. Typically, what percentage of your agency's routes have service changes in any given year? 0 2 4 6 8 10 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-5 Most agencies indicated that the schedule creation process takes six months or less from concept to implementation. Agencies that reported a longer time frame were most often large agencies with either more complex schedules or procedures that lengthened the bid process. A cross-tabulation of length of the schedule creation process versus computerized/non- computerized scheduling was unrevealing, in part because almost all medium and large agencies in the sample use a computerized package. Q15. How long does the schedule creation process typically take, from concept through to implementation? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1 month or less 2-6 months 7-12 months 1-2 years Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-6 Although nearly all agencies operate and schedule both fixed route and paratransit service, these services are being scheduled separately, particularly at larger agencies. Almost 90 percent of respondents indicated that there is no relationship between fixed-route and paratransit scheduling. However, five of the 14 small agencies responded that they share vehicles, pulse for transfers, or occasionally roster paratransit and fixed route services together. Q13. What is the relationship between fixed-route and paratransit scheduling? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 None Pulsing for transfers Shared resources (drivers/vehicles) Occasionally rostered together Use same software Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-7 Union review and approval is required at approximately one- third of responding agencies. The percentage was slightly higher (38 percent) for larger agencies where union representation is much more likely. Q16. Is union review and approval required before new schedules can be implemented? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large Mid-pick changes present difficulties for many transit agencies. 23 percent of respondents must have a new pick in order to enact mid-pick schedule changes, and an additional 12 percent can only change drivers’ schedules by a set amount or else a new pick is required. Larger systems tend to have less flexibility make changes - half of the small agencies can make changes as needed, while only about one-third of medium and large agencies can do so. 18. If bids/service change dates are fixed, what is the process for making ad-hoc scheduling changes between picks? Small Medium Large Total Percent Done as-needed 5 5 6 16 37% Agreement with Operator/Union 1 2 3 6 14% Must not affect work picked 1 1 2% Can only change a set amount of minutes 3 2 5 12% Cannot be done 0 0% Only in exceptional circumstances 1 1 2% New pick 4 3 3 10 23% Use extraboard or trippers 2 2 4 9% Performed in field 1 1 2% Changes must go to executive staff or Board 1 1 2% 43 100%

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-8 Most agencies reported that exception scheduling does not account for a significant portion of the scheduling department’s workload. Results are mixed for medium and large agencies, which are much more likely than smaller agencies to be involved in exception scheduling. Two- thirds of the scheduling departments that answered “yes” to this question reported that exception scheduling accounts for 30 percent or less of their time. However, two agencies (both of which operate rail service) indicated that exception scheduling accounts for over half of the scheduling department’s time. Q19. Does "exception" scheduling (i.e. preparation of temporary schedules to account for special events street closures track work or other disruptive events) account for a significant ongoing portion of the scheduling department's workload? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-9 As noted in the introduction, survey responses regarding constraints that limit the efficiency of schedules are especially important. All large agencies and a majority of small and medium- sized agencies reported some unusually restrictive rules or practices. The most frequent responses included spread time limits, layover and recovery requirements, and meal break requirements. A wide variety of rules and practices were cited, as seen below. 17. Are there any unusually restrictive rules or practices at your agency? Category Small Medium Large Total % Spread limitations 2 4 1 7 16% Layover/recovery requirements 1 4 5 11% Meal break requirement 2 1 2 5 11% Midpick changes restrictive 1 3 4 9% Straight run – percentage 3 3 7% Interline limitations 1 1 2 5% Overtime 1 1 2 5% Part time operator limitations 2 2 5% Relief limitations - not after certain time 1 1 2 5% Spread penalty 2 2 5% Board Approval 1 1 2% Budget 1 1 2% Constraint on number of runs created or reduced 1 1 2% Driver garage assignments - can't move unless route moves 1 1 2% Hour guarantee per week 1 1 2% Maximum number of lines per run 1 1 2% Number of bids 1 1 2% Preservation of union trippers 1 1 2% Runcutting practices 1 1 2% Swing shift limitations 1 1 2% 9 14 21 44 Another question asked about mode-specific scheduling practices and constraints. Rail-related responses are presented later in the rail section. Bus responses included several already mentioned, such as break requirements, limits on interlining, and other contract restrictions. Other considerations were reported, including: • Vehicle size and type, which restrict interlining opportunities • Meal break scheduling that results in almost half of all operators being on meal break at the same time; • No road reliefs allowed; • A transfer center with ten bus bays and 23 routes; • Sharing vehicles between paratransit and fixed route services.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-10 When asked to prioritize in terms of practices the agency would change if it could, 24 percent cited spread time limitations, 24 percent named break requirements, and 22 percent would change split run limitations. Restrictions on the use of part-time operators (PTOs) and daily overtime requirements were also mentioned by several respondents. Concerns over break requirements were common regardless of agency size, while split run limitations concerned larger agencies, spread time limitations and restrictions on PTOs were most common among medium and large agencies, and daily overtime was a concern of small and medium agencies. 22. Which parts of the labor agreement or scheduling practices have the greatest impact on overall scheduling efficiencies? Put another way, what would you change if you could? Small Medium Large Total % Break requirement 4 3 4 11 24% Daily overtime 2 4 1 7 16% Days off 3 1 4 9% Extraboard rules 1 1 2% Forced headways 1 1 2% Hours requirement 1 1 3 5 11% Interlining limitations 1 1 2 4% Layover/recovery requirement 1 4 5 11% Mid-pick change restrictions 1 1 2% Number of lines per run 1 1 2% Number of picks 2 2 4% Part time operator limitations 1 3 5 9 20% Pay types 1 1 2% Pulse timing 1 1 2% Run type percentage 1 1 2% Spread limitations 1 4 6 11 24% Straight run - percentage 2 1 7 10 22% Swing run limitations 1 1 2% Straight run & split run must have same line of origin 1 1 2% Runs not funded by federal or state money must be given to union drivers 1 1 2% 45

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-11 One survey question asked about innovative or alternative approaches to scheduling that might be of interest to other systems. Several respondents were uncertain whether particular aspects of their scheduling qualified as innovative, but shared them with us nonetheless. The most interesting feature of the responses is their wide range. 12. Does your agency use any innovative or alternative approaches to scheduling that may be of interest to other systems? Small Medium Large Total % Use Computer Program 1 1 4 6 22% Interlining 1 2 4 7 26% Running time information available/ uploaded directly from AVL to scheduling program 1 1 2 7% Use of part-time operators (avoid long splits) 1 1 2 7% Flex routing in smaller communities 1 1 4% Keep schedule tight at beginning of route; add more time at end to avoid running hot 1 1 4% Considering fallback operators for breaks 1 1 4% Variable shift lengths (8, 9, and 10 hr shifts) 1 1 4% Use dayoffcalculator.com 1 1 4% Trip scoring system to rate costs and passenger volume 1 1 4% Decentralized schedule function 1 1 4% Mix assignments to reduce overtime 1 1 4% Intermediate timepoint on BRT line to control bus flow 1 1 4% Roster AM and PM trippers in combinations for PTOs to maximize platform time 1 1 4% Hub and spoke route network 1 1 4% 'Shift' individual trips a predetermined number of minutes early or late to reduce vehicle requirements and costs 1 1 4% Global optimization of garage assignments 1 1 4% Use of school bus operators for extraboard and vacation relief 1 1 4% Special holiday schedules 1 1 4% Involve all departments (customer service, operators, shop stewards, ops supervisors) 1 1 4% Each scheduler performs all tasks (data analysis, schedule building, run cutting) 1 1 4% Data collection from new developments, passengers, operators, and planning 1 1 4% 8 10 11 27

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-12 B.3 Schedule Writing Workload and historical requirements typically determine manpower needs for scheduling departments. Q33. How are manpower requirements for the scheduling department determined? Small Medium Large Total % Workload 8 6 5 19 39% Historical 3 6 9 18% No determination 3 3 1 7 14% Budget 1 1 2 4 8% Per division basis 4 4 8% Revenue hours 1 1 1 3 6% Management 1 1 2 4% Human resources 1 1 2% Experience 1 1 2% Number of routes 1 1 2% System growth 1 1 2% 49

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-13 Most agencies adjust their schedules as needed. Almost half (45 percent) review and adjust schedules at set intervals (quarterly, annually, or every two years), and many of these agencies report that they also make adjustments as needed. Seasonal changes are usually related to the school year, and may not involve a new schedule, e.g., if nothing has changed on the route, last summer’s schedule may be dusted off and used. Q52. How often are schedules adjusted on a typical route (aside from running time changes)? For the purposes of this question an adjustment is anything more than moving trips by a minute or two. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Quarterly Seasonally Annually Every two years As needed Has not been done in over 2 years Small Medium Large The process of new schedule development is different from agency to agency, but generally follows this path: 1. Schedulers and/or planners review and analyze ridership and running time data and prepare a new service plan (outside input may come from the public, operators, supervisors, and the union) 2. Senior management, the public and/or the board reviews the service plan 3. Schedulers block trips 4. Schedulers cut runs 5. Schedulers roster 6. Senior management reviews and approves the schedule (the union may also review and/or approve) 7. The agency implements the new schedule.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-14 Most agencies (85 percent) have documented service standards that are used in the development of service plans (step one). Small agencies are somewhat less likely to have service standards (77 percent, versus 83 percent of medium and 91 percent of large agencies). Q56. Does your agency have documented service standards? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Yes No Small Medium Large Service standards are usually oriented toward productivity (e.g., riders per revenue hour) or peak load factor (passengers on board per trip at the peak load point). Agencies use either APC or ridecheck data in the application of the service standards, and also take the capacity of the vehicle into consideration. One agency has its load factor dictated by judicial fiat.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-15 Agencies frequently use multiple means to determine service frequency on a given route. Agency policies may call for either clockface headways or a minimum frequency regardless of demand. Budgetary considerations are always a consideration, but perhaps do not rank as highly as might have been expected. Application of service guidelines is common. An ad hoc approach, depending on the route and its history, may also be used. Each of these four factors was cited by at least half of all survey respondents. Q54. How are headways/frequencies determined? 0 5 10 15 20 25 Application of service guidelines Policy headways Ad hoc, depending on the route and its history Budgetary considerations Other Small Medium Large In the typical process for schedule development cited above, schedulers are given desired routing and service levels. It is not clear whether schedulers have the opportunity to provide feedback regarding inefficiencies resulting from a specified frequency of service on a particular route. Closing the loop through scheduler feedback is critical, because service frequency is a major factor influencing the number of operators/vehicles and cost required for a given route.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-16 Clockface headways are considered important at approximately two-thirds of responding agencies. The percentage was much higher at small agencies (82%) where service is likely to be less frequent. In a follow-up question, the frequency at which clockface headways are unnecessary was cited at six to 10 minutes or less by over half of all respondents and at 12 to 15 minutes or less by an additional one-quarter of respondents. Q59. Are clockface headways considered important at your agency? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large Communicating schedule information to the public is important. The majority of agencies (75 percent) provide times at all published timepoints, and another 20 percent provide either times or general headways, depending on the frequency of service. The remaining agencies publish only general headways. Approximately 30 percent of all agencies produce and publish timetables for each stop, to be posted at the stop. Large agencies are somewhat more likely to take this approach (45 percent of large agencies). Times between timepoints are most often extrapolated by distance, by average system speed, or by a software package. The remainder of this section presents results regarding other factors that affect schedule writing, such as different types of service, timed transfers, school open/closed, intertiming along trunk segments, and effects on other elements of scheduling. Over 80 percent of all respondents operate express, limited-stop, or skip-stop service. These services are very common among medium and large agencies, but the majority of small agencies (63 percent) do not operate these services. Over two-thirds of agencies reported no difference in how schedules are prepared for express service other than faster run times. Differences reported by other agencies included free running time once the bus was on the highway, demand-based schedules, different service standards, and the need to build express schedules around employer shift times.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-17 Timed transfers are an established feature of transit systems: 73 percent of respondents report the use of timed transfers. Among agencies that use timed transfers, almost three-quarters indicated that intermodal as well as bus-to-bus transfers are timed. Q66. Does your agency operate timed transfer locations either bus or multimodal? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-18 Agencies tend to have either a low or high percentage of routes with at least one timed transfer. This indicates an “all or nothing” approach to timed transfers, i.e., it is either an overarching agency policy or it is done on a minimal or location-specific basis. At 29 percent of all agencies responding, over 90 percent of their routes have at least one timed transfer. Two-thirds of small agencies indicated that over 90 percent of their routes have timed transfers. Typically, small agencies have a radial structure with a single hub in downtown. At the other extreme, 21% of agencies reported that only ten percent of their routes or less have a timed transfer. Large agencies, with higher service frequencies and a denser service network, were less likely to have a high percentage of routes with timed transfers. Q69. Approximately what percentage of routes haave at least one timed transfer? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100% Small Medium Large A central issue for schedulers regarding timed transfers is the size of the transfer window at timed transfer locations. The overwhelming majority of respondents (93 percent) reported a window of five minutes or less, with 68 percent of respondents specifying five minutes as the window. Interestingly, there does not appear to be variation to allow for walking distance between stops at transfer locations or time-of-day-specific reliability. Rather it is all built in to the generic 5-minute window. Some agencies reported that drivers are instructed to wait at transfer locations via paddle notes; this is more common in the evening or on the last trip (where headways are longer and reliable connections more critical). The window for intermodal transfers was shorter than for bus-to-bus transfers at three agencies and longer at two agencies. Finally, two agencies indicated a policy of splitting the headway at transfer points (either bus-bus or bus-light rail) to avoid holding buses, ensure that the transfer can take place if the bus is late, and minimize waiting time for passengers. This approach assumes reasonably frequent service levels.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-19 Over two-thirds of agencies operate school day only trips, ranging from 38 percent of small agencies to 90 percent of large agencies. Most of the agencies operating school-day service (72 percent) adjust blocks and runs on non-school days. This can have significant implications on the complexity and volume of scheduling undertaken at an agency. Q71. Does your agency operate school-day only trips? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-20 Nearly 70 percent of respondents reported that they intertime multiple routes operating in a single corridor. The most common reason not to intertime routes is if a timed transfer is involved at one end of or along the corridor. This may explain why the majority of small systems do not intertime routes. Q73. Where multiple routes operate over a common corridor are those routes intertimed? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes No Small Medium Large Consideration of subsequent scheduling tasks is very common in writing schedules. Almost 90 percent of respondents indicate that schedules are written to ensure that they can be linked effectively into blocks. This represents sound scheduling practice.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-21 Survey responses regarding constraints and other influencing factors on various aspects of scheduling are especially important. Agencies most often reported demand, timed transfers, class times, budget, and vehicle capacity as factors affecting headway and schedule development. Several other factors also drew attention. 58. Please describe any other factors that influence headway and schedule development. Small Medium Large Total % Class/bell times 2 1 3 6 18% Clockface headways 2 2 6% Coverage 1 1 3% Cycle time 1 1 1 3 9% Demand 2 1 4 7 21% Driver Comment 1 1 3% Density 1 1 3% Community input 1 1 2 6% Governing body 1 1 3% Timed transfers 2 3 2 7 21% Budget 3 1 4 12% Fleet availability 2 1 3 9% Personnel constraints 1 1 3% Season 1 1 2 6% Vehicle capacity 2 1 1 4 12% Demographics 2 1 3 9% Funding source 1 1 3% Traffic 1 1 2 6% 34

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-22 B.4 Running Time and Layover/Recovery Time Running Time One of the principal challenges that a scheduler faces is to establish “optimal” running times on route segments. Survey results indicate that almost 80 percent of responding agencies use simple running time averages, often leavened with professional judgment. Large agencies are much more likely than others to use percentiles in calculating running time. For example, one agency‘s goal is that 65 percent of trips arrive on time for the next trip and be entitled to the full layover/recovery time and 90 percent arrive on time for their next trip. Driver comments and union negotiation were mentioned as factors by one-quarter of respondents, but a follow-up question revealed that operators have the opportunity to participate in the process used to determine running times at 86 percent of responding agencies (over 90 percent of small and large agencies, 78 percent of medium agencies). Despite exponential increases in data availability and processing power, running time analysis methods still tend to be simple. Some reasons for this are discussed later in the section, but running time analysis is an important area to address in the scheduling manual. Q79. Describe, in summary form, your agency's approach to calculating appropriate running times (e.g., use of averages, a certain percentile, professional judgement, negotiation with unions). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Driver comment Negotiated with union Percentiles Professional judgment Averages Simulated trips Posted speed limits Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-23 Almost half of participating agencies collect running time data on a typical route daily, due largely to the increased prevalence of new technologies like AVL and APC. The percentage of large agencies collecting the data daily was slightly lower at only 39 percent. Despite the inroads of new technology, 86 percent of respondents still use manual checks as one means to collect running time data. AVL and APC systems are each used by between 40 and 50 percent of agencies, but use of AVL and APC technologies is uncommon among small agencies. Not surprisingly, small agencies rely predominantly on manual data checks as their primary source of running time data. Q76. What sources of running time data are available? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Manual checks AVL data APC data Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-24 Most agencies use more than three days worth of data to calculate running times. Continuous data collection by APC and AVL systems makes it much easier to collect data over several days. Q77. Are single or multi-day data used? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Single day Two or three days More than three days Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-25 Among agencies using APC or AVL data, 82 percent reported that its use has improved reliability of service by providing more accurate (through multiple observations) and timely running time and on-time performance data. Agencies that did not report an improvement cited lack of staff to conduct additional analysis, lack of staff training, inflexible report formats, and lack of reliable departure time data through APCs. Q93. Has the advent of automated data improved the overall reliability of your services (through improved ability to update running times)? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-26 Most agencies (86 percent) change running times throughout the day and/or on weekends. All large agencies reported doing this, but small agencies are less likely to vary running times throughout the day (i.e., have a standard all-day running time). Q85. Does your agency use different running times at different times of the day and on different days of the week? 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-27 Route length is a factor affecting running time reliability, according to 59 percent of responding agencies. Longer routes show a trend towards greater variability and lower reliability in these systems, presumably because on longer routes there are more opportunities for things to go wrong. Large agencies were more likely to mention the trend, while only 15 percent of small agencies reported less reliability on longer routes. Q92. Do longer routes show trends towards less reliability on running time at your agency? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-28 Running time is not only affected by traffic congestion and ridership. System policies and vehicle type can influence dwell times. Most agencies (62 percent) reported that system policies do not affect dwell time. At least half of the agencies that see an influence cited stroller or wheelchair securement as affecting dwell time. A more unusual policy mentioned by four medium sized agencies stated was the requirement that passengers must be seated before the vehicle departs the stop. Often this type of policy exists where less mobile passengers (possibly seniors, for example) form the bulk of ridership. The survey did not ask whether agencies consider tradeoffs between liability/risk and operating costs in setting these policies. Q81. If any system policies (folding strollers, all seated passengers, or others) affect dwell time? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Wheelchair securement Bike racks Driver customer service Strollers - must be collapsed Wheelchair lift use Passengers must be seated Use of magnetic stripe fare card Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-29 One-third of responding agencies indicated that vehicle type affects dwell time. A majority of responding agencies noted that low-floor buses reduce dwell time, particularly for wheelchair passengers. The two dissenting views regarding the impact of low-floor buses mentioned passenger tendencies either to stand toward the front of the bus, thus creating congestion in the aisle, or to wait until the bus comes to a full stop if seated up in the rear portion. Four agencies stated that articulated buses have longer dwell times while only one cited faster service with these vehicles. 83. If vehicle type (e.g., double-deckers, low-floor buses) affects dwell time at your agency, please elaborate. Small Medium Large Total % Articulated buses - longer dwell/longer to load 1 3 4 21% Double deck buses - longer dwell/longer to load 1 1 5% Express buses (1 door only) - longer dwell/longer to load 3 3 16% Articulated buses - shorter dwell 1 1 5% Low floor - shorter dwell time 4 5 2 11 58% Low floor - longer dwell time 2 2 11% High floor - longer dwell time 1 1 5% 19

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-30 Layover and Recovery Time Layover time is used to allow vehicle operators a break from driving. Recovery time is built into schedules in order to help ensure that routes can start their next run on time if behind schedule. While there are subtle differences between layover and recovery time, most agencies do not distinguish between the two. Q91. Does your agency distinguish between layover time and recovery time? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-31 Sixty percent of respondents do not have a minimum layover prescribed in their labor contract. Large agencies are much more likely to have prescribed minimum layovers. The minimum layover requirement is difficult to summarize because it can be expressed as a percentage of running time, as a set number of minutes, or as both. The most common minimum reported was 10 percent of running time. Some agencies reported three minutes or five minutes as the minimum, but this could be per one-way trip or per round trip. Other reported minimums included: 10 percent or eight minutes, whichever is greater; 15 percent or seven minutes, whichever is greater; four minutes at the end of each trip, with at least seven percent of round- trip running time. Several agencies indicated that they use a minimum in constructing schedules based on general approach or past practice even though there is no contractual requirement. Q86. Is there a minimum layover prescribed by labor contract rules? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 No minimum Minimum in contract Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-32 Respondents reported layover time as a percentage of platform time and of total in-service time, either overall or by day of the week. By day of week, layover time typically accounted for 10 to 20 percent of platform time on weekdays and 10 to 25 percent on weekends. Those agencies reporting overall percentages fell in the range of five to 15 percent. Layover accounted for a higher percentage of in-service time, but followed a similar trend by day of the week. Q105. Overall, what is the layover as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% 20.1-25% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-33 Q105. What is weekday layover as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% 20.1-25% Small Medium Large Q105. What is the Saturday layover as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% 20.1-25% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-34 Q105. What is the Sunday layover as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% 20.1-25% Small Medium Large Agencies deal with the layover requirement by adding additional time into the schedules in general. Several respondents noted that this results in less efficient schedules. If minimum requirements were not in place, over half of the agencies sampled would continue using their current practice for scheduling layover time. This suggests a generally conservative approach to scheduling. Some would only add sufficient time to ensure that the next run would start on time, while others would shift layover time around in order to maximize schedule efficiency. 88. How would your agency address minimum layovers if no labor agreement restrictions were in place? Small Medium Large Total % Add sufficient time to allow next run to start on-time 1 2 1 4 11% Agreement between operations and management 1 1 3% Industry standards 1 1 3% Percentage of running time 1 1 2 5% Same as current 4 6 9 19 51% Schedule less time 1 1 3% Scheduler discretion 1 1 3% Shift layovers around to maximize schedule efficiency 2 2 4 11% Use 10% minimum rule 1 1 2 5% Would not address 1 1 2 5% 37

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-35 Approximately half of the participating agencies provide mid-route layover time. The practice was more prevalent in large agencies (70 percent), and is often related to timed transfers at mid-route points. Among agencies that provide mid-route layover time, only 44 percent count that time toward the minimum layover time. Q89. Does your agency provide mid-route layover time on any of your routes (e.g. to ensure timed transfer at certain locations)? 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-36 Q90. If your agency provides mid-route layover time on any of your routes does this count toward minimum layover time for the route? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Yes No Small Medium Large Agencies use a variety of methods to evaluate running and layover times. APC and AVL data are used by 29 percent of responding agencies. Small agencies were more likely to continue to rely on manual methods of data collection. Anecdotal input from operators and customers is also used. Whatever the data source, agencies periodically review running times and layover times on their routes while responding as needed to problems that arise. Q94. In summary, how does your agency manage running time/layover evaluation? Small Medium Large Total Use APC/AVL data 7 5 12 29% Professional judgment 1 1 2% Analyze recovery ratios 2 2 5% Operator input 4 1 4 9 21% Union input 2 2 5% Review with management/union 1 1 2 4 10% Managed based on budget restraint 1 1 2% Review on-time performance 2 3 3 8 19% Ridechecks/Point checks 5 2 7 17% Add layover time where possible 2 1 3 7% Interline to equalize layover 1 1 2 5% Customer complaints 2 2 5% 42

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-37 B.5 Blocking Blocking practices are largely dependent on the agency size. Small agencies however are much more likely to undertake blocking on a systemwide basis, since services are usually based out of one location. Medium and large agencies generally block at the garage or the route level. In the “other” category, some agencies note that they block at the route level first, then review the blocks at the garage level for efficiencies, and others allow interlining of routes assigned to different garages. Surprisingly, given the wide application of computerized scheduling systems, only 46 percent of agencies keep historical comparisons of blocking solutions. Q95. Is blocking undertaken on a route garage division or systemwide level? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Route level Garage level Division/area/ region level Systemwide Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-38 Only one-quarter of responding agencies indicated that they undertake “optimized” systemwide blocking, but the agencies that do this tend to do it with every bid or schedule change. A typical optimization would involve reblocking trips to minimize peak vehicle requirements and deadhead, interlining, and redistributing vehicles by garage, all concurrently. Among multi- garage agencies, 72 percent have conducted a garage optimization study within the past two years. Nearly all agencies (92 percent) reported interlining trips and blocks. Of these agencies, 30 percent interline10 percent or fewer of their trips, and 72 percent interline 50 percent or fewer of their trips. Small agencies reported a higher percentage of interlined trips. Q97. If yes what % of trips are interlined? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0-10% 11-50% 51-90% 91-100% Small Medium Large 108. For multi-garage agencies, when was the last time you undertook a garage optimization study? Small Medium Large Total % Never 1 2 3 12% In progress 3 1 4 16% Less than 1 year 3 3 12% 1 - 2 years 2 6 8 32% 2 - 5 years 1 1 4% 5+ years 1 1 2 8% Each pick 1 2 3 12% Upon opening a new garage 1 1 4% 25

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-39 Among agencies that interline, 42 percent stated that there is evidence of negative reliability impacts from interlining. Large agencies were more likely to indicate negative reliability impacts (55 percent), compared to 38 percent of medium agencies and 25 percent of small agencies. The major issue is the spillover effect of delays on one route causing delays on the interlined route. 98a. Is there any evidence of negative reliability impacts of interlining at your agency? Please describe. Small Medium Large Total % Deadhead between trips leads to late starts 4 4 20% Delays on one route lead to delays on the interlined route 2 3 6 11 55% Service control more difficult 1 1 5% Staff complaints 1 1 2 10% Hard to schedule breaks 1 1 5% Customer confusion 1 1 5% 4 5 11 20 While deadheading between trips was indicated as an issue in interlining, total deadhead time (including pull-out and pull-in time) usually accounts for less than ten percent of platform time among responding agencies. Deadhead time is less of a factor on weekends. Q 107. Overall - What are deadhead plus garage pull-in and pull-out times as a percentage of platform at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-40 Q107. Weekday - What are deadhead plus garage pull-in and pull-out times as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% 15.1-20% Small Medium Large Q107. Saturday - What are deadhead plus garage pull-in and pull-out times as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-41 Q107. Sunday - What are deadhead plus garage pull-in and pull-out times as a percentage of platform time at your agency? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Less than 5% 5-10% 10.1-15% Small Medium Large Consideration of related scheduling tasks is very common in blocking. Eighty percent of respondents indicate that the impacts on runs (through block lengths, for example) are considered when creating blocks.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-42 Survey responses regarding constraints and other influencing factors on various aspects of scheduling are especially important. Over 70% of agencies face vehicle type constraints, with vehicle size the most frequently mentioned constraint. Q111. If you have vehicle type and/or modal constraints to consider when blocking, please describe. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Dedicated equipment on some lines Vehicle range Vehicle size Stop capacity Stop accessibility Small Medium Large Most agencies reported no labor contract limitations on the blocking process (71 percent overall, with no differences by agency size). The most often noted labor contract constraints included break requirements, minimum layover/recovery time, split run limitations, spread limitations, and rules related to street reliefs. 102. If there are any labor contract limitations/constraints on the blocking process, please describe. Small Medium Large Total % Required breaks 2 1 2 5 36% Minimum layover/recovery requirements 3 3 21% Owl routes cannot be split 1 1 7% Straight run percentage 2 2 14% Street relief constraints 1 1 2 14% Interlining percentage 1 1 7% Start time constraint 1 1 7% Hour guarantee 1 1 7% Spread limitation 2 2 14% 3 4 7 14

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-43 In deciding if a blocking solution is efficient, number of peak vehicles required and percentage of layover and recovery time are the parameters used most frequently. Small agencies are more likely to focus on layover and recovery time. Only one agency considered total hours to define blocking solution efficiency. 103. What parameters are used to define if a blocking solution is efficient (e.g., peak vehicles, % layover, etc.)? Please describe. Small Medium Large Total % Peak vehicles 2 7 15 24 67% % Layover/recovery 5 4 6 15 42% Headways 1 1 2 6% Minimize vehicle hours 2 2 6% Revenue/platform ratio 1 1 3% Block length 2 1 3 8% Total hours 1 1 3% Operator requirement 1 1 3% Desirability of work for drivers 1 1 3% 7 12 17 36

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-44 B.6 Runcutting Runcutting is most often undertaken at the garage level basis. Small agencies are much more likely to runcut systemwide, since all operations are typically based out of a single facility. Over three-quarters of responding agencies reported that they keep historical comparisons of runcut solutions (compared with a much lower 46 percent that keep blocking solutions). Q113. At what level does your agency undertake runcutting? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Route level Garage level Division/area/ region level Systemwide Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-45 Many agencies must pay overtime for work over eight hours a day (42 percent), while 32 percent pay overtime for more than 40 hours a week and 12 percent pay under either circumstance. Small agencies were much more likely to pay overtime on a weekly basis. Q115. What constitutes "overtime" for operators? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Over 8 hours a day (10 hours for a four-day week) Over 40 hours a week Either of the above Other Small Medium Large A key issue for many transit agencies is the trade off between building longer shifts (with more overtime) and hiring additional staff. By a wide margin, agencies prefer to overtime to hiring new operators. Over 90 percent of responding agencies subscribed to this view, noting that overtime is more economical, that there are benefits to minimizing the work force, and that it is difficult to find qualified operators. Very few agencies have undertaken a detailed analysis of the issue, but those that have indicated that overtime was a more efficient solution than hiring new operators. The scheduling manual should include a detailed discussion of this issue, focusing on the main parameters and key decision drivers without being overly prescriptive and considering issues such as the impacts of weekly vs. daily overtime, the distribution of overtime among different run types, and the location of the scheduling department in the organizational structure.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-46 Nearly all agencies have guaranteed minimum time for full-time operators. Roughly half of the agencies calculate guaranteed time daily, but one-quarter calculate it weekly and one-quarter have both daily and weekly guarantees. As with overtime, small agencies are more likely to guarantee weekly time. Q120. Is guarantee/make-up time calculated daily or weekly? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Daily Weekly Both Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-47 Half of responding agencies require daily make-up time. A majority of medium and large agencies require daily make-up time, but most small agencies do not (in line with overtime policies). Almost 70 percent of agencies do not require weekly make-up time (daily make-up time eliminates the need for weekly make-up). Q121. Does your agency require "make-up" time to fill a run that would otherwise be less than 8 (5-day week) or 10 (4-day week) hours per day? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-48 Operator breaks, for meals or other purposes, are a challenge for schedulers. Agencies in California are forced to address this issue in response to a recent change in State law. Agencies typically build breaks into the schedule using recovery and layover time, which is potentially an inefficient practice. Not all agencies give meal breaks. Q133. Describe how your agency schedules operator meal breaks and operator rest breaks. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Use recovery/layover time No meal break given Break built into schedule Block relieving Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-49 Operator breaks are mandated by either labor agreement or law in most large agencies, but overall many agencies schedule breaks by operating practice/preference. Q134. How are operator breaks determined? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Labor agreement Law Preference/operating practice Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-50 The majority of agencies (85 percent) pay a spread penalty for certain split shifts, although only half of small agencies pay a spread penalty. Spread time is the elapsed time between the beginning of the first piece and the end of the last piece of a multi-piece run. Typically, spread time beyond a given level (ranging from 9 to 12 hours in this survey, with most at 11 to 12 hours) is paid at time-and-a-half. A few large agencies have a second level beyond which operators are paid at double time. Spread maximums range from 11 hours to 14 hours. Report and turn-in time are included in the spread calculation in over 75 percent of agencies. Q135. Does your agency pay a spread penalty? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes No Small Medium Large A slight majority of agencies (53 percent) reported limitations on multi-piece runs. Large agencies were more likely to have restrictions. The most common limitation specified by agencies was a maximum of two pieces, followed by a three piece maximum, and a requirement that one break must be paid in a three-piece run. 138. If there are limitations on multi-piece runs, please describe. Small Medium Large Total % 2 piece maximum 4 2 6 12 46% 3 piece maximum 3 2 5 19% One break must be paid 1 1 2 4 15% Saturdays only 1 1 4% Total split percentage maximum 3 3 12% Shift duration minimum 1 1 2 8% 1 hour minimum between splits 1 1 4% 26

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-51 Almost all agencies (92 percent) pay travel time or relief allowances. Agencies reported a variety of means by which operators travel to and from relief points. Among large agencies, bus or rail is the most common option, while medium and small agencies are more likely to rely on an agency vehicle. Nearly two-thirds of agencies have a contract limitation on the number of part-time operators. Such limitations are more prevalent at large and medium-sized agencies. Limitations may be expressed as actual positions or as a percentage of total operators. Allowable percentages range from seven percent to 33 percent. Q124. Are there contract limitations on the number or percentage of part-time operators? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-52 Over two-thirds of responding agencies report upper and lower limits for hours worked per week for PTOs. A typical upper limit is 30 hours per week, and a typical lower limit (which is much less common) is 15 to 20 hours per week. Q126. Are there upper and lower limits for weekly hours worked for part-time operators? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large Additional limitations on the use of PTOs were reported by 38 percent of responding agencies. These limitations include times of day or days of week that they can work, specific restrictions on types of runs or routes, and lower priority than full-time operators. Only one-quarter of respondents reported guaranteed minimum hours for part-time runs. This was more common at large agencies. Most minimum guarantees were in the two to three hour range.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-53 As with other aspects of scheduling, runcutting constraints reported in the survey are of particular interest. Key limitations in the labor agreement included split run limits (57 percent), spread limits (32 percent), daily hour guarantees (27 percent), and overtime pay requirements (22 percent). When asked which constraints impose the greatest restriction on runcut development, agencies were most likely to mention spread restrictions, breaks, and straight run percentages. 139. Please describe any constraints that pose the greatest restriction or impacts on runcut development. Small Medium Large Total % Breaks 3 2 4 9 25% Budget 1 1 3% Deadhead pay 1 1 3% Driver turnover 1 1 3% Hours minimum for operators 1 1 1 3 8% Labor agreement 1 1 3% Line of origin restrictions 1 1 3% Manual process is time consuming 1 1 3% Overtime 2 2 6% Part time operator restrictions 1 2 3 8% Relief points 1 2 3 8% Software limitations 1 1 3% Spread penalty 2 2 6% Spread restrictions 2 6 3 11 31% Straight run percentages 3 3 6 17% Travel time for relief 1 1 3% Tripper limitations 1 1 2 6% 36

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-54 The most common parameters used to define if a runcut is efficient are pay to platform ratio and the number of operators required. Surprisingly, total pay hours is only used by a few respondents. Reported pay to platform ratios by day of week are shown below. Pay to platform ratio is of course heavily impacted by the labor agreement and therefore is not necessarily a good indicator of the efficiency of one agency to the next. Q112. Weekday - Please estimate your agency's pay to platform ratio from the most recent runcut without including extraboard in the total pay hours. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.01 - 1.05 1.06 - 1.10 1.11 - 1.15 1.16 - 1.20 1.21 - 1.25 1.26 or more Small Medium Large 117. Parameters used to define if a runcut is efficient Small Medium Large Total % Cost 1 3 4 9% Efficiency indicator on software package 1 1 2 4% Number of operators 3 11 10 24 52% Number of trippers 2 1 3 7% Overtime 1 2 1 4 9% Pay/platform ratio 2 12 17 31 67% Peak vehicles 1 1 2% Total miles 1 1 2% Total pay hours 1 2 3 7% Minimizing penalty time 1 1 2% Spread time 2 2 4% Compare to previous runcuts 2 2 4% Number of split runs 2 2 4% 46

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-55 Q112. Saturday - Please estimate your agency's pay to platform ratio from the most recent runcut without including extraboard in the total pay hours. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1.01 - 1.05 1.06 - 1.10 1.11 - 1.15 1.16 - 1.20 1.21 - 1.25 1.26 or more Small Medium Large Q112. Sunday - Please estimate your agency's pay to platform ratio from the most recent runcut without including extraboard in the total pay hours. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.01 - 1.05 1.06 - 1.10 1.11 - 1.15 1.16 - 1.20 1.21 - 1.25 1.26 or more Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-56 B.7 Period Rostering Respondents were asked to provide a brief overview of how rosters are created and administered. A variety of approaches and rules were observed. Agencies roster by combining daily assignments into a five-day work week (or a 4/10 work week). Rostering is done at the garage or division level. Days off may be assigned or picked by the operators, and consecutive days off may be required. The weekly assignment may be required to consist of the same run each day, or runs and routes may be mixed. Operators bid by seniority. Picks were rostered in half of the agencies surveyed, while one-third of respondents use a cafeteria-style system and the remaining agencies do some combination of both. The combinations differ by full-time/part-time, weekday/weekend, 4-10/others, and by division/mode. Small agencies rostered almost exclusively, medium-sized agencies used cafeteria style more often, and large agencies used both methods evenly. Q142. Are picks rostered or is a cafeteria style system used? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Rostered Cafeteria Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-57 As noted above, part-time operators are sometimes treated differently in terms of rostering. At 60 percent of responding agencies, PTOs pick their own work. Q147. Do part-time operators pick work or are they assigned work? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Pick their work Assigned by roster Assigned by operations staff Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-58 Treatment of days off split roughly half and half between being assigned and picked (this matches the cafeteria approach). Small agencies were more likely to have days off assigned by staff, in line with their greater tendency toward rostering. Consecutive days off were not required at most agencies (61 percent), yet operators will typically consider this an important part of a ‘friendly’ roster. At 71 percent of reporting agencies, all operators work the same line of work from week to week; this percentage rose to 84 percent if the extraboard operators were excluded. This indicates few instances of drivers rotating through the lines of work. Q143. Do drivers pick their days off or are these assigned within each line work? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Assigned by scheduling staff into period (i.e. weekly, monthly) lines of work Drivers pick Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-59 Q145. Are consecutive days off required for full-time work pieces? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yes No Small Medium Large Extraboard/relief components are sized using a range of methods. Almost half of the respondents reported using a percentage of their rosters to size the extraboard, with the most common sizing between 11 and 20 percent. Fourteen percent based extraboard size on the absence rate, and 11 percent used historical numbers. Small agencies were more often based extraboard on qualitative measures like preference, experience, and historical trends while medium and large agencies were more likely to use quantitative measures like percentages of the roster and absence rate. Only one small agency reported that the contract stipulated the size of the extraboard. 141. How is your agency's extraboard/relief component sized? Small Medium Large Total % Historical numbers 2 2 4 11% Management preference 2 2 6% No extraboard 2 1 3 8% Based on experience 1 1 2 6% Based on absence rate 1 4 5 14% Percentage of roster (under 10%) 1 1 3% Percentage of roster (11-20%) 2 4 6 12 33% Percentage of roster (21-30%) 1 3 4 11% Left over drivers 2 2 6% Labor agreement 1 1 3% 36

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-60 At least some scheduled runs are left for extraboard/relief to cover at about 60 percent of agencies. Half of the agencies where all work is not picked reported that less than five percent of work is left unpicked, and in all cases, less than 15 percent of work is not picked. Leftover work is more often available at medium and large agencies. Often these will be small peak trippers. Q151. Is all work picked or is some left for extraboard/relief to cover? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 All picked/covered Some left uncovered Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-61 Operator work assignments can include both extraboard/relief and regular run assignments at two-thirds of the sampled agencies. The practice was much more prevalent at large agencies, with 85 percent of agencies combining the two, while under half of small agencies allow this. Q146. Can work pieces include a combination of extraboard/relief and regular run assignments? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-62 Approximately half of the responding agencies allow 4-day work weeks for operators. Small agencies were much more likely to use 4-day work weeks, and large agencies were much less likely to do so. At agencies where 4-day work weeks are allowed, most reported that less than 20 percent of weekly work assignments were 4/10. Q148. Does your system allow 4-day work weeks for operators? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Small Medium Large An overview of the process of posting and selecting work assignments is summarized here. Work assignments are posted anywhere from two to five days to five weeks in advance (one to three weeks was the most common response) and then picked by seniority. Operators are given a certain time to select their work, and might do this in person or by submitting their top three preferences. Several agencies noted that the union must review the work assignments first, and in at least one case the union supervises the pick. Vacated runs are primarily filled through the extraboard (40 percent) or picked through seniority (38 percent). Respondents were asked about their agencies’ view of the optimal use of 4/10, 5/8, and part time operators. Most of the agencies that replied to this question reported that no detailed analysis had been conducted. Based on the responses, there is nothing close to consensus regarding the optimal use or mix. Interesting observations included: • Operator burn-out is more likely for four-day work weeks • Differences in work rules (longer runs have longer spreads) may play a role in defining the “optimum” mix • Need to negotiate better extraboard rules before expanding use of 4/10 work weeks • Ten-hour runs created only if they reduce overtime • 4/10 works great for fixed route, 5/8 better for paratransit • Goal is to keep our runs cut only once; do not want to multi-cut a piece

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-63 • A careful analysis revealed that 4/10 was not effective because it affected blocking of trips to get proper breaks and weekend work did not fit well into the runcut process • No optimum mix because full-time operators cannot work 4/10 • It is a subject of debate whether the savings from 4/10 are cancelled out by the need to maintain a larger PTO staff to fill open assignments • When 4/10 assignments approach 12 percent, the advantage is lost • 40 percent 4/10, 60 percent 5/8, and no PTOs is optimal Constraints and challenges regarding roster development included the requirement for consecutive days off (yet the majority of agencies reported this was not a labor rule constraint), operator shortages, and minimum time requirements between assignments, as shown below. Q155: Please describe any constraints that pose the greatest restriction on roster development. Small Medium Large Total % Consecutive days off 1 3 4 24% Operator shortage 1 2 3 18% Minimum time off between assignments 2 1 3 18% 8-hour daily minimum 1 1 2 12% 40-hour work week 2 2 12% Holiday work 1 1 6% Difference in hours on Sunday 1 1 6% Keep same type of work together 1 1 6% Number of lines 1 1 6% Rotating days off 1 1 6% Selecting runs to mix with weekend work 1 1 6% Spread penalties 1 1 6% Straight run requirements 1 1 6% Tripper 1 1 Union requests for inefficient work distribution, days off 1 1 6% 3 8 6 17

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-64 B.8 Computerized Scheduling Computerized scheduling and applications are becoming more commonplace and agencies that use computerized packages reported an improved scheduling process. Computerized scheduling packages are commonplace at medium and large agencies surveyed, and at a slight majority of small agencies surveyed. Across all responding agencies, 84 percent utilize a computerized scheduling system. Q156. Does your agency use a computerized scheduling package? 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-65 The most obvious reported benefit of scheduling software is the automation of tasks. The three most automated tasks in all modes surveyed (bus, light rail, and heavy rail) were runcutting, blocking, and building trip tables. Q164. Please indicate which parts of the scheduling process have been automated - by mode, where feasible Bus Small Medium Large Total % Planning routes 2 1 4 7 16% Developing running times 1 3 8 12 27% Building trip tables 4 13 18 35 80% Blocking 6 14 15 35 80% Runcutting 6 14 18 38 86% Rostering 5 5 10 20 45% Managing the sign-up 3 8 10 21 48% Extraboard sizing 1 2 1 4 9% Part-time operator assignment 2 3 5 10 23% Traffic data collection 0 5 5 10 23% Daily crew assignment/absentee management 12 5 3 20 45% Daily dispatching 8 9 4 21 48% 44 LRT Small Medium Large Total % Planning routes 1 1 7% Developing running times 1 3 4 29% Building trip tables 3 10 13 93% Blocking 3 8 11 79% Runcutting 3 10 13 93% Rostering 2 3 5 36% Managing the sign-up 1 5 6 43% Extraboard sizing 0 0% Part-time operator assignment 1 2 3 21% Traffic data collection 1 3 4 29% Daily crew assignment/absentee management 1 5 6 43% Daily dispatching 1 5 6 43% 14 Heavy Rail Small Medium Large Total % Planning routes 1 1 13% Developing running times 1 1 13% Building trip tables 7 7 88% Blocking 6 6 75% Runcutting 7 7 88% Rostering 3 3 38% Managing the sign-up 5 5 63% Extraboard sizing 1 1 13% Part-time operator assignment 2 2 25% Traffic data collection 2 2 25% Daily crew assignment/absentee management 4 4 50% Daily dispatching 4 4 50% 8

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-66 Trapeze and Hastus were the most frequently mentioned scheduling software packages. Almost two-thirds of the medium sized agencies reported use of Trapeze (two use more than one program), while half of the large agencies use Hastus. Small agencies reported a variety of scheduling software packages. Popular modules purchased with the software include Trapeze FX, OPS, and PASS. Q157. If your agency uses a computerized scheduling package, what software package is used? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Hastus Trapeze Vista Fleetnet TMS Transched In-House Developed Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-67 Most scheduling software was procured since 1990. Original procurement dates of computerized scheduling packages suggest a gradual spread in use of these packages from large to medium and small agencies (with a few early-adopter exceptions among small agencies). Upgrades to software have also occurred recently, with over 80 percent of small and medium agencies and 70 percent of large agencies purchasing upgrades after 2004. Q158. When was it originally procured? Small Medium Large Total % Before 1980 1 1 2% 1980-1989 2 6 8 19% 1990-1995 1 5 5 11 26% 1996-2000 1 5 4 10 23% 2001-2007 3 6 4 13 30% 7 16 20 43 160. When did your agency last upgrade? Small Medium Large Total % 2007-In progress 5 5 10 24% 2005-2006 5 8 9 22 52% 2003-2004 2 3 5 12% 2001-2002 1 1 2% 1997-2000 1 1 2% None 1 1 1 3 7% 6 16 20 42

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-68 Implementation is not a simple process. Over two-thirds of responding agencies reported a timeline of at least one year from signed contract to implementation of the scheduling software. Small agencies were the exception: all reported a timeline of less than one year. Q162. How long (from signed contract) die the original implementation project take place? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In progress Less than 1 month 1-6 months 6-12 months 1-2 years 2-3 years 4+ years Small Medium Large The use of scheduling software is not limited to schedulers, as many packages have modules that can be useful for planning, data analysis, and daily operations and dispatch. Three-fourths of the operators who had automated scheduling systems indicated that other departments use their system. Use by others is more prevalent in medium and large agencies than in small ones (under 50 percent at small agencies). The most common applications by other departments include daily operations and dispatch management, mapping, long term planning, and absence management. Other uses include customer information, NTD reporting, and trip planning. Q167: By Whom? Small Medium Large Total % APCs 1 1 2 6% Control Room supervisors 1 1 3% Customer Service 3 1 4 13% Garage supervisors 1 1 3% GIS 1 1 3% Information 1 1 1 3 9% Maintenance 2 2 6% Marketing 1 1 3% Operations 2 8 3 13 41% Operations-Dispatch 1 2 3 9%

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-69 Paratransit personnel 3 3 9% Payroll 1 1 3% Planning 7 9 16 50% Software Analyst 1 1 3% Station Clerks 1 1 3% Traffic checking 1 1 3% 3 14 15 32 A major constraint on using computerized scheduling packages is the cost of purchasing the software and training staff. We received fewer than 15 responses to cost-related questions, so the reader should not interpret these findings as definitive. Original software license and training costs ranged from under $50,000 to greater than $1.5 million. Small agencies spent under $500,000 on their software whereas large agencies spent over $500,000 in all circumstances. In addition to initial procurement and startup costs, an annual maintenance cost is also associated with the software. Maintenance costs for large agencies range from $50,000 to $125,000 annually (normally 10 to 15 percent of the license fee). For small agencies, these costs are under $25,000 annually, while medium agencies pay between $10,000 and $100,000 for software maintenance. The survey also included questions on the cost of software implementation and software upgrades, but fewer than five agencies responded to these questions. Nearly two-thirds of responding agencies (even a slight majority of large agencies) have not calculated savings related to the implementation of computerized scheduling. This is an interesting outcome, given that in many instances the basis for the expenditure would be Q163. Please provide the approximate cost for: Original software license & training Small Medium Large Total % Less than $50,000 2 2 17% $50,000 - $99,999 1 1 8% $100,000 - $499,999 1 1 2 17% $500,000 - $999,999 3 2 5 42% $1,000,000 - $1,499,999 1 1 8% $1,500,000+ 1 1 8% 12 Q163. Please provide the approximate cost for: Software maintenance (annual cost) Small Medium Large Total % Less than $10,000 2 2 14% $10,000 - $24,999 1 2 3 21% $25,000 - $49,999 1 1 7% $50,000 - $74,999 3 1 4 29% $75,000 - $99,999 1 1 2 14% $100,000 - $125,000 2 2 14% 14

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-70 potential cost savings. Those few agencies that have conducted estimates reported a range of annual savings from $7 million for large agencies to $300,000 for medium sized agencies and $8,000 for small agencies. Overall, the savings amounted to less than 3% of the total operating budget. Q165. Has your agency calculated savigns directly attributable to implementation of computerized scheduling software (formally or informally)? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-71 Large agencies especially were more likely to assess non-economic impacts of the implementation of computerized scheduling. A range of benefits was reported, as shown below. The most common benefit was more efficient scheduling. Q171. Has your agency assessed other benefits and/or efficiency impacts resulting from implementation of computerized scheduling software? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Small Medium Large 171a. Please describe. Small Medium Large Total % Better data reporting 1 1 3 5 28% Data integration from multiple systems 1 2 3 17% Improved accuracy 1 2 3 17% Less overtime 1 1 6% More efficient scheduling 1 1 6 8 44% Quicker planning analysis 2 2 11% Quicker turnaround 2 3 5 28% Streamlined electronic mapping, AVL & APC 2 2 4 22% 18

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-72 The benefits of computerized scheduling have altered the size of scheduling departments in only one-third of the responding agencies. Again, initial expectations for computerized scheduling procurements were often based upon some reduction in scheduling department size. Small agencies did not encounter any change in size, due to the minimal size of the scheduling staff to begin with. In two medium sized agencies, the implementation of scheduling software actually led to an increase in scheduling staff by one person. Staffing decreases were seen mostly in large agencies, with a typical reduction of between five and ten positions. Q172. Has the size of your agancy's scheduling department changed as a direct result of implementation of computerized scheduling software? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-73 Computerized scheduling packages have changed the time it takes to produce and implement schedule at most agencies (71 percent), particularly at large and medium agencies. Other than one large agency reporting a time increase due to the increased number of tasks associated with using the software, agencies have achieved time savings from automation. Of responding agencies, 38 percent stated the time to produce and implement schedules has decreased by 50 percent. Other changes were not as dramatic, but ranged from a few days to weeks. Q175. Has the time it takes your agency to produce and implement schedules changed as a direct result of implementation of computerized scheduling software? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Yes No Small Medium Large The time reduction in producing and implementing schedules has led to increased expectations placed on scheduling departments. Nearly 80 percent of all responding agencies and 95 percent of large agencies reported increased expectations regarding turnaround time and the volume of “what-if” tasks.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-74 One of the more interesting findings from the survey was the continued reliance on manual fine- tuning of the computerized scheduling solutions. Over 80 percent of respondents reported at least some manual fine-tuning of the software package results prior to implementation. Q170. To what extent are the solutions produced by your computerized system utilized (i.e. are they implemented directly, or do they require manual fine-tuning)? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Implemented Directly Manual fine tuning Both Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-75 This finding strongly underlines the continued requirement for schedulers to maintain experience in manual scheduling techniques. At the majority of agencies, however, less than 30 percent of the scheduling staff did manual scheduling prior to implementation of computerized scheduling. Q174. What percentage of the current scheduling department staff did manual scheduling (at your agency or another agency) prior to the implementation of computerized scheduling software? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0-10% 20-30% 50-80% 100% Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-76 Scheduling software is interfaced with other data systems at most agencies. With larger amounts of data and staff, medium and large agencies are more likely to have software interfaced among other departments. The most common interfaces are with payroll, AVL, dispatch, APC, and customer service. This integration changes the role of the scheduling department, which often now has broader responsibility for database management. Q180. Does your agency's computerized scheduling software interface with other agency data systems? 0 5 10 15 20 25 Yes No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-77 The survey asked respondents if the expected benefits of implementing computerized scheduling software have been realized. A slight majority reported that the benefits have been fully realized, but 37 percent reported only partial realization and 12 percent answered no. Respondents raised several issues in explaining why benefits have been partially realized or not realized at all. These suggest that the acquisition of a computerized scheduling package, while offering many benefits, by itself is not always an immediate panacea. Q178. Overall, have the estimated benefits of implementing computerized scheduling been realized? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Yes, fully realized Yes, partially realized No Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-78 Q179. If your agency has not realized or has only partially realized the benefits from computerized scheduling, describe any related issues. Small Medium Large Total % Crew scheduling optimized but not vehicle scheduling 1 1 6% Customer support is a problem 1 1 6% Software is bug prone 1 1 6% PC versions slower and not as good as older DOS versions 1 1 6% Training staff is difficult 2 1 3 17% AVL and APC unable to integrate into the software - upgrading currently 1 1 6% Runcutting still needs to be reviewed and changed manually 1 1 2 11% Runcutting module is unsupported and unmaintained 1 1 6% Crew scheduling still done manually 1 1 6% Reporting software is poor 1 1 6% Unions slow to accept new technology and efficiency 1 1 6% Manual scheduling still necessary at times 1 1 6% Increased parameters makes the process longer 1 1 6% Not fully installed due to payroll problems 1 1 6% Do not use all modules 1 1 6% Difficult to know since multiple departments using software 1 1 6% Would like to have optimization in all phases of the process. 1 1 6% 18 The survey also asked whether agencies had switched from one computerized scheduling package to another within the past two years. Only 14 percent of respondents reported a switch. Almost all agencies that switched had purchased their original software prior to 1995. The inability of older software to integrate with other functions was the primary reason for changing. Most of these agencies reported that the expected benefits had been realized. Agencies that had not realized the expected benefits cited an ongoing implementation process.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-79 The increasing integration of scheduling software with other agency functions data systems raises the issue of whether this integration would preclude consideration of a change in scheduling package. Almost three-quarters of respondents did not see this as an issue. One agency that was concerned about this issue noted that the scheduling department did not have control over the software because multiple departments are involved. Another answered that it took years to get the bugs out of the program, and to change now would be difficult. Q190. Does the integration of your current computerized scheduling software with other agency functions preclude consideration of a change in scheduling packages? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large Most agencies not using computerized scheduling software rely on spreadsheets (71 percent). Other methods used were a word processor and an agency created system for reporting and data organization. 192. If not using computerized scheduling software what general software tool does your agency primarily use to build schedules? Small Medium Large Total % Spreadsheet 4 1 5 71% Home-grown system without optimizer 1 1 14% Database 0 0% Word processor 1 1 14% 7 B.9 Scheduling Organization Scheduling departments are often units within one of two larger departments: Operations (47 percent) and Planning (40 percent). Large agencies had more variety in terms of the location of

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-80 scheduling: Customer Service, Finance, and Business Development were all mentioned. Scheduling departments varied in size between having no dedicated staff to 70 employees (New York City Transit). Most large agencies had over 10 full time employees devoted to scheduling while medium sized agencies had mostly between 1 and 5 employees. 14 small agencies (60 percent) had less than 1 FTE for scheduling. Almost half of medium sized agencies responded that their scheduling function is understaffed while fewer than 30 percent of small and large agencies did. Workload was the most common method (39 percent) used to determine manpower requirements for the scheduling department, followed by historical levels (18 percent), and no process (14 percent). Only eight percent based manpower requirements on budget, suggesting that budgets are generally derived from existing manpower. Only three agencies outsource some or all of their scheduling function. Two of the three agencies are small operators that do not have scheduling capability in house and outsource as a matter of business practice. One large agency outsources some scheduling tasks because it is understaffed. Almost 90 percent of agencies (including those that assign schedulers geographically) reported that their schedulers work across all aspects of scheduling (trip building, blocking, run cutting and rostering). When schedulers have separate duties, they most are most often divided into groups geographically (by operating division) or by mode, and not by functionally. This is most common in large agencies, which are most likely to have multiple modes or garages. Small agencies almost exclusively have schedulers work on all aspects of scheduling. Only 14 percent of agencies reported that schedulers are specialized in specific tasks. Q37. Do schedules work across all aspects of scheduling or do they work within specific tasks (e.g. runcutting only? or within geographic regions (e.g. one division only)? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 All aspects Geographical Geographical - division level Specific tasks Based on experience/ workload Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-81 A typical breakdown of staff time allocation in scheduling departments, based on the normalized average of all responses, has schedule writing and blocking accounting for 31 percent of staff time, while period rostering accounts for only eight percent. The most common “Other” tasks included data analysis and report writing, crew schedules, exception scheduling, and service planning. A majority of agencies report that over 80 percent of scheduling tasks are actually implemented, as opposed to being carried out purely for costing or evaluation purposes. 44. Describe the breakdown of scheduling staff time allocation (in percentage terms): Normalized percentage Schedule writing & blocking 31% Runcutting 17% Period rostering 8% Run times & ridership data analysis 16% Data management for downstream systems 12% Other 17% 100% In addition to core scheduling tasks, many scheduling departments are increasingly performing other tasks related to interfaces with other departments. “Other” tasks include developing timetables, collecting and analyzing data (AVL, APC, etc.), managing the bid process, preparing driver cards and paddles, and providing customer information like bus stop announcements. Q42. If we define "core" scheduling tasks as schedule writing blocking runcutting and rostering are any of the following non-core tasks being undertaken within the scheduling department to meet the requirements of interfacing with other departments? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Stop management AVL data APC data Other Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-82 These added tasks are often related to downstream data requirements. Even smaller agencies are likely to have multiple downstream requirements for scheduling outputs. 43. Describe any downstream data requirements for scheduling outputs at your agency Small Medium Large Total % Stop inventory 8 15 20 43 83% AVL data 3 13 21 37 71% APC data 3 9 14 26 50% GIS 5 10 16 31 60% Telephone information 9 13 19 41 79% Public timetables 12 18 21 51 98% Itinerary planning 6 14 18 38 73% Bus stop schedules 6 13 19 38 73% Other (please describe) 5 4 13 22 42% Union representation for schedulers is much more common at large agencies. Approximately half of the unionized schedulers are in the same union as vehicle operators. Q25. Are your agency's schedulers represented by a union? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Yes No Small Medium Large Schedulers are primarily recruited internally (70 percent of responding agencies). Many agencies post scheduler jobs externally via trade publications and their own websites. Only 36 percent of agencies require a four-year college degree for their schedulers and another 36 percent have no degree requirement. Over half of agencies prefer their schedulers to have a background in operations, followed by 15 percent who look for a background in planning and

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-83 another 15 percent who look specifically for vehicle operators. No agencies consider a math or operations research background as a major preference. Mentoring with a more experienced scheduler is the most common training technique for new schedulers, used at 70 percent of responding agencies. Hands-on training is considered necessary to learn how to develop schedules and utilize the software. Almost 40 percent of respondents have in-house training programs to teach new hires about scheduling and 30 percent send new schedulers to outside training classes including Canadian Urban Transit Association and software vendor training courses. Most agencies (76 percent) do not provide basic scheduling training to other individuals in their agency. Almost half of small and large agencies do provide training to interested persons, most commonly operations staff. Given the fact that the majority of newer schedulers have never experienced manual scheduling, transit operators will increasingly be scheduling with “computer technicians” not well grounded in the underlying basics of scheduling or transit operations. Years ago, a typical career path for schedulers would be bus operator to supervisor to junior scheduler to senior scheduler. Almost half of responding agencies report that there is no specific career path for schedulers. A career path was more likely to be reported with increasing agency size. While several agencies continue to draw entry-level personnel from the operations ranks, this does not appear to be as common as in the past. Many transit agencies of all sizes are experiencing an ongoing loss of expertise in scheduling due to retirements. While approximately half of agencies surveyed have not had any schedulers leave in the last five years, 70 percent are expecting at least one retirement in the next five years. Eight large agencies will be losing at least five people each in the upcoming years. Only half have plans in place to handle the number of retirements through recruitment and/or training strategies.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-84 Q38. How many scheduling department employees have retired within the past five years? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Small Medium Large Q39. How many are eligible for retirement within the next five years? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5-10 11+ Small Medium Large

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-85 The onset of sophisticated computerized scheduling tools has increased the training burden, for now there is a need for both basic scheduling training and for application-specific training. Among respondents, training opportunities tend to be focused on computerized scheduling software, conferences, and outside courses, with some in-house training. Agencies reported that the greatest need for training and professional development was for basic scheduling training, with over 60 percent of small agencies stating that basic training is needed. Other areas where training and development are needed include are software training and training in the use of new technologies. Agencies placed a low emphasis on the requirement for application training, which indicates the greater need is for scheduling skills and not application skills. 46. What do you see as the areas of greatest need for training and professional development among scheduling personnel at your agency? Small Medium Large Total % Basic scheduling training 5 4 6 15 35% Downstream systems interconnectivity 1 1 2 5% Interpersonal training 1 1 2% Knowledge of specific agency 1 2 3 7% Labor issues training 1 1 2% Maintaining skill outside of scheduling 1 1 2% Outside conferences 1 1 2% Peer studies 3 1 4 9% Pre-employment screening 1 1 2% Recruiting 1 1 2% Refresher training 1 2 3 7% Schedule development 2 2 5% Scheduling meal breaks 1 1 2% Software training 4 3 7 16% Using new technology - GIS, APC, AVL, etc 1 3 4 8 19% 8 16 27 43

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-86 Despite the perceived need for additional training, over 85 percent of respondents report their scheduling staff proficiency as “excellent” or “good”. A wide variety of criteria was reported to measure schedulers’ performance. The most common criteria are accuracy, cost effectiveness of schedules, ability to complete tasks, and on-time performance. 49. What are the major criteria in measuring the performance of schedulers? Small Medium Large Total % Cost effectiveness 3 4 3 10 21% Schedule accuracy 3 7 10 21% Completing tasks 2 7 9 19% On-time performance 5 2 2 9 19% Schedule efficiency - General 4 2 1 7 15% Pay/platform 1 2 3 6 13% Customer feedback 2 2 1 5 10% % of errors 2 2 4 8% Recovery/running time 3 3 6% Driver feedback 1 1 2 4% Operators added/saved 2 2 4% Problem solving 1 1 2 4% Software proficiency 1 1 2 4% Vehicle hours 2 2 4% Workload balance 1 1 2 4% Attention to detail 1 1 2% Average vehicle speed 1 1 2% Distance/running time 1 1 2% Driving time duration 1 1 2% Efficient use of vehicles 1 1 2% Initiative 1 1 2% Interpersonal skills 1 1 2% Leadership 1 1 2% Manual runcutting skill 1 1 2% Organization 1 1 2% Staff feedback 1 1 2% 48

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-87 Only about one-quarter of all agencies reported innovative techniques in schedule development and training. Responses are shown below. Q48. Has your agency developed any basic or innovative techniques in schedule development or training that would be of interest to other transit agencies? 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yes No Small Medium Large B.10 Rail Scheduling An early survey question asked about mode-specific scheduling practices and constraints. The most common rail-related response related to dropbacks for either crews or operators. Four agencies cited dropbacks as an important mode-specific practice on either light rail or heavy rail. Other rail-related responses included: • Almost no running time breaks in light rail (LRT) schedules • Heavy rail crews have different schedules based on job classification • Agency pays in-between travel on LRT but not on bus • LRT has only 8-hour runs (although contract allows 10-hour runs) and all employees are full-time • Rail capacity constraints • Vehicle capacity at terminal stations • Adding and cutting cars on trains • Analysis of ideal yard assignments, balancing between two yards • Developing crew blocks from train blocks and cutting the former to handle dropbacks • Different labor agreements from bus

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-88 Agencies were asked about what scheduling issues specific to light rail they would like to have addressed. Track conflicts led the list, followed by operator drop-backs and multiple car train scheduling. Q194. Are there any issues related specifically to scheduling light rail service at your agency that should be considered in this study? Small Medium Large Total % Track Conflicts 5 5 63% Operator Scheduling Drop Backs 1 2 3 38% Multiple car train scheduling 1 1 2 25% Runcutting 1 1 13% Yard Duty 1 1 13% Software training 1 1 13% 8 This study is oriented toward bus and light rail scheduling, but the survey included a question about scheduling issues specific to heavy rail. Responses were similar to those of the light rail question, with heavy rail agencies citing operator drop-backs, single track scheduling conflicts, complex scheduling with operators operating multiple trains, runcutting, and yard duty.

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-89 B.11 Toward the Scheduling Manual Two questions on the survey were designed to elicit agency responses indicating key scheduling issues and needs that the new scheduling manual could address. The first question asked about current issues at the agency that this study could help to answer. Issues receiving multiple responses included computerized scheduling, recovery/layover guidelines, recruitment and training of schedulers, and scheduling practices at other agencies. Respondents mentioned a wide variety of issues that included basic, intermediate, and advanced topics. 23. Are there any current issues regarding scheduling at your agency that this study could help to answer? Small Medium Large Total % Computerized scheduling: pros and cons 3 3 14% Computerized scheduling: general 2 2 9% Recovery/Layover Guidelines 1 1 2 9% Schedulers: hiring, recruiting, training, replacing 2 2 9% Scheduling techniques at other agencies 2 2 9% Adjusting schedules annually based on ridership and congestion 1 1 5% Attendance policy 1 1 5% Bus stop placement 1 1 5% Computerized scheduling: training 1 1 5% Contract rules at other agencies 1 1 5% Creating 4 day/10 hour schedules 1 1 5% Downstream data management 1 1 5% Drop back scheduling 1 1 5% Handling bus shortages 1 1 5% Interlining 1 1 5% Managing school services 1 1 5% Meal break scheduling 1 1 5% Overtime vs. Additional operators: pros and cons 1 1 5% Rostering techniques 1 1 5% Runcutting in multi-depot rail systems 1 1 5% Training at all levels 1 1 5% Use of Part Time Drivers 1 1 5% Using AVL/APC data 1 1 5% Using taxis for relief 1 1 5% 3 10 17 22 100%

TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-90 The second question asked about the agency’s greatest needs that should be addressed in the scheduling manual. Interestingly, this question was answered by almost twice as many agencies. The most frequently mentioned needs included training for new staff, computerized scheduling, basic scheduling concepts, and cost efficiency. As with the previous question, respondents mentioned a wide variety of issues that included basic, intermediate, and advanced topics. 24. What are your agency's greatest needs regarding scheduling that this scheduling manual should address? Small Medium Large Total % Training for new staff 2 3 4 9 23% Computerized scheduling 1 4 1 6 15% Basic scheduling - headway determination, runcutting, rostering, interlining 1 4 5 13% Cost efficiency 2 1 1 4 10% Case studies of operators 1 1 2 5% Exception scheduling 2 2 5% Running time analysis 1 1 2 5% Scheduling meal breaks 1 1 2 5% Using AVL, APC, GIS 1 1 2 5% Behavioral problems with drivers - attitude affecting schedule 1 1 3% Comparing scheduled and actual work 1 1 3% Complex schedule visualization 1 1 3% Consistent transit nomenclature 1 1 3% Contact list of operators 1 1 3% Downstream data maintenance 1 1 3% Driver retention 1 1 3% Drop back scheduling 1 1 3% Evaluating runcut and blocking efficiency 1 1 3% How service planning relates to scheduling 1 1 3% Increasing service transition 1 1 3% Industry standards 1 1 3% Layover/Recovery time incorporation and calculation 1 1 3% Scheduling connections to other modes 1 1 3% Splitting shifts 1 1 3% Staff size by agency size 1 1 3% Text book 1 1 3% 40 B.12 Agency Survey A copy of the agency survey is provided on the following pages.

Transit Scheduling Survey Draft - Transit Agencies TCRP Scheduling Manual - Transit System Survey RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1 Date: 2 Name and Title of Respondent: 3 Respondent Telephone Number: 4 Respondent e-mail address: 5 Is your agency willing to participate in a more detailed case study later in this project? Yes/no only TRANSIT SYSTEM INFORMATION 6 Agency Name: 7 City 8 State 9 Transit System Size Bus LRT Heavy Rail Weekday Peak Vehicles Weekday Off Peak Vehicles Saturday Peak Vehicles Sunday Peak Vehicles Total full-time operators (drivers) Total part-time operators (drivers) # Bus garages (including those related to contracted services) # Bus garages for contracted services Smallest garage/yard size-total # operators Largest garage/yard size -total # operators Smallest garage/yard size-# vehicles Largest garage/yard size-# vehicles GENERAL SCHEDULING QUESTIONS 10 What mode-specific scheduling practices and/or constraints are applied at your agency? 11 Please rank from 1 (most important) to 6 (least important) the following as driving forces causing the need to update schedules, blocks, and runs. Service changes Labor agreement changes Regular bid requirements Budget issues Ridership growth Other If other, please describe below TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-91

o12 Does your agency use any innovative or alternative approaches to scheduling that may be of interest to other systems? 13 What is the relationship between fixed-route and paratransit scheduling? 14 Typically, what percentage of your agency's routes have service changes in any given year? 15 How long does the schedule creation process typically take, from concept through t implementation? 16 Is union review and approval required before new schedules can be implemented? Yes/no only 17 Are there any unusually restrictive rules or practices at your agency? 18 If bids/service change dates are fixed, what is the process for making ad-hoc scheduling changes between picks? 19 Does “exception” scheduling (i.e., preparation of temporary schedules to account for special events, street closures, track work, or other disruptive events) account for a significant ongoing portion of the scheduling department’s workload? Yes/no only 20 If yes, what percentage of the scheduling department's time does it typically account for? 21 How does your agency address scheduling for these occasions? 22 Which parts of the labor agreement or scheduling practices have the greatest impact on overall scheduling efficiencies? Put another way, what would you change if you could? 23 Are there any current issues re scheduling at your agency that this study could help to answer? TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-92

24 What are your agency's greatest needs re scheduling that this scheduling manual should address? SCHEDULING ORGANIZATION 25 Are your agency's schedulers represented by a union? Yes/no only 26 If Yes, Same union as bus operators "X" only one Different union from that of the bus operators 27 Where does the scheduling department fit within the organization? (e.g. operations, planning, marketing, regional). Please provide organization charts showing where the scheduling department fits and how it is organized, if these are available, to the email address at the end of this questionnaire. 28 What is the size of the scheduling department (full time equivalents)? 29 In your opinion, is the scheduling department adequately staffed to meet its obligations? Yes/no only 30 If not, what would be the appropriate size (in FTEs) of the scheduling department? 31 Is your scheduling function, or any part of it, outsourced? Yes/no only 32 If yes, what percentage is typically performed by the contractor? 33 How are manpower requirements for the scheduling department determined? 34 How are schedulers recruited? What are the minimum requirements for schedulers at your agency? From what backgrounds do your agency's schedulers come? Have they worked in transit operations? Have they worked in planning? Do they have college degrees, and in what subjects? 35 How does your staff learn to become schedule makers? Is there an apprenticeship, mentoring or in house training program? 36 Please describe the career path for schedulers in your agency. TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-93

37 Do schedulers work across all aspects of scheduling, or do they work within specific tasks (e.g. runcutting only), or within geographic regions (e.g. one division only) 38 How many scheduling department employees have retired within the past five years? 39 How many are eligible for retirement within the next five years? 40 Is there a plan to address future personnel needs? Yes/no only 41 If so, please describe below. 42 If we define "core" scheduling tasks as schedule writing, blocking, run cutting, and rostering, are any of the following non-core scheduling tasks being undertaken within the scheduling department to meet the requirements of interfacing with other departments? Stop management "X" all that apply AVL data APC data Other (please describe) 43 Describe any downstream data requirements for scheduling outputs at your agency. Stop inventory "X" all that apply AVL data APC data GIS Telephone information Public timetables Itinerary planning Bus stop schedules Other (please describe) 44 Describe the breakdown of scheduling staff time allocation (in percentage terms): Schedule writing & blocking Run cutting Period rostering Run times & ridership data analysis Data management for downstream systems Other (please describe) 45 Please describe any in-house training opportunities and training courses or conferences that schedule department personnel have attended in the past two years. 46 What do you see as the areas of greatest need for training and professional development among scheduling department personnel at your agency? TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-94

47 Is basic schedules training provided for anyone not directly involved in scheduling within your agency? If so, who provides this training, and what does it consist of? 48 Has your agency developed any basic or innovative techniques in schedule development or training that would be of interest to other transit agencies? Please describe below. 49 What are the major criteria in measuring the performance of schedulers? 50 How would you rate the proficiency of your schedule department staff overall? Excellent "X" only one option Good Average Below Average 51 What percentage of scheduling tasks are actually implemented (compared to tasks undertaken for costing or evaluation purposes only)? SCHEDULE WRITING 52 How often are schedules adjusted on a typical route (aside from running time changes)? For the purposes of this question, an adjustment is anything more than moving trips by a minute or two. Quarterly "X" all that apply Seasonally (e.g., school year/summer) Annually Every two years As needed Have not been adjusted on any route in the past two years 53 Please provide an overview of how schedules are developed at your agency. 54 How are headways/frequencies determined? (Check all that apply) Application of service guidelines TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-95

Policy headways "X" all that applyAd hoc, depending on the route and its history Budgetary considerations Other (please describe) 55 Where average or peak loads are used, how is the load factor determined? 56 Does your agency have documented service standards? Yes/no only 57 Does your agency operate more than one type of vehicle (e.g., different size) on a route within a given time period? Yes/no only 58 Please describe any other factors that influence headway and schedule development 59 Are clockface headways considered important at your agency? Yes/no only 60 If yes, at what frequency level are clockface headways considered unnecessary? 61 Are all times at timepoints published, or are only general headways published? All times at timepoints "X" only one optionGeneral headways Depends on frequency of service 62 Does your agency produce and publish stop-specific timetables for each stop in the system (as opposed to at timepoints only)? Yes/no only 63 If yes, please describe how your agency calculates times between timepoints 64 Does your agency operate any express, limited stop or skip stop services? Yes/no only 65 If yes, please describe, and explain how schedules are generated, and any differences from how other schedules are written. 66 Does your agency operate timed transfer locations? Yes/no only (If no, skip to Question 71) 67 Does your agency operate multi-modal timed transfers or planned multi modal coordinated schedules? Yes/no only 68 What transfer window is allowed for where scheduled transfers are defined? Please give a specific value or, if appropriate, a range, and describe any variations below (e.g., by mode, by location, by time of day, etc.). 69 Approximately what percentage of routes have at least one timed transfer? 70 How many timed transfer locations are in your agency’s transit network? TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-96

71 Does your agency operate school-day only trips? Yes/no only 72 If yes, are schedules, blocks and runs adjusted for non school days? Yes/no only 73 Where multiple routes operate over a common corridor, are those routes intertimed? Yes/no only 74 Are schedules written to ensure they can link effectively into blocks? Yes/no only RUNNING TIMES/LAYOVERS 75 How often is running time data collected for a typical route? 76 What sources of running time data are available? (Check all that apply) Manual checks "X" all that applyAVL data APC data Other (please describe) 77 Are single or multi-day data used? Single day "X" only one optionTwo or three days More than three days 78 How often are running times adjusted? 79 Describe, in summary form, your agency’s approach to calculating appropriate running times (e.g., use of averages, a certain percentile, professional judgment, negotiation with unions). 80 Do any system policies (folding strollers, all seated passengers, or others) affect dwell time? Yes/no only 81 If so, please elaborate. 82 Does vehicle type (e.g., double-deckers, low-floor buses) affect dwell time at your agency? Yes/no only 83 If so, please elaborate. 84 Do operators have the opportunity to participate in the process used to determine running times? Yes/no only 85 Does your agency use different running times at different times of the day, and on different days of the week? Yes/no only 86 Minimum layover prescribed by labor contract rules (describe below) 87 How does your agency address minimum layover requirements? TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-97

88 How would your agency address minimum layovers if no labor agreement restrictions were in place? 89 Does your agency provide mid-route layover time on any of your routes (e.g., to ensure timed transfers at certain locations)? Yes/no only 90 If yes, does this count toward minimum layover time for the route? Yes/no only 91 Does your agency distinguish between layover time and recovery time? Yes/no only 92 Do longer routes show trends towards less reliability on running time at your agency? If yes, by what percentage? 93 Has the advent of automated data improved the overall reliability of your services (through improved ability to update running times)? Please explain how. 94 In summary, How does your agency manage running time/layover evaluation? BLOCKING 95 Is blocking undertaken on a route, garage, division, or systemwide level? Route level "X" all that apply Garage level Division/area/region level Systemwide Other (please describe) 96 Are trips and blocks interlined? Yes/no only 97 If yes, what % of trips are interlined? 98 Is there any evidence of negative reliability impacts of interlining at your agency? Please describe. 99 Does your agency undertake "optimized" systemwide blocking, where you seek an optimal solution across the entire system while considering all aspects of service and all constraints? Yes/no only 100 If yes, please describe the frequency and nature of this optimization. TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-98

101 Are there any labor contract limitations/constraints on the blocking process? Yes/no only 102 If yes, please describe. 103 What parameters are used to define if a blocking solution is efficient (e.g. peak vehicles, % layover etc.)? Please describe. 104 Are historical comparisons of blocking solutions kept? Yes/no only For Questions 105-107, if you calculate overall weekly or annual percentages, repor the overall number; otherwise, report weekday, Saturday and Sunday separately t Overall Weekday Saturday Sunday 105 What is layover as % of platform time at your agency? 106 What is layover as % of in service time at your agency? 107 What are deadhead plus garage pull-in and pull-out times as % of platform time at your agency? 108 For multi-garage agencies, when was the last time you undertook a garage optimization study? 109 When creating blocks, are the impacts on runs (e.g. block lengths) taken into account? Yes/no only 110 Do you have vehicle type and/or modal constraints to consider when blocking? Yes/no only 111 If yes, please describe RUN CUTTING 112 Please estimate your agency’s pay to platform ratio from the most recent runcut without including extraboard in the total pay hours. Weekday Saturday Sunday 113 At what level does your agency undertake run cutting - route level, garage level, division level, or systemwide? Route level "X" all that apply Garage level Division/area/region level Systemwide Other (please describe) 114 Please summarize key elements/limitations of your labor agreement TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-99

115 What constitutes "overtime" for operators? Over 8 hours a day (10 hours for a four-day week) "X" only one optionOver 40 hours a week Either of the above Other (please describe below) 116 How does your agency view the trade off between additional operators compared to the cost of additional overtime? Have any detailed analysis been undertaken (if so, what were the results)? Does your agency avoid overtime at all costs? 117 What parameters are used to define if a run cut is efficient (e.g. total operators, pay/plat), or to compare options? Please describe. 118 Are historical comparisons of run cut solutions kept? Yes/no only 119 Does your agency have guaranteed minimum time for full-time operators? Yes/no only 120 Is guarantee/make-up time calculated daily or weekly? Daily "X" all that applyWeekly Both 121 Does your agency require “make-up” time to fill a run that would otherwise be less than 8 (5-day week) or 10 (4-day week) hours per day? Yes/no only 122 Does your agency require “make-up” time to fill weekly assignments that would otherwise be less than 40 hours per week? Yes/no only 123 Does your agency schedule paid travel time or relief allowances? Yes/no only 124 Are there contract limitations on the number or percentage of part-time operators? Yes/no only 125 If yes, Upper limit Lower limit 126 Are there upper and lower limits for weekly hours worked for part time operators? Yes/no only 127 If yes, Upper limit Lower limit 128 Are there other limitations on the use of part-time operators? Yes/no only 129 If yes, please describe. 130 Does your agency have guaranteed minimum time for part-time runs? Yes/no only 131 If yes, please describe TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-100

132 Please describe below how operators get to/from relief points. This could include several methods. 133 Describe how your agency schedules operator meal breaks and operator rest breaks. 134 How are operator breaks determined? Labor Agreement "X" all that applyLaw Preference/operating practice 135 Please describe the spread penalty at your agency. 136 Are report and turn-in time included in the spread calculation? Yes/no only 137 Are there any limitations on multi-piece runs? Yes/no only 138 If yes, please describe. 139 Please describe any constraints that pose the greatest restriction or impacts on runcut development. PERIOD ROSTERING 140 Please provide a brief overview of how period rosters are created and administered. 141 How is your agency’s extraboard/relief component sized? Is this a contract requirement or an agency formula? Please describe below. TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-101

142 Are picks rostered or is a cafeteria style system used? Please describe in greater detail below. Rostered "X" one onlyCafeteria Other (please describe) 143 Do drivers pick their days off, or are these assigned within each line of work? Drivers pick "X" one onlyAssigned by scheduling staff into period (i.e. weekly, monthly) lines of work Other 144 Do drivers work on the same line of work from week to week, or do they rotate through the runs over a period of time? Same from week to week "X" one onlyRotate Other (please describe) 145 Are consecutive days off required for full-time work pieces? Yes/no only 146 Can work pieces include a combination of extraboard/relief and regular run assignments? Yes/no only 147 Do part-time operators pick work or are they assigned work? Pick their work "X" all that applyAssigned by roster Assigned by operations staff 148 Does your system allow 4-day work weeks for operators? Yes/no only 149 If yes, what percentage of work weeks are 4/10, and what percentage are 5/8? 4/10 percentage 5/8 percentage Other percentage 150 What is your agency's view of the optimum mix of 4/10, 5/8 and part time operators. Has a detailed analysis been conducted? Please describe below. 151 Is all work picked, or is some left for extraboard/relief to cover? All picked/covered "X" one only Some left uncovered 152 If work is left uncovered, what % is typically left uncovered? 153 How are vacated runs primarily filled? Picked through seniority "X" one onlyLine pick Extraboard Other (please describe) 154 Please describe how runs are posted and selected. 155 Please describe any constraints that pose the greatest restriction on roster development. TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-102

COMPUTERIZED SCHEDULING 156 Does your agency use a computerized scheduling package? Yes/no only (If no, skip to Question 193) 157 If yes, what software package is used? 158 When was it originally procured? 159 Which modules were purchased? 160 When did your agency last upgrade? 161 Describe updates, including modules added 162 How long (from signed contract) did the original implementation project take? 163 Please provide the approximate cost for: Original software license & training Software implementation Software upgrades Software maintenance (annual cost) 164 Please indicate which parts of the scheduling process have been automated - by mode, where applicable Bus LRT Heavy Rail Planning routes X all that apply Developing running times Building trip tables Blocking Runcutting Rostering Managing the sign-up Extraboard sizing Part-time operator assignment Traffic data collection Daily crew assignment/absentee management Daily dispatching 165 Has your agency calculated savings directly attributable to implementation of computerized scheduling software (formally or informally)? Yes/no only. If yes, please answer next question. 166 If yes, what were the savings? $ terms % of operating costs 167 Is the package used by other staff in the organization (e.g. planning staff, operations staff)? Yes/no only. If yes, please answer next two question. 168 If so, by whom? 169 If so, how is the package used? Longer term planning X all that apply Daily operations/dispatch Absence management Mapping TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-103

Other (please specify) 170 To what extent are the solutions produced by your computerized system utilized (i.e. are they implemented directly, or do they require manual fine-tuning - and if so, to what extent)? 171 Has your agency assessed other benefits and/or efficiency impacts resulting from implementation of computerized scheduling software? If so, please describe below. Yes/no options 172 Has the size of your agency’s scheduling department changed as a direct result of implementation of computerized scheduling software? Yes/no only. If yes, please answer next question. 173 If yes, how has it changed? Increased (by how many positions) Only fill one Decreased (by how many positions) 174 What percentage of the current scheduling department staff did manual scheduling (at your agency or another agency) prior to the implementation of computerized scheduling software? 175 Has the time it takes your agency to produce and implement schedules changed as a direct result of implementation of computerized scheduling software? Yes/no only. If yes, please answer next question. 176 If yes, how has it changed? Increased (by how long) X one option only Decreased (by how long) 177 Has the implementation of computerized scheduling software increased either expectations of turnaround time or the volume of “what-if” tasks? Yes/no options 178 Overall, have the estimated benefits of implementing computerized scheduling been realized? Yes, fully realized X one option onlyYes, partially realized (describe issues in Q. 148) No (describe issues in Q. 148) 179 Describe any related issues. 180 Does your agency’s computerized scheduling software interface with other agency data systems? Yes/no only 181 If yes, which systems (payroll, dispatch, AVL etc) 182 Has your agency switched within the past two years from one scheduling package to another? Yes/no only. If yes, please answer questions 183-189 183 What was the original package? TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-104

184 What is the new package? 185 When was the new system purchased? 186 When was the original system purchased? 187 What were the main reasons for changing systems? 188 Overall, have the estimated benefits of changing systems been realized? Yes/No only 189 Describe any related issues. 190 Does the integration of your current computerized scheduling software with other agency functions preclude consideration of a change in scheduling packages? If yes, please elaborate below. Yes/No only 191 If yes, please elaborate below. 192 If not using computerized scheduling software, what general software tool does your agency primarily use to build schedules? Spreadsheet "X" one option only Database Word processor Other (please describe) 193 If not using computerized scheduling software, please describe how schedules, blocks and runs are built RAIL SCHEDULING 194 Are there any issues related specifically to scheduling light rail service at your agency that should be considered in this study? 195 Are there any issues related specifically to scheduling heavy rail service at your agency that should be considered in this study TCRP Project A-29 Appendix B: Transit Agency Survey Results Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page B-105