Maintaining Transit Effectiveness Under Major Financial Constraints (2014)

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.

97 This appendix provides additional information on how transit agencies have made their operations more effi cient through better service planning. The following response was provided by King County Metro in Seattle, Washington: • Scheduling effi ciencies. For HASTUS, schedulers made use of more advanced scheduling techniques that were possible in our scheduling software. This required additional training and tool “tuning,” but played a key role in trimming roughly $12 million in annual operating costs from our schedules without cutting service to customers. This effort was primarily executed in 2010 and 2011, but the skills/tools added then continue to add benefi t in the way we schedule today. Scheduling effi ciencies in 2010/2011 also helped reduce peak coach needs by more than 50 coaches. • Challenges of scheduling effi ciencies. There were trade-offs with respect to reliability. We’ve seen agency on-time perfor- mance roughly fall about 5 percentage points from 80% to 75% during 2010/2011. We’ve started to see some rebuilding of the on-time performance measure in 2012, back above 76%, as Metro makes new investments to address service reliability issues. • Use of service guidelines, APC data, and more quantitative analysis. We have collected data through APC for years, but the data have become more important as we implement our new service guidelines. Our APC and AVL data help us track route performance, which is an important part of service planning decision making under the guidelines. • Service design. Reinvesting low-performing services into services with overcrowding, reliability issues, or below-target service levels. Lower-performing services were reduced either in span or by removing less productive portions of the route, or eliminated altogether. Routes were only eliminated if there were adequate service alternatives. Our customer complaints increased as a result of this. • Elimination of the ride-free area. The travel time, farebox recovery and ridership impacts of the elimination of the ride-free area are undetermined at this point. The analysis will not be completed till later this spring. Initial estimates suggested that Metro could increase revenue by $2.2 million in 2013 and 2014, and $2.7 million in 2014, but this is not yet proven. • Stop consolidation. Metro has been implementing stop consolidation efforts in recent years, but with the threat of budget shortages, Metro was able to streamline the process and implement stop consolidation projects more quickly. The following response was provided by Long Beach Transit in Long Beach, California: • Service design changes were implemented to better serve California State University Long Beach when we implemented a UPASS program. One example of rerouting was new service to an area with large student housing and activities, resulting in 50% of riders of that route now being associated with CSULB. Ridership on all CSULB-related routes increased from 1,500 boardings/day to 10,000 boardings/day over 4 years. Interlining of routes saves on the number of buses needed to provide service. • AVL data are constantly being used to tweak runtimes to improve schedule adherence. While it’s diffi cult to quantify what effect this has had on ridership, it is well known that poor schedule reliability is one reason that drives people away from transit, and in our last customer survey the agency received an all-time high score in the question asking about schedule reli- ability. Proper scheduling can also save money through service effi ciencies. • Run-cutting software put out by GIRO continues to improve with each release. Our upgrade from HASTUS 2004 to HASTUS 2008 has resulted in a pay-to-platform improvement from 1.07 in February 2008 to 1.06 in February 2013. The pay-to-platform ratio is the ratio of the amount of time for which drivers get paid compared with the amount of time they actually work. For example, because drivers are guaranteed 8 hours even if they work less, a driver who worked a 7-hour run and got paid for 8 hours would have a pay-to-platform ratio of 8/7 = 1.14. • While our service standards are systemwide, they cause us to review routes that fall below standard (such as boardings per vehicle service hour or on-time performance). • Techniques to reduce dwell time. In September 2012, we segregated routes at two of our busiest stops in the downtown area so that each line only stopped at one of the two stops (the two stops are about 400 feet apart). This move was done to improve safety, reduce congestion, and improve schedule reliability. • GIS data allow us to analyze passenger boarding/alighting activity in comparison with bus capacity, so we can identify over- crowded and underutilized routes and make appropriate adjustments in service to save money and increase ridership. APPENDIX E Additional Responses to Survey Question #24 Dealing with Transit Effi ciency Gains from Operations, Service Planning, and Scheduling

98 On-board survey data provide information on how route changes would impact riders, allowing us, for example, to compare alternative route segments to both save money and improve ridership. The following information was provided by the Capitol District Transit Authority in Albany, New York: 1. Comprehensive Operations Analysis. We tightened segment times to reduce unnecessary layover times, making a more effi cient schedule. 2. We restructured 80% of our routes, combining underachieving ones and eliminating ones that didn’t meet criteria. 3. We used both APCs and AVL data when doing the Comprehensive Analysis. 4. We used our run-cutting software to actually make runs longer while downsizing headcounts, which showed a great deal of savings. 5. We consolidated bus stops on all routes to reduce dwell time. Additionally, we are using Transit Signal Priority on our BRT line, and it helps a great deal with controlling schedules. All these actions have resulted in increased ridership percentages of 6% to 8% across the board. They have also contributed to savings because of fewer operators needed to provide the same amount of service hours. The following information was provided by North County Transit District, serving north San Diego County: A Comprehensive Operations Analysis is in process. Service design changes—Mobility Plan implementation of phase 1 in FY 2012 reduced service levels while maintaining rider- ship. Subsequent phases add back service and have increased ridership. AVL—Utilized AVL data to assess on-time performance of contractor, and apply liquidated damages when applicable. Signal priority—Utilized on Route 350, which has improved travel time of the route, thus attracting more riders. The following information was provided by Valley Metro, serving the greater Phoenix area: Service Design Changes: As part of the Valley Express Effi ciency Assessment, Valley Metro staff met with representatives of mem- ber cities and undertook a review of express routes throughout the system. As a result, low-productivity routes were reduced and/or restructured to better serve park-and-rides, or they were eliminated. Utilization of Automatic Passenger Counters data: APCs on vehicles are used as much as possible. At this time, approximately 40% of buses are equipped with an APC. All light rail vehicles are equipped with APCs. Utilization of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data: Valley Metro operations staff utilizes ZONAR at schedule change times as a runtime tool. Besides using AVL, staff also rides routes that are operating at a lower runtime goal and routes that receive com- plaints from either customers or operators. Use of service standards: Service standards were created as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. Valley Metro reviews these standards for improvements and expansion. Reducing number of bus stops, traffi c signal priority: The standard for bus stops in the Phoenix metropolitan area is ¼ mile for local service. Express or limited service stops are typically 1 mile or less apart in a downtown area. Signal priority is available for our LINK BRT service in Mesa and Chandler. The following was provided by Community Transit, serving Snohomish County, Washington: Generally, the object of our planning initiatives is to develop effective and effi cient schedules and to operate the system on time and at an affordable cost. We designed service cuts over 2 years eliminating 37% of service yet preserving 88% of total ridership and

99 96% of weekday ridership. We have reduced the cost per rider and increased overall productivity more than 27%; more than 50% on many routes. Key elements of the service plan are: • Reduced high-cost services on the edge of the operating day when overhead is high in relation to service demand. Eliminated the earliest and latest services, reducing the amount of time the operating bases are open. • Reduced trips by feeding multiple long haul routes to a single point for consolidation to a common destination. • Consolidated trip times and markets on various routes to reduce the number of trips operated. • Straightened routes (eliminating deviations and loops) to shorten running time. • Consolidated stops and time points to speed running times. • Eliminated collector leg of commuter trips where other options were available (e.g., local route options or park-and-ride capacity). • Analyzed running times and modifi ed routes to better match optimum cycle times. • Improved coordination between run cutting and manpower scheduling. Community Transit’s system in 2012 carried 27% more people than it did in 2008, with the same level of service. This represents a signifi cant improvement in productivity. Since the start of the great recession, productivity, as measured by boardings per hour, has improved more than 25%. Developed fare increase recommendations implemented in 2010 and 2013. As part of the strategy to sustain service, regular fare increases are integral to the agency. Beginning in 2013, a fare increase is assumed every 2 years. Increased fare revenue will help offset cost increases. We negotiated a partnership agreement with the city of Everett and implemented the Swift BRT line, including off-board fare collection and a vehicle designed to reduce dwell times to 10 seconds or less. The following information was provided by the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority in Flagstaff: We built a small section of dedicated transitway to provide an advantage to the bus through a congested area. We are also realigning routes to shift from a time-transfer, centralized “pulse” system to several decentralized connection centers distributed around town. We are also evaluating the use of fl oating layovers to reduce recovery time and give operators a break while also keeping the buses moving. Our defi nition of a fl oating layover may not be an industry standard; however, we are experimenting with fi ve buses on a 75-minute route with six operators. This would maintain a 15-minute headway and keep the buses rolling without need for recovery at the end of each trip, while still giving operators a 15-minute break on each 75-minute run.