Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition (2013)

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.

1. User's Guide 2. Mode and Service Concepts 3. Operations Concepts 4. Quality of Service Concepts 5. Quality of Service Methods 6. Bus Transit Capacity 7. Demand-Responsive Transit 8. Rail Transit Capacity 9. Ferry Transit Capacity 10. Station Capacity 11. Glossary and Symbols 12. Index Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition CHAPTER 5 QUALITY OF SERVICE METHODS CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ S-1 How to Use This Chapter ................................................................................................................... 5-1 Other Resources .................................................................................................................................... 5-2 2. FIXED-ROUTE QUALITY OF SERVICE ................................................................................ S-3 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 5-3 Measures of Availability .................................................................................................................... 5-3 Measures of Comfort and Convenience .................................................................................... 5-22 Multimodal Level of Service .......................................................................................................... 5-39 3. DEMAND-RESPONSIVE QUALITY OF SERVICE ............................................................ 5-4 7 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 5-47 Availability Measures ...................................................................................................................... 5-4 7 Comfort and Convenience Measures ......................................................................................... 5-56 4. APPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5-71 Comprehensive Planning ............................................................................................................... 5-71 Long-Range Transportation Planning ...................................................................................... 5-71 Statewide Transportation Planning .......................................................................................... 5-75 Comprehensive Operational Analysis ....................................................................................... 5-75 Transit Development Plans ........................................................................................................... 5-76 Service Planning ................................................................................................................................ 5-77 Corridor Planning .............................................................................................................................. 5-77 Demand-Responsive Transit Operations ................................................................................ 5-78 5. CALCULATION EXAMPLES ................................................................................................. 5-79 Calculation Example 1: Service Coverage Analysis (Planning Level) .......................... 5-79 Calculation Example 2: Service Coverage Analysis (Detailed) ....................................... 5-85 Calculation Example 3: Reliability .............................................................................................. 5-89 Calculation Example 4: Multimodal Transit LOS .................................................................. 5-93 6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... S-101 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-i Contents I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 5-1 Quality of Service Framework: Fixed-Route Transit ............................................. 5-3 Exhibit 5-2 Fixed-Route Frequency QOS ............................................................................................ 5-4 Exhibit 5-2 (cont'd.) Fixed-Route Frequency QOS .......................................................................... 5-5 Exhibit 5-3 Fixed-Route Hours of Service QOS ................................................................................ 5-7 Exhibit 5-4 Fixed-Route Service Coverage QOS ............................................................................ 5-10 Exhibit 5-5 Example of Air- and Walk-Distance Service Coverage Area Differences .... 5-12 Exhibit 5-6 Street Pattern Types ......................................................................................................... 5-13 Exhibit 5-7 Street Connectivity Factors ........................................................................................... 5-13 Exhibit 5-8 Relationship Between Network Connectivity Index and Street Pattern Type .......................................................................................... 5-14 Exhibit 5-9 Grade Factor ........................................................................................................................ 5-14 Exhibit 5-10 Pedestrian Crossing Factor ......................................................................................... 5-15 Exhibit 5-11 Average Pedestrian Street Crossing Delay: Signalized Crossings ............... 5-16 Exhibit 5-12 Average Pedestrian Crossing Delay (s) : Unsignalized Crossings with No Yielding to Pedestrians ..................................................................................... 5-17 Exhibit 5-13 Service Coverage Area Compared to Transit-Supportive Area and Transit District Boundary ...................................................................................... 5-18 Exhibit 5-14 Service Coverage Calculation Results: Table Form ........................................... 5-19 Exhibit 5-15 Service Coverage Calculation Results : Map Form ............................................. 5-19 Exhibit 5-16 Fixed-Route Passenger Load QOS (Vehicles Designed for Mostly Seated Passengers) ................................................................................................... 5-23 Exhibit 5-17 Fixed-Route Passenger Load QOS (Vehicles Designed for Mostly Standing Passengers) ............................................................................................... 5-24 Exhibit 5-18 Body Ellipse ....................................................................................................................... 5-25 Exhibit 5-19 Body Ellipses: Clothed 95th-percentile U.S. Males in the Early 1970s and Mid-2000s ............................................................................................................ 5-26 Exhibit 5-20 U.S. Male Passenger Space Requirements ............................................................ 5-27 Exhibit 5-21 Fixed-Route On-Time Performance QOS ............................................................... 5-30 Exhibit 5-22 Fixed-Route Headway Adherence QOS .................................................................. 5-31 Exhibit 5-23 Components of Long-headway Waiting Time ..................................................... 5-33 Exhibit 5-24 Fixed-Route Transit-Auto Travel Time Ratio QOS ........................................... 5-35 Exhibit 5-25 Examples of Transit Service Attributes ................................................................. 5-38 Exhibit 5-26 Transit LOS Input Data ................................................................................................. 5-40 Exhibit 5-27 Variables for Pedestrian Environment Score ...................................................... 5-45 Exhibit 5-28 Thresholds for Transit LOS Values .......................................................................... 5-46 Contents Page 5-ii Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Exhibit 5-29 Quality of Service Framework: Demand Responsive Transit ....................... 5-4 7 Exhibit 5-30 DRT Response Time QOS ............................................................................................. 5-48 Exhibit 5-30 (cont'd.) DRT Response Time QOS .......................................................................... 5-49 Exhibit 5-30 (cont'd.) DRT Response Time QOS .......................................................................... 5-50 Exhibit 5-31 DRT Days of Service QOS ............................................................................................. 5-52 Exhibit 5-31 (cont'd.) DRT Days of Service QOS ........................................................................... 5-53 Exhibit 5-32 DRT Hours of Service QOS ........................................................................................... 5-54 Exhibit 5-33 Example DRT Service Coverage Graphic. .............................................................. 5-56 Exhibit 5-34 DRT On-time Performance QOS With a 30-min On-time Window ............. 5-58 Exhibit 5-34 (cont'd.) DRT On-time Performance QOS With a 30-min On-time Window ........................................................................................................ 5-59 Exhibit 5-35 DRT Trips Turned Down QOS .................................................................................... 5-62 Exhibit 5-35 ( cont'd.) DRT Trips Turned Down QOS ................................................................. 5-63 Exhibit 5-36 DRT Travel Time QOS ................................................................................................... 5-64 Exhibit 5-36 (cont'd.) DRT Travel Time QOS ................................................................................. 5-65 Exhibit 5-37 Example DRT Travel Time Calculation Process ................................................. 5-67 I Exhibit 5-38 DRT No-Show QOS ......................................................................................................... 5-69 Exhibit 5-38 (cont'd.) DRT No-Show QOS ....................................................................................... 5-70 Exhibit 5-39 Example Activity Center QOS Map ........................................................................... 5-72 Exhibit 5-40 Seattle Priority Bus Network Map ........................................................................... 5-73 Exhibit 5-41 Example Service Coverage Map ................................................................................ 5-7 4 Exhibit 5-42 QOS-related Measures Applicable to Peer Reviews ......................................... 5-77 Exhibit 5-43 List of Calculation Examples ...................................................................................... 5-79 Exhibit 5-44 Calculation Example 1: Riverbank City Map ........................................................ 5-80 Exhibit 5-45 Calculation Example 1: TAZ Locations ................................................................... 5-80 Exhibit 5-46 Calculation Example 1: Population and Employment Data ........................... 5-81 Exhibit 5-4 7 Calculation Example 1: Service Coverage Area .................................................. 5-82 Exhibit 5-48 Household and Job Densities ..................................................................................... 5-82 Exhibit 5-49 Calculation Example 1: Transit-Supportive TAZs ............................................. 5-83 Exhibit 5-50 Calculation Example 1: Transit-Supportive Areas Served (Existing Conditions) ................................................................................................................... 5-84 Exhibit 5-51 Calculation Example 2: Study Area Map ............................................................... 5-85 Exhibit 5-52 Calculation Example 2: Street Data ......................................................................... 5-86 Exhibit 5-53 Calculation Example 2: Excess Pedestrian Delay Calculations .................... 5-87 Exhibit 5-54 Calculation Example 2: Service Coverage Reductions by Stop .................... 5-88 Exhibit 5-55 Calculation Example 2: Reduced Service Coverage Area ............................... 5-88 Exhibit 5-56 Calculation Example 3: Bus Departure Time Data ............................................ 5-90 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-iii Contents

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Exhibit 5-57 Calculation Example 3: Schedule Deviation Calculations .............................. 5-91 Exhibit 5-58 Calculation Example 3: Headway Deviation Calculations .............................. 5-92 Exhibit 5-59 Calculation Example 3: Budgeted Wait Time and Excess Wait Time Calculation .................................................................................................................... 5-92 Exhibit 5-60 Calculation Example 4: Street Cross-Section by Alternative ........................ 5-94 Exhibit 5-61 Calculation Example 4: Transit Data by Scenario .............................................. 5-95 Exhibit 5-62 Calculation Example 4: Pedestrian Environment Data by Scenario .......... 5-95 Exhibit 5-63 Calculation Example 4: Transit Wait-Ride Score Calculation Results ...... 5-98 Exhibit 5-64 Calculation Example 4: Pedestrian Environment Score Calculation Results .................................................................................................... 5-99 Exhibit 5-65 Calculation Example 4: Transit LOS Results ...................................................... 5-100 Contents Page 5-iv Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Organization of Chapter 5. Service measures have associated QOS tables that interpret measure results from the passenger and transit operator points of view. Select QOS measures to evaluate based on the goals and objectives associated with a given analysis. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition 1. INTRODUCTION Chapter 4 introduced the concept that quality of service (QOS) reflects the passenger's perception of the service offered and delivered by the transit agency. It also introduced the concept that transit performance can be evaluated from a variety of (sometimes contrasting) points of view. Evaluating QOS is an important activity for transit agencies to undertake, as it measures things that make transit service attractive to existing and potential passengers, as well as things that can help build community support for transit service. At the same time, the ideal QOS from a passenger's point-of- view may not be the best use of limited agency resources. Therefore, transit agencies need to balance the QOS they provide with the resources they have available, using their policies, objectives, and standards as guides to achieving that balance. Chapter 5 of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) presents methods and measures for assessing the quality of service of both fixed-route transit and demand responsive transit provided for the general public: • Section 2 presents QOS measures for fixed-route transit. • Section 3 presents QOS measures for demand responsive transit. • Section 4 presents potential applications of QOS measures to a variety of transit and planning agency activities. • Section 5 provides calculation examples. HOW TO USE THIS CHAPTER This chapter provides service measures and other performance measures for evaluating QOS. Service measures are the measures that appear in the QOS frameworks introduced in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, and repeated in this chapter. QOS tables describing what passengers and transit operators experience at a given QOS level are provided for each service measure. These tables can be used to help interpret the results of a QOS analysis, to provide guidance in setting QOS-based service standards, and to help identify what would be required to take QOS to the next level. A variety of other QOS-related performance measures are also presented in this chapter. No QOS tables are provided for these measures, but they are included because they measure other important aspects of QOS not covered, or only partially covered, by the service measures. In many cases, a particular analysis will require evaluating only a subset of the QOS measures presented in this chapter. This chapter's applications section suggests which measures may be most appropriate for different types of analyses, based on typical analysis objectives. However, an overarching consideration should always be the goals and objectives associated with the analysis-for example, transit or planning agency objectives, or specific project objectives. The measures selected for a given analysis should be ones that can measure how well QOS-related objectives are being achieved. As discussed in Chapter 1, User's Guide, this edition of the TCQSM has a reduced focus on the use of level of service (LOS) letters to evaluate QOS. No A-F letter grades are associated with the service measures contained in the fixed-route and demand responsive QOS frameworks. However, for those users who wish to evaluate LOS, a Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-1 Introduction I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition "multimodal transit LOS" measure is provided that incorporates most of the elements of the fixed-route QOS framework, but produces a single LOS letter as a result, rather than the six that were produced in previous editions of the TCQSM. The LOS letter produced by this measure can be directly compared to LOS letters produced for companion measures for the bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile modes, as the letters indicate similar levels of traveler satisfaction across modes. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (1) provides methods for evaluating multimodal LOS for the other modes. The multimodal measures are particularly useful for evaluating the QOS perceived by users of all modes using a street and for evaluating the effects of potential projects on those users. OTHER RESOURCES Other TCQSM material related to quality of service includes: • The "What's New" section of Chapter 1, User's Guide, which describes the changes made in this chapter from the 2nd Edition; • Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, which introduces the QOS framework and describes how changes in QOS can affect ridership, operating costs, and capital costs; • Chapter 10, Station Capacity, which uses specialized LOS measures for evaluating and designing the pedestrian circulation elements of transit stops and stations; and • The manual's CD-ROM, which includes a spreadsheet for evaluating the transit multimodal LOS measure, and links to electronic versions of all of the TCRP reports referenced in this chapter. A "multimodal transit LOS" measure is provided for users desiring an A-F LOS result. The CD-ROM accompanying the manual includes a spreadsheet for evaluating the transit multimodal LOS measure. Introduction Page S-2 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-1 Quality of Service Framework: Fixed- Route Transit The core availability QOS measures address how often, how long, and where transit service is available. Access to information about the service, access to fare media, and availability of capacity are also aspects of transit availability. Service frequency determines how often potential transit users have access to service. Frequency is a key driver of operating costs. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 2. FIXED-ROUTE QUALITY OF SERVICE OVERVIEW This section presents QOS measures for fixed-route transit services, along with methods for calculating and interpreting these measures. The measures have been grouped into two areas: (a) availability and (b) comfort and convenience. The core QOS measures are listed in Exhibit S-1, along with the exhibit( s) where the service levels for each measure are presented. Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, introduced these categories and the reasons behind the choice of measures presented there. Therefore, this section focuses on describing how to evaluate these measures. Availability Frequency (Exhibit 5-2) Service Span (Exhibit 5-3) Access (Exhibit 5-4) MEASURES OF AVAILABILITY Comfort and Convenience Passenger Load (Exhibit 5-16 and Exhibit 5-17) Reliability (Exhibit 5-21 and Exhibit 5-22) Travel Time (Exhibit 5-24) The core fixed-route availability measures presented in this section describe how often service is provided (frequency), how long service is provided (hours of service), and where service is provided (access) . Looked at in combination, these measures describe both the temporal and spatial aspects of transit availability. Simply having service available where and when a potential passenger wishes to use is not sufficient, however. Passengers need to know where to go and how to use the service (information provision), need to have or be able to obtain the correct fare media, and need to have capacity available (e.g., at a park-and-ride lot, on board the vehicle) at the time they want to travel. Service Frequency From the user's perspective, service frequency determines how often a potential user has access to transit service. Other travel modes-driving, bicycling, and walking-are always available for immediate use by users who have the necessary equipment (e.g., a car, a bicycle), although safety, security, cost, and comfort concerns (e.g., drunk drivers, poor or missing infrastructure, crime, pricing, poor weather) may limit the times and locations where one chooses to use one of those modes. In contrast, transit service can only be used at discrete times. If transit service is only offered hourly, there is a very limited window of time during the hour when a transit trip can be started immediately. More-frequent service provides more opportunities for immediate travel, and allows transit service to more closely resemble competing modes in terms of departure time convenience. From the transit operator's perspective, frequency is a key driver of operating costs, as discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts. All other things being equal (in particular, average travel speeds), doubling the frequency doubles operating costs (driverless transit systems being the exception) and increases capital costs to the degree that additional vehicles are used and infrastructure improvements are needed to allow the increased frequency. Also as discussed in Chapter 4, frequency is a key driver Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-3 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition of ridership, with more frequent routes being more attractive to potential passengers, all other things being equal. Service standards based on frequency are typically developed at the route level, and are linked to the route's intended function, ridership, or both. From a passenger point of view, the quality of service provided can also relate both to the total service provided at a location (across all routes) and to specific destinations (which may be served by more than one route). Exhibit 5-2 describes the quality of service provided at different route headways, and the corresponding perspectives of the transit operator. Average Headway :55 min >5-10 min Passenger Perspective • Very frequent service, no need for passengers to consult schedules • Bus bunching more likely, which can result in longer-than-planned waits for a bus and more variable passenger loads • Frequent service, no need for passengers to consult schedules • Bus bunching possible, which can result in longer-than-planned waits for a bus and more variable loads Operator Perspective • Feasible for bus or rail service in very high-density (high-ridership) corridors, and where routes converge to serve a major activity center • Exclusive right-of-way highly desirable to reduce external impacts on transit operations and to keep operating speeds high (minimizing operating costs) • In mixed traffic, bus and streetcar headways approach traffic signal cycle lengths: bunching can easily occur • Adding more frequency to add capacity may not be feasible or effective due to (a) minimum train spacing requirements or (b) unused capacity due to bus bunching • Using larger or longer vehicles, or replacing seats with standing area, may be options for adding capacity short of upgrading transit modes • Feasible on high-density corridors with bus or rail service, and where routes converge to serve a major activity center • Short headways needed for circulator routes to be able to compete with walking and bicycling (2) • Exclusive right-of-way desirable to reduce external impacts on transit operations and to keep operating speeds high (minimizing operating costs) • Traffic congestion, dwell time variability, and differences in bus operator driving styles may result in bus bunching • Increasing frequency to add capacity usually feasible (budget permitting) when exclusive right-of-way provided in congested areas Exhibit 5-2 Fixed-Route Frequency QOS Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page S-4 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-2 (cont'd.) Fixed-Route Frequency QOS Average Headway 11-15 min 16-30 min 31-59 min 60 min >60 min Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Passenger Perspective • Relatively frequent service, but passengers will usually check scheduled arrival times to minimize their waiting time at the stop or station • Maximum desirable wait time for the next service if a bus or train is missed • Passengers will check scheduled arrival times to minimize their waiting time • Passengers must adapt their travel to the transit schedule, often resulting in less- than-optimal arrival or departure times for them • Non-clockface headways require passengers to check scheduled arrival times • Passengers must adapt their travel to the transit schedule, usually resulting in less- than-optimal arrival and/or departure times for them • Provides more bus departures per day than hourly service over the same service span • Provides a minimal service level to meet basic travel needs • Passengers must adapt their travel to the transit schedule, usually resulting in less- than-optimal arrival and departure times for them • Undesirable for urban transit service due to typical long waits for return trips and when a bus is missed Operator Perspective • Often branded as "frequent service" in conjunction with long service hours, including weekends • Feasible in higher-density corridors (e.g., 15 dwelling units/net acre for bus service [3]), routes with strong anchors on both ends, and park-and-ride-based peak- period commuter bus service • Typically the longest feasible off-peak headway that would justify light rail or BRT service • Typically provided as 20- or 30-min headways (e.g., 3 or 2 buses per hour) • Other headways can also be seen when traffic congestion increases bus running time, but budget not available to add service • Feasible in moderate-density corridors (e.g., 7 dwelling units/net acre for bus service [3]) • Typical commuter rail headway; longest commuter bus headway • Typically provided as 40- or 45-min headways • Other headways can also be seen when traffic congestion increases bus running time, but budget not available to add service • Feasible in low-to-moderate density corridors (e.g., 5-6 dwelling units/net acre [3]) • Typical maximum headway for fixed- route bus service • Potentially feasible at densities as low as 4 dwelling units/net acre, depending on ability to subsidize service (3) • May be provided to meet a service coverage standard • May wish to consider some form of demand-responsive transit to provide service that better meets passengers' travel needs Existing service frequency can be readily determined from a transit agency's timetable data. Estimating future service frequency (for example, to determine longer- term service needs) typically involves estimating future ridership demand for analysis hours of interest, dividing hourly demand by the transit agency's loading standard for the service to determine the number of required hourly trips, adjusting demand for any Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-5 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition ridership changes induced by changes (up or down) in future frequency, and comparing the results to the agency's policy headway, which may specify minimum service levels. At a system level (e.g., for use in peer comparisons), an average system peak-period headway can be determined from NTD data. First, divide directional route miles by the average system speed (revenue miles per revenue hour) to give the average round-trip (cycle) time for all vehicles on all routes. Divide this result by the number of vehicles operated in peak service to give an average peak headway in hours, and multiply by 60 to give a result in minutes. Even on single-line transit systems (e.g., a small commuter rail operation), the average system peak-period headway may not represent actual headways experienced by passengers (for example, due to differences in headways between the two directions of the route). Nevertheless, this measure is a good general indicator of relative differences in peak headways among transit systems ( 4) . Hours of Service Hours of service represents the number of hours during the day when transit service is provided along a route, is available at a specific location, or is available between two locations. It plays as important a role as frequency and service coverage in determining the availability of transit service to potential users: if transit service is not provided at the time of day a potential passenger needs to take a trip, it does not matter where or how often transit service is provided the rest of the day. The longer the hours of service that are provided, the greater the variety of trip purposes that can be served. Longer hours of service than needed to serve a particular market (e.g., office workers) gives those customers travel flexibility, particularly for their return trip (e.g., to work late, to run errands after work). From the transit operator's perspective, hours of service affects operating costs, as transit vehicles are in service longer, with the corresponding costs to power them and (usually) to drive them. All other things being equal, a 20% increase in the hours operated over the course of the week will typically increase operating costs by 2 0%, whether the added hours come from extending hours of service by 2 hours a day on weekdays, or by providing 10 hours of new service on Saturdays. Another consideration for rail operators is that their ability to provide long (particularly all-night) hours of service may be constrained by their need to perform track maintenance at some point during the day or week. Service standards based on hours of service are typically developed at the system level (for smaller transit systems, where all routes connect to each other) and at the route level for larger transit systems. Route-level standards are typically linked to the markets served by the route, ridership, or both. Ridership-based standards may allow for lower ridership on the last trip of the day, to provide insurance against stranding riders who would normally take the next-to-last trip of the day. Exhibit 5-3 describes the quality of service provided at different ranges of hours of service, and the corresponding perspectives of the transit operator. Hours of service helps determine the potential markets that transit can serve. Longer hours of service result in increased operating costs, all other things being equal. Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page S-6 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Exhibit 5-3 Fixed-Route Hours of Service QOS Hours of Service >18 h 15-18 h 12-14 h 7-11 h 4-6 h <4 h Passenger Perspective • A full range of trip purposes can be served • Allows bus travel to replace potentially riskier travel by other modes late at night (e.g., crime, drunk driving, poor visibility) • Provides service late into the evening and/or earlier in the morning, allowing a broad range of trip purposes to be served (e.g., night classes, retail and industrial employee work trips, social and entertainment trips, early morning flights/train trips) • Provides a long enough service span to serve work trips based around traditional office hours, with some arrival and departure time flexibility • Allows trips to be made during the middle of the day • At the upper end of the range, still not enough service for someone working traditional office hours who needs flexibility to run errands after work • With peak-period service (e.g., commuter bus), allows some choice of a.m. and p.m. departure times • With hourly service, allows opportunities to make trips during a defined period of time, with less wasted time waiting for the return trip • Basic lifeline service that allows a round trip in one day or a half day • Passengers' days must be planned around the transit schedule, with little or no flexibility Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-7 Operator Perspective • Often branded as "night" or "owl" service • May require added driver pay for late- night work • May require increased security measures on transit vehicles and in transit facilities • May only be offered certain days (e.g., Friday and Saturday nights) • May be operated on a different set of routes than operate the rest of the day (e.g., emphasizing coverage over travel time) • May require more than two full-time drivers per vehicle or overtime pay • To enhance nighttime passenger security off the bus, some bus operators allow flag stops where safe, to minimize passenger walking distance to their destination • Evening service may be operated on a different set of routes than operate the rest of the day (e.g., emphasizing coverage over travel time) • Can be covered by two full-time drivers per vehicle • Provides sufficient work for full-time drivers, but may require a midday gap in service for a driver lunch break in a system with few routes • Two part-time drivers per bus could also provide service on a route without a lunch-break service gap • Not uncommon weekday service hours for small city service; good weekend small city service • Typical service hours for commuter bus and commuter rail service that operates peak periods only • Provides sufficient work for part-time drivers • Minimum service hours for hourly service (e.g., small city weekend service) • Might be provided on rural routes with only a few daily departures (e.g., morning, midday, afternoon) • Buses and drivers may need to alternate between routes for resources to be used effectively Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Hours of service can be calculated as follows : • Service at least hourly. Subtract the departure time of the first trip of the day from the departure time of the last trip of the day, add 1 h, and round down any fractional hours. For example, service every 30 min between 5:30 a.m. and 8:00p.m. results in 15 hours of service (20:00- 05:30 = 14:30, add 1, and round down the fraction) . • Hourly-or-worse service. Count the number of departures. For example, departures at 5:30a.m., 6:30a.m., 7:30a.m., 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 3:30p.m., 4:30p.m., and 5:30p.m. equals 8 hours of service. Hours of service can be measured at a given location, or for a particular origin- destination pair. It may be more appropriate to measure hours of service this way than by route, as multiple routes may serve the same pairs oflocations during different times of the day. For example, an express bus may operate peak hours only between a park- and-ride lot and the CBD. During off-peak hours, the same trip might still be possible using local bus routes, perhaps involving a transfer. From a passenger's perspective, the trip could be made by transit using either route, resulting in longer hours of service than if each route were considered separately. (Other QOS measures can be used to describe the differences in service between the express and local routes for the same trip.) Existing hours of service can be readily determined from a transit agency's timetable data. Estimates of future hours of service for planning purposes would typically be developed as part of a series of alternatives to be analyzed, or would be determined by agency policy. At a system level (e.g., for use in peer comparisons), the NTD's service span measure can be used to provide a coarse comparison of the hours of service operated, preferably by comparing individual modes to each other. Service span is defined as the time between the first and last services of the day anywhere in the system, so it does not necessarily reflect "average" or "typical" hours of service on individual routes ( 4) . Access Access to transit considers the spatial elements of transit availability: • Is transit service provided near one's desired origins and destinations? • Can one get to and from the necessary transit stops or stations? The first question considers city- or region-wide mobility and connectivity. The second question considers more localized issues of street, sidewalk, and bicycle facility existence and connectivity; topography; parking capacity; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and safety and security. Both the large-scale (coverage) and small-scale (local access) aspects of access are discussed in this section. Access to transit can occur in a number of ways. As previously discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, the main transit access modes are (5): • Walking-the dominant access mode to local bus service and to transit stations in higher-density locations and at university campuses; • Bicycling-can serve more than 5% of arriving passengers, under the right circumstances; Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page S-8 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

'Transit-supportive area served" is the recommended measure of systemwide access. Transit-supportive areas are capable of supporting at least hourly weekday bus service. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition • Auto drop-off-can account for 10-15% of ridership at suburban transit stations; and • Auto park-and-ride-the dominant access mode at transit stations in suburban locations. All of these access modes are discussed within this section. However, walking access receives the most attention, due to its dominance in local bus access and at the destination end of a trip, and as an important access mode to many types of transit stations. The market areas of park-and-ride lots were discussed in Chapter 4; this section presents measures of the quality of auto access at the stop or station level. Walking Access Service coverage is the area located within walking distance of transit service. As with the other availability measures, it does not provide a complete picture of transit availability by itself, but when combined with frequency and hours of service, it helps identify the number of opportunities people have to access transit from different locations. Service coverage can be measured in a number of ways: • Route density. Measures such as route miles per square mile are relatively easy to calculate from NTD data, but do not address how well transit service is distributed across a given area, nor how well the most potentially productive portions of the area are served. • Geographic or population coverage. A common way of expressing a service coverage goal is in terms of percentage of the system area served, or percentage of the population served. However, depending on how a system's political boundaries have been drawn, there can be big differences in geographic coverage between city-focused systems and countywide systems (which may include large areas of unserved rural land). In addition, land use patterns- something a transit agency typically has no control over-may dictate how readily an area's population can be served by transit. • Potential fixed-route transit market coverage. As discussed in Chapter 3, Operations Concepts, fixed-route service requires certain levels of population and employment density to be viable. Of course, density is not the only factor that drives the viability of transit service in an area-demographic factors such as car ownership also play a role. However, density is an important starting point, as it determines how many potential customers exist within a given area. Measuring the transit-supportive area served allows one to measure systemwide access, while focusing on the portions of the region best suited to support fixed- route service, and is therefore the recommended measure. Exhibit 5-4 describes the quality of service provided at different levels of service coverage, along with the corresponding policy decisions the transit operator has made explicitly or implicitly, and the implications for route productivity. The processes for determining transit-supportive areas and the areas served by fixed-route transit are described following this exhibit. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-9 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Service Level >90% of service a rea population served >90% of transit- supportive area served 75-90% of transit- supportive area served 50-74%of transit- supportive area served <50% of transit- supportive area served Passenger Perspective • Transit serves nearly all destinations within a community • On-board travel time may be long, as routes wind and loop through neighborhoods to meet a service coverage standard • Transit serves nearly all higher-density areas within the community • Destinations located in lower-density areas may not be accessible • Most destinations within higher-density areas are served, but not all • A majority of destinations within higher- density areas are served • Walking and bicycling access to transit likely to be longer, as service is provided farther away from many origins and/or destinations • Service is typically provided only in the community's highest-density corridors • What service is provided is likely to be relatively direct, resulting in relatively short travel times Defining the Service Coverage Area Operator Perspective • Transit operator has made a policy decision to emphasize coverage over cost-efficiency • Portions of routes covering low-density areas likely to be unproductive • May be inefficient to serve isolated portions of the transit-supportive area due to poor street connectivity or geographic barriers • Likely inefficient to serve small pockets of higher density surrounded by large areas of low density • Balances coverage and cost-efficiency objectives • Potential opportunity to add service, as many areas that could support service have no service • Transit operator has made a policy decision to emphasize cost-efficiency over coverage The following method for determining a transit system's service coverage area can be implemented at various levels of complexity, ranging from a planning-level activity that only considers air distances from stops and stations to more detailed analyses that also incorporate considerations of street network patterns, sidewalk existence, street- crossing difficulty, terrain, and age of the population. A decision on the level of complexity to use in an analysis should consider: • Available tools. The use of GIS software is highly recommended. Given sufficient time, a basic planning-level analysis can be performed manually; details of the process are provided in the TCQSM 2nd Edition (1) . Incorporating consideration of street network patterns into the analysis is simplified by GIS software that can trace paths along the street network • Available data. The more detailed levels of analysis require more detailed data (e.g., sidewalk presence, traffic volumes, grades) than may be available locally. • Available time and budget. Shorter timeframes and smaller budgets suggest a less detailed level of analysis, particularly when multiple alternatives are being evaluated. Exhibit 5-4 Fixed-Route Service Coverage QOS Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-10 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Service coverage areas extending across barriers that block pedestrian access should be removed. Equation 5-l Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition • Questions being asked. Some types of studies may benefit from a more detailed analysis. Incorporating more details allows the effects on access of more types of infrastructure projects to be evaluated. Conversely, simple questions may only require a basic level of analysis. As discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, depending on the study and the specific characteristics of the location studied, between 50 and 95% of transit passengers walk no farther than 0.25 mi ( 400 m) to a local bus stop, with an average value from these studies of about 75%. Passengers are willing to walk at least twice as far to rapid-transit service (rail or BRT). At an average walking speed of 3 mi/h (5 km/h), a 0.25-mi walk distance is equivalent to a 5-min walk. For a planning analysis, the service coverage area of a local bus stop is defined as the air distance within 0.25 mi ( 400 m) and the service coverage area of a rapid transit (rail or BRT) station is defined as the air distance within 0.5 mi (800 m). Because actual walking distances from the edges of these circles will be longer than the air distance, these circles can be assumed to encompass a large majority of the people who will walk to the stop or station. The buffering feature of GIS software can be used to draw these circles around stops and stations. Service coverage areas that extend across barriers (e.g., freeways, railroads, water bodies) where no pedestrian access exists should be identified and removed. When accurate bus stop location data are not available, the service area of a bus route can be approximated by drawing a 0.2 5 mi ( 400 m) buffer around the route. This approximation is most accurate when the average stop spacing is six stops per mile (four stops per kilometer) or more frequent. If a more-detailed analysis is desired, each stop's service coverage area can be reduced in proportion to the additional time required to climb hills, cross busy streets, wind one's way out of a subdivision, and so on. Each stop ends up with an individual service radius that, in most cases, is smaller than the 0.25 to 0.5 mi ( 400 to 800 m) base distance, and therefore serves a smaller number of people and jobs. This can be expressed mathematically as shown in Equation 5-1: rs = rofscfofpop/px where rs = transit stop service radius (mi, m); ro = ideal transit stop service radius ( mi, m ), /sc fg fpop fpx = 0.25 mi ( 400 m) for bus stops, and 0.5 mi (800 m) for busway and rail stations; = street connectivity factor; = grade factor; = population factor; and = pedestrian crossing factor. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-11 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Because of the greater number of factors incorporated in a more detailed analysis, this method is better suited for analyzing small areas that range from the vicinity of an individual stop to a neighborhood. However, it can be applied to larger areas, up to an entire system, if data are available or if the analyst develops default values (e.g., default hourly traffic volumes by street class and location) for missing data. The selected methodology should be applied consistently throughout the study area. Refinement for actual walking distances. Exhibit 5-S illustrates that there can be a significant difference in service coverage areas defined by air distances from transit stops, compared to the coverage areas when actual walking distances are used, particularly when there is poor street connectivity. A map like Exhibit 5-5 can be used to highlight the need for good pedestrian connections to provide the maximum possible access to the transit service that is being offered. (a) Air distance-based coverage area Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and URS, Inc. (7) . (b) Walk distance-based coverage area GIS software with path-tracing functionality can be used to create such a map. When GIS software is used,/sc = 1.0, as the buffers created by the software already account for street connectivity. If sidewalk data are available, this method could conceivably be further refined by tracing paths only where sidewalks exist. If path-tracing functionality is not available, the air distance buffer can be reduced instead in proportion to the amount of out-of-direction travel a pedestrian is forced to make to get to a transit stop from the surrounding land uses. Three types of street patterns are defined (8) : • Type 1, a traditional grid system; • Type 2, a hybrid layout that incorporates elements of both Type 1 and Type 3 street patterns; and • Type 3, a cul-de-sac based street network with limited connectivity. Exhibit 5-6 illustrates the three types of street patterns. These sketches may be used to estimate the area type surrounding the bus stops under study. Because a planning- level analysis will produce different results than a more detailed one, only one method should be applied to a given analysis. Exhibit 5-S Example of Air- and Walk-Distance Service Coverage Area Differences Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-12 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-6 Street Pattern Types Exhibit 5-7 Street Connectivity Factors Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition ~ ~l ll¥Jr ± \-'- -~~ - J=::::1 =>','X-:::J II Y.!J 1111 - l I I ffi j ) II ~~ \/ Hll I I r- 1--:;::}.jj, I fnu I I r- I= ~ -H _rr I IT r \=J t=IJ J (a) Type 1-Grid (b) Type 2-Hybrid (c) Type 3-Cul-de-Sac As can be seen from the above sketches, a grid street pattern provides the most direct pedestrian access to transit stops. However, walking distances to and from a transit stop can still be about 42% longer than the corresponding air distance. Stated another way, only about 64% of the area within 0.25-mi ( 400-m) air distance of a transit stop in a grid street pattern lies within 0.25-mi walking distance of the stop. The amount of coverage provided by the other street patterns is even lower: 54% of the area within a 0.25-mi radius of a transit stop in an average hybrid street pattern lies within 0.25-mi walking distance, and only 28% of the area in an average cul-de-sac street pattern lies within 0.25-mi walking distance. Starting with the grid street pattern as the best case (i.e., no reduction in coverage is made for a grid pattern), Exhibit 5-7 provides suggested street connectivity factors for the other street patterns. The factor is based on the ratio of each street pattern's area covered to the area covered in a grid network. Street Pattern Type Street Connectivity Factor, fsc Type 1-Grid 1.00 Type 2-Hybrid 0.85 Type 3-Cul-de-Sac 0.45 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-13 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition As an alternative to using the sketches, a measure of the network connectivity may be used instead to determine the area type. The network connectivity index is the number of links (i.e., street segments between intersections) divided by the number of nodes (i.e., intersections) in a roadway system (8). It is assumed for this application that all of the roadways provide for safe pedestrian travel. The index value ranges from about 1.7 for a well-connected grid pattern to approximately 1.2 for a cul-de-sac-based suburban pattern. Exhibit 5-8 shows the relationship between the network connectivity index and the street pattern type. Network Connectivity Index Street Pattern Type >1.55 Type 1-Grid 1.30-1.55 Type 2-Hybrid <1.30 Type 3-Cul-de-sac Refinement for terrain. As was shown in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts (Exhibit 4-13, page 4-19), the horizontal distance that pedestrians travel in a given period of time decreases as the vertical distance climbed increases, particularly when the grade exceeds 5%. The area located within a given walking time of a transit stop decreases in proportion to the square of the reduced horizontal distanced traveled. Exhibit 5-9 gives reduction factors for the effect of average grades on a given stop's service coverage area. Average Grade Grade Factor, f9 0-5% 1.00 6-8% 0.95 9-11% 0.80 12-15% 0.65 This factor assumes that pedestrians will have to walk uphill either coming or going. If the transit route network provides service on parallel streets, such that a person could walk downhill to one route on an outbound trip and downhill from another route back to one's origin on the return trip, use a grade factor of 1.00. Refinement for population characteristics. Average pedestrian walking speed depends on the proportion of elderly pedestrians ( 65 years or older) in the walking population (9) . The average walking speed of a younger adult is 4.0 ftjs (1.2 mjs), but when elderly pedestrians constitute 20% or more of the pedestrian population, a 3.3 ftjs (1.0 mjs) average speed should be used. For transit stops where 20% or more of the boarding volume consists of elderly pedestrians, a population factor, fpop, of 0.85 should be used to account for the reduced distance traveled during a 5-min walk Refinement for street crossing difficulty. Wide, busy streets pose a barrier to pedestrian access to transit stops. Pedestrians start to become impatient once pedestrian crossing delay exceeds 30 s (1). Therefore, it can be assumed that any street crossing delay in excess of 30 s results in added travel time to reach a transit stop. Put another way, if a person has a fixed maximum time budget to spend in accessing transit, street crossing delay reduces the amount of budget available for actual walking. As a result, street crossing delay results in shorter maximum walking distances and a reduction in the size of a stop's service coverage area (7) . Using a network connectivity index to determine the street pattern type. Exhibit 5-8 Relationship Between Network Connectivity Index and Street Pattern Type Exhibit 5-9 Grade Factor Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-14 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Equation 5-2 Exhibit 5-10 Pedestrian Crossing Factor Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition The pedestrian crossing factor reduces transit availability in proportion to the number of people who walk, for example, 4 min or less to a transit stop, compared to those who walk 5 min or less. Using the Edmonton, Alberta curve (representing the approximate mid-point of the reported results) from Exhibit 4-12, Walking Distance to Bus Stops, in Chapter 4 (page 4-18), about 85% of bus passengers walk no more than 0.25 mi ( 400 m) to access transit, while about 75% of bus passengers walk no more than 1,000 ft (300m) to access transit. If excess crossing delays amounted to the time required to walk 320ft (100m), then the stop's service area would be effectively reduced by a factor of 75% divided by 85%, or 0.88 (7) . Taking the square root of this result, in this case 0.94, provides the walking distance reduction that results in that reduced service area. A best-fit curve was applied to the Edmonton data to develop the following equation for a distance-based pedestrian crossing factor (7): /px = jc-o.0005d~c- 0.1157dec + 100)/100 where f px = pedestrian crossing factor, and dec = pedestrian crossing delay exceeding 30 s (s) . Exhibit 5-10 depicts this curve. The factor is 1.00 whenever pedestrian crossing delay on the street with transit service is less than or equal to 30 s. When dec exceeds 345 s,fpx should be automatically set to 0.0. 1.00 -I'-1-r-- 0.90 I-1-.... ..... ..... 0.80 ..... ..... ..... ..... ~ 0.70 .._, 0 t'- ~ ..... u 0.60 rtl 1.1.. ' ...... tiO c 0.50 'iii ., 0 .... u 0.40 c ' ' '\ ' rtl ·;:: 0 .30 ..... \ - - ., QJ "'C QJ 0.20 c.. \ 0 .10 \ ' 0.00 0 so 100 150 200 250 300 350 Pedestrian Crossing Delay (s) At signalized pedestrian crossings, average crossing delay is based on the cycle length and the amount of time available for pedestrians to begin crossing the street, as shown in the following equation (1): Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-15 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition d = (C- 9Walk) 2 P 2C where: dr = average pedestrian delay (s), C = traffic signal cycle length (s), and Bwalk = effective green time for pedestrians (WALK time+ 4 s of flashing DON'T WALK) (s). Exhibit 5-11 shows typical delays incurred by pedestrians when crossing streets at signalized locations, for various street widths and median types. Only the portion of the delay exceeding 30 s should be used in calculating the pedestrian crossing factor. Transit Street Crossing Distance Lanes 1 2U 2D 3 4U 4D 5 6D ft 15 24 28 36 48 54 60 78 m 4.6 7.3 8.5 11.0 14.6 16.5 18.3 23.8 Assumed cycle length (s) 60 60 60 90 90 120 140 180 Assumed WALK time (s) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 Delay (s) 20 20 20 35 35 50 59 78 Delay exceeding 30 s (s) 0 0 0 5 5 20 29 48 Source: Calculated from Equation 5-3, using the assumed cycle length, lane widths, and WALK times shown . WALK time assumed to be the greater of 7 s or 5% of the cycle length. Note: U=undivided, D=divided (with raised median or other pedestrian refuge) . At unsignalized pedestrian crossings where pedestrians do not have the legal right- of-way (or where motorists do not grant pedestrians their legal right-of-way), average crossing delay is based on the crossing distance, average pedestrian walking speed, and traffic volumes (vehicle flow rates). To the extent that motorists yield to pedestrians, delay can be reduced. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM, 1) methods can be used to calculate pedestrian delay at unsignalized locations, including locations where automobiles yield to pedestrians. These delay estimates are based on pedestrians waiting as long as necessary for a safe gap in traffic; however, as noted previously, pedestrians start exhibiting risk-taking behavior (e.g., forcing their way into the crossing, accepting shorter gaps) after about 30 s of delay (1) . Exhibit 5-12 shows typical values of delay at unsignalized intersections calculated from the HCM, based on various combinations of lane widths, median types, and traffic volumes. This exhibit assumes no yielding to pedestrians and single-stage crossings (i.e., pedestrians must cross the entire street width at one time); therefore, these delay values are conservative. Only the portion of the delay exceeding 30 s should be used in calculating the pedestrian crossing factor. Where pedestrians are routinely granted the right-of-way, they experience a minimal amount of delay (well below the 30-s threshold) waiting to make sure that traffic will stop for them before they start to cross the street. Equation 5-3 Exhibit 5-11 Average Pedestrian Street Crossing Delay: Signalized Crossings Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-16 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-12 Average Pedestrian Crossing Delay (s): Unsignalized Crossings with No Yielding to Pedestrians "Jobs" refers to jobs at worksites. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Crossing Distance 11ane 2 3 4 5 6 Volume Flow Rate 15ft 24 36 48 60 72 (veh/h) (veh/s) 4.6m 7.3 11.0 14.6 18.3 22.0 200 0.056 1 3 6 8 13 19 300 0.083 2 4 10 15 24 36 400 0.111 3 6 15 24 40 63 500 0.139 3 9 21 36 63 105 600 0.167 4 12 30 52 97 172 700 0.194 6 15 41 75 147 279 800 0.222 7 20 55 107 223 * 900 0.250 9 25 75 151 * * 1,000 0.278 11 31 100 214 * * 1,100 0.306 N/A 39 133 302 * * 1,200 0.333 N/A 48 178 * * * 1,300 0.361 N/A 60 237 * * * 1,400 0.389 N/A 74 317 * * * 1,500 0.417 N/A 91 * * * * 1,600 0.444 N/A 112 * * * * 1,700 0.472 N/A 137 * * * * 1,800 0.500 N/A 169 * * * * 1,900 0.528 N/A 208 * * * * 2,000 0.556 N/A 256 * * * * Source: Calculated using the HCM 2010 (1), assuming no yielding to pedestrians, single-stage crossings, pedestrian walking speed of 4.0 ft/s (1.2 m/s), and pedestrian start-up and end clearance time of 3 s. To the extent that automobiles yield to pedestrians, actual delays will be less. Notes: *Delay exceeds 345 s-setfpx = 0.0. N/A: not applicable-unlikely to achieve volumes shown with one lane. Defining Transit-Supportive Areas Research described in Chapter 3, Operations Concepts, suggests that a household density of 4.5 units per net acre (11 units per net hectare) is a typical minimum residential density for hourly daytime transit service to be feasible (i.e., generate enough ridership to be productive at a 33% farebox recovery level) (3) . A residential density of 4.5 units per net acre is approximately equivalent to 3 units per gross acre (7.5 units per gross hectare). Research also suggests that an employment density of approximately 4 jobs per gross acre (10 jobs per gross hectare) produces the same level of ridership as a household density of 3 units per gross acre ( 1 0) . The equivalent combination of residential and employment density has not been well researched; however, most mixed-use developments provide densities well in excess of either the minimum residential or minimum employment densities. These minimum density values define transit-supportive areas: areas that are capable of supporting hourly fixed-route transit service. For policy reasons, or simply to provide a route connecting two higher-density areas, an agency may choose to-and likely will-cover a larger area than that defined by its transit-supportive areas. To the extent that an agency's average or policy farebox recovery differs from 33%, an agency could choose to adjust the densities defining a transit-supportive area up or down as appropriate. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-17 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition When calculating these densities, it is important to distinguish between net and gross acres. Net acres are often referenced in zoning codes and consider only the area developed for housing or employment. Gross acres are total land areas, which may include streets, parks, water features, and other land not used directly for residential or employment-related development. Gross acres are also easier to work with in GIS software. This method uses residential and employment densities calculated using gross acres to determine transit-supportive areas. Example Calculation Steps: Planning-Level Analysis This example is based on 2002 data for TriMet, the transit provider for Portland and many of its suburbs in Oregon. An example of performing a more detailed analysis, along with specific calculation examples, is provided in Section 5. Step 1: Assemble data. The following data are obtained: • Transit stop and station locations from the regional government's GIS database. At the time this analysis was performed, the transit modes operated by TriMet consisted of bus and light rail. • Transportation analysis zone (T AZ) data (households, jobs, and T AZ boundaries) from the regional transportation planning model. Alternatively, census blocks or similar relatively small areas could also have been used. Step 2: Determine the service coverage area. All of the bus stops are buffered using a 0.25-mi (400-m) radius and all of the light rail stations are buffered using a 0.5- mi (800-m) radius. Inaccessible areas formed by barriers are removed. The resulting service coverage area is shown in Exhibit 5-13(a) and compared to the TriMet district boundary. (a) Service coverage area (b) Transit-supportive area Step 3: Determine the transit-supportive area. For each TAZ, the number of households is divided by the T AZ area to obtain a household density in households per acre. Each TAZ's job density is calculated similarly. All TAZs with a household density of 3.0 or more households per acre, a job density of 4.0 or more jobs per acre, or both, are then identified. These T AZs are shown as shaded areas in Exhibit 5-13(b ). Step 4: Compare service coverage to transit-supportive areas. GIS software is used to intersect the service coverage with the T AZ layer. This process divides T AZs that are only partially served by transit into two sections: (a) a section completely served by transit and (b) a section completely unserved by transit. Households and jobs can be Net acres and grass acres campared. Exhibit 5-13 Service Coverage Area Compared to Transit-Supportive Area and Transit District Boundary Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-18 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-14 Service Coverage Calculation Results : Table Form Exhibit 5-15 Service Coverage Calculation Results : Map Form Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition allocated between the two sections based on the relative areas of the two sections. Next, the GIS software's area-calculation function is used to determine the areas of each section. The areas of all of the transit-supportive areas served by transit are summed and divided by the total area of all transit-supportive areas (both served and not served by transit). The result is the performance measure of interest: percent transit-supportive area served. Exhibit 5-14 and Exhibit 5-15 present the results in the form of a table and a map, respectively. Analysis Area TriMet district Service coverage area Transit-supportive area Transit-supportive area served Transit Supportive Areas - Notserved - Served Area (mi I 563.8 243.1 132.9 114.4 Households Jobs %Area Served 458,076 786,713 345,260 664,684 273,341 639,375 244,587 588,072 86.1% Comparing the transit-supportive area served result of 86.1% to Exhibit 5-4, it can be seen that from the passenger perspective, most (but not all) destinations in higher- density areas are served. From the operator perspective, this coverage represents a balance between coverage and efficiency objectives. Measuring Service Coverage at a Stop Level The general process described above for calculating service coverage at a system level can also be used to calculate coverage at an individual stop level. Since the decision has already been made to provide transit service to the area, the objective of this level of analysis is identify how much of the area within theoretical walking distance of the stop can actually access the stop. The more detailed analysis procedure described above can be used, in combination with path-tracing GIS software, to identify the effects of sidewalk gaps and difficult street crossings on stop access. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-19 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition ADA Accessible Routes A pedestrian network that is usable by persons with disabilities improves the mobility options of that segment of the population. It can also make fixed-route transit service accessible by persons who would otherwise have to rely on potentially less convenient and more costly (for both the passenger and the provider) demand responsive service. Although the ADA does not require that jurisdictions provide sidewalks, it does require that where sidewalks are provided, they need to be accessible to persons with disabilities. A lack of sidewalks on access routes to transit stops makes access to transit inconvenient and potentially unsafe (if the only practical route is to walk in the street) for all potential passengers, not just those with disabilities. At the time of writing, the Access Board's guidelines for accessible public rights-of- way had not been finalized. However, the primary elements of an accessible route have been well established for some time. These include (11) : • Providing sufficient clear width on access routes for wheelchairs, with passing opportunities provided at intervals; • Firm, stable, slip-resistant surfaces; • Limits on the grade, cross-slope, and surface discontinuities of an accessible route; • Need for suitable transitions between sidewalks and streets (e.g., detectable warnings, curb ramps or blended transitions); and • Accessible pedestrian signals. The Access Board's website (http:/ jwww.access-board.gov jprowacj) should be consulted for the most recent guidance and regulations relating to accessible routes within public rights-of-way. ADA requirements for transit facilities (e.g., bus stops, rapid transit station elements) are discussed in TCQSM Chapter 10, Station Capacity. Bicycle Access The use of a bicycle extends the effective service coverage area of a stop or station. Since typical persons can bike about five times faster than they can walk, the effective coverage area of a stop or station also greatly increases: up to 1.25 mi (2 km) for a local bus stop and 2.5 mi ( 4 km) for a rapid transit station for 5- and 10-min bicycle rides, respectively. Because these distances are much greater than the typical transit route spacing-even in suburban areas-it is not particularly meaningful to try to map bicycle coverage at a system level. Even when the shortest route to a transit stop may have inadequate bicycle facilities, other choices may be available within a 5- or 10-min ride along better bicycle facilities. At a system level, focusing on improving bicycle facilities and connectivity generally may be a better approach, recognizing that improved bicycle access to transit will be one of the benefits of that effort. At a station level, a more detailed evaluation of bicycling conditions on access routes to the station can be used to prioritize locations for bicycle infrastructure improvements that could help improve bicycle mode share to the station. To the extent that bicycling attracts passengers from park-and-ride as an access mode, the demand for parking at the station can be reduced. The bicycle level of service measures in the HCM 2010 (1) can Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-20 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition be used to identify areas with poor bicycling conditions, due to a lack of bicycle infrastructure, high traffic volumes, high traffic speeds, and other factors. The availability of on board bicycle storage and bicycle parking capacity can also be used as indications of potential constraints to bicycle access. The number of bicycle pass- ups can be surveyed (i.e., the number of times persons waiting to board a transit vehicle with a bicycle are unable to do so due to a lack of available bicycle rack or interior storage space). Alternatively, the number of trips when all onboard bicycle rack or on board storage spaces are in use can be surveyed. As it is usually difficult to increase the number of bicycles that can be transported on board a vehicle, this measurement could be used to suggest locations where bicycle parking improvements might be needed, or-if a number of routes are affected-the need for a bikesharing program at major destinations, to reduce the need for persons to take their bicycles with them. As a lack of secure bicycle parking can be a reason for persons to want to take their bicycles with them on transit, tracking the availability and usage (e.g., percent secure bicycle parking utilized) of secure bicycle parking is another way of measuring bicycle access. Automobile Access I As was discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, the area served by larger park-and-ride lots varies considerably by the type of lot, land uses within its market area, congestion on nearby roadways, and other factors specific to the metropolitan region where the lot is located. However, many of the studies are consistent in finding that approximately one-half of a park-and-ride lot's users start their trip within 2 to 3 mi (3 to 5 km) of the lot. This inner market area is a relatively compact area that can be used to assess a lot's service coverage. The outer market area will provide a similar number of users, but they will be scattered over an area four or more times as large as the inner service area, with the result that park-and-ride users within the lot's outer market area form a much smaller portion of the general population. For the purposes of assessing service coverage at a planning level, a 2.5-mi ( 4-km) radius around larger (100 spaces or more) park-and-ride lots may be used. For smaller lots (e.g., a 25-space shared church lot with only local transit service), a smaller coverage area is probably appropriate. The park-and-ride coverage area should be added to the walking coverage area determined through either the planning or detailed methodologies described earlier. Because park-and-ride lots usually serve the home end of a trip, and often are designed to serve passengers who do not live in higher-density areas, percent persons served is recommended as the park-and-ride lot performance measure, with the service area consisting of the transit agency's service area (e.g., a defined county, district, or metropolitan area) . When this measure is used, it is recommended that it be reported in combination with the walking coverage service measure. Being able to find a place at park-and-ride lot is an important component of automobile access. For this reason, many larger transit agencies track the percent parking spaces utilized at their park-and-ride lots as a means of identifying where insufficient parking capacity may be constraining transit ridership. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-21 Fixed-Route Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition MEASURES OF COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE As discussed previously, transit service availability is a minimum requirement for transit being a travel option for a given trip. However, transit's comfort and convenience aspects also contribute to passenger satisfaction with the service and their likelihood of using it. The core measures of fixed-route comfort and convenience are passenger load (reflecting crowding), reliability (reflecting schedule adherence), and transit-auto travel time (reflecting the time competitiveness of transit service with respect to the auto mode). There are other comfort and convenience factors that contribute to passenger satisfaction, but they are more difficult to measure or forecast; these include safety, security, and employee interactions with customers. Passenger Load From the passenger perspective, the passenger load on a transit vehicle affects the comfort of the on-board vehicle portion of a transit trip-both in terms of being able to find a seat and in overall crowding levels within the vehicle. From a transit operator's perspective, a poor quality of service may indicate the need to increase service frequency or vehicle size to reduce crowding and increase passenger comfort. Transit vehicles can be designed for the majority of passengers to be seated (e.g., typical transit buses) or for the majority of passengers to be standing (e.g., subway cars) . The choice depends on capacity needs (seated passengers use more space than standing passengers), the length of time passengers are expected to stand (standing is more tolerable for short trips than for long), and regulatory and liability constraints. The type of vehicle used in service thus helps to set passenger expectations for whether or not they will have to stand during their trip. The performance measures used to measure passenger load QOS also reflect these expectations. For transit vehicles designed for mostly seated passengers-that is, where seats are provided for half or more of the vehicle's design load-passenger load can be defined by load factor (passengers per seat) . These vehicles include nearly all buses (except for special-purpose buses designed to serve short trips, such as Denver's 16th Street MallRide), all ferries, all commuter rail, and potentially other rail vehicles with narrow aisles and many seats. For transit vehicles designed for mostly standing passengers, average standing passenger space, expressed in square feet (meters) per passenger, can be used to describe the level of crowding on board the vehicle. Passenger load standards typically specify a design load for a transit vehicle, the sum of the seated and standing passengers that is a desirable maximum. Different standards are sometimes established for peak and off-peak periods, reflecting both the need to balance transit agency costs (e.g., increased frequency, longer trains) with passenger comfort during peak periods and differing passenger characteristics at different times of the day. Standards can be expressed as an absolute not to be exceeded, or as an average during a peak 15-, 30-, or 60-min period. Using an average passenger load in a standard provides more flexibility and greater design capacity than using an absolute load, as less capacity has to be held in reserve (and possibly not used) as an allowance for surges in passenger demand. Finally, standards can be expressed as a condition that occurs at any point in the route, or for a specified period of time (e.g., "no passenger should stand for more than X minutes"). If transit is an option for a given trip, comfort and convenience considerations determine the likelihood of a passenger using it. Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-22 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-16 Fixed-Route Passenger Load QOS (Vehicles Designed for Mostly Seated Passengers) Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Exhibit 5-16 describes the quality of service provided at different load factors for vehicles designed for mostly seated passengers, along with the potential implications for transit agencies regarding route productivity and operating issues. Service Level Up to 50% seated load Up to 80% seated load Up to 100% seated load Up to 125% seated load Up to 150% seated load Greater than 150% seated load Passenger Perspective • No passenger need sit next to another • Perceived travel time= actual travel time • Passengers have some freedom in where they sit • Perceived travel time= actual travel time • All passengers can sit • Perceived travel time up to 1.1 x actual travel time • Up to 20% of passengers must stand • Standees may need to shift position within the vehicle at each stop as other passengers board or alight • Perceived travel time up to 1.25 x actual travel time for seated passengers and up to 2.1 x actual travel time for standees • Up toY. of passengers must stand • Difficult for alighting passengers to get to doors • Boarding passengers must get others to move • Perceived travel time up to 1.4 x actual travel time for seated passengers and up to 2.25 x actual travel time for standees • Crush loading conditions • Passengers may choose to wait for the next vehicle, or drivers may choose to pass up stops-both conditions create delays for passengers waiting to board • Perceived travel times continue to go up Source: Perceived travel times based on Balcom be (12). Operator Perspective • Unproductive service if condition occurs at the maximum load point in the peak direction • Condition may occur at the outer end of a route with only one anchor, or in the off- peak direction • Marginally productive service if condition occurs at the maximum load point in the peak direction • Productive service • Often used as a service standard for commuter bus and commuter rail services, where passengers may be on the vehicle for long periods • Very productive service • Often used as a service standard for off- peak bus service • Time to serve boarding and alighting passengers goes up when standees are present, resulting in longer dwell times and potentially slower travel speeds than at lower loading levels • Very productive service • Maximum design load for peak-of-the- peak conditions • High potential for boarding and alighting delays, resulting in longer dwell times and slower travel speeds than at lower loading levels • Increases chances for bunching on high- frequency routes • Likely to generate complaints about overcrowding and pass-ups • Longer dwell times and slower travel speeds compared to lower loading levels • Increases chances for bunching on high- frequency routes Notes: Vehicles designed for mostly seated passengers will have 50% or more of the design load seated. These include nearly all buses, ferries, commuter rail, and potentially other rail vehicles with narrow aisles and a large number of transverse seats. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-23 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition The best QOS from a passenger point of view (e.g., low crowding, good choice of seats) is often undesirable from an operator point of view, as it can represent unproductive service. However, the condition can also occur in the off-peak direction of a route or early along a route without a strong anchor at its outer end. In contrast, the worst QOS from a passenger point of view (crush loading) is also undesirable from an operator point of view, as dwell times are longer at stops, which can lead to longer travel times and poorer schedule reliability, both of which can result in higher operating costs. This condition also indicates that there is no additional capacity available to accommodate ridership growth and that potential passengers are not being served. Exhibit 5-17 describes the quality of service provided at different levels of crowding for vehicles designed for mostly standing passengers, along with potential implications for transit agencies regarding transit operations. Standing Passenger Space >10.8 ft /p >1.00 m2/p s .4-1o.8 fe;p 0.5-1.0 m2/p 4.3-5.3 ft2 /p 0.40-0.49 m2/p 3.2-4.2 ft2/p 0.30-0.39 m2/p 2.2-3 .1 fe;p 0.20-0.29 m2/p <2 .2 ft2/p <0.20 m2/p Passenger Perspective • Passengers are able to spread out • Many/all passengers are able to sit, when vehicles provide a relatively high number of seats (e.g., light rail, heavy rail) • Comfortable standing load that retains space between passengers • Standing load without body contact • Standees have similar amount of personal space as seated passengers • Occasional body contact • Standees have less space than seated passengers • Approaching uncomfortable conditions for North Americans (13) • Frequent body contact and inconvenience with packages and briefcases (13) • Crush loading conditions Operator Perspective • Unproductive service if condition occurs in the maximum load section in the peak direction • Condition may occur at the outer end of a route, or in the off-peak direction • May be used as a peak-hour design standard for new rail systems trying to provide a higher quality of service (13) • Easy circulation within vehicle (13) • Reasonably easy circulation within vehicle (13) • Provides a balance between passenger comfort and capacity • Moving to and from doorways requires some effort, which may increase dwell time (13) • Maximum schedule load for design • Moving to and from doorways extremely difficult, increasing dwell time (13) • Passengers waiting to board may try to shift to a door in a less-crowded section of the vehicle, increasing dwell time • Moving to and from doorways extremely difficult, increasing dwell time (13) • Passengers waiting to board may try to shift to a door in a less-crowded section of the vehicle, increasing dwell time • Passengers waiting to board may choose to wait for the next vehicle, increasing platform crowding Notes: Vehicles designed for mostly standing passengers will have more than 50% of the design load standing. These include most light rail, heavy rail, and AGT vehicles. Exhibit 5-17 Fixed-Route Passenger Load QOS (Vehicles Designed for Mostly Standing Passengers) Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-24 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-18 Body Ellipse Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Body Ellipse Passenger space values toward the lower end of the range for maximum schedule load conditions-2.2 ft2 jp (0.2 m2 jp )-have appeared in the literature since the early 1970s, when the concept of a body ellipse was introduced to pedestrian facility analysis (14) . The body ellipse (Exhibit 5-18[a]) represents the area occupied by a heavily clothed man with a high-percentile shoulder breadth (measured from the outside of the deltoid muscles) and a high-percentile body depth, including allowances for body sway, a small amount of personal space, and the ability to carry a small object. It measured 18 by 24 in. ( 45 by 60 em), representing an occupied space of approximately 2.35 ft2 (0.22 mZ) (14) . Shoulder width (24 in./60 em) (a) Original body ellipse E u 1./') ~ c 00 .-t ~ ..., c.. C1! "0 > "0 0 co Shoulder width (24 in./60 em) E u 1./') ~ c 00 .-t ~ ..., c.. C1! "0 > "0 0 co (b) Body ellipse with 50th-percentile 1970s U.S. male Sources: (a) Fruin (14), (b) research for the TCQSM 3rd Edition. The perimeter of the body ellipse was designed to accommodate maximum clothed dimensions of 22.5 in. (57 em) broad and 14.5 in. (37 em) deep (14), reflective of 95th- percentile U.S. male values in the early 1970s ( 15). The dimensions of the person superimposed within the body ellipse can be determined by scaling from the original figure. Although not stated specifically, these dimensions-shoulder breadth of 20.5 in. (52 em) and body depth of 10.5 in. (27 em) -were likely intended to reflect an average person. However, while the shoulder breadth is that of a 50th-percentile clothed U.S. male from the 1970s, the body depth is reflective of only a 5th-percentile clothed male (15). The visualization, therefore, may give an incorrect impression of the amount of extra space provided within the ellipse. Exhibit 5-18(b) illustrates the space taken up within the ellipse by a 50th-percentile clothed male from the early 1970s, based on a 50th-percentile body depth of 10.8 in. (27.5 em) and a 2-in. (5 em) allowance for heavy outer clothing (15) . About half of the additional body depth shown in Exhibit 5-18(b) is the result of the assumption of heavy clothing being worn. The American population has become larger since the time the body ellipse was invented. Measurements of a cross-section of the U.S. population conducted periodically by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 16-19) show that the 95th-percentile male's weight has increased from 225 lb (102 kg) in 1971-7 4 to 270 lb (123 kg) in 2003-06, and that his waist circumference in 2003-06 was 50.3 in. (128 em). Unfortunately for this purpose, NHANES has never collected body depth data. However, a body depth representative of a mid-2000s 95th-percentile U.S. male can be Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-25 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition estimated by extrapolating relationships between weight and body depth from other anthropometric data (15) . Exhibit 5-19 compares how much of the body ellipse would be occupied by a 95th- percentile clothed U.S. male in the early 1970s and the mid-2000s. Although the mid- 2000s male continues to be contained within the ellipse, the area available for body sway, personal space, and carrying small objects has been reduced, as his body depth is 2 in. (5 em) greater than in the early 1970s. Therefore, to provide the same amount of personal space for a mid-2000s design male that a mid-1970s design male would have had, the body depth component of the body ellipse should be expanded by 2 in. (5 em), resulting in a 20 by 24 in. (50 by 60 em) ellipse that occupies approximately 2.6 ft2 (0.24 m2)-close to the midpoint ofthe range of maximum design load values in Exhibit 5-17. Shoulder width (24 in./60 em) (a) Early 1970s E u 1.1) '<t .....,. c 00 .-t ..r::. -a. Q) "C > "C 0 co Space Occupied by Worn and Carried Objects Shoulder width (24 in./60 em) (b) Mid-2000s E u 1.1) ~ c 00 .-t ..r::. -a. Q) "C > "C 0 co Passengers with larger objects (e.g., daypacks, computer bags, bicycles) will occupy more space than the body ellipse. For example, a person wearing a daypack takes up at least 60% more space than a passenger without one. A weighted average of the space required for different types of passengers can be used to develop an average passenger space for design purposes, using values from Exhibit 5-20. For example, if 15% of passengers wear daypacks on average, 3% have mid-size strollers, and the body ellipse is assumed to be 2.6 ft2 (0.24 m2), then a weighted average space that could be used for design would be (0.15 x 4.2) + (0.03 x 9.9) + (0.82 x 2.6) = 3.1 ft2 (0.29 m2) . Exhibit 5-19 Body Ellipses: Clothed 95th-percentile U.S. Males in the Early 1970s and Mid-2000s Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-26 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-20 U.S. Male Passenger Space Requirements Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Situation Projected Area (te) Projected Area (m2) Standing 2.2-2.6 0.20-0.24 ... with briefcase, computer bag 3.4-4.1 0.32-0.38 ... with daypack 3.8-4.2 0.35-0.39 ... with suitcases 4.4-6.3 0.41-0.59 ... with stroller 7.3-12.5 0.95-1.15 ... with bicycle (horizontal) 11.8-16.6 1.10-1.54 Holding on to stanchion 3.5-4.0 0.33-0.37 Tight double seat 3.8 per person 0.35 per person Comfortable seating 5.9 per person 0.55 per person Personal transporter 3.8-5.5 0.35-0.51 Wheelchair/scooter space (ADA) 10.0 (30 in. x 48 in.) 0.93 (0.76 m x 1.22 m) Sources: Derived from Batelle Institute (20), TCRP Synthesis 88 (21), Landis et al. (22), and additional research for the TCQSM 3rd Edition . Calculating Standing Passenger Area Standing passenger area is one of two values used in calculating average standing passenger space, which is used to evaluate quality of service for transit vehicles I designed to have most passengers standing. This value may be available as part of the specifications for a given transit vehicle. However, if it is not known, it can be estimated as follows (6, 13): 1. Calculate the gross interior floor area. Multiply the interior vehicle width by the interior vehicle length. For standard buses, subtract 6 in. (0.15 m) from the external width to estimate the interior width (reduction for wall thickness), and subtract 8.5 ft (2 .6 m) from the external bus length to estimate the internal length (engine compartment, operator, and front door areas). For heavy and light rail cars, subtract 8 in. (0.67 ft, 0.2 m) from the external width (wall thickness) and 6ft., 7 in. (6.58 ft, 2.0 m) from the external length (driver cab at one end) . 2. Calculate the area occupied by seats and other objects: • Transverse seating: 5.4 ft2 (0.5 m2) per seat. • Longitudinal seating: 4.3 ft2 (0.4 m2) per seat, which includes a buffer area in the aisle for seated passenger foot room. • Wheelchair position: 10.0 ft2 (0.95 m2) per position (use when the wheelchair position is not created by fold-up seats). • Rear door: 8.6 ft2 (0.8 m2) per door channel. • Interior aisle stairs: 4.3 ft2 (0.4 m2) • Low-floor bus wheel well: 10.0 ft2 (0.95 m2) each 3. Calculate the standing passenger area. Subtract the area calculated in step 2 from the gross interior floor area calculated in step 1. For example, some of Chicago's older heavy rail cars have external measurements of 48ft long by 8ft wide and contain 42 transverse seats. Their internal area is estimated as (48- 6.58 ft) by (8- 0.67 ft), or 303.7 ft2. The seats take up (5.4 x 42 = 226.8 ft2), leaving 76.9 ft2 for standees. Assuming a standing passenger area of 2.6 ft2jp under maximum schedule load conditions, there is room for 30 standees. Newer cars have the Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-27 Fixed-Route Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition same dimensions, but 38 longitudinal seats, which take up ( 4.3 x 38 = 163.4 ft2), leaving 140.3 ft2• This space accommodates 54 standees at the maximum schedule load. Reliability Several different measures of reliability are used by transit operators. The most common of these are • On-time performance, • Headway adherence (the consistency or "evenness" of the interval between transit vehicles), • Excess wait time (the average departure time after the scheduled time), • Missed trips (i.e., scheduled trips not made), • Percent of scheduled time in operation (for automated systems), and • Distance traveled between mechanical breakdowns. The first three measures in the list incorporate the effects of all potential sources of delay and unreliability. In addition, all three can be derived from measured bus departure times, a task that is simplified using archived AVL data. For example, on-time performance is the percent of schedule deviations (actual departure minus scheduled departure) that fall within a defined range (e.g., 1 min early to 5 min late), headway adherence is the coefficient of variation ofheadways (the standard deviation of headways divided by the mean headway), and excess platform wait time is the average of the non-negative schedule deviations (i.e., on-time or late departures). The last three measures in the list reflect aspects of reliability that are under the control of the transit operator: driver and vehicle availability, mechanical and electronic reliability (i.e., choice of vehicle, technology, vendor, etc.), fleet age, and maintenance quality. Passengers experience the effects of these kinds of unreliability as long delays that occur rarely. In contrast, the first three measures reflect the effects of both rare delays and the more common occurrence of a transit vehicle running a few minutes ahead or behind schedule. On-time Performance On-time performance is the most widely used reliability measure in the North American transit industry (23, 24). It can be applied to any transit service that operates according to a published timetable, although from the passenger perspective it is best applied to services operating at longer headways (e.g., longer than 10 min) . At shorter headways, a transit vehicle can be off-schedule, but a passenger may not notice it because another vehicle arrives at or near the scheduled time. From an operator perspective, on-time performance can be important to measure for all scheduled services, as a late vehicle may be out of position for its next assignment, which may be on a different route. On-time performance should be measured at locations that make the most sense for a given analysis. For example, measuring on-time performance at the next-to-last timepoint may be more relevant to the passenger perspective than measuring it at the route terminal, if most passengers disembark prior to the end of the route. On the other hand, if the route terminal is a timed-transfer center, on-time performance arriving at that location would be of great interest to passengers. The arrival time of transit Reliability aspects under the control of the transit operator. Locations for measuring on-time performance. Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-28 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Industry definitions of "on time. " Treatment of early departures. TCQSM definition of "on-time." Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition vehicles at the route terminal relative to the schedule is also of interest to operators, as it impacts the schedule recovery time and the route cycle time. Some agencies measure on-time performance at several timepoints along a route; multiple measurement locations may be necessary to diagnose the causes of unreliability. Using archived AVL data makes it possible to measure on-time performance and other reliability metrics at many points of interest without the need for manual, potentially expensive data collection (25) . One negative aspect of on-time performance as a performance measure is that the measured result is highly dependent on how "on time" is defined. A survey of U.S. agencies in the mid-1990s found that 42% allowed buses to be more than 5 min late and still be considered "on time," and 24% allowed some early buses to be considered on- time (23). A Canadian survey in 2000 found less-lenient definitions: of the 17 agencies that defined an on-time standard, 11 defined "on time" as being no more than 3 or 4 min late, and the remainder defined it as being no more than 5 min late. Only 2 of the 17 surveyed Canadian agencies allowed some early buses to be considered on time (24). A more consistent definition of "on time" across the industry would allow transit agencies to compare their performance with each other ( 4) . Calculating on-time performance on the basis of archived headway deviation data allows any "on-time" definition to be used, allowing on-time performance to be compared on the basis of any desired definition. A minimum of 20 observations (manual or AVL) are needed to achieve a 5% resolution in performance and many more observations are needed to achieve a particular level of statistical significance. One key issue related to defining "on-time" is how early departures are treated. From the perspective of a passenger arriving at a stop close to the time a transit vehicle is scheduled to depart, an early departure is not on-time in terms of when the passenger can board a transit vehicle; rather, it is equivalent to a vehicle being late by the amount of one headway. On the other hand, an early arrival toward the end of the route, when no passengers are boarding, would not be seen as a problem by passengers on the bus and would in fact likely be viewed positively. A review of U.S. transit agencies that publically report their on-time performance found that many use an "on-time" definition of 1 min early to 5 min late. Although any early departure, even one minute, can be seen as undesirable from an arriving passenger's standpoint, most transit agencies that use such a standard make a note in their timetables that vehicles may depart up to 1 min early, thereby giving passengers notice of their policy. Slightly early departures can also help maintain schedule reliability farther down a route and reduce holding delay at timepoints for passengers already on the bus. Therefore, in the interest of working toward a common industry "on-time" definition that reflects both passenger and operator perspectives, this edition of the TCQSM defines "on-time" as a departure from a timepoint as 1 min early to 5 min late or an arrival at the route terminal up to 5 min late. Exhibit 5-21 presents the passenger and operator perspectives of different ranges of on-time performance. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-29 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition On-time Performance Passenger Perspective 95-100% • Passenger making one round trip per 90-94% 80-89% 70-79% <70% weekday with no transfers experiences one not-on-time vehicle every 2 weeks • Passenger making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences one not-on-time vehicle every week • Passenger making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences up to two not-on-time vehicles every week • Passenger making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences up to three not-on-time vehicles every week • Passenger making one round trip per weekday with a transfer experiences a not-on-time vehicle every day • Service likely to be perceived as highly unreliable Operator Perspective {System Level) • Achievable by transit services operating below capacity on a grade-separated guideway not shared with non-transit vehicles, with few infrastructure or vehicle problems • Achievable by transit services operating on a grade-separated guideway not shared with non-transit vehicles • Typical range for commuter rail that shares track with freight rail • Typical range for light rail with some street running • Achievable by bus services in small- to mid-sized cities • Typical range for light rail with a majority of street running • Achievable by bus services in large cities • May be best possible result for mixed- traffic operations in congested CBDs Notes: Depending on local conditions, any given route can operate considerably better or worse than the typical ranges given here. "On-time" defined as a departure 1 min early to 5 min late or an arrival at the route terminus more than 5 min late. Headway Adherence When transit vehicles operate at headways of 10 min or less, particularly on surface streets, vehicle bunching can occur, where two or more vehicles on the same route arrive together or in close succession, followed by a long gap between vehicles. From a passenger perspective, the lead vehicle is usually overcrowded, having picked up its own passengers and passengers arriving early for the next service, and passengers arriving during the gap in service experience a longer waiting time than expected. From the operator point of view, the less-utilized trailing vehicles represent wasted capacity, and more time is needed at the end of the route for schedule recovery, which increases the route's cycle time and thus potentially increases operating costs. The bunching effect can be measured in terms of headway adherence-the regularity of transit vehicle arrivals with respect to the scheduled headway. It is calculated as the coefficient of variation ofheadways Cvh: the standard deviation of headways (representing the range of actual headways), divided by the average (mean) headway. Because Cvh is a statistical measure, it may be more difficult to explain to stakeholders. Nevertheless, it is the best available measure for describing the bunching effect. As shown in Exhibit 5-22, the coefficient of variation ofheadways can be related to the probability P that a given transit vehicle's headway h; will be off-headway by more than one-half the scheduled headway h. This probability is measured by twice the area Exhibit 5-21 Fixed-Route On-Time Performance QOS Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-30 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-22 Fixed-Route Headway Adherence QOS Equation 5-4 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition to the right of Z on one tail of a normal distribution curve, where Z in this case is 0.5 divided by Cvh · For an illustration of these relationships, see Exhibit 6-56 (page 6-65). Cvh P (abs[h,-h] > 0.5 h) Passenger and Operator Perspective 0.00-0.21 Q% Service provided like clockwork 0.22-0.30 :510% Vehicles slightly off headway 0.31-0.39 QO% Vehicles often off headway 0.40-0.52 :533% Irregular headways, with some bunching 0.53-0.74 :550% Frequent bunching ~0.75 >50% Most vehicles bunched Note: Applies to average scheduled headways of 10 min or less. The following examples illustrate how to measure headway adherence: 1. A bus route is scheduled to operate at fixed 10-min headways. During one peak hour, the actual measured headways between buses are 12, 8, 14, 6, 7, and 13 min. The population standard deviation of these values is 3.4 min, and the resulting coefficient of variation is 0.34: vehicles are often off headway, if I this day's results are typical (in practice, a larger set of observations should be used to measure bus route reliability). 2. A bus route is scheduled at 5- to 11-min head ways during the peak period. The following table shows the scheduled headway between buses, the actual headway (based on AVL data), and the corresponding headway deviation. Scheduled Headway (s) 600 600 600 600 660 600 420 540 540 420 420 420 360 300 Actual Headway 786 906 700 302 616 198 304 918 538 120 308 876 168 134 (s) The mean headway is 506 s, with a standard deviation of 265 s. The coefficient of variation is 0.5 2, indicating that some bunching occurs, approaching a frequent occurrence. Excess Wait Time A variety of performance measures can be defined based on relationships between when passengers arrive at a transit stop, when the transit vehicle is scheduled to depart, and when it actually departs. As discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, when departures on a route are scheduled at short headways (approximately 10 min or less), passengers arrive at random. If transit vehicles depart perfectly reliably and sufficient capacity is available that no pass-ups occur, the average passenger wait time is half the average headway. When departures are not perfectly reliable, the average waiting time is longer than half the average headway and is related to the spread in the headway distribution (25) : where tw ho Cvh = = = average wait time (min), average observed headway (min), and coefficient of variation of head ways. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-31 Fixed-Route Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition When transit service is scheduled at long headways (approximately 15 min or more), passengers time their arrival based on their knowledge of the schedule and the service's reliability. With perfectly reliable service, passengers would pick the last departure that would get them to their destination before their desired arrival time and would arrive at the stop or station shortly before the scheduled departure time. When service is unreliable, passengers will adjust their arrival time at the stop to be relatively certain that they will arrive at their destination before their desired time. TCRP Report 113 (25) assumes that passengers will plan their arrival based on the 2% departure time (to avoid having to wait one headway if the vehicle departs early) and will plan their trip based on the 95% departure time (so that they will arrive late at their destination no more than 5% of the time, assuming they have chosen a particular trip based on knowledge of the range of possible arrival times at their destination). Performance measures that can be defined based on these passenger arrival times and vehicle departure times include (25): • Excess wait time, the actual departure time minus the scheduled departure time, representing extra wait time that passengers experience at the stop, compared to what was promised in the schedule. As discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, passengers perceive waiting time as being more onerous than in-vehicle time. Early departures can be treated as a departure one headway late, as that is what late-arriving passengers experience. • Excess platform waiting time, the scheduled departure time minus the 2nd percentile departure time, representing the extra time that passengers must plan to arrive early (and likely wait) to avoid being left behind by an early- departing bus. (This measure can be negative if vehicles always leave late.) • Potential waiting time, the 95th percentile departure time minus the scheduled departure time, representing the time that passengers must budget to avoid being late at their destination more than 5% of the time. Most of the time, passengers experience this time as arriving at their destination earlier than necessary, time that they may not be able to use productively. • Budgeted waiting time, the sum of excess platform waiting time and potential waiting time, the amount of time that passengers must incorporate into their trip planning to accommodate unreliable service. On a given day, some of this time will be spent waiting at the departure stop because the transit vehicle did not arrive as early as it might and some of this time will be manifested as an earlier-than-planned arrival at the destination. Exhibit 5-23 illustrates the calculation of these measures. As discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, there are two other components to a passenger's trip planning that are not related to transit service reliability. The first is synchronization time, extra time that passengers budget to arrive at the stop or station by their targeted time, while the second is schedule incovenience time, which arises because long-headway service often results in extra time between when one would prefer to travel (e.g., immediately at the end of one's work day) and when one actually can travel (i.e., when the transit service is provided) (25). Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-32 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-23 Components of Long- headway Waiting Time Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition scheduled departure : (4:00p.m.) ~------! 0 2% departure ® actual departure (4:02p.m.) (3:55 p.m.) ~--?r~...L © 0 excess wait time ® excess platform wait time @ potential wait time ®+@ excess budgetedwaittime Source: Derived from TCRP Report 113 (25) . ---· 95% departure (4:10p.m.) As transit unreliability increases, the performance measures shown in Exhibit 5-23 increase in magnitude. Excess wait time represents the passenger inconvenience on a given trip, while budgeted waiting time represents the inconvenience based on passenger knowledge of the service's reliability. With knowledge of passengers' values of time, these measures can also be converted into perceived travel times, for use in evaluating a passenger's overall trip. An example application is the use of perceived excess wait time as part of the transit LOS measure described in a subsequent section. Excess wait time and its related measures can be measured manually, but the use of archived AVL data is recommended. A minimum of 250 data points are recommended for determining the 2nd percentile departure time used to calculate excess platform waittime (25). Travel Time An important factor in a potential transit user's decision to use transit on a regular basis is how much longer the trip will take in comparison with the automobile. Time spent travelling from point A to point B is time not necessarily available for other uses, so all other things being equal, a person will prefer a faster trip for time-sensitive trips. As discussed in Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts, the quality of the travel experience also impacts the decision: for example, persons perceive the time spent in crowded conditions to be more onerous than time spent in uncrowded conditions. Similarly, being able to use travel time productively-to read, relax, catch up on extra work, etc.-without having to deal with the hassles of rush-hour driving, can help offset any time advantage the automobile may have. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-33 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition At the route level, travel time, average speed, and travel time rate are useful metrics for transit agencies for assessing and forecasting performance: • Travel time directly impacts the number of transit vehicles needed to operate on a route at a given headway and the impact oflocation-specific transit preferential treatments and operational strategies will typically be expressed as a travel time saved per location. • Average speed (distance divided by time) lends itself to comparisons with peer routes or peer transit agencies; ridership elasticity factors (such as those given in Chapter 4) exist for average speed, allowing the impact of speed improvements on ridership to be estimated. • Travel time rate (time divided by distance) is forecast by the TCQSM's bus speed procedures and the impact of corridor-based transit preferential treatments is typically expressed in terms of its effect on travel time rate. While all of the above measures are useful for many types of analysis, none directly reflect the passenger point of view. The quality of service measure is the transit-auto travel time ratio, the in-vehicle transit travel time divided by the in-vehicle single-occupant auto travel time for a given trip. This measure can be applied to the evaluation of route segments (reflecting passengers' experiences in those segments), to a route as a whole (e.g., for operational evaluations), or for origin-destination trips (in which case, transfer time is also included in the transit travel time). The use of a ratio normalizes results, allowing segments, routes, and trips of different lengths to be compared. The measure is sensitive to both route or trip speed and directness (i.e., relatively fast, but circuitous trips and relatively direct, but slow trips both produce poor QOS). Exhibit 5-24 shows the passenger and operator perspectives associated with different service levels. The travel times used to calculate the transit-auto travel time ratio can be obtained from a variety of sources, including: • Field data, from auto travel time runs and transit AVL data; • Estimates of auto and transit speeds from the Highway Capacity Manual (1) or simulation; • Online mapping tools that can provide estimates of auto and transit travel times, including the effects of recurring traffic congestion; or • Regional travel models, for origin-destination trips. Whichever source is selected, it should be used as the basis for both transit and auto travel times. When travel times are estimated, rather than measured directly, a sample of estimates should be compared against existing conditions to verify the reasonableness of the estimates and, if necessary, develop correction factors for them. For example, one transit-auto travel time analysis using a major metropolitan area's regional model found that the model underestimated transit travel times by an average of 24% and overestimated auto travel times by 45% (26). Because each service level in Exhibit 5-24 encompasses a relatively wide range of transit-auto travel time ratios, it is not necessary that travel time estimates be exactly accurate-particularly for route and origin-destination analyses-but it is nevertheless desirable that any estimation errors for each mode be of comparable magnitudes and directions (i.e., both underestimated or both overestimated). Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-34 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-24 Fixed-Route Transit- Auto Travel Time Ratio QOS Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Transit-Auto Travel Time Ratio Passenger Perspective Operator Perspective :51 • Faster trip by transit than by auto • Feasible when transit operates in a separate right-of-way and the roadway network is congested >1-1.25 • Comparable in-vehicle travel times by transit and auto • Feasible with express service • For a 40-min commute, transit takes up to 10 min longer • Feasible with limited-stop service in an exclusive lane or right-of-way >1.25-1.5 • Tolerable for choice riders • For a 40-min commute, transit takes up to 20 min longer >1.5-1.75 • Round trip up to 1 h longer by transit for a 40-min one-way trip >1.75-2 • A trip takes up to twice as long by transit • May be best possible result for mixed >2 than by auto traffic operations in congested downtown • Tedious for all riders areas • May be best possible result for small city service that emphasizes coverage over direct connections Other Comfort and Convenience Measures Although the comfort and convenience factors presented above are both important to passengers and relatively straightforward to quantify and forecast, there are also other factors that have been shown to be important to passengers, but which are more difficult to quantify and very difficult to forecast. These include: • Passenger safety and security; • Customer service, particularly driver friendliness; and • Quality of the passenger environment. Safety and Security Safety (relating to being injured in an accident) and security (related to becoming the victim of a crime) are both highly important to transit passengers and employees. Although it is hard to forecast future performance in any but the most general terms, it is possible to track individual aspects of safety and security that can provide indications of potential problems. TCRP Report 88 (27) suggests the following customer-focused measures: • Accident rate-the number of vehicle accidents per specified distance (e.g., 100,000 mi) or time (e.g., year) . Accidents are typically categorized as preventable or non-preventable. • Passenger safety-passenger injuries or fatalities per specified number of hoardings or time period. • Percent positive drug and alcohol tests-an example of a leading indicator, as an increase in the measured value indicates a greater likelihood of safety problems in the future. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-35 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition • Number of traffic tickets issued to operators, percent of buses exceeding the speed limit-these measures identify potential safety problems with bus operators. The former measure can be categorized by type of infraction, while the latter measure allows problems to potentially be identified and addressed before a driver is ticketed. • Number of station overruns-on manually operated rail systems, this measure can indicate a lack of operator attentiveness or driving skill; on automated systems, it can indicate that the system design parameters are not being met. • Number of fires-fires are a serious safety issues, particularly underground. • Number of crimes (crime rate )-measures number of reported crimes on transit property; these can be categorized by type and severity. The measure does not address unreported incidents, nor does it address the perception of crime. Surrogate measures, such as fare evasion rate, incidents of graffiti or other vandalism, and number of security-related complaints can address to some degree the perception of crime. • Ratio of police officers to transit vehicles-a measure of the visibility of police officers (crime deterrent, passenger reassurance); however, it may be difficult to track how often officers are deployed on vehicles. • Number or percent of vehicles (or stops or stations) with specified safety devices- these can include security cameras, intercom systems, emergency alarms, lighting, and vehicle tracking capabilities. The presence of security cameras in vehicles and stations has been shown to improve passengers' sense of security. Customer Service Public transit is a customer service industry, and maintaining high levels of customer satisfaction helps retain customers who have or obtain other travel choices. It also helps attract new customers through good word-of-mouth from satisfied existing customers. Therefore, regularly quantifying customer service performance is essential for transit agencies to continue to improve on their strengths and to identify and address areas of weakness before they become serious customer service issues. Transit agencies use a number of techniques for measuring customer service, ranging in level of effort from direct measurements of agency services (e.g., telephone hold time), to tracking customer compliments and complaints, to conducting customer satisfaction surveys. Direct Measurement TCRP Report 88 (27) identifies the following service-related performance measures that can be readily tracked: • Percent of missed phone calls-percent of total calls to a telephone line (e.g., reservation service, information center) in which the customer hangs up prior to speaking with an agent. • Percent of calls held excessively long-percent of total calls to a telephone line where the customer hold time exceeds a defined standard. • Customer service response time-the time between first being contacted by a customer (e.g., by phone, letter, or e-mail) and when a substantive response is Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-36 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

See TCRP Report 47 for detailed information on customer satisfaction surveys. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition provided (i.e., simply acknowledging receipt of the contact-while important in letting the customer know it was received-does not provide the information or assistance being sought) . Service standards can be set for different forms of contact or different types of questions and assistance, with performance compared to the standards. Compliment and Complaint Tracking Giving customers tools to provide feedback to the transit agency is a relatively inexpensive way to track customer service performance over time. Because customer satisfaction surveys can be expensive to conduct, compliment and complaint tracking can be used to provide continuous input about customer service between major surveying efforts. Although the information is based only on those customers who take the time to provide feedback, it is still useful for identifying patterns of problems and for recognizing exceptional service. A variety of means are recommended for providing feedback (e.g., web-based forms, customer service e-mail address, customer service hotline, postage-paid card), along with regularly highlighting the existence of these feedback tools to customers. It is also I recommended that customers receive feedback promptly, so they feel that they are being listened to and are feel encouraged to continue providing feedback. Complaints and compliments can be categorized by topic (e.g., driver courtesy, late bus, graffiti) and complaint and compliment rates can be measured per boarding (e.g., per 100,000 passenger hoardings) or per month (27). Customer Satisfaction Surveys Customer surveys help transit operators identify the quality of service factors of greatest importance to their customers. They can also be used to help prioritize future quality of service improvement initiatives, measure the degree of success of past initiatives, and track changes in service quality over time. Surveys can identify not only areas of existing passenger satisfaction or dissatisfaction, but the degree to which particular factors influence customer satisfaction. Thus, these surveys can help identify the quality of service factors of greatest importance to the riders of a particular transit system. Exhibit 5-25 shows examples of service attributes that could be rated as part of a customer satisfaction survey, with each attribute rated on a 1 to 5 or 1 to 10 scale, for instance. Appendix A of TCRP Report 88 (27) provides a brief overview of customer satisfaction surveying, while TCRP Report 47 (28) provides detailed guidance on performing customer satisfaction surveys. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-37 Fixed-Route Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Absence of graffiti Absence of offensive odors Accessibility to persons with disabilities Availability of handrails or grab bars Availability of monthly discount passes Availability of schedule information Availability of schedules/maps at stops Availability of seats on train/bus Availability of shelter and benches at stops Cleanliness of interior, seats, windows Cleanliness of stations/stops Cleanliness of train/bus exterior Clear and timely announcements of stops Comfort of seats on train/bus Connecting bus service to main bus stops Cost effectiveness, affordability, and value Cost of making transfers Display of customer service number Ease of opening doors when getting on/off Ease of paying fare, purchasing tokens Explanations and announcements of delays Fairness/ consistency of fare structure Freedom from nuisance behaviors of riders Frequency of delays from breakdowns/emergencies Source: TCRP Report 47 (28) . Passenger Environment Surveys Frequency of service on Saturdays/Sundays Frequent service so that wait times are short Friendly, courteous, quick service from personnel Having station/stop near one' s destination Having station/stop near one's home Hours of service during weekdays Number of transfer points outside downtown Physical condition of stations/stops Physical condition of vehicles and infrastructure Posted minutes to next train/bus at stations/stops Quietness of the vehicles and system Reliable trains/buses that come on schedule Route/direction information visible on trains/buses Safe and competent drivers/conductors Safety from crime at stations/stops Safety from crime on trains/buses Short wait time for transfers Signs/information in Spanish as well as English Smoothness of ride and stops Station/ stop names visible from train/bus Temperature on train/bus-not hot/cold The train/bus traveling at a safe speed Trains/buses that are not overcrowded Transit personnel who know system Passenger environment surveys use a "secret shopper" technique, in which trained checkers travel through the transit system, rating a variety of trip attributes in order to provide a quantitative evaluation of factors that passengers would think of qualitatively (27) . For example, one rail system has rated the interior cleanliness of train cars on a 0 (lowest) to 7 (highest) scale. Points are deducted for each incidence of small litter (smaller than a 3-by-5-inch or 75-by-125-mm card), large litter, food, broken glass, spills, and biohazards, with different point values applying to each category (29). Factors that could be evaluated for transit vehicles include (27) : • Cleanliness and appearance-amount of litter; exterior dirt conditions; floor and seat cleanliness; graffiti; and window condition; • Customer information-readable and correct vehicle signage; presence of priority seating stickers (bus); correct and legible maps; correct and adequate bus stop signage; and audible, understandable, and accurate public address announcements; • Equipment-climate control conditions; operative kneeling feature, wheelchair lift, windows, and rear door (bus) ; or door panel condition and lighting (rail); and • Operators-proper uniforming; proper display of badges and proper use of kneeling feature (bus) . Factors that could be evaluated for transit stations include (27): • Cleanliness and appearance-amount of litter; station floor and seat cleanliness; and graffiti; • Customer information-readable and correct signage; correct and legible maps; and audible, understandable, and accurate public address announcements; Exhibit 5-25 Examples of Transit Service Attributes Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-38 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

The TCQSM's CD-ROM provides an Excel spreadsheet for implementing this method. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition • Equipment-functional speakers in stations; escalators/elevators in operation; public telephones in working order; station control areas that have a working booth microphone; trash receptacles usable in stations; functional tokenjMetroCard vending machines; and functional turnstiles; and • Station agents-proper uniforming and proper display of badges. Additional information on preparing and conducting passenger environment surveys can be found in TCRP Report 88 (27) . MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE Overview Multimodal LOS was developed by an NCHRP project (28) as part of a family of measures for estimating automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS. These measures were subsequently incorporated into the Highway Capacity Manua/2010 (1) . They can be used to compare the relative quality of service provided to the users of each mode using a street, and to estimate the impact of reallocating street right-of-way on each mode's quality of service. Because the transit LOS component incorporates many of the factors included in the fixed-route QOS framework, it is also useful for analyses where a range of transit QOS factors are desired to be evaluated, but only a single transit LOS letter is desired as an output. This method can be used to evaluate transit service that operates at grade within a roadway right-of-way (typically bus, light rail, and streetcar), including off-street surface roadways. The method was not designed to evaluate transit operating in grade- separated rights-of-way above or below a roadway. The A-F LOS letter produced by this method for transit service on the street can be directly compared to the LOS letters produced for the automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle modes operating on the street (e.g., LOS B for transit and LOS B for bicycle indicates a similar level of traveler satisfaction with each mode) . Individual modal LOS values should not be combined into an overall LOS for the roadway. Transit LOS incorporates factors that bear on all aspects of a transit trip up to the point a passenger boards a transit vehicle at a stop along an urban street: • Walking to the stop satisfaction-measured by the quality of the pedestrian environment along the street; • Waiting for transit service satisfaction-measured by service frequency, schedule reliability, and the kinds of amenities provided at the transit stop; and • On-board satisfaction-measured by the level of crowding on the transit vehicle as it departs the stop and the speed of the service. To allow comparisons with other travel modes on a street, a common unit of a street segment is used. A street segment is defined as the length of street between intersections where traffic on the street may have to stop due to traffic control (i.e., signalized intersections, roundabouts, intersections where the street is STOP or YIELD controlled), plus the intersection at the downstream end of the segment. Each direction of travel on the street is analyzed separately. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-39 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition This section presents only the method for calculating transit LOS. To calculate the LOS of other modes on an urban street, consult Chapter 17 (Urban Street Segments) of the Highway Capacity Manua/2010 (1). Input Data Exhibit 5-26 summarizes the input data required to calculate transit LOS and potential sources for them. The data are divided into transit operations data, transit amenity data, and pedestrian environment data. Details about each item are provided after the exhibit. Item Potential Sources TRANSIT OPERATIONS DATA Frequency (veh/h) Timetables Average excess wait time (min) Archived AVL data, field data Average passenger load factor (p/seat) Archived APC data, field data, transit agency vehicle data Average transit travel speed (mi/h) Timetables, TCQSM methods, HCM methods, field data Average passenger trip length (mi) Default, NTD, field data for NTD, archived APC/smart card data TRANSIT AMENITY DATA Percent stops in segment with a shelter Field data, transit agency infrastructure database Percent stops in segment with a bench Field data, transit agency infrastructure database PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT DATA Sidewalk width (ft) Buffer width from sidewalk to street (ft) Presence of continuous barrier Outside lane, shoulder, and bicycle lane widths (ft) Number of through travel lanes in analysis direction (lanes) Motorized vehicle flow rate (veh/h) Motorized vehicle running speed (mi/h) Frequency Field data, aerial photography, infrastructure database Field data, aerial photography Field data, aerial photography Field data, aerial photography, infrastructure database Field data, aerial photography, infrastructure database Traffic counts Field data, HCM methods, simulation Transit frequency is the number of transit vehicles scheduled to stop in or near the segment during one hour. For the purposes of determining frequency, transit service can be considered "local" or "nonlocal." Local service makes regular stops along the street (typically every 0.25 mi [400 m] or less), but does not necessarily stop within a given segment when segment lengths are short or when transit stops alternate between the near and far sides of the boundary intersections that define a segment. Nonlocal service operates at longer stop spacing than local routes (e.g., limited-stop, bus rapid transit, and express routes). Local service is always included in determining frequency. Nonlocal service is only included when it stops within the segment. When a bus stop is not located in the segment, use average values for the closest stops in either direction, as long as they are located within 0.25 mi of one end of the segment or the other. Average Excess Wait Time Average excess wait time is calculated as described in the Reliability section above. Exhibit 5-26 Transit LOS Input Data Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-40 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Average Passenger Load Factor Load factor is calculated as described in the Passenger Load section above, and is used for both bus and rail vehicles, regardless of relative standing and seated capacities. When field observations are used to determine passenger loading, it is sufficient to define just a few categories that can be readily observed from outside the vehicle (e.g., numerous empty seats, nearly full seated load, some standees, many standees, packed vehicle) and to develop a default load factor for each category. This variable has no impact on LOS below an 80% seated load and has more of an impact on LOS when standees are present than when they are not. Average Transit Speed Average transit speed reflects speed within the segment. If transit LOS is being compared to other modal LOS, average transit speed should be calculated using the method given in the Highway Capacity Manual (1) to allow consistent comparisons of LOS results between modes, as motorized vehicle speed is an input to other modes' LOS calculations. If only transit LOS is being evaluated and future conditions are part of the analysis, then either TCQSM or HCM speed estimation methods, or simulation, can be I used to estimate average transit speed; however, the selected method should be used for all analyzed conditions. If only transit LOS under existing conditions is being evaluated, then timetable data or field measurements can also be considered. When different routes with different speeds are included in the segment's frequency value, an average speed weighted by frequency should be used. Average Passenger Trip Length Average passenger trip length is used by the method to convert schedule reliability and values of time for amenities into a perceived travel time rate. The value can be defaulted using an average U.S. value of 3.7 mi (6.0 km) (28) or a transit agency default value derived from the NTD by dividing total passenger miles by total unlinked trips. A route-specific value can also be determined from archived APC or smart card data or from NTD count sheets for the route by dividing total passenger miles by the total number of boarding passengers. Passenger Amenity Data Information about the presence of benches and shelters is required for each stop in an analysis segment. Shelters with benches are counted as both shelters and benches. The percentage of stops in each segment with each type of amenity should be determined. The existence of passenger amenities is used by the method in determining average perceived waiting time at a stop. Pedestrian Environment Data Pedestrian environment data is used by the method to adjust the transit LOS result based on the quality of the pedestrian environment in the segment. Most of the required data elements can be readily determined from a field visit or detailed aerial photography. However, motorized traffic flow rates (peak 15-min flows expressed in terms of vehicles per hour) and running speeds (average segment speed, including delay at the downstream intersection) may require data collection or analysis using other tools (e.g., the HCM [1]). Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-41 Fixed-Route Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition A continuous barrier is defined as a solid object (e.g., Jersey barrier) at least 3ft (0.9 m high) or a row of repetitive vertical objects (e.g., trees or bollards) at least 3ft high with an average spacing of20 ft (6 m) or less. Calculation Steps Step 1: Determine the Transit Wait-Ride Score The transit wait-ride score is a performance measure that compares the attractiveness of the transit service being evaluated to a baseline transit service that operates once an hour at an average travel speed of 10 or 15 mi/h (16 or 25 km/h), depending on the location of the analysis segment. The value of the transit wait-ride score reflects the relative ridership that the service would attract compared to the baseline service. Thus, a value of 2.0 for the transit wait-ride score indicates that the service being evaluated would be expected to attract twice as much ridership as the baseline service, due to its higher quality of service. It is not necessary to actually estimate ridership for the route; the proportional change in ridership that would occur is the value of interest. If no transit service is provided within the segment in the direction of travel being analyzed, then the transit wait-ride score is set to 0.0. Otherwise, the transit wait-ride score is calculated using Equation 5-5. A larger score corresponds to better performance. where = transit wait-ride score, h = headway factor, and / 11 = perceived travel time factor. The process for calculating the two component factors of the transit wait-ride score, the headway factor, and the perceived travel time factor, is described below. Headway Factor The headway factor represents the ratio of the estimated ridership at the transit headway being evaluated to the estimated ridership at a base headway of 60 min. The ridership estimates are developed from an assumed set of ridership elasticities for changes in headway (31) . The headway factor is computed by Equation 5-6 (1) . fh = 4.ooe-1.434/Cf+o.oo1) where h = headway factor, and f = transit frequency for the segment (vehjh). Perceived Travel Time Factor The perceived travel time factor represents the ratio of the estimated ridership at the perceived transit speed being evaluated to the estimated ridership at a base speed. Equation 5-5 Equation 5-6 Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-42 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Equation 5-7 Equation S-8 Equation S-9 Equation 5-10 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition The base speed is 10 mijh (16 km/h) for the central business districts of metropolitan areas with populations of 5 million or more and 15 mi/h (25 km/h) otherwise. The perceived speed of transit service is affected by the actual speed of the service, the degree of crowding on board the transit vehicle, the reliability (lateness) of the service, and the amenities provided at the transit stop. Each of these elements is converted into a travel time rate expressed in minutes per mile, and are subsequently combined to produce an overall perceived travel time rate. The ridership estimated for a given travel time rate is developed from an assumed elasticity for changes in travel time rate (32) . The perceived travel time factor is determined from Equation 5-7: (E - 1)Tbtt - (E + 1)Tptt ftt = ----------'--(£ - 1)Tptt - (E + 1)Tbtt with Tptt = (fvl 65°) + (2Tex) -Tat 1.00 L1 :::; 0.80 4(L1 - o.8o) fvL = 1 + 4.2 0.80 < Lr :::; 1.00 where 4(L1 - 0.80) + (L1 - 1.00)(6.5 + [5(L1 - 1.00)] 1 + L1 > 1.00 4.2L1 1.3Psh + 0.2pbe Tat=------ lpt ft t = perceived travel time factor; E = ridership elasticity with respect to changes in the travel time rate (default- 0.40); T btt = base travel time rate = 6.0 for the CBD of a metropolitan area with 5 million persons or more, otherwise= 4.0 (min/mi); TP11 = perceived travel time rate (minjmi); Tex = excess wait time rate due to late arrivals ( minjmi) = tex / lpt; tex = excess wait time due to late arrivals (min); lpt = average passenger trip length (mi); Tat = perceived amenity time rate (minjmi); JP, = passenger load weighting factor; S = average travel speed of transit vehicles along the segment (mi/h); L1 = average passenger load factor (pjseat); P sh = proportion of stops on segment with shelters (decimal); and Pbe = proportion of stops on segment with benches (decimal). Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-43 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Equation 5-8 shows that the perceived travel time rate has three components: • A perceived travel speed, based on the actual travel speed, but adjusted to reflect on-board crowding; • Added perceived travel time due to excess wait time; and • Subtracted perceived travel time due to the provision of amenities at the transit stop. The perceived travel time weighting factor for crowding ranges from 1.00 when the load factor is 0.8 pjseat or less to 2.32 at a load factor of 1.6 pjseat (12) . The weighting factor for excess wait time is 2, reflecting that waiting time is perceived as being more onerous than in-vehicle time. Shelters are assumed to provide a perceived travel time benefit of1.3 min, while benches provide a perceived travel time benefit of0.2 min (12) . Because excess wait time and the amenity travel time benefit are both expressed in units of time, these are converted to travel time rates by dividing them by the average passenger trip length. Step 2: Determine the Pedestrian Environment Score The pedestrian environment score reflects the quality of the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the transit stop. A poor pedestrian environment produces a worse transit LOS for a given transit service condition, while a good pedestrian environment produces a better transit LOS. The score is sensitive to the existence and quality of pedestrian facilities, their perceived separation from motorized vehicle traffic, and the volume and speed of motorized vehicle traffic. The pedestrian environment score is calculated using Equation 5-11: lp = 6.0468 + fw + fv + fs with where fw = -1.2276ln(Wv + O.SW1 + 50ppk + Wbutfb + WaAfsw) Vm fv = 0.00914 SR 2 fs = 4 (100) lp, = pedestrian environment score; fw = cross-section adjustment factor; fv = motorized vehicle volume adjustment factor; f s = motorized vehicle speed adjustment factor; ln(x) = naturallogofx; Wv = effective total width of outside through lane, bicycle lane, and shoulder (parking lane) as a function of traffic volume (see Exhibit 5-27) (ft); W1 = effective width of combined bicycle lane and shoulder (see Exhibit 5-27) (ft); P pk = proportion of on-street parking occupied (decimal) ; Equation 5-11 Equation 5-12 Equation 5-13 Equation 5-14 Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-44 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-27 Variables for Pedestrian Environment Score Equation 5-15 Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Wbuf = buffer width between roadway and available sidewalk ( = 0.0 if sidewalk does not exist) (ft); ft, = buffer area coefficient= 5.37 for any continuous barrier at least 3ft (0.9 m) high that is located between the sidewalk and the outside edge of roadway; otherwise use 1.0; WA = available sidewalk width = 0.0 if sidewalk does not exist (ft); WaA = adjusted available sidewalk width= min(WA, 10) (ft); fsw = sidewalk width coefficient= 6.0 - 0.3 WaA; vm = outside lane motorized vehicle demand flow rate at mid-segment (i.e., lane closest to the subject sidewalk) (vehjh); and SR = average motorized vehicle running speed in the segment, including delay at the downstream intersection (mijh). Variable When Condition Variable When Condition Condition Is Satisfied Is Not Satisfied p k = 0.0 Wt = W at + W bt + W as Wt = W at + W bt Vm > 160 veh/h or street is divided Wv=Wt W v = Wt (2- 0.005 Vm) Ppk < 0.25 or parking is striped W1 = Wbt + W as W1 = 10 Notes: Wt =total width of the outside through lane, bicycle lane, and paved shoulder or parking lane (ft); Wa1 =width of the outside through lane (ft); Wa; =adjusted width of paved outside shoulder or parking lane; if curb is present W a; = Was - 1.5;:: 0.0, otherwise W as • = W as (ft); Was = width of paved outside shoulder or parking lane (ft); and Wbt =width of the bicycle lane(= 0.0 if bicycle lane not provided) (ft) . The conditions listed in Exhibit 5-27 are evaluated in order. If a condition is satisfied, then the equation in the second column of the row is used to calculate a variable, otherwise, the equation in the third column of the row is used. If a continuous sidewalk does not exist for the entire length of the segment, the segment will need to be divided into subsegments and a pedestrian environment score calculated for each subsegment. A weighted pedestrian environment score should be calculated based on the length of each subsegment. Step 3: Determine the Transit LOS Score The transit LOS score is computed as follows: It = 6.0- 1.50sw-r + 0.15/p where 11 is the transit LOS score, Sw-r is the transit wait-ride score, and lp is the pedestrian environment score. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-45 Fixed-Route Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Step 4: Determine Transit LOS Transit LOS is determined by comparing the transit LOS score with the thresholds in Exhibit 5-28. LOS LOS Score A 52.00 B >2.00-2.75 c >2 .75-3.50 D >3 .50-4.25 E >4.25-5.00 F >5.00 Exhibit 5-28 Thresholds for Transit LOS Values Fixed-Route Quality of Service Page 5-46 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

This QOS framework is not intended to apply to evaluating ADA paratransit service. Exhibit 5-29 Quality of Service Framework: Demand Responsive Transit Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition 3. DEMAND-RESPONSIVE QUALITY OF SERVICE OVERVIEW This section describes a QOS evaluation framework for demand-responsive transportation (DRT). The framework can be used for both general public and limited eligibility DRT services, but it is not intended for evaluation of ADA paratransit service. Federal regulations governing ADA paratransit stipulate specific service criteria that establish required levels of service for those riders that are ADA-eligible. This section's QOS evaluation framework is also not intended to evaluate the range of flexible services, beyond DRT, that are discussed in Chapter 2, Mode and Service Concepts. Some of these QOS measures could be useful for assessing the various flexible services beyond DRT, with revision or adaption to the service levels provided, but the wide range of these services precludes the use of one standard QOS evaluation framework. Consistent with the evaluation framework for fixed-route transit presented in the previous section, the service measures for DRT are provided in two categories: (a) availability and (b) comfort and convenience. The core demand responsive QOS measures are listed in Exhibit 5-29, along with the exhibit(s) where the service levels for each measure are presented. Availability Response time (Exhibit 5-30) Service span (Exhibit 5-31 and Exhibit 5-32) Service coverage (no separate exhibit provided) AVAILABILITY MEASURES Response Time Comfort and Convenience Reliability (Exhibit 5-35) Travel time (Exhibit 5-36) No-shows (Exhibit 5-38) Response time is an important availability measure for passengers, defining how far in advance they must schedule a DRT trip. Response time is measured as the minimum amount of time a rider needs to schedule and access a trip or the minimum advance reservation time. This measure is most appropriate when the trips are scheduled each time a rider wants to travel. When service is provided on a standing-order or subscription basis -that is, riders are picked up on pre-scheduled days at pre- scheduled times and do not need to call in advance for each trip -the service is essentially guaranteed, and riders do not have to consider response time for each trip. This is a high level of service for riders, and is inc! uded as one of the seven service levels shown in Exhibit 5-30. These levels range from "guaranteed" service for a passenger with a standing-order reservation-requiring only an initial call to schedule service-to service that requires a passenger to schedule a trip more than one week in advance. The first service level, guaranteed/standing-order service, is included in the framework as it represents a high level of service for those riders with regular trips. The next level is same-day DRT, allowing passengers to make spontaneous trips, though requiring the transit agency's DRT control room staff to handle the faster pace and increased pressure of real-time scheduling. Same-day service requires the transit agency to ensure effective procedures for scheduling and dispatching trips on a real- Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-47 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition time basis. Technology such as GPS/ AVL and mobile data computers (MDCs) can be particularly effective to support same-day service. Same-day service on a space-available basis is the third service level, provided by some DRT systems to take advantage of same-day cancellations and other same-day service adjustments that open up capacity. The additional capacity is made available to riders for trips on a short-notice basis. While there may be limited capacity for trips on a space-available basis on the day of travel, offering this capacity for additional trips can be convenient for riders and increase productivity for the transit agency. The fourth level is will-call or "call when ready" service. DRT systems may provide this level of service only for certain trips, typically return trips from medical appointments that often run late. If a return trip from a medical appointment is scheduled in advance and the appointment runs late, the passenger is a no-show because she is not ready to leave, and the DRT control center then has to schedule a second return trip by inserting a trip into the schedule. A will-call or "call when ready" trip can be an effective way to address such situations. At subsequent service levels, the response time increases for riders, so that more advance planning is required for trips. At the last level, when trips require more than one week in advance to schedule, DRT service is definitely not an option for spontaneous trips. From the transit agency perspective, the requirement for a longer advance reservation allows more time to create vehicle schedules and plan driver shifts; however, a longer advance reservation time period usually means a higher rate of cancelled trips and often more late cancels and no-shows as well. When passengers book DRT trips days in advance, there are more opportunities for the passenger to change their trip plans and even to forget a booked trip, resulting in a no-show. Response Time Guaranteed (Standing-order or subscription service) Passenger Perspective • Provides riders with recurring trips the opportunity to make one call to request service and then rely on that service to arrive on the requested days and time • Eliminates the need for riders with standing-order service to call before each repetitive trip • Restricts flexibility for riders who make one-time and random trips if the transit agency uses most of its capacity to serve standing-order trips (in which case the service becomes "captive" to repeat passengers) Transit Agency Perspective • Effectively serves recurring trips for work, school, medical services, and human service programs • Eliminates the need for DRT control center staff to respond to repeated requests for passenger trips needed at the same time on the same days • Helps to develop driver schedules, with standing-order trips providing a "skeleton" onto which one-time trips are placed • Requires periodic evaluation of standing-order trip schedules to maintain schedule efficiency and to ensure sufficient capacity for random trips • Requires policies/procedures to ensure riders cancel unneeded trips; riders may be less diligent in canceling standing-order trips Exhibit 5-30 DRT Response Time QOS Note that the first service level- guaranteed- is available only to riders who have standing- order service. Riders without standing-order service are provided with different QOS depending on the capacity of the DRT service and the agency's policy on response time. Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-48 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-30 (cont'd.) DRT Response Time QOS Response Time Same-day service Same-day service on space available basis Will-call or Call When Ready Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Passenger Perspective • Allows passengers to make DRT trips relatively spontaneously • Requires very little advance planning, with the ability to take a trip within as little as 2 to 3 hours of a trip request • Provides riders the opportunity to book a same-day trip if space is available • May be adequate service for trips that are last-minute and not time sensitive • Requires riders to be flexible as to time of travel and open to a trip turn-down if space not available • Provides option for passenger to call for return trip when ready; eligibility may be restricted to specific trip purposes (e.g, . a medical appointment) • Eliminates passenger anxiety about missing the return trip • Requires a potentially longer time for the DRT vehicle to arrive after calling for a return trip Transit Agency Perspective • Requires the DRT control center staff to handle the faster pace and increased pressure of real-time scheduling • May also be scheduled/dispatched by drivers, using cell phones or other technology (e.g., GPS/AVL), on a real- time basis • May work more effectively when scheduling and dispatching are facilitated with technology, particularly GPS/AVL and MDCs • May experience fewer late cancels/ no-shows compared to DRT requiring more advance notice • Allows DRT provider to use capacity that otherwise might go unused due to same-day cancellations or other day-of-service adjustments • Requires the DRT control center staff to continually monitor service and watch for "slack" time in drivers' schedules when an additional trip could be inserted • Requires the DRT control center staff and drivers to adapt procedures to insert trips into a driver's schedule on short notice • Reduces the number of passenger no-shows for scheduled return trips Page 5-49 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Response Time Next-day/ 24-hour advance reservation Two-day/48-hour advance reservation and up to one week More than one week in advance Passenger Perspective • Requires some advance planning • Inconvenient if transit agency requires reservation literally "24- hours-in-advance" rather than by the end of the previous day • Requires more advance planning than next-day service • For important time-sensitive trips, passengers may want the option to schedule more than one week in advance • Requires advance planning for all DRT trips • For important time-sensitive trips, passengers may like the option to schedule trips more than one week in advance Transit Agency Perspective • Requires the transit agency to adopt policies and procedures for deadlines to request next-day service (e .g. by the end of the previous business day or literally 24 hours in advance) • Must address how and when passengers request next-day service if service is not provided 7 days/week • If no weekend service, this could mean allowing requests for Monday service to be made on Fridays, more than 24 hours in advance • Alternatively, requests could be allowed via electronic or telephone message over the weekend, but the transit agency must provide staff and establish procedures to schedule Monday trips • Increases risk for higher rates of cancellations, late cancels, and no- shows • A longer advance period may be needed for passengers to request important time-sensitive trips • Results in higher rates of cancellations and likely higher rates of late cancel and no-shows as well • Consider whether response time policy balances riders' ability/ options for scheduling trip requests, while keeping cancellations/late cancels/no-shows to a minimum Most DRT systems offer a mix of standing-order service and independently scheduled demand response trips. The response times for demand trips vary by transit agency policy and operational practice. DRT systems should monitor quality of service by examining actual response times to ensure operational practice is consistent with stated policy. To calculate response time, the DRT provider should look at the minimum amount of time that a passenger needs to schedule a trip in relation to the response time policy. For example, if the policy of the DRT system is that service is provided on a next-day or 24-hours-in-advance basis, a rider should be able to reserve a DRT trip the day before the service is desired. Some riders may schedule their trips more than a day in advance if the transit agency's policy permits this, but if the DRT provider's policy states that service is provided on a next-day basis, then riders should routinely be able to reserve trips on a next-day basis. Data on response time can be obtained from DRT control center staff that book trips (e.g., call-takers, reservationists, dispatchers). Another approach is to survey riders to obtain their input and experience with response time. Exhibit 5-30 (cont'd.) DRT Response Time QOS Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-50 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Using an average for this measure is not appropriate if riders are able to reserve trips farther in advance than the stated minimum response time policy. For example, a user might call one week in advance to book a trip even though this is not necessary. An average would capture such response times for trips scheduled farther in advance than is necessary and would thus not be representative of actual operations. Many DRT providers have a maximum response time, in addition to a minimum. This is stated in DRT rider guides as, for example, "riders may schedule trips between one to seven days in advance of the desired travel date." A number of DRT systems use 14 days as the maximum, a time period that originated with the original ADA regulations, which stipulated that ADA para transit systems allow trip reservations to be made 14 days in advance. Amendments to the ADA in 1996 removed that requirement, among other changes. A maximum advance reservation window means that riders cannot schedule trips farther ahead than the stated policy. Without a maximum, riders may schedule trips far in advance and then find their travel plans change, so they cancel their scheduled trips or forget the reservation and no-show the trip. Both excessive cancellations and no- shows negatively impact DRT performance. Research on DRT performance found I excessive cancellations can be mitigated by shortening the advance reservation window, so riders will be more sure of their travel plans when they book trips and less likely to cancel or even to forget about their previously reserved trips (33). Service Span Service span measures the days per week and hours per day that DRT service is available in a particular area. To properly assess DRT service span, one must look at the two components of service span: days of service and hours per day of service. Assessment of service span may be particularly important for the DRT mode since, in many small urban communities and rural counties, service is not provided on a full weekly basis. Service may not be available on weekend days, and, if funding is limited, service may not be available on all weekdays. Days of Service Days of service is the first component for measuring DRT service span, with five service levels as shown in Exhibit 5-31. At the first level, DRT service is available seven days per week. This is a high level of service for passengers, though seven-day service will require more resources for the transit agency to support. Significantly, for those riders who are transit dependent, service availability on Saturdays and Sundays as well as weekdays allows for trips that are more often social and recreational. Such trips have been referred to as "life-fulfilling" when compared to trips to the grocery store, medical appointments, bank, etc., that are "life-sustaining" trips. At the second service level, DRT is available six days per week, still a relatively high level of service. At the next level, five days per week of service, DRT is available on weekdays, Monday through Friday. Daily weekday service is considered basic transit service for a community, and the minimum level of service for riders who have other transportation options. Service availability decreases at the last two levels: service less than five days per week and less than weekly. At these levels, DRT serves only transit-dependent individuals and trip purposes that are often life sustaining. Less than weekly service Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-51 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition might be the best service that a rural transit agency can provide, rationing resources so that DRT service rotates among scattered small communities within a large service area, providing a "lifeline" service for those who have no other transportation options. Days of Service 7 days/week 6 days/week Passenger Perspective • Allows DRT trips every day of the week including the weekend • Increases access to employment and education any day of the week • Permits trips on weekend days that are more likely "life-fulfilling" (e.g., trips for social, recreational, religious purposes) • Allows DRT trips every day of the traditional work week and at least one weekend day • Increases access to employment and education opportunities beyond the traditional work week to include at least one weekend day • Increases access to medical services available six days per week (e.g., dialysis treatment) • Allows for trips on a weekend day that are more likely "life-fulfilling" Transit Agency Perspective • Provides transit service every day of the week • Ensures community residents have access to trips for "life-fulfilling" purposes (as opposed to life-sustaining purposes) • Requires more operating funds to provide weekend service in addition to weekday service • Requires a larger driver work force to cover 7-day service span • Increases vehicle maintenance needs and impacts maintenance scheduling • May need to consider strategies to reduce payroll hours, e.g., by increasing part-time work assignments or providing weekend service on an on- call basis (only for trips reserved in advance) or through a taxi-voucher program or volunteer drivers • May increase risk of greater driver absenteeism on weekend days • May reduce productivity (passenger trips per hour) during lower demand periods on weekend days • Increases transit service to the community beyond weekdays by adding DRT on either Saturday or Sunday, depending on agency goals/objectives and community preferences • Requires more operating funds to provide service one weekend day in addition to weekday service • Requires a larger driver work force to cover 6-day service span • Increases vehicle maintenance needs and impacts maintenance scheduling • May increase risk of greater driver absenteeism on the one weekend day • May reduce productivity during lower demand periods on the weekend day Exhibit 5-31 DRT Days of Service QOS Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-52 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-31 (cont'd.) DRT Days of Service QOS Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Days of Service 5 days/week Less than 5 days/week Passenger Perspective • Allows DRT trips every day of the traditional work week • Permits trips by DRT for full-time, weekday employment and education if combined with appropriate hours per day • Provides access to medical services five days per week • Provides weekly access by DRT to essential shopping, personal business, medical appointments, and social or government services • Allows trips for part-time employment and education if combined with appropriate hours per day. • Requires pre-planning transit trips for the specific weekdays when service is available • Limits access to some medical services (e.g., dialysis, some medical clinics) Less than weekly • Allows for "lifeline" trips such as Hours of Service grocery shopping, banking, one-time medical appointments, etc. if planned in advance • Limits the opportunity to use DRT for purposes other than lifeline trips Transit Agency Perspective • Provides basic weekday transit service for a community • Requires operating funds for service five days per week • Provides the minimum service that may attract choice riders, depending on hours per day of service • Provides transit services for transit- dependent riders such as seniors and people with disabilities • Provides options for choice of days in consideration of trip needs for transit- dependent population in the community, e.g., if community has intercity bus service, transit service might be provided on the days allowing transfer connections • Requires less operating funds for service operated fewer than five days per week • Serves only transit-dependent riders • Minimizes the cost of providing transit services and may be the only transit service affordable in a large rural service area with scattered small communities • Requires public information/rider guide material to be clear and specific in explaining the limited service The second component of DRT availability is hours of service, as depicted in Exhibit 5-32. At the highest service level, DRT is available 16 or more hours per day, which allows for trips until the mid-evening hours. The second level, with service available 12 to 15.9 hours per day, is good DRT service for most communities and allows DRT to become an integral community service (assuming service is available at least five days per week) . DRT service hours decrease over the next three levels, with more limited hours each service day for trip-making. The last level, service available less than five hours per day, can be seen in rural areas, where, along with limited days of service per week, the transit agency must stretch limited DRT resources over a large geographic area, offering lifeline service to transit-dependent residents in small, isolated communities. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-53 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Hours of Service ;e:16.0 h/day 12.0-15.9 h/day 9.0-11.9 h/day 5.0-8.9 h/day <5.0 h/day Passenger Perspective • Allows use of DRT for all trip purposes during daytime hours and until mid- evening • Provides DRT for full-time employment or education, including hours extending until mid-evening • Allows for DRT use during typical business hours including early evening hours • Permits DRT service for many full-time workers and for full-time and part- time students • Enables DRT trips for medical appointments and health services including some extended hours • Allows DRT trips during daytime business hours • Permits DRT trips for some users with full-time jobs, depending on trip length/travel time from home to work location • Allows transit use for most medical appointments and health services • Allows opportunity for DRT trips for essential shopping, personal business, medical appointments, human or government services, and some part- time jobs and educational programs • Requires pre-planning transit trips to ensure both "going" and return trips are scheduled within service hours • Limits the opportunity to use transit for any purpose other than lifeline trips such as grocery shopping, banking, or medical appointments • Requires pre-planning transit trips to ensure both "going" and return trips are scheduled within limited hours Transit Agency Perspective • Provides robust DRT service hours for a community • Requires a commitment of operating funds to sustain this high level of service availability • May increase need to consider strategies to reduce payroll hours, e.g., by increasing part-time work assignments or by providing evening service an on-call basis (only for trips reserved in advance) or through a taxi- voucher program or volunteer drivers • Provides good DRT service hours for most communities. • Allows for transit service to become an integral community service, if matched with service at least 5 days/week. • Provides basic transit service for a community, if funding does not allow at least 12 hours of service/day • Provides limited transit service for a community, acceptable if this is the most service a transit agency can provide with available funding • Serves only transit-dependent riders • Minimizes the cost of providing transit services and may be the only transit service affordable in a large rural service area with scattered small communities Exhibit 5-32 DRT Hours of Service QOS Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-54 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Service Coverage In addition to DRT response time and service span, DRT availability can be measured by the geographic area where passengers can travel: service coverage or the service area. This measure is applied differently for DRT than for fixed-route service. For fixed route, service coverage measures the area within walking distance of the transit routes. When combined with the hours and frequency of fixed-route service, service coverage helps to identify the specific areas where people have to access transit routes. For DRT, service is typically provided throughout the jurisdiction of the transit agency that is funding and providing the transportation service. For example, a city dial- a-ride program will serve all locations within the city limits, for both passenger pick-ups and drop-offs. In some cases, DRT systems may also serve a limited number of specific destinations outside the jurisdictional limits that are important trip destinations for the jurisdiction's residents, for example, a community college located several miles outside the city limits. But typically service coverage for DRT is not like fixed route, where only riders located within specific areas of the jurisdiction are served. All residents (i.e., a general public DRT) or all those defined as eligible (i.e., limited eligibility DRT) can call I the DRT system to request a DRT trip from any origin to any destination within the jurisdiction. This means the level of service as measured by service coverage is the same for all DRT riders in the jurisdiction. There are exceptions to the typical DRT service coverage. The first is ADA paratransit. The ADA regulations, among other service requirements, require transit agencies that operate fixed-route transit to also provide ADA paratransit service within the same service area as the fixed routes, which generally includes a %-mile corridor on either side of the routes. Riders who are determined eligible for ADA paratransit can travel between any origin and destination within that defined area. If the transit agency limits ADA paratransit service to the required service area, the rest of the jurisdiction is not available to ADA riders when traveling by ADA paratransit. Another exception to typical DRT service coverage occurs with some large rural DRT systems. When the DRT provider, often a rural county transit system, must spread limited DRT resources across a large geographic area that includes a number of communities of varying sizes, DRT service may not be available equally throughout the county limits. The largest community in the county may have DRT service throughout the week, and the smaller communities may have service only on specific days each week or possibly on certain days each month; the DRT resources rotate among the smaller communities so that each has at least some DRT availability. And there may be some parts of the rural county that do not have any DRT service coverage, for example very small population clusters, or national forests or other large federal or state lands without residential uses. In such cases where the service coverage and service span vary within a jurisdiction or larger service area, it may be useful to display the different levels of D RT availability on a map. The graphic would illustrate DRT service coverage as well as the service span, identifying the different levels of service within the large service area. An example is shown in Exhibit 5-33. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-55 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Roseau Pennington Beltrami County Lower Red Lake Hubbard COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE MEASURES Reliability LEGEND DRT Service Availabililty Lake of th Q Monday through Saturday - 1st and 3rd Thursday of the Month - 1st and 3rd Friday of the Month Water Features Lake; Stream; Canal ·· '!'~·· Swamp or Marsh Koochiching , .. , Upper Red Lake Puposky 1r Chippewa National Forest Penn ing Leech Lake Indian Reservation Cass Itasca Reliability of DRT is a critical measure of service level from the passengers' perspective. Passengers want to know: "Will I be able to reserve a trip when I call, or will all the rides be taken?" And once the trip is booked, passengers may ask on the day of service, "Will the vehicle arrive on time?'' "Will the driver get me to my appointment on time or will my trip be too long?" Exhibit 5-33 Example DRT Service Coverage Graphic Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-56 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Because of the nature of DRT where riders schedule individual DRT trips, there is more variability than there is for fixed-route service. For fixed-route service, the rider simply walks to the bus stop along the published route a few minutes before the scheduled time when the vehicle will pass by. The rider boards the bus and gets off at the appropriate stop at the scheduled time. For DRT service, there are several steps to a trip, each with reliability issues. The passenger must first call or contact the DRT office to request the particular trip. Depending on available capacity, the passenger may or may not be able to reserve the desired trip. If there is capacity, the trip may or may not be available at the exact desired time. If the exact time is not available and if the rider has some flexibility, an alternate time may be available. Once the trip is booked, the rider must wait for the vehicle to arrive on the day of service at the scheduled time. This time is typically a window of time, so the rider must be ready and waiting during this time frame. The vehicle may arrive on time, or it may be late. And on isolated occasions, unfortunately, the vehicle may never arrive. Once on board the vehicle, the passenger travels to the scheduled destination, with a travel time that varies depending on other passengers who may be sharing the ride and their trip characteristics. If everything goes as scheduled, the rider arrives at his or her destination on time. Given the different steps involved with a DRT trip, DRT reliability is assessed with two measures: on-time performance and trips turned down. On-Time Performance On-time performance measures the degree to which DRT vehicles arrive at the scheduled times. The measure is calculated at the pick-up end of the trip and, for time sensitive trip (e.g., work, school, medical appointments, etc.), at the drop-off end as well. Many transit agencies, particularly those in urban areas, give passengers a "window of time" within which the DRT vehicle is scheduled to arrive. For example, the agency may have a 30-min on-time window policy, which is common in urban areas. If a passenger books a 10:00 a.m. pick-up, the trip reservationist or dispatcher will tell the passenger the DRT vehicle will arrive between 9:45 and 10:15 a.m., or, depending on specifics of the scheduling process, a variation of 30 min tied to 10:00 a.m. (e.g., 9:50- 10:20, 10:00-10:30). If the DRT vehicle arrives any time within that 30-min timeframe, it is on time. On-time performance is usually measured to ensure that DRT vehicles do not arrive late. However, being early can be a problem, too. If the DRT vehicle arrives at the pick- up location before the on-time window begins, passengers may not be ready to leave, and an early arrival at the destination in the morning may mean the passenger is dropped off before the destination building is even open. Generally, transit agencies require that DRT drivers who arrive early for the pick-up wait until the on-time window begins before starting the official "wait time" for the passenger, typically 5 min, but sometimes 3 or up to 10 min depending on the DRT system. Calculating on-time performance is done on a percentage basis for all trips during the defined time period or for a sample of days over the time period. All trips should be assessed at the pick-up end to determine if the DRT vehicle arrived within the on-time window. Time-sensitive trips should be assessed also at the destination end to see if the vehicle arrived at or before the required time. Trips that are missed by the DRT provider-that is, the vehicle never arrives-should be included within the count of late Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-57 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition trips. Some transit agencies record missed trips as a subset of late or very late trips, and some classify trips that are very late as missed. From the passenger's perspective, DRT reliability is poor if the vehicle is very late or never arrives. The length of the on-time window is determined by each DRT system. While a 30- min window is common, some transit agencies use 20 min or even 15 min. Other transit agencies may use a window longer than 30 min. DRT providers in rural areas may have a 60-min window, if a window is used at all. Those transit agencies that use a longer on- time window to measure timeliness should achieve a higher percentage of trips on time. The quality of service levels for DRT on-time performance, shown in Exhibit 5-34, assume a 30-min on-time window, since this is typical. If a different window is used, the LOS thresholds may need adjustment. For example, if a DRT system establishes a 15- min on-time window, it may be appropriate to have 85% and higher as the first service level, with subsequent adjustments to the remaining service levels. If a 60-min window is used, the first service level might be 100%, again with adjustments to the remaining service levels. Importantly, since the on-time window acts as a constraint for scheduling, the length of the window must be considered when evaluating service quality for riders and DRT performance. On-Time Percentage ;e:95.0% 90.0-94.9% Passenger Perspective • Provides high level of on-time service • Passengers can rely on DRT to get to destinations/appointments on time • For a frequent rider taking two trips (or one round trip) each weekday per month, 95% on-time performance means no more than 2 late trips out of the monthly total of 40 DRT trips • Provides good on-time service, assuming late trips are not "very late" (e.g. no more than 10 to 15 min past the on-time window) • Means passengers can rely on DRT to get to destinations/appointments on- time for most scheduled trips, but there will be exceptions on an infrequent basis • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month, 90% on- time means 4 late trips per month Transit Agency Perspective • Requires constant attention to timely service, with well-trained, effective schedulers/dispatchers, well-trained drivers, timely pull-outs for the DRT vehicles, and riders who are ready to board at the start of the on-time window, especially in a large urban environment • Reduces productivity (passenger trips per revenue hour): maintaining higher on-time performance may require reducing the number of shared rides per trip • May increase cost per passenger trip; lower productivity will result in a higher cost per passenger trip • Requires well-trained schedulers/dispatchers, well-trained drivers, and timely pull-outs each day of the DRT vehicles to achieve consistent 90% on-time performance or better • Scheduling/dispatch staff should be able to balance 90% on-time performance with reasonable productivity Exhibit 5-34 DRT On-time Performance QOS With a 30-min On- time Window Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-58 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-34 (cont'd.) DRT On-time Performance QOS With a 30-min On- time Window On-Time Percentage 80.0-89.9% 70.0-79.9% <70.0% Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Passenger Perspective • Means passengers can usually rely on DRT to be on time for most scheduled trips, but there will be exceptions • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month, 80% on time means 8 late trips per month • Riders with time-sensitive trips (e.g., work, school) will consider DRT unreliable if late pick-ups result in late drop-offs • Provides only somewhat reliable on- time service • Means passengers can rely on DRT to get to destinations/appointments on- time for the majority of scheduled trips; however, a significant number of trips may be late • For a frequent rider, 70% on-time means 12 late trips for every 40 trips on DRT service, almost one-third of scheduled trips • Provides unreliable service • A rider will experience late service for one-third or more of scheduled trips Transit Agency Perspective • Suggests need for more training for scheduling/dispatch staff and drivers or revised policies/procedures to improve on-time performance • Percent on-time performance may fall to low 80% range (or lower) during bad weather and transition periods (new service or new service area, change in service provider, new policies/procedures, fleet maintenance problems, and other major changes) . Risks an increase in passenger complaints from riders with time- sensitive trips • Indicates on-time performance is not a priority for DRT service • More attention is needed for scheduling/providing on-time trips • Scheduling/dispatch staff and drivers may need more training and experience • Decreases passenger satisfaction with DRT service and risks loss of DRT rider markets that require dependable service • Demonstrates limited attention to on- time performance • Transit agency should ensure operating staff (management, scheduling/dispatch staff, drivers) focus greater attention on timely service delivery and provide resources to support additional training and tools such as AVL • Limits DRT rider markets to individuals who have no or limited other options for transportation At the highest quality of service, 95% or more of DRT trips are on time. This is reliable and high-quality service for DRT passengers. It may also be difficult to sustain in a large urban environment, with the variability of DRT operations on a day-to-day basis including the unpredictability of dwell times for individual DRT passengers and the vagaries of traffic. For a frequent rider who takes two one-way trips (one round trip) each weekday for a month, the rider should experience no more than two late trips per month. While high levels of on-time performance provide riders a high quality of service, they also impact productivity, a key performance statistic for DRT systems. Maintaining a high on-time performance will lower the number of passenger trips provided per hour Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-59 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition of service (productivity) which at the same time increases the operating cost per passenger trip (34) . The second service level, 90.0 to 94.9% on-time performance, is still relatively high- quality DRT service. While the percentage does not indicate how late the late trips are, if they are not unreasonably late (e.g., no more than 10-15 min), passengers will likely continue to view the DRT service as reliable. The perceptions of"late," "very late," and what constitutes "unreasonably late" vary among individuals, thus each passenger's perspective on DRT service quality for on-time performance will also vary. Lateness may also be defined by the transit agency, with a performance goal for on-time trips and perhaps penalties if the D RT provider does not achieve that goal. These definitions also vary and may differ from passengers' definitions. What is important is that transit providers focus on providing timely DRT service as it is a key measure of service reliability for the riders. DRT timeliness decreases with each successive service level. At the fifth and last level, less than 70% of the trips are on time, as defined by the transit agency. A passenger would experience more than 12 late trips for every 40 one-way trips, roughly a third or more of that passenger's trips. DRT riders would not consider this reliable service. At this quality of service, the DRT system is likely serving only transit- dependent riders who have limited or no other options for transportation. The importance of on-time service for DRT is often reflected in standards that transit agencies set for this measure. Particularly for contracted service, transit agencies may define an on time performance standard, for example that 90% of DRT trips should be on time, and include the standard in contract specifications. Incentive payments may reward the contractor for exceeding the standard, and penalties (liquidated damages) may be assessed if performance falls below the defined standard. Setting a standard for on-time performance must consider the length of the window within which trips are considered on-time. For the typical30-min window, an on-time performance standard might be set from 90% to 95%, for example, or as a range from 92-95%. If the on-time window is shorter, the standard should be lower. With the on-time window acting as a scheduling constraint, and with the realities of day-to-day operations (e.g., traffic, driver schedules that vary day to day, unpredictability of wait and dwell times for riders), a short window makes it more difficult to ensure a high standard for on-time performance. Trips Turned Down DRT passengers will consider the service reliable if they can request and schedule trips when they wish to travel. DRT providers, however, may sometimes turn down riders' trip requests because there is not enough capacity at the riders' requested time. Capacity refers to the space available on the DRT vehicles and to the time available on the vehicles' schedules, considering the number of passenger trips already booked. If capacity is not available at the passenger's requested time, DRT control center staff (e.g., call-takers, reservationists) may negotiate with the rider to identify a different time for the trip. If the rider can adjust his or her trip time, then the rider can schedule the DRT trip. A trip that is negotiated for a different time is not considered a turn-down because the rider is provided a trip. However, if the rider cannot adjust the trip time, the rider will not be able to travel by DRT for that trip. Unlike fixed-route service where the bus travels along a pre-determined path at pre-determined times and Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-60 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition picks up passengers until no more standees can fit on the vehicle, a DRT system responds to passengers' individualized trip requests, traveling between different origin and destination locations with schedules that vary day to day. If the DRT capacity is already booked and a rider's requested trip cannot be reasonably inserted into the existing schedule, then the rider's trip is turned down. Generally, DRT transit services operate with all passengers seated (i.e., the number of passengers scheduled does not exceed the number of seats and wheelchair positions available) . Some transit agencies may expand vehicle capacity by accepting standees. Some DRT providers try to avoid trip turn-downs by over-accepting trip requests which they may or may not be able to schedule and provide on the day of desired travel. If there are cancellations before or on the day of desired travel, those trips may be provided. As another approach, some transit agencies with advance reservation DRT service allow same-day requests on a space-available basis, which they serve with capacity that becomes available on the day of service from same-day trip cancellations. Most DRT providers turn down trips on an occasional basis, during periods of unusual demand, when they are unexpectedly short on drivers, or because of some other atypical event. However, trip turn-downs that become more frequent signal I insufficient capacity at the times when riders wish to travel. The transit agency should monitor and document turn-downs to determine the times of the day and days of the week when they occur. When DRT riders experience frequent trip turn-downs, they may stop requesting trips. Frequent trip turn-downs suggest the transit agency should review DRT service deployment and try to better match trip capacity with trip demand. Perhaps adjustments of driver schedules or a mix of full-time and part-time driver shifts would provide capacity when it is needed, with part-time shifts scheduled for the higher demand time periods. The transit agency should assess other operational policies and procedures that may affect existing capacity. For example, DRT riders could be encouraged to use service during lower demand time periods with a fare incentive. If the DRT provider still turns down trips with frequency after adjustments to ensure efficient service deployment and after possible revisions to policies and procedures to maximize capacity, then additional capacity may be needed. This could be additional revenue service hours, or possibly additional vehicles. Other options to add capacity include an arrangement with a local taxi company for supplemental service during high demand time periods, with the transit agency purchasing only those taxi trips that it needs to serve trips that otherwise would be turned down. The range of quality of service for trips turned down are shown in Exhibit 5-35. At the highest quality of service, a rider would experience essentially no trip turn-downs for each 40 one-way trips requested (equivalent to a round trip each weekday for a month). This is very reliable service. At each subsequent service level, riders will experience trip turn-downs. At the fourth level, with more than 5% and up to 10% of trip requests turned down, riders may stop relying on the DRT service for important trips. At the lowest service level, with more than 10% of trips turned down, a rider will experience trip turn-downs on four trips for every 40 trip requests. At this point, riders will surely question the reliability of the DRT service and may stop riding DRT if another option for transportation is available. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-61 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Percentage Trips Turned Down Passenger Perspective 0-1% • Riders can rely on DRT for trip needs >1-3% >3-5% >5-10% • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month (40 one- way trips per month), 0-1% trips turned down means essentially no trips will be refused during an average month • Riders will find DRT service usually available when needed, thus generally reliable • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month, 1-3% trips turned down means one trip out of an average 40 DRT requests per month may be refused • Depending on the nature/trip purpose of the trips turned down, riders may consider DRT reasonably reliable • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month, 3-5% trips turned down means no more than 2 trips out of an average 40 DRT requests per month will be refused • Riders may need other options for needed trips when DRT is not available • For a frequent rider taking two trips each weekday per month, 5-10% trips turned down means 2 to 4 trips out of an average 40 DRT requests per month will be refused Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Transit Agency Perspective • Provides enough DRT capacity to serve all trip requests • With enough capacity during all times of the day, there may be some excess capacity during low demand periods; transit agency might assess driver scheduling and use of full-time/part- time shifts to ensure driver shifts correspond to ridership patterns • Occasional trips turned down can be expected during periods of higher demand • Suggest alternate trip times to riders if they request trips when capacity is not available, rather than turning down the trip • Requires monitoring trips turned down to determine if they occur on particular days or during specific time periods • Indicates the need to assess operational policies/procedures/ practices to ensure service is deployed efficiently, e.g., excess no-shows will use capacity without providing trips for passengers • Increases the need to negotiate alternate trip times for passengers when capacity is not available, rather than turning down the trip • User information/rider's guide should indicate time periods of less demand so riders with a choice of trip times can plan trips accordingly • Risks riders with other transportation options may stop using DRT service, particularly for important trips • Calls for an analysis of the number of trips turned down by time of day to analyze patterns and possibly adjust driver scheduling and use of full- time/part-time shifts to ensure driver shifts correspond to ridership patterns • Requires more attention to operational policies/procedures/practices to ensure service is deployed efficiently and capacity is maximized with current resources • Risks an increase in passenger complaints about service availability Exhibit 5-35 DRT Trips Turned Down QOS Page 5-62 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-35 (cont'd.) DRT Trips Turned Down QOS Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Percentage Trips Turned Down Passenger Perspective >10% • Riders cannot rely on DRT for all trip Travel Time needs • A rider will experience more than 4 trip turndowns for every 40 one-way trips requested . Transit Agency Perspective • DRT may be serving riders who have no or limited other options for transportation • Assuming DRT operations are efficient and meeting as much trip demand as possible with current resources, consider adding capacity (revenue vehicle hours and possibly additional vehicles) to serve trips that are turned down for lack of capacity • Consider other options to increase capacity, including arrangements for overflow or supplemental service, e.g., from a local taxi company Travel time is an important service quality measure for DRT passengers. DRT travel time measures the elapsed time that the passenger is on board the vehicle, from the time the passenger boards the vehicle at the trip pick-up location to arrival at the destination. Travel time does not include the time that the passenger spends waiting for the DRT vehicle to arrive or the time for that passenger to board and alight the vehicle (dwell times); however, travel time does include the time for other passengers who may be sharing the ride to board and alight and this will increase the travel time for riders already on board. Passengers may compare travel time on a DRT vehicle to that of a comparable automobile trip. Or they may compare the DRT trip with a comparable trip on fixed- route if they use both modes of transit service. Still others may compare DRT travel time with some pre-set length of time, for example, 30 min, or perhaps the personal expectation of the "usual" travel time for the DRT trip. Whatever their measure of travel time might be, a passenger should expect that travel times on DRT will be somewhat longer than the same trips by private vehicle, since DRT is a shared-ride service; passengers with similar trip patterns are scheduled and grouped together on the same vehicle by the DRT scheduling function. Shared- riding is a key premise of DRT, and helps to ensure that the DRT service is reasonably productive, as measured by passenger trips carried per revenue hour, and reasonably cost effective, as measured by operating cost per passenger trip. However, the DRT passenger also expects that deviations for pick-ups and drop-offs of other passengers sharing the ride should not make the trip "too long." Defining "too long" will depend on the type of trip being taken and the size and travel characteristics of the service area. A trip in a very rural area might be one to two hours or even longer due to distance, and a regional trip in a metropolitan area might be 60 to 90 min because of both trip length in miles and traffic congestion. However, for a short trip- within a rural community or within a city-a trip of 60 to 90 min is likely "too long," even with shared rides. For the quality of service framework for DRT, travel time is measured as the percent difference between a DRT trip with no-shared riding, which is direct and "exclusive" for Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-63 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition the passenger from the trip origin to the trip destination, and the same DRT trip with ride-sharing. Measuring DRT travel time against an exclusive, direct trip emphasizes DRT's important attribute of shared-ride yet also recognizes the DRT passenger's desire for a shorter rather than a longer trip. If passengers' DRT travel times are short, similar to direct, exclusive travel, then the DRT scheduling function has not achieved much ride-sharing. On the other hand, if many passengers' travel times are long, the DRT scheduling function may be grouping too many trips or the wrong trips, and passengers may be overly inconvenienced with long on-board times to reach their destinations. A key objective of the DRT scheduling function is to balance shared rides with reasonable travel times. The determination of reasonable travel times will depend on the size and travel characteristics (roadway network, location of major destinations, traffic congestion, etc.) of the transit service area. The passenger and transit agency perspectives associated with the different ranges of quality of service for DRT travel time are shown in Exhibit 5-36. Travel Time Exclusive-ride, direct trip with no ride-sharing (no more than 25% longer than a comparable trip by private taxi or automobile) >25% to 50% longer than exclusive-ride trip >50% to 75% longer than exclusive-ride trip Passenger Perspective • Provides direct service requiring no more than 25% extra time for a DRT trip compared to a trip by taxi or a private vehicle • Requires no delays for other riders to board/alight since no other riders are scheduled on the same trip • Increases a direct, 30-min trip no more than 25%, or 8 min • Provides good quality service • Requires passengers to share the trip with another rider or two • Increases a direct, 30-min trip no more than 50%, or 15 min • Provides satisfactory to good service • Requires passengers to share the trip with other riders • Increases a direct, 30-min trip no more than 75%, or 23 min • Should be expected for many DRT trips Transit Agency Perspective • Scheduled direct, exclusive-ride DRT trips may happen from time to time but should not be the standard • Indicates the DRT scheduling function may not be grouping passenger trips with similar patterns • Decreases productivity (passenger trips/ revenue hour) • Increases operating cost per passenger trip • Indicates DRT scheduling function is successfully grouping passenger trips with similar patterns and also balancing travel times for riders • Allows DRT dispatchers to insert new passenger trips onto driver/vehicle schedules in real-time (e.g., will-calls, go-backs for missed riders) as travel times are reasonable • Indicates DRT scheduling function is successfully grouping passenger trips with similar patterns and also balancing travel times for riders • Improves productivity with greater ride sharing • Decreases operating cost per passenger trip with higher productivity Exhibit 5-36 DRT Travel Time QOS Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-64 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-36 (cont'd.) DRT Travel Time QOS Travel Time >75%to 100% longer than exclusive-ride trip More than 100% longer than exclusive-ride trip Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Passenger Perspective • Provides adequate to satisfactory service • Requires passengers to share the trip with other riders • Increases a direct, 30-min trip by no more than 100%, or twice the time of the direct trip • Riders may find service adequate if their usual DRT trips have similar travel times or if the longer travel time occurs only occasionally or results from an unusual event (e.g., major traffic incident) • Increases a direct, 30-min trip by more than 100%, or more than twice the time of the direct trip • Riders will probably find DRT trips are Transit Agency Perspective • Indicates DRT scheduling function is grouping passenger trips with similar patterns • Indicates DRT scheduling function may sometimes be grouping more than an optimal number of passenger trips, resulting in some travel times that are "too long" • Requires schedulers to particularly review expected travel time for the first passenger picked up on a trip with consecutive pick-ups/drop-offs • Operating staff should review other factors that may be increasing travel times for certain passenger trips (e.g., for the first passenger on a group trip, excess dwell time for additional passengers will increase travel time for the first passenger) • Improves productivity with greater ride-sharing • Decreases operating cost per passenger trip with higher productivity • Indicates DRT scheduling function is grouping too many riders on the same vehicle for ride-sharing • Increases productivity but at the too long if these travel times are expense of satisfactory or better travel common times for the passengers • An infrequent trip that is more than • Increases risk of passenger complaints 100% longer than a direct, exclusive- ride trip may be excused especially if it results from an unusual event (e.g., major traffic incident) but problematic if it occurs on a regular basis From the passenger's perspective, short DRT travel times are preferred; many DRT riders would be happy to be the only passenger on the vehicle from the trip origin to the destination. A direct, or nearly direct, transit trip is the highest quality of service level for DRT travel time; however, exclusive transit service, similar to a private taxi trip, is counter to the transit agency's objective for shared-ride DRT service. The successive service levels for DRT travel times show increasing amounts of time on the vehicle, as measured in percent increase over the travel time for a direct trip. As shown in Exhibit 5-36, the second level, up to 50% longer than a direct transit trip, is good quality service for riders: a trip that is 30 min for an exclusive ride would take up to 45 min by shared-ride DRT. The third level, up to 75% longer than a direct transit trip, is satisfactory to good service for riders: a trip that is 30 min with an exclusive ride would take up to 53 min by shared-ride DRT. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-65 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition At the fourth level, DRT trips are becoming longer and riders who have other options may look to those options if their DRT trips are consistently 75 to 100% longer than a direct trip. At the fifth and lowest service level, DRT trips are more than twice as long as a direct trip. Most passengers would consider such trips too long and a poor quality of service. It is important to note, however, that DRT systems will invariably have unusual days when riders have trips that are "too long," resulting from bad weather, problems with an individual passenger, major traffic incidents, or other atypical events. While exceedingly long DRT travel times will not be popular with riders, transit agencies should also be concerned with very long travel times, which indicate the scheduling function has grouped too many or the wrong trips together. By comparing the travel time for a passenger on a DRT shared-ride trip to the travel time for a similar, direct transit trip, the transit agency can take into consideration the size and travel characteristics of the service area as well as the type of DRT service and specific trips that are being provided. A transit agency can calculate DRT travel time using a sample of completed trips for different passengers. The source of actual data can be the automated records using mobile data computers (MDCs ), if available, or the written records from driver manifests. The data required for each passenger trip is the origin location for the selected passenger pick-up, the passenger's destination location, the time to the nearest minute for the selected passenger pick-up, the time to the nearest minute for the arrival at the passenger's destination, and the number of additional passenger stops for the selected passenger's entire trip. The travel time is the actual time elapsed from the selected passenger's pick-up to the arrival at the destination by DRT shared-ride service. To assess travel time for each selected DRT passenger trip, the transit agency will need to determine the time required to make the same trip by a direct, exclusive trip similar to a personal auto or taxicab. One convenient way to make this calculation is to enter the trip origin and destination in one of the several available Internet mapping programs for travelers. Most Internet mapping programs will provide the distance and time elapsed for travel by auto between any two points. If the service area is included in the online transit maps, the information will likely include the distance and travel time by auto, fixed-route transit, bicycle, and walking, allowing a more robust evaluation of DRT travel time compared to other available transportation modes. The sample of travel times for completed DRT shared-ride trips can be entered into a spreadsheet for comparison to travel time by a direct, exclusive ride (or by another mode of travel using Google transit maps) . The sample should be representative, including a variety of passengers, trip purposes, times of the day and days of the week, and a geographic distribution for the service area. Days when extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the transit agency delayed all transit service, such as extreme weather conditions, can be excluded. The number of passenger trips should be determined by the transit agency to ensure the representative sample, but the more passenger trips included, the more accurate the assessment. A random selection of 100 passenger trips from a month's record of a completed DRT trips is a good sample size. A higher number of sample passenger trips may be recommended if the service area is large and diverse (for example, if the service area is both rural and urban) or if Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-66 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-37 Example DRT Travel Time Calculation Process Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition passenger trips and trip purposes are varied (for example, if passengers use DRT transit for commute trips, for medical trips, and also for social and recreational purposes) . Calculate the percent travel time for each DRT passenger trip as compared to the travel time for a direct, exclusive trip and then average the percent travel time for all DRT passenger trips to calculate the system average. An example of this process is shown in Exhibit 5-37. Passenger Pickup Passenger Drop Off DRTTravel Direct Travel DRTLonger Trip Origin Address Destination Address Day Time Stops Time Time Time Than Direct Random #1 5701 Westcreek Dr 1001 SE 2nd Ave 10/2 11:08 4 13:07 1:59 0:59 102% Random #2 124Main St 1205 Santa Fe Dr 10/6 16:29 2 17:20 0:51 0:41 24% Random #3 2221 W Highway 199 3000 Alemeda St 10/12 6:07 3 6:51 0:44 0:30 47"/o Random #4 907 Eureka St Ste 102 4819 River Oaks Blvd 10/20 19:15 20:17 1:02 0:58 7% Random #5 217S 6Th St 111 Sycamore 10/27 7:03 2 7:38 0:35 0:28 25% Average DRTTravel Time LOS 41% No-Shows A DRT no-show, when a passenger fails to show up for a scheduled trip, has a I negative impact on other passengers' quality of service on a shared-ride trip, and negatively impacts DRT performance for the transit agency. When a scheduled rider no- shows a trip, passengers on board the DRT vehicle spend extra time traveling to the pick-up location and waiting for that rider who does not appear. If the missing rider had cancelled the trip with adequate notice, the dispatcher could have re-routed the vehicle, and the passengers on board would have a less circuitous and time-consuming trip. Late cancels can produce similar negative impacts for on-board passengers when dispatchers cannot effectively re-route the vehicle before the driver travels to the pick- up location of the late-cancelling rider. For the transit agency, a no-show is essentially a wasted trip. Time and resources are deployed for a scheduled passenger trip that does not occur. Excessive no-shows will reduce productivity. DRT research using simulated service has found that higher rates of no-shows and late cancellations adversely impact productivity, with an approximate 4-5% decrease in productivity for every 10% increase in the no-show /late cancellation rate (35) . Some transit agencies have quantified the cost of no-shows. At least two research reports have documented the reported costs of agencies' no-show trips, with costs ranging from an annual cost due to no-shows/ late cancels of $1 million for a large urban transit agency (33) to a per trip cost of $32.50 for each no-show trip (36). The nature of DRT service, responding to individual rider requests for trips, is such that providers will invariably experience no-shows on occasion. What is important is establishing policies and procedures to minimize no-shows and informing riders about the importance of cancelling a DRT trip as soon as the rider knows the trip is not needed. A DRT provider should establish and enforce a no-show policy so that riders who habitually no-show face consequences. Such consequences might include, for example, a suspension of DRT service for a defined time period, required fare payment for the no-show trip, or additional requirements to call the dispatcher one hour in advance to confirm each scheduled DRT trip. It is also important to realize that the provision of on-time and reliable DRT service can help reduce no-shows. If DRT service is often tardy and unreliable, a rider may be Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-67 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition less like to follow rules for cancelling trips and may not wait the full on-time window for the vehicle to arrive for a scheduled trip. The rider may just assume the trip is late, find another transportation option or forego the trip, and no-show the DRT vehicle, inconveniencing other passengers on board and affecting productivity. While the definition of a DRT no-show is clear, measurement of no-shows and comparisons across DRT systems can be complicated by the fact that transit agencies may include late cancellations in their no-show calculation and definitions of late cancels vary. Some DRT systems define a late cancellation as one where the rider cancels within one hour of the scheduled pick-up time. Others define late cancels as a trip cancelled two hours or less before the scheduled pick-up time. And some DRT systems have a broader definition, with late cancels defined, for example, as those made after 5:00p.m. the day before the scheduled trip. Those transit systems with a broader definition of late cancels will have more cancellations, and if late cancels are included in the calculation of the no-show rate, the D RT provider will have a higher no-show rate than other providers with a more narrow definition of late cancels. The no-show rate is calculated as the sum of passenger no-shows divided by the total number of scheduled trips. Exhibit 5-38 shows three service levels for no-shows. At the first level, no-shows are less than 2% of scheduled DRT trips. This is considered a low rate, and DRT passengers will be inconvenienced infrequently by other passengers' no-shows. While a transit agency may have a low no-show rate, the agency should ensure it has no-show policy with enforcement procedures in place. The transit agency should also ensure that passengers understand the policy and importance of cancelling unneeded trips. At the next level, with a no-show rate of 2 to 5%, passengers will occasionally experience a trip where another passenger scheduled on the same vehicle is a no-show. A frequent DRT rider who takes 40 one-way trips in a month may be inconvenienced one or two times during an average month by another passenger's no-show. For DRT providers, an increasing rate of no-shows will harm productivity. DRT systems should focus attention on no-shows, ensuring enforcement of their no-show policy and continually educating riders about the policy and sanctions for those who frequently no- show. The agency should make it easy for riders to cancel trips, such as providing a dedicated phone line to record cancellations. Passengers who find busy signals or hold times to cancel a trip will be less inclined to cancel trips they don't need. Control room staff should stay current on cancellations and, as needed, update drivers' schedules so cancelled trips are removed. Riders with excessive no-shows should be identified and sanctioned with appropriate penalties, in keeping with the policy. Typically transit agencies report that it is a small percent of riders who frequently no-show. When no-shows exceed 5%, which is the lowest service level, riders will experience increasing numbers of no-show passengers while riding DRT, which unnecessarily inconveniences their trips. The transit agency should focus greater attention, as no- shows are impacting productivity, service quality for their passengers, and even on-time performance. When drivers have to wait at scheduled pick-up locations for the full waiting time, or longer, when a dispatcher tries to locate a rider who is not at the scheduled location at the scheduled time, subsequent trips on the driver's schedule are affected. A DRT provider should consider analyzing no-shows to determine any patterns or if specific types of passengers seem to be frequent no-shows (e.g., subscription riders) and take appropriate action. In addition to suspension of DRT service, another Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-68 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-38 DRT No-Show QOS Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition option which has been used by transit agencies to combat no-shows includes additional scheduling requirements for regular riders who frequently no-show such as requiring those passengers to call-in one hour in advance of a scheduled trip to confirm the trip. Percent No- Shows <2% 2-5% Passenger Perspective • Experiences few if any instances of no- shows by other riders scheduled on the same vehicle • A frequent rider with 40 one-way trips in a month may be inconvenienced by another passenger who no-shows during an average month • May experience occasional trips where another passenger scheduled on the same vehicle is a no-show • A frequent rider with 40 one-way trips in a month may be inconvenienced 1 or 2 times during an average month due to another passenger who no- shows Transit Agency Perspective • Experiences a small percentage of scheduled trips as no-shows with limited impact on operations and performance • Requires a formal and enforced no- show/cancellation policy to ensure no- show rate remains low • Reflects passengers who are well informed and adhere to the no-show/ cancel policy or results from an operating environment where no- shows are not an issue • Experiences a percentage of no-shows, which may have a negative impact on operations and lower productivity • Requires an effort to mitigate, especially if the trend reflects an increasing number of no-shows • If not already in place, adopt a formal no-show/cancellation policy with appropriate penalties for riders with excessive no-shows • Ensure the riders guide and other passenger information includes the no- show policy, the importance of cancelling unneeded trips, and how to cancel trips • Provide an easy-to-use and well- advertised method for riders to cancel trips (e.g., a dedicated phone line that records messages) • Consider follow-up with riders with frequent no-shows, ensuring their understanding of the policy and consequences of their no-shows on other riders and the DRT service Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-69 Demand-Responsive Quality of Service I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Percent No- Shows >5% Passenger Perspective • Will experience occasional to frequent trips where another passenger scheduled on the same vehicle is a no- show • Delays service and may negatively impact on-time performance • A frequent rider with 40 one-way trips per month will be inconvenienced by 2 or more passengers who no-show during an average month, with increasing numbers of no-shows as the frequency of trips increases Transit Agency Perspective • Experiences excessive no-shows, which have a negative impact on productivity, quality of service for passengers, and potentially on-time performance • Ensure no-show/cancellation policy is understood by all passengers and the rules are enforced • Ensure control center staff stay current on all cancelled trips so driver schedules can be updated, are accurate, and do not include cancelled passenger trips • Analyze factors behind no-shows and take action as appropriate (e.g., are passengers and drivers missing each other at large trip generators such as a mall or medical complex? Are clients of human service agencies no-showing because the agency is booking trips on their behalf without full knowledge of their clients' trip needs, etc.) Exhibit 5-38 (cont'd.) DRT No-Show QOS Demand-Responsive Quality of Service Page 5-70 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 4. APPLICATIONS Material in this section is adapted from the Transit Quality of Service Applications Guide prepared for the Florida DOT (37). The graphics in this section are intended to illustrate general ways of presenting QOS information; individual details within the graphics not relevant to illustrating the concept may be too small to be legible. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Multimodal comprehensive plans will provide goals, policies, and objectives for the transit service provided, or desired to be provided, within a community. The transit goals may be aspirational (if the city or county is not the service provider) or may set the groundwork for service standards (when it is the service provider). QOS measures that are potentially relevant to comprehensive planning relate to the availability of transit service. Potential objectives might include the following: • Service frequency: Minimum service frequency for trunk vs. local transit routes. • Service span: Minimum span of service for trunk vs. local transit routes. • Service coverage: Percent of transit-supportive population within walking distance of transit service with a minimum hourly headway. Comprehensive plans also describe a community's desired future land use patterns. The typical land use densities required to support different levels of transit service presented in Chapter 4 can be used to compare land use alternatives with regard to the level of transit service that could be supported. Service coverage maps could be used to illustrate the impact of different street connectivity or sidewalk provision policies on access to transit service, along with determining the number of route miles required to achieve a particular service coverage goal. LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING Long-range transportation plans (LRTPs) focus on citywide or regional travel needs over the longer term (e.g., 20 years). If the jurisdiction preparing the plan is not the provider of transit service, transit may be addressed in terms of actions the jurisdiction can take to support transit; otherwise, the transit element may be more specific and contain many of the elements of a transit development plan (discussed later). LRTPs typically identify goals and objectives that describe how the community would like its transportation system to function, along with the role of each travel mode. A series of alternatives comparing different priorities, means of accomplishing goals, and future funding levels are typically created and compared to the established goals and objectives. The alternative that best meets the goals is used as the basis for developing a prioritized list of transportation projects that address the community's long-range transportation needs to the extent funding permits. Since its introduction, one of the most common applications of the TCQSM has been to LRTP development. However, in many cases, the TCQSM has been used in the limited role of providing a report card on existing conditions. This remainder of this subsection demonstrates how the TCQSM can be used to develop and evaluate alternatives as part of a future conditions analysis. Many of the real-world examples show LOS letters based Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-71 Applications I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition on the first two editions of the TCQSM. Although these are no longer used, except for multimodal analysis, the basic concepts are still quite applicable, when one substitutes actual performance measure values for LOS letters and compares which values meet or do not meet an established goal or standard. Activity Center Analysis An activity center analysis measures the quality of service between key locations within the study area. Rather than try to assess the quality of every potential trip a person might take, this type of analysis evaluates a representative cross-section of trips. Potential applications include: • Evaluating existing conditions, identifying pairs oflocations with travel demands that may be underserved by transit; • Demonstrating the benefit of transit investments being evaluated for a particular future alternative; and • Comparing the service provided to the minimum level of service set by policy for routes connecting different land use types. Travel time is well suited for evaluating as part of activity center analysis, as it is sensitive to changes made to the transportation system and to changes in demand. If the LRTP's planning model can estimate transit ridership, passenger loads can also be evaluated, along with the need to increase frequency to accommodate the additional demand. Frequency and hours of service can also be evaluated in terms of testing different policy levels of service and their impacts on ridership and roadway LOS. Exhibit 5-39 shows an activity center map from a long-range transportation plan showing peak-period, peak-direction frequency QOS from Manassas, Virginia to other activity centers in Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. \ o..n .. Town Center • 0 ,2 I r I E,1 ResiOft w •• , • 0 ,2 WoocMukSge • Source: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (38) . 2005 Serv~ee Frequoncy lrom Mana11at -- Exhibit 5-39 Example Activity Center QOS Map Applications Page 5-72 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-40 Seattle Priority Bus Network Map Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Activity center QOS results can also be shown in the form of a table, comparing the travel demand for a particular origin-destination pair to the quality of service provided. This format allows frequency and hours of service, for example, to be compared to the actual travel demand, allowing areas with potentially too much or too little service to be flagged for further evaluation. Similarly, comfort and convenience measures can be evaluated for trip pairs with high demands to identify markets where service improvements, roadway projects to improve transit travel times, or a combination of these may pay off with improved ridership. Corridor Analysis Some jurisdictions identify transit streets or corridors as part of their roadway functional classification system. These streets typically are slated to have frequent ali- day service (e.g., service every 15 min or better during midday hours). Given the concentration of bus service on these streets, it is important that buses operate reliably and quickly for the service to achieve its full ridership potential and minimize its operating costs (slower, less-reliable routes require more buses to operate for a given headway and route length). The reliability and travel time QOS measures can be used to identify corridors where bus-focused roadway improvements may make bus service more competitive with the automobile, or avoid the need to add buses to maintain headways, allowing those buses to be allocated elsewhere in the area. Passenger load QOS in a corridor can also be used to identify the need to add service in the future, if buses would routinely be overcrowded. Exhibit 5-40 illustrates a "priority bus network" for Seattle, consisting of routes with 15-min service or better at least 18 hours a day. The city plans to invest in bus speed and reliability improvements in these corridors. Source: City of Seattle Department of Transportation (39). Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-73 Applications I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Service Coverage Analysis Areawide Analysis The TCQSM's access measures are useful for identifying potentially unserved transit markets. Exhibit 5-41 shows an example of this kind of analysis for an LRTP. In the map, areas shown in red or green (in the electronic version of this document) are transit- supportive (green are served by transit, red are not), while the light shading indicates additional transit-served areas. Transit-supportive areas not served represent potentially unserved transit markets that can be investigated further. • ..._ Source: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (38) . Service coverage maps can also be combined with hours of service maps, to show at a glance where transit is planned to be provided in the future, and at what quality of service. When supplemented with demographic information, this kind of analysis can also be used to identify potentially underserved neighborhoods-that is, areas that currently receive some transit service, but are capable of supporting additional service. Corridor Analysis The detailed service coverage method provides means for evaluating access to individual stops along a corridor. The method is sensitive to street connectivity, sidewalk presence, and street-crossing difficulty, among other factors, making it useful for comparing the effect of different policies or projects on transit access within the corridor. Exhibit 5-41 Example Service Coverage Map Applications Page 5-74 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING At a statewide level, QOS measures derived from NTD data can be used to track trends in fixed-route transit provision across the state, for the state as a whole, or for groups representing different population ranges. These measures include average system peak-period headway (described in the section on fixed-route frequency), system service span, and average system speed. These measures can be readily derived from NTD data and require no special data collection. COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Comprehensive operational analyses (COAs) provide a detailed, route-by-route evaluation of existing service, as well as an evaluation of systemwide operations. They are often conducted in conjunction with, or immediately prior to, a Transit Development Plan update. Transit QOS measures can be incorporated into a COA process in several ways: to describe the results in terms of passenger experiences and potential transit agency issues (using the QOS tables in this chapter), to compare the results to established standards, and to compare changes in results from the previous analysis. When archived APC and AVL data are not available to a transit agency, comprehensive I operational analyses provide rare opportunities to evaluate in detail the comfort and convenience aspects of the service being provided. Key measures for fixed-route transit include: • Passenger loads. Are the agency's loading standards (or typical maximum design loads, if no standards have been set) being exceeded and, if so, where and for how long? Relatively good peak-direction QOS may indicate an underperforming route or a route with sufficient capacity to absorb anticipated future growth. • Reliability. Routes with poor on-time performance can be flagged for further evaluation to determine the cause( s ). Poor QOS at the start of the route may indicate insufficient schedule recovery time or the need for better driver supervision. A drop in QOS between two timepoints may indicate a need to review the schedule or a need to identify sources of delay in that section of the route that could be treated with transit preferential treatments. • Travel timejspeed. Routes with slow travel speeds relative to others in the system can be investigated for possible stop consolidation or transit preferential treatment. Routes with longer layover times than needed for driver breaks and schedule recovery can also be investigated for speed improvements that would allow the route to be served with fewer buses. Similarly, for agencies operating demand responsive transit service for the general public, the full set of DRT comfort and convenience measures can be evaluated to identify potential opportunities for improving trip scheduling and agency policies. The DRT QOS tables and accompanying commentary in this chapter describe the implications of different service levels for on-time performance, trips turned down, travel time, and no-shows. QOS measures can be used to help evaluate whether transit service is being provided equitably to lower-income and minority areas, as part of an environmental justice analysis. Frequency, hours of service, coverage, passenger load, and reliability QOS are all applicable to this type of evaluation. The service levels given in this chapter's QOS tables can be used to compare relative quality of service between areas. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-75 Applications

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLANS Transit development plans (TOPs) are six-year plans that set out a transit agency's near-term service strategy. Transit QOS measures can be used in developing these plans and in communicating intended outcomes to decision makers and the general public. Mapping Several QOS measures lend themselves to mapping on a route-by-route or street-by- street basis: frequency, hours of service, loading, and reliability. Maps can depict the extent of potential service issues (e.g., the extent of crowded service) as well as illustrate planned service outcomes (e.g., the extent of frequent transit service at the end of the planning period). The QOS categories help in grouping routes on the basis of similar service quality, which helps the viewer better comprehend the information being presented. Prioritizing Improvements The passenger load QOS measure can be used by itself, or in combination with other information (e.g., the length of time a certain loading level occurs) to help prioritize service improvements. The reliability and transit-auto travel time QOS measures can be used the same way. Existing and Future Service Comparisons Frequency, hours of service, passenger load, service coverage, and travel time lend themselves to being forecasted (either through policy decisions or by identifying needs based on future passenger demand) and thus can be used to compare future conditions under the proposed plan (or alternatives being considered) to existing conditions. This type of comparison allows readers to compare their knowledge of current conditions to the conditions being forecast for the future, to better understand the implications for future service. Service Equity Comparisons Transit agencies with service areas that span multiple jurisdictions and that receive tax or direct funding support from those jurisdictions may face questions about whether the communities are receiving an equitable amount of service in return. The availability QOS measures can help answer these questions. Environmental Justice Comparisons As with comprehensive operations analyses (discussed above), QOS measures can be used for environmental justice comparisons as part of a TOP process. Peer Reviews The development of a TOP often involves comparing existing service with that provided by peer agencies, to identify areas where a transit agency is potentially underperforming and can learn from its peers. A peer comparison often involves using NTO data, because of its standardization and the ease of obtaining peer data. However, with few exceptions, the NTO does not collect measures directly related to QOS. In may be possible, though, to contact peers directly to obtain additional QOS-related Applications Page 5-76 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-42 QOS-related Measures Applicable to Peer Reviews Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition information for use in a peer comparison. Exhibit 5-42 shows potential peer comparison topics related to quality of service and potential QOS measures that could be applied to them. TCRP Report 141 ( 4) provides detailed guidance on performing peer comparisons. Topic Area Performance Measures Perceived Average system speed service quality On-time performance Excess wait time Safety and security Delivered Passenger loading Overall satisfaction Complaints per 1,000 boardings Compliments per 1,000 boardings Casualty and liability cost per vehicle mile (km) Collisions per 1,000 miles (km) Collisions per 1,000 boardings Incidents per 1,000 boarding System service span Comments Derivable from NTD data Requires consistent "on-time" definition Derivable from archived AVL data Derivable from archived APC/AVL data From customer satisfaction surveys How aggressively a transit agency solicits passenger feedback will affect the results Derivable from NTD data Reported to the NTD, but not publicly released Derivable from NTD data service quality Average system peak headway Derivable from NTD data Revenue miles (km) per urban area sq. mile (km) Derivable from NTD data Revenue miles (km) or hours per capita Derivable from NTD data Source: Adapted from TCRP Report 141 (4) . SERVICE PLANNING Service Monitoring One function of service planning is to monitor existing service and to make adjustments as needed when service falls outside established service standards. Two areas that transit agencies commonly monitor are passenger loads and service reliability. The QOS tables in this chapter can be used when developing service standards to identify realistic expectations for the loading and reliability levels that can be achieved in different conditions. Once the standards have been set, routes not meeting the standards can be flagged for attention. Service Development As communities or regions grow, so may the need for service. The service coverage QOS table can be used to help identify new developments that will have sufficient density at build-out to support particular levels of transit service. The transit-auto travel time QOS table can be used to help identify and prioritize origin-destination patterns that may require quicker transit connections. The on-time performance QOS table can be used to identify the kinds of actions (e.g., localized transit preferential treatments, corridor or guideway improvements) that may be needed to improve transit reliability once "typical" levels have been attained. CORRIDOR PLANNING Corridor master plans, preliminary design or project development studies, and premium transit studies address improvements over an extended section of roadway. Transit infrastructure and service improvements may be the focus of the study, or the Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-77 Applications I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition study may address means of best accommodating transit service as part of a comprehensive set of multimodal improvements in the corridor. Scoping Transit Improvements When planned future transit service will be frequent, consideration should be given to operational and transit preferential treatments that will provide the desired level of speed and reliability for transit service in the corridor. These treatments can include corridor-level improvements, such as a transitway for buses or light rail in the roadway median or bus lanes along the roadway; intersection and spot improvements such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, curb extensions, stop consolidation, and parking restrictions; or a combination of these. At the same time, frequent transit service can potentially create operational and quality of service concerns for users of other modes within the corridor, and these also need to be considered. Access to Transit Stops Accessing transit service in a corridor can be made more difficult when the corridor is being widened-whether to provide transitways or bus lanes, or to expand roadway capacity. Wider roadways increase pedestrian crossing delay and can create safety concerns, particularly at unsignalized locations. In addition, transit facilities within the street median can create barriers to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity across the corridor. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562 (40) provides guidance on potential pedestrian crossing treatments at unsignalized crossing locations, while TCRP Report 137 ( 41) provides guidance on improving pedestrian and motorist safety along light rail alignments. Assessing service coverage QOS on an individual stop or station basis can also be useful for identifying needed improvements to pedestrian facilities that provide access to the corridor, as well as potential improvements for facilitating pedestrian crossings of the corridor. Passenger Loading and Ridership In corridor planning, a transit passenger loading QOS standard can be applied in identifying a required service frequency to serve estimated passenger demand. This is useful in identifying total corridor person throughput, and in estimating transit's mode share of trips along a corridor. DEMAND-RESPONSIVE TRANSIT OPERATIONS As discussed in Section 3, the QOS measures for DRT are applicable to general public and limited eligibility DRT service. Potential applications of these measures-discussed in more detail in Section 3-include: • Comparing DRT performance to stated policies, • Identifying potential problems with excessive cancellations and no-shows that may suggest the need to change or enforce scheduling and cancellation policies, • Balancing the QOS provided with operating cost considerations, • Identifying the potential need for additional staff training, and • Identifying the potential need for providing additional capacity. Applications Page 5-78 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-43 List of Calculation Examples Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 5. CALCULATION EXAMPLES Example Description 1 Service coverage analysis (planning level) 2 Service coverage analysis (detailed) 3 Reliability 4 Multimodal transit LOS CALCULATION EXAMPLE 1: SERVICE COVERAGE ANALYSIS (PLANNING LEVEL) The Situation Riverbank, population 23,000, is an outer suburb of Anytown. The city is currently updating its long-range transportation plan and expects to grow significantly in the future. As part of this process, Riverbank wishes to evaluate its existing transit QOS with respect to availability and to compare it to the future QOS under a "no-build" (i.e., no change in present service) scenario. This effort will serve as a starting point in the I planning process for identifying long-range transit needs. Although Riverbank does not provide transit service itself, it hopes through this effort to better coordinate its planning with that of the regional transit agency that serves this region of 1.5 million people. This example focuses on the service coverage analysis. The Questions What is the existing service coverage QOS, and how will it change in 20 years, given planned population and employment growth, if there are no changes to the current route structure? The Facts Exhibit 5-44 provides a map of the city, showing the location of bus routes and stops. Major barriers to travel within the city include two freeways and a river. The city's GIS database includes the local street network, bus routes, and bus stop locations, among other information, but not sidewalk information. All bus routes provide local service only (i.e., no BRT or express routes serve the city). Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-79 Calculation Examples

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition + -~ 0 0.25 0.5 1 -==--=:~ ___ Miles - Roadways D City Limit - River a Park & Ride P Hospital Exhibit 5-45 shows the locations of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) covering Riverbank, which were obtained from the regional transportation planning model. Exhibit 5-46 provides year 2015 and year 2035 household and employment data for each T AZ, along with the T AZ areas. 0 0.25 0.5 1 ••E:J•-=--• Miles _ Roadways 0 city Limit • River 0 TAZ 373 TAZ # Exhibit 5-44 Calculation Example 1: Riverbank City Map Exhibit 5-45 Calculation Example 1: TAZ Locations Calculation Examples Page 5-80 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-46 Calculation Example 1: Population and Employment Data Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Vear2015 Vear2035 TAZ Area (acres) HH Jobs HH Jobs 346 331.9 506 58 990 676 347 362.3 334 365 1,199 1,204 349 143.9 88 1,346 216 1,524 350 90.8 9 1,203 27 1,415 361 1,203.6 938 472 1,593 844 362 462.8 1,391 1,151 1,864 1,595 363 549.0 854 5,112 2,291 7,572 364 432.0 181 3,022 181 4,373 365 747.3 19 1,518 19 5,361 366 334.4 154 205 516 905 371 500.1 9 375 17 1,344 372 505.0 180 885 826 1,569 373 1,008.3 2,582 580 2,991 891 Note: HH =households. Computational Steps Outline of Solution Determining service coverage QOS requires three basic steps: (a) determining the service coverage area provided by the city's bus routes, (b) determining which portions of the city have transit-supportive population and employment densities, and (c) determining what proportion of the transit-supportive areas are served by transit. Given the citywide scope of the analysis, the planning-level procedure will be used to evaluate service coverage QOS Step 1: Determine the Service Coverage Area Riverbank only has local bus service. Therefore, a 0.25-mi ( 400-m) buffer is created around each bus stop using GIS software, representing the area served by each bus stop. These buffers should be clipped in areas where service coverage would not extend across a barrier. In the case of Riverbank, the river and the two freeways form barriers to travel and portions of bus routes' service coverage areas that extend across these barriers are removed manually. The results are shown in Exhibit S-4 7. For clarity, areas served by transit that are outside the city limits are not shown. The shaded areas represent Riverbank's service coverage area. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-81 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition + \ 0 0.25 0.5 1 ••.::::::.•..::::::.--Miles Step 2: Determine the Transit-Supportive Area s Bus Stop - Bus Route -- Roadways D City limit - River Hours of Service - 19-24 hours - 17-18 hours 4-11 hours C 0-3 hours Each T AZ is evaluated to determine whether it meets the criteria for being "transit- supportive" (i.e., a household density of 3 households or more per acre or a job density of 4 jobs or more per acre) . Household density is calculated by dividing the TAZ's households (given in Exhibit 5-46) by its area in acres. Job density is calculated similarly. For example, the year 2015 household density ofTAZ 362 is 1,391 households, divided by 482.8 acres, or 2.88 households per acre. This is slightly below the criterion forT AZ 362 to be a TSA. Results for all T AZs are given in Exhibit 5-48. Year2015 Year2035 HH Job HH Job TAZ Density Density TSA? Density Density TSA? 346 1.52 0.17 2.98 2.04 347 I 0.92 3.31 1.01 3.32 349 0.61 9.35 .,/ 1.50 10.59 .,/ 350 0.10 13.25 .,/ 0.30 15.58 .,/ 361 0.78 0.39 1.32 0.70 362 2.88 2.38 3.86 3.30 .,/ 363 I 1.56 9.31 .,/ 4.17 13.79 .,/ 364 0.42 7.00 .,/ I 0.42 10.12 .,/ 365 I 0.03 2.03 0.03 7.17 .,/ 366 I 2.17 0.61 1.54 2.71 371 I 0.02 0.75 0.03 2.69 372 I 0.36 1.75 1.64 3.11 373 2.56 0.58 2.97 0.88 Notes: HH =households, TSA =transit-supportive area . Densities in households/acre and jobs/acre. Exhibit 5-47 Calculation Example 1: Service Coverage Area Exhibit 5-48 Household and Job Densities Calculation Examples Page 5-82 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

A more detailed analysis could look at where particular land use types are located within a TAZ. Exhibit 5-49 Calculation Example 1: Transit-Supportive TAZs Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Note that a local transportation plan might wish to go into more detail to identify potential TSAs. For example, TAZs could be subdivided to remove undeveloped areas. This would have the effect of increasing the density in the developed areas. Also, T AZs could be subdivided based on zoning or comprehensive plan designations, so that households were only assigned to areas zoned for residential development, for example. A further refinement would be to assign more households to areas designated for multi- family housing. Any of these steps would provide greater understanding of the sections of the city that could support hourly transit service, and it is likely that TAZs 346 and 3 73 would turn out to be transit supportive in the future if these steps were taken. Exhibit 5-49 shows the locations of the transit-supportive TAZs. 0 0.25 0.5 1 ••~~:::~•-=--• Miles Step 3: Determine Transit-Supportive Areas Served 0 City Limit • River Transit-Supportive TAZ • Existing By 2035 373 TAZ # GIS software is used to intersect the transit service area with the TAZs. The result is that the TAZs are subdivided into smaller sub-T AZs, each of which is either entirely inside or outside the service coverage area. Exhibit 5-50 shows the results of this process for Riverbank, for existing conditions. Of the four transit-supportive T AZs, all of TAZs 349 and 350 are served, about one-half ofT AZ 363 is served, and almost none of T AZ 364 is served. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-83 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition 0 0.25 0.5 1 ••~~:::~•-=--• Miles • Bus Stop _ Bus Route 0 City Limit Roadways • River ClTAZ Note: TAZ =transportation analysis zone, TSA =transit-supportive area . Step 4: Determine Service Coverage QOS 373TAZ# Sub-TAZs • TSA not served • TSA served 0 Not aTSA As the final step, GIS software is used to calculate the area (in acres) of the portions of the transit-supportive areas that are served. The result is 540.1 acres. The total area of the transit-supportive TAZs, from Exhibit 5-46, is 1,215.7 acres. Therefore, the percent transit-supportive area served is 44%. Comparing this result to Exhibit 5-4, this result is an indication that the transit agency providing service to Riverbank is likely emphasizing cost efficiency over coverage. Those passengers who are served by transit likely have relatively direct trips, at least for the portion of the trip within Riverbank. The Results The service provided to Riverbank is not unusual for a low-density suburb: as most of the residential areas cannot support hourly transit service, park-and-ride lots serve the commuter market out of Riverbank. However, the service coverage analysis indicates that a large area with sufficient employees to support transit service is not receiving service, and that this area will be even larger in 20 years. Comments The employment areas appear to be the most promising areas for future transit service. Relatively low-density employment areas can be difficult to serve productively with ali-day service. Therefore, peak-period fixed-route service provided by the transit agency or employee shuttle service provided by individual employers or an employer association might be considered. Alternatively, the possibility for a cross-town route linking Riverbank to the next suburb to the west, passing through the employment area, could be considered. If demand between the cities was strong enough to support the route, the employment area could also be served along the way at minimal extra cost to the agency and minimal inconvenience to passengers traveling between the cities. TCRP Report 116 ( 42) provides guidance on implementing suburban transit service. Exhibit 5-50 Calculation Example 1: Transit-Supportive Areas Served (Existing Conditions) Calculation Examples Page 5-84 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-51 Calculation Example 2: Study Area Map Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition CALCULATION EXAMPLE 2: SERVICE COVERAGE ANALYSIS (DETAILED) The Situation The Cowford Transit Authority has developed a good working relationship with the City of Cowford, and the city routinely gives extra priority to public works projects, such as sidewalk and pedestrian crossing improvements, that provide transit benefits. The two agencies are currently evaluating Route 29, which runs parallel to an elevated freeway, to determine what kinds of improvements might provide better access to transit. The Questions What is Route 29's service coverage area, compared with the ideal, and what can be done to improve it? The Facts Exhibit 5-51 shows a map of the study area. Exhibit 5-52lists the traffic volumes and geometric characteristics (street width and median type) for the streets used by the I route. There are two traffic signals in the area: one at the intersection of Spring Park Road and Spring Glen Road, which has a 90-s cycle length, and one at the intersection of Barnes Road and University Boulevard, which has a 180-s cycle length. All of the streets are undivided, although Barnes Road South has a two-way left-turn lane, so that pedestrians have to cross the equivalent of three lanes. The area is flat, and the senior population forms less than 20% of the total area population. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-85 Calculation Examples

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Street Name Spring Park Road Spring Glen Road Kennerly Road Barnes Road Barnes Road South Parental Home Road Computational Steps Outline of Solution Peak Hour Traffic Volume Street Width (veh/h) (lanes) 350 2 1,150 2 500 2 550 2 1,000 3 1,300 2 The detailed service coverage method will be used to identify the effective area served by each bus stop, accounting for the street pattern, the difficulty pedestrians have crossing streets, and any other applicable factors. The relative contribution of each factor to the reduction in coverage area will be determined. Finally, the size of the reduced service coverage area will be compared with the size of the ideal service coverage area. Step 1: Determine the Service Coverage Adjustment Factors The TCQSM uses an air distance of 0.25 mi as the base radius served by a local bus stop. Equation 5-1 will be used to determine the reduction in this radius due to the following four factors : street connectivity factor, terrain, population characteristics, and pedestrian crossing difficulty. Street Connectivity Comparing the map of the study area with the street pattern types depicted in Exhibit S-6, it appears that the street pattern most closely resembles the Type 2 (hybrid) pattern. The street network does not form a grid; yet, there is some connectivity provided and relatively few dead-end streets and culs-de-sac. From Exhibit 5-7, the street connectivity factor for a Type 2 pattern is 0.85. Terrain The area is flat, so the grade factor is 1.00. Population Characteristics Less than 20% of the area's population is elderly; therefore, the population factor is 1.00. Pedestrian Crossing Difficulty To determine the pedestrian crossing factor, first determine how much delay pedestrians encounter while crossing streets. For example, Barnes Road South has a traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per hour and a three-lane width. From Exhibit 5-12, the average pedestrian delay is 100 s. Subtracting 30 s from this result gives the amount of excess pedestrian delay at this location-70 s. The results for all unsignalized crossings are listed in Exhibit 5-53. Exhibit 5-52 Calculation Example 2: Street Data Calculation Examples Page 5-86 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-53 Calculation Example 2: Excess Pedestrian Delay Calculations Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition Average Pedestrian Excess Pedestrian Street Name Delay (s/ped) Delay (s/ped) Spring Park Road 5 0 Spring Glen Road 44 14 Kennerly Road 9 0 Barnes Road 10 0 Barnes Road South 100 70 Parental Home Road 60 30 For the two signalized intersections, Equation 5-3 should be used. In the absence of other information, the typical minimum WALK time of 7 s given in the MUTCD ( 43) will be used to generate a worst-case delay. Four seconds of flashing DON'T WALK time will be added to the WALK time, giving an effective green time of 11 s. At the Spring Park/Spring Glen intersection, the traffic signal cycle length is 90 s. Applying this information to Equation 5-3 gives the following average pedestrian delay, in seconds: (C- 9walk)2 (90- 11)2 dp = 2C (2)(90) = 35 s The excess delay is the average pedestrian delay minus 30 s, or 5 s. Performing the I same calculation for the Barnes/University intersection produces an average pedestrian crossing delay of 80 sand an excess delay of 50 s. Next, Equation 5-2 is applied to determine the pedestrian crossing factor. Using Barnes Road South as an example, with 70 s of excess delay, the pedestrian factor is: fv x = jc-o.ooo5d~c - 0.1157dec + 100)/100 fvx = J(-0.0005(70) 2 - 0.1157(70) + 100)/100 fvx = 0.95 Although this factor may seem small, it should be kept in mind that the area served is reduced in proportion to the square of the radius. The square of 0.95 is 0.90; thus the area served by stops along Barnes Road South is reduced by 10% from the ideal. The other pedestrian crossing factors are as follows: • Spring Park Road: 1.00 • Spring Glen Road (signalized intersection) : 1.00 • Spring Glen Road (unsignalized intersections): 0.99 • Kennerly Road: 1.00 • Barnes Road (signalized intersection): 0.96 • Barnes Road (unsignalized intersections): 1.00 • Parental Home Road: 0.98 Step 2: Calculate Each Stop's Service Radius Each stop's service radius is calculated by multiplying 0.25 mi by the four adjustment factors determined in Step 1. The results are shown in Exhibit 5-54. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-87 Calculation Examples

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Combined Adjusted Radius Street Name Factors (mi) Spring Park Road 0.85 0.213 Spring Glen Road (signalized) 0.85 0.213 Spring Glen Road (unsignalized) 0.84 0.210 Kennerly Road 0.85 0.213 Barnes Road (signalized) 0.82 0.205 Barnes Road (unsignalized) 0.85 0.213 Barnes Road South 0.81 0.203 Parental Home Road 0.83 0.208 Step 3: Determine Service Coverage Area GIS software is used to create an air buffer around each stop based on the adjusted radius. In this case, no adjustment is made to the radius due to the freeway, as access is possible at street crossings under the elevated freeway. The resulting service coverage area can be compared with the ideal area developed using a 0.25-mi radius, as shown in Exhibit 5-55. The inner shaded area shows the adjusted service coverage area, while the outer shaded area shows the ideal area. Although visually the two areas do not seem that much different, in reality, the reduced area is 18% smaller than the ideal area. This difference is approximately equal to one service level if the area is transit supportive. BARNES RD S y The Results The adjusted service coverage area is 18% smaller than the ideal service coverage area. Because the reduction in area is proportional to the number of people willing to walk a given distance to transit on average, this result indicates that this section of the route serves 18% fewer people than it could. This result is due to less-than-ideal street network patterns and street crossing delays. The biggest impact on service coverage is due to the street pattern. Because this area is already developed, there is not much that can be done in the short term to Exhibit 5-54 Calculation Example 2 : Service Coverage Reductions by Stop Exhibit 5-55 Calculation Example 2 : Reduced Service Coverage Area Calculation Examples Page 5-88 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition improve pedestrian connectivity. In the longer term, zoning provisions to require more pedestrian connectivity as land redevelops could be considered. However, lessons learned in this area could be applied to other less-developed areas of Cowford that have yet to be developed and could be developed with better pedestrian connections. In terms of pedestrian crossing difficulty, Barnes Road South and Parental Home Road are the most difficult to cross, with average delays of 60 to 100 s. Extra priority to pedestrian crossing improvements could be considered here, both to improve access to transit and to improve the overall pedestrian environment. CALCULATION EXAMPLE 3: RELIABILITY The Situation As part of a comprehensive operations analysis, a transit agency is conducting an evaluation of the reliability of its highest frequency (and highest ridership) routes. This calculation example focuses on one of these routes, Route 14. The Questions How reliably does the route operate at different times of the day? What are the implications from the passenger's and transit agency's points of view? The Facts • The a.m. peak is defined for this route as departures prior to 9:00a.m., midday is defined as departures from 9:00a.m. to 3:30p.m., and the p.m. peak is defined as departures after 3:30p.m. • The agency has set a standard of 90% on-time performance, measured on a daily basis, with "on-time" being defined as a departure between 1 min early and 5 min late. • The transit agency's buses are equipped with AVL units, and the agency has an established program for archiving and analyzing data from the AVL system. For ease of presentation in this example, Exhibit 5-56 shows scheduled and actual departure times for only one day and one timepoint in one direction along the route. An actual analysis would desirably use data from multiple weekdays (e.g., a month, if available) to capture the effects of day-to-day variations in passenger demand and traffic delays. In addition, diagnosing the causes of unreliability usually requires analyzing multiple locations along the route. Calculation Steps Outline of Solution Four of the reliability measures presented in this chapter will be evaluated. On-time performance will be used to compare operations to the transit agency's standards. Headway adherence will be used to evaluate potential bus bunching issues during the periods with the highest-frequency service. Budgeted wait time and excess wait time will be used to express reliability in terms of its impacts on passengers. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-89 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition A.M. Peak Midday P.M. Peak Scheduled Actual Scheduled Actual Scheduled Actual 5:06a .m. 5:06a.m. 9:06a.m. 9:06a.m. 3:52p.m. 3:52p.m. 5:37a .m. 5:38a.m. 9:22a.m. 9:21a.m. 4:02p.m. 4:05p.m. 5:52a .m. 5:52a.m. 9:38a.m. 9:38a.m. 4:12p.m. 4:13p.m. 6:06a .m. 6:07a.m. 9:54a.m. 9:56a.m. 4:22p.m. 4:29p.m. 6:20a .m. 6:20a.m. 10:09 a.m. 10:09 a.m. 4:32p.m. 4:32p.m. 6:32a .m. 6:34a.m. 10:24 a.m. 10:25 a.m. 4:42p.m. 4:47p.m. 6:47a .m. 6:48a.m. 10:39 a.m. 10:39 a.m. 4:52p.m. 4:48p.m. 7:01a .m. 7:04a.m. 10:57 a.m. 10:59 a.m. 5:02p.m. 5:02p.m. 7:16a .m. 7:22a.m. 11:12 a.m. 11:11 a.m. 5:13p.m. 5:15p.m. 7:32a .m. 7:38a.m. 11:25 a.m. 11:25 a.m. 5:26p.m. 5:30p.m. 7:47a .m. 7:51a.m. 11:40 a.m. 11:40 a.m. 5:41p.m. 5:46p.m. 8:02a .m. 8:06a.m. 11:54 a.m. 11:52 a.m. 5:57p.m. 6:01p.m. 8:17a .m. 8:20a.m. 12:09 p.m. 12:09 p.m. 6:15p.m. 6:17p.m. 8:33a .m. 8:35a.m. 12:24 p.m. 12:24 p.m. 6:33p.m. 6:36p.m. 8:50a .m. 8:50a.m. 12:39 p.m. 12:40 p.m. 6:49p.m. 6:50p.m. 12:54 p.m. 12:53 p.m. 7:06p.m. 7:08p.m. 1:10 p.m. 1:11 p.m. 7:21p.m. 7:23p.m. 1:26 p.m. 1:25 p.m. 7:36p.m. 7:36p.m. 1:42 p.m. 1:40 p.m. 1:57 p.m. 1:58 p.m. 2:12p.m. 2:12p.m. 2:27p.m. 2:25p.m. 2:39p.m. 2:41p.m. 2:49p.m. 2:52p.m. 3:01p.m. 3:02p.m. 3:15p.m. 3:15p.m. 3:30p.m. 3:31p.m. The data given in Exhibit 5-56 can be used to calculate all four measures, either by comparing actual to scheduled departure times (schedule deviations) or actual to schedule headways (headway deviations). Step 1: Calculate On-time Performance For each departure, determine the schedule deviation (actual departure time minus the scheduled departure time). This information will also be used later in calculating excess wait time. For example, the scheduled 6:47a.m. departure actually left at 6:48 a.m., a schedule deviation of +1 min. Similarly, the scheduled 7:32a.m. departure had a schedule deviation of +6 min and the 1:42 p.m. departure had a schedule deviation of -2 min. Comparing these schedule deviations to the TCQSM's (and, in this case, agency's) "on-time" window of -1 to +5 min, the 6:4 7 a.m. departure is considered on-time, while the other two departures are considered late. Exhibit 5-56 Calculation Example 3: Bus Departure Time Data Calculation Examples Page 5-90 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-57 Calculation Example 3: Schedule Deviation Calculations I Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition A.M. Peak Midday P.M. Peak Schedule Schedule Schedule Scheduled Deviation Scheduled Deviation Scheduled Deviation Departure (min) Departure (min) Departure (min) 5:06a .m. +0 9:06a.m. +0 3:52p.m. +0 5:37a .m. +1 9:22a.m. -1 4:02p.m. +3 5:52a .m. +0 9:38a.m. +0 4:12p.m. +1 6:06a .m. +1 9:54a.m. +2 I 4:22p.m. +7 6:20a .m. +0 10:09 a.m. +0 4:32p.m. +0 6:32a .m. +2 10:24 a.m. +1 4:42p.m. +5 6:47a .m. +1 10:39 a.m. +0 I 4:52p.m. -4 7:01a .m. +3 10:57 a.m. +2 5:02p.m. +0 7:16a.m. +6 11:12 a.m. -1 5:13p.m. +2 7:32a.m. +6 11:25 a.m. +0 5:26p.m. +4 7:47a .m. +4 11:40 a.m. +0 5:41p.m. +5 8:02a .m. +4 11:54a.m. -2 5:57p.m. +4 8:17a .m. +3 12:09 p.m. +0 6:15p.m. +2 8:33a .m. +2 12:24 p.m. +0 6:33p.m. +3 8:50a .m. +0 12:39 p.m. +1 6:49p.m. +1 12:54 p.m. -1 7:06p.m. +2 1:10 p.m. +1 7:21p.m. +2 1:26 p.m. -1 7:36p.m. +0 1:42 p.m. -2 1:57 p.m. +1 2:12p.m. +0 2:27p.m. -2 2:39p.m. +2 2:49p.m. +3 3:01p.m. +1 3:15p.m. +0 I 3:30p.m. +1 Note: Shaded cells indicate departures not on-time (more than 1 min early or 5 min late). Looking at the a.m. peak, 13 of 15 departures (87%) were on time. During the midday period, 89% were on time, and during the p.m. peak, 89% were on time. Over the entire day, 88% of departures were on time. Step 2: Calculate Headway Adherence I I Headway adherence can be evaluated for the departures where the scheduled headway is 10 min or less (in this case, from 4:02p.m. to 5:02p.m.). The headway deviation (actual headway minus the scheduled headway) is measured for each departure. For example, the actual headway between the scheduled 3:52p.m. and 4:02 p.m. departures was 13 min, compared to the scheduled headway of 10 min, a headway deviation of +3 min. Exhibit 5-58 shows the headway deviations for all of the departures with scheduled headways of 10 min or less. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-91 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Scheduled Departure Headway Deviation (min) 4:02p.m. +3 4:12p.m. -2 4:22p.m. +6 4:32p.m. -7 4:42p.m. +5 4:52p.m. -9 5:02p.m. +4 Normally, headway deviation would be calculated based on a larger dataset compiled over a number of days, but for illustrative purposes, the calculation process is shown based on one day only. The average scheduled headway is 10 min. The sample standard deviation of the headway deviations in Exhibit 5-58 is 6.1 min. (The sample standard deviation is used here because this dataset represents only one day's worth of data, while we are trying to estimate the value of headway adherence over a longer period of time. If the dataset included all of the trips for the study time period-for example, when all buses are AVL-equipped and their data are included in the dataset- then the population standard deviation would be used.) Headway adherence is calculated as the coefficient of variation of headway deviations (the standard deviation divided by the mean scheduled headway), or 0.61. Step 3: Calculate Budgeted Wait Time and Excess Wait Time Budgeted wait time is the difference between the 2nd and 95th percentile departure times. The procedure for calculating budgeted wait time recommends collecting at least 250 departure time observations to calculate these values. Because this example provides only 60 observations (and even fewer for each time period of interest), the minimum and maximum values in the data set will serve as surrogates for the 2nd and 95th percentile values, respectively. Exhibit 5-59 shows the resulting calculations. Excess wait time is based on the average bus departure time minus the scheduled departure time. If there are no early departures, average excess wait time is simply the average of the schedule deviations. Since the transit agency allows buses to depart up to 1 min early, any departure that meets the agency policy will be included in the average. Earlier departures will be treated as being one headway late, and the scheduled headway will be substituted for those schedule deviations. Exhibit 5-59 also shows the results of this calculation. Performance Measure A.M. Peak Midday P.M. Peak Minimum schedule deviation (min)• +0 -2 -4 Maximum schedule deviation (min)• +6 +3 +7 Budgeted wait time (min) 6 5 11 Average excess wait time (min) 2.2 2.0 2.8 Note: a Due to insufficient data points, minimum and maximum schedule deviations are used as surrogates for the 2nd and 95th percentile schedule deviations, respectively. The Results Comparing the on-time performance results to Exhibit 5-21, the route's performance would be considered good, if this particular day's results are typical. Nevertheless, they are slightly below the transit agency's standard of 90%. One obvious Exhibit 5-58 Calculation Example 3: Headway Deviation Calculations Exhibit 5-59 Calculation Example 3: Budgeted Wait Time and Excess Wait Time Calculation Calculation Examples Page 5-92 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition solution to improve on-time performance would be better control of early departures, as four of the seven not-on-time departures left more than 1 min early. In addition, during the a.m. peak, the two not-on-time departures occurred as part of an hour of late departures. During this hour, adding running time to the schedule could be considered (depending on its impacts on passenger load and the route's vehicle and driver needs). The causes and locations of the extra running time could also be investigated further and transit preferential treatments or operating changes considered to help speed up buses at those locations. Comparing the headway adherence result of 0.61 to Exhibit 5-22, one can conclude that buses bunch frequently during the peak of the afternoon peak period. A typical passenger will experience a bus arrival that is off-headway more than half a headway (i.e., more than 5 min off-headway) between one-third and one-half of the time. This is an undesirable result that will lead to overcrowding problems on a number of peak- hour buses, along with other potential operating problems. This result should be a flag for the transit agency to investigate the causes of bus bunching more closely, followed by identifying potential solutions for the issue. Note that although the on-time performance results for the p.m. peak period did not indicate particular problems, the headway adherence results did flag a problem during a portion of the peak period. The budgeted wait time results show that reliability is best during the midday and a.m. peak periods, when passengers should plan at being at the bus stop for up to 5-6 min. Passengers need to budget about twice as much time, 11 min, during the weekday p.m. peak period. The excess wait time results show that the average bus departure occurs approximately 2-3 min late, depending on the time of day. (The midday results would be significantly better had the three too-early departures not occurred.) If APC data were available, this excess wait time could be weighted by the number of passengers boarding at this stop on each trip to give a weighted average excess wait time that reflects what the average passenger experienced. CALCULATION EXAMPLE 4: MULTIMODAL TRANSIT LOS The Situation An arterial street runs through an older commercial district of a city a couple of miles from the city center. As part of a planning effort to revitalize the district and improve transportation options in the area, various ways of allocating the available right-of-way among the travel modes are being investigated. Multimodal LOS, including transit LOS, is one of the performance measures being used to evaluate the alternatives. As illustrated in Exhibit 5-60, the arterial street's current configuration is a four- lane street with on-street parking and 8-ft sidewalks on both sides. Buildings built up to the edge of the sidewalk preclude any street widening. Three alternatives are being evaluated initially: • Alternative 1 would replace the on-street parking with bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks. • Alternative 2 would reduce the roadway to one travel lane in each direction, keep the on-street parking, and add a buffered bicycle lane (cycle track) to the right of the parking. A landscaped median would be provided between intersections, along with left-turn lanes at intersections. At intersections, on- Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-93 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition street parking would be removed and the bicycle lane merged into a right-turn lane. • Alternative 3 would create part-time (peak hour, peak direction) bus lanes, and would widen the sidewalks and plant street trees between intersections. A right- turn lane would be developed on the near sides of intersections. Left turns would be prohibited at intersections. Bus stops would be relocated to the far sides of intersections. Due to the low volume of bus traffic, bicycles would be allowed to use the bus lanes during peak periods. The bus lane would be used for parking and bicycles during off-peak periods. This example only evaluates the multimodal transit LOS associated with each option, for the purpose of illustrating the calculations involved. A real-world evaluation would need to consider many other factors (e.g., cost, safety, business impacts) associated with each alternative. Other alternatives are also conceivable. Existing Alternative 1 12' 12' 8' 8' 12' D -4 ----------------------- 12' D ~ 6' 10' 6' 6' 12' ==-===------------- ---- Alternative 2 8' Alternative 3 6' 8' 10' 16' 14' DD .... Exhibit 5-60 Calculation Example 4: Street Cross- Section by Alternative Calculation Examples Page 5-94 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-61 Calculation Example 4: Transit Data by Scenario Exhibit 5-62 Calculation Example 4: Pedestrian Environment Data by Scenario Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition The Question What is each alternative's transit LOS during the weekday a.m. peak hour? The Facts • Only one bus route serves the street, with service provided every 15 min during the weekday a.m. peak period. Bus stops are located 750 ft apart on average on this portion of the route. • Exhibit 5-61 provides the transit data for each alternative for the weekday a.m. peak hour. Existing condition data was measured in the field (frequency and amenities) or was calculated from archived AVL and APC data (all others). Future conditions were determined using HCM methods (bus speeds) and assumptions based on the performance of other bus lanes existing within the city (excess wait time) . • Potential changes in demand for each mode are being evaluated by a separate performance measure and analysis. For the purposes of calculating multimodal LOS, it has been decided to focus on the impact of the QOS changes resulting from different allocations of street right-of-way. Therefore, it has been assumed that the demand for each mode is constant under each scenario. Frequency Bus Speed Load Factor Excess Wait Condition (bus/h) (mi/h) (p/seat) Time(min) Shelter? Bench? Existing 4 6.9 1.1 2.8 No No Alternative 1 4 6.9 1.1 2.8 No No Alternative 2 4 7.4 1.1 2.8 No No Alternative 3 4 9.0 1.1 1.0 Yes Yes • Exhibit 5-62 provides the data required for determining the pedestrian environment factor. Sidewalk-related data were measured in the field for existing conditions and are based on the cross-section concepts developed for each future alternative. Traffic counts were conducted to determine existing conditions; this analysis assumes no change in demand for the future alternatives, but demand may redistribute between lanes depending on the future alternative lane configuration. Average motorized vehicle running speeds in the outside lane, including traffic signal delay, were estimated using HCM methods for both existing and future conditions. • On-street parking is typically fully utilized. The parking utilization percentage is a length-weighted average of 100% utilization where parking is allowed and 0% where it is prohibited (e.g., at bus stops) . Outside Lane %Segment Number of Sidewalk Sidewalk with Utilized Lanes by Flow Rate Motor Vehicle Condition Width (ft) Buffer (ft) Parking Direction (veh/h) Speed (mi/h) Existing 8 0 80% 2 400 15 Alternative 1 10 0 80% 2 400 15 Alternative 2 8 0 0% 1 800 17 Alt. 3 (typical) 10 4 100% 2 4 9 Alt. 3 (near side) 8 0 0% 2 80 17 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-95 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Calculation Steps Outline of Solution The full calculation process will be shown for existing conditions. The results of the calculations will be shown for the alternatives. There are four main values to calculate: the transit wait-ride score, the pedestrian environment score, the transit LOS score, and the transit LOS letter. Step 1: Determine the Transit Wait-Ride Score The transit wait-ride score has two components: a headway factor and a perceived travel time factor. Headway Factor Calculating the headway factor requires knowing the frequency of bus service. Since the bus route on this street stops more frequently than every 0.25 mi (1,320 ft), it is considered local service and its frequency of 4 buses per hour is counted, even in cases where no bus stops are physically located within a segment. The headway factor is calculated from Equation 5-6: fh = 4.ooe-1.434/Cf+o.ool) fh = 4.ooe-1.434/(4+o.ool) fh = 2.80 This result indicates that the route is estimated to produce 2.8 times the ridership that would occur if the route operated hourly. Perceived Travel Time Factor The perceived travel time factor includes components relating to passenger loads, speed, reliability, and stop amenities. These will be addressed one at a time. The passenger load factor is determined using Equation 5-9. Because the average load factor in this segment (1.1 pjseat) is greater than 1.0, the last of the three choices given in Equation 5-9 will be used: 1.00 Lr :::;; 0.80 4(L1 - o.8o) /pt = 1 + 4_2 0.80 < Lr :::;; 1.00 4(L1 - 0.80) + (Lr- 1.00)(6.5 + [5(L1 - 1.00)] 1 + Lr > 1.00 4.2L1 4(1.10- 0.80) + (1.10- 1.00)(6.5 + [5(1.10- 1.00)] /pt = 1 + 4.2(1.10) /pt = 1.41 The perceived amenity time rate is given by Equation 5-10. There are no amenities at the stop under existing conditions, but there are in Alternative 3. In the absence of other information, the average passenger trip length will be assumed to be the national average, 3.7 mi: Calculation Examples Page 5-96 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 1.3Psh + 0.2pbe Tat=------ lpt 1.3(0) + 0.2(0) Tat= 3.7 Tat= 0 min/mi The excess wait time rate for late arrivals Tex is the excess wait time tex divided by the average passenger trip length lpt, as indicated in the list of variables following Equation 5-10. Therefore, Tex is (2.8 min)/(3.7 mi) or 0.76 min/mi. The perceived travel time rate is the actual travel time rate multiplied by the passenger load factor, plus the excess wait time rate multiplied by a perception factor of 2, minus the perceived amenity time rate, as given in Equation 5-8: Tptt = (!pt 65°) + (2Tex) - Tat Tptt = (1.41 60 ) + (2)(0.76)- 0 6.9 Tptt = 13.8 min/mi Although the bus route itself operates at an average travel time rate of 8. 7 min/mi (6.9 mifh) in this segment, the perceived time is considerably greater, due to the standing conditions on board, the relatively unreliable service, and the lack of amenities at the bus stop. Next, the perceived travel time factor is calculated from Equation 5-7. In the absence of other information, the default travel time rate elasticity of -0.4 will be used. Because this segment is not located within the central business district of a metropolitan area of 5 million or more, the base travel time rate used will be 4 min/mi. (E- 1)Tbtt - (E + 1)Tptt ftt = --------.!-(£- 1)Tptt - (E + 1)Tbtt (-0.4 -1)(4)- (-0.4 + 1)(13.8) ftt = (-0.4 -1)(13.8)- (-0.4 + 1)(4) ftt = 0.64 This result indicates that if the perceived speed of 6.9 mifh was averaged over the entire route, the route would be estimated to produce 64% that of the ridership produced by a route operating at a perceived speed of 15 mifh. The transit wait-ride score can now be calculated using Equation 5-5: Sw-r = fhftt Sw-r = (2.80)(0.64) Sw-r = 1.79 Exhibit 5-63 summarizes the transit wait-ride score calculation results for all alternatives. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-97 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Condition fh f.t Tat Ttt '" Sw-r Existing 2.80 1.41 0.0 13.79 0.64 1.79 Alternative 1 2.80 1.41 0.0 13.79 0.64 1.79 Alternative 2 2.80 1.41 0.0 12.96 0.65 1.82 Alternative 3 2.80 1.41 0.4 9.54 0.72 2.01 There are no differences in transit conditions between Alternative 1 and existing conditions, so their transit wait-ride scores are identical. Alternative 2 produces a small improvement in the score due to the slightly improved speed, while Alternative 3 produces a larger improvement due to improved speed and reliability, and the provision of a shelter and bench at this segment's bus stop. Step 2: Determine the Pedestrian Environment Score The pedestrian environment score includes a constant value and factors relating to traffic volumes, traffic speeds, and the roadway cross-section. Motorized Vehicle Volume Adjustment Factor This factor is calculated using Equation 5-13. Its input is the motorized vehicle demand flow rate at mid-segment ( 400 veh/h for existing conditions) . Vm fv = 0.00914 400 fv = 0.00914 fv = 0.91 Motorized Vehicle Speed Adjustment Factor This factor is calculated using Equation 5-14 and the average outside-lane motor vehicle running speed for the segment (15 mi/h for existing conditions) . SR 2 fs = 4 (100) ( 15 ) 2 fs = 4 100 fs = 0.09 Cross-Section Adjustment Factor This factor includes a number of components that reflect pedestrians' perceived separation from traffic. First, the variables given in Exhibit 5-27 will be calculated, which are used to determine the amount of buffering provided by the outside lane, bicycle lane, and parking lane or shoulder. This exhibit lists three conditions which are evaluated in turn. Whether or not a given condition is satisfied then determines how each variable is calculated: • First, the percentage of utilized parking in the segment is not zero under existing conditions; therefore, the total width Wt is calculated as the sum of the widths of the outside lane (12 ft) and the bicycle lane (0 ft), or 12 ft. Exhibit 5-63 Calculation Example 4: Transit Wait-Ride Score Calculation Results Calculation Examples Page 5-98 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Exhibit 5-64 Calculation Example 4: Pedestrian Environment Score Calculation Results Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition • Second, the segment's demand flow rate is greater than 160 veh/h under existing conditions; therefore the effective total width Wv = Wtor 12ft. • Third, the percentage of utilized parking in the segment is not less than 0.2 5 under existing conditions; therefore the effective combined width of the bicycle lane and shoulder (parking lane) W1 =10ft. Next, the factor relating to the buffering effect of barriers or street trees is considered. There are no barriers under existing conditions, therefore the buffer area coefficient /h = 1.0, according to the list of variables following Exhibit 5-15. The sidewalk is curb-tight, therefore the buffer width Wbufis 0 ft. The adjusted available minimum sidewalk width WaA is the lesser of the actual sidewalk width (8ft) or 10ft, so it is 8ft. The sidewalk width coefficient /sw is calculated as 6.0-0.3 WaA, from the list of variables following Exhibit 5-15, or 2.4. With these intermediate calculations out of the way, the cross-section adjustment factor can now be determined from Equation 5-12: fw = -1.2276ln(Wv + 0.5W1 + 50ppk + Wbuffb + WaA.fsw) fw = -1.2276ln(12 + 0.5(10) + 50(0.8) + (0)(1.0) + (8)(2 .4)) fw = -5.47 and the pedestrian environment score can now be calculated from Equation 5-11: lp = 6.0468 + fw + fv + .fs lp = 6.0468- 5.47 + 0.91 + 0.09 lp = 1.58 In the multimodal LOS methodology, a pedestrian environment score of 1.58 corresponds to a pedestrian LOS A for the portion of the segment between signalized intersections (it uses the same LOS scale as shown for transit in Exhibit 5-28). Exhibit 5- 64 provides the results for all of the alternatives. Because two different pedestrian cross-sections exist under Alternative 3, two subsegments must be defined and a weighted average score calculated based on the relative lengths of each subsegment. Condition fs fv w, Wv W1 fw Existing 0.09 0.91 12 12 10 -5.47 1.58 Alternative 1 0.09 0.91 18 18 6 -4.83 2.22 Alternative 2 0.12 1.82 18 18 10 -5.41 2.58 Alt. 3 (typical) 0.03 0.01 16 16 10 -5 .26 Alt. 3 (near side) 1.16 0.03 0.12 10 10 10 -4.64 As can be seen, pedestrian conditions degrade in Alternatives 1 and 2, but improve in Alternative 3. Alternatives 1 and 2 provide pedestrian LOS B, while Alternative 3 is at pedestrian LOS A. Removing the on-street parking removes a perceived barrier between pedestrians and motorized traffic, which has a noticeable impact on the pedestrian environment score. In addition, all of the motorized vehicle traffic is concentrated in the outside lane in Alternative 2, instead of being distributed across two lanes, which also contributes to pedestrian discomfort. In Alternative 3, only buses and right-turning traffic use the outside lane, which improves pedestrian comfort. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-99 Calculation Examples I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition Step 3: Determine the Transit LOS Score and Step 4: Determine Transit LOS The transit LOS score is computed from Equation 5-15. For existing conditions, these calculations are as follows: It = 6.0- 1.50sw-r + 0.151p It = 6.0- 1.50(1.79) + 0.15(1.58) It= 3.56 Comparing this result to Exhibit 5-28, the transit LOS is D for existing conditions. Exhibit 5-65 shows the results for all scenarios. Condition Transit LOS Score It LOS Existing 3.56 D Alternative 1 3.65 D Alternative 2 3.66 D Alternative 3 3.16 c Alternative 3 performs the best from a transit LOS perspective, with the bus lane providing improved speed and reliability. Alternatives 1 and 2 perform worse than under existing conditions, due to the reduction in the pedestrian environment quality, but still produce the same LOS result Alternative 2's improved bus speeds, in particular, are offset by the poorer pedestrian environment The Results Alternative 3 performed the best for transit in this segment, although there was not a huge variation in the transit LOS score results (two-thirds the width of an LOS range separates the best-performing from the worst-performing scenario) . This indicates that the relatively small speed improvements did not result in large differences in perceived travel time and QOS. The transit agency could also consider operational improvements (e.g., stop consolidation) or physical improvements (e.g., transit signal priority or queue jumps) to speed up buses further. Improving transit frequency on this street, if warranted by ridership, would do the most to improve the transit LOS score. From a pedestrian standpoint, Alternative 3 performed the best. Similar calculations could be performed using HCM techniques for the automobile and bicycle modes to identify which scenario performed the best for those modes. Individual segment scores could then be combined to produce an overall facility score by mode. Note that these LOS results are just one set of performance measures among many that should be used to evaluate alternatives. For example, although Alternative 3 performed the best from the transit and pedestrian QOS perspectives, the mixing of buses and bicycles in a lane might pose safety issues that would need to be considered, and traffic pattern changes with the loss of the left-turn opportunities on the street would also need to be considered. Exhibit 5-65 Calculation Example 4: Transit LOS Results Calculation Examples Page 5-100 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Links to the TCRP reports listed here can be found on the accompanying CD-ROM. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 6. REFERENCES 1. Highway Capacity Manua/2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. 2. Walker, J. Human Transit. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2011. 3. Pushkarev, B.S., and J.M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Regional Plan Association. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1977. 4. Ryus, P., K. Coffel, J. Parks, V. Perk, L. Cherrington, J. Arndt, Y. Nakanishi, and A. Gan. TCRP Report 141: A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. http:/ I onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrpjtcrp_rpt_141.pdf 5. Coffel, K., J. Parks, C. Semler, P. Ryus, D. Sampson, C. Kachadoorian, H.S. Levinson, and J.L. Schafer. TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012. http: I I onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_153.pdf 6. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; KFH Group, Inc.; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglass, Inc.; and K. Hunter-Zaworski. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. http:/ jwww.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/153590.aspx 7. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and URS, Inc. Florida Transit Level of Service {TLOS) Indicator Concepts Guide. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Fla., June 2005. 8. Ewing, R. Best Development Practices. APA Planners Press, Chicago, Ill., 1996. 9. Rouphail, N., J. Hummer, J. Milazzo, and D. Allen. Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Recommended Procedures for the "Pedestrians" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-107. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1998. http:/ jwww.fhwa.dot.gov jpublicationsjresearchjsafety jpedbike/98107 j98107.pdf 10. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Tri-Met Primary Transit Network Phase II Report. Portland, Ore., 1997. 11. United States Access Board. Public Rights-of-Way website. http:/ jwww.access- board.gov jprowacj, accessed July 30, 2012. 12. Balcom be, R. ( ed.). TRL Report 593: The demand for transport: A practical guide. TRL Limited, Wokingham, United Kingdom, 2004. http:/ jwww.demandforpublictransport.co.uk/TRL593.pdf 13. Parkinson, T., and I. Fisher. TCRP Report 13: Rail Transit Capacity. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. http: I I onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_13-a. pdf 14. Fruin, J.J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Revised Edition. Elevator World, Inc., Mobile, Ala., 1987. Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-101 References I

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition 15. Pheasant, S. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of the Work, Second Edition. Taylor & Francis, London, 1996. 16. Abraham, S. Weight and Height of Adults 18-7 4 Years of Age, United States, 1971- 74. In Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 211. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., May 1979. http:/ jwww.cdc.govjnchsjdatajseriesjsr_11jsr11_211.pdf 17. Najjar, M.F., and M. Rowland. Anthropometric Reference Data and Prevalence of Overweight, United States, 1976-80. In Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 238. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., October 1987. http:/ jwww.cdc.gov jnchsjdatajseriesjsr_11jsr11_238.pdf 18. McDowell, M.A., C.D. Fryar, and C.L. Ogden. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 1988-1994. In Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 249. National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C., April 2009. http :/ jwww.cdc.gov jnchs/ datajseriesjsr _11/sr11_249.pdf 19. McDowell, M.A., C.D. Fryar, C.L. Ogden, and K.M. Flegal. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003-2006. In National Health Statistics Reports, No. 10. National Center for Health Statistics, Washington, D.C., October 22, 2008. http:/ jwww.cdc.gov jnchsjdatajnhsr jnhsr010.pdf 20. Batelle Institute. Recommendations en vie de l'amenagement d'une installation de transport compte tenu de donnees anthropometriques et des limites physiologiques de /'homme. Geneva, Switzerland, 1973. 21. Goldman, J.M., and G. Murray. TCRP Synthesis 88: Strollers, Carts, and Other Large Items on Buses and Trains. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011. http:/ j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_syn_88. pdf 22. Landis, B.W., T.A. Petritsch, and H.A. Huang. Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. Report FHWA-HRT-04-103. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., October, 2004. http:/ jwww.fhwa.dot.gov /publications/research/safety /04103/04103.pdf 23. Benn, H.P. TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 10: Bus Route Evaluation Standards. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995. http:/ jonlinepubs.trb.orgjonlinepubsjtcrpjtsyn10.pdf 24. Canadian Urban Transit Association. A Review of Canadian Transit Service Standards. Toronto, Ontario, 2001. 25. Furth, P.G., B. Hemily, T.H.J. Muller, and J. Strathman. TCRP Report 113: Using Archived A VL-APC Data to Improve Transit Performance and Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. http:/ j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_113.pdf 26. Zuehlke, K. Impossibility of Transit in Atlanta: CPS-Enabled Revealed-Drive Preferences and Modeled Transit Alternatives for Commute Atlanta Participants. Masters Thesis, Department of City and Regional Planning, School of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, December 2007. http :/ /smartech.gatech.edujhandle/1853/19788 References Page 5-102 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition 27. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; Urbitran, Inc.; LKC Consulting Services, Inc.; MORPACE International, Inc.; Queensland University of Technology; andY. Nakanishi. TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement System. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_report_88 /Guidebook. pdf 28. MORPACE International, Inc. and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TCRP Report 47: A Handbook for Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_ 4 7 -a. pdf 29. Weinstein, A. and R. Alborn. Securing Objective Data on the Quality of the Passenger Environment for Transit Riders-Redesign of the Passenger Environment Measurement System for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. In Transportation Research Record 1618, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. 30. Dowling, R. G., D. B. Reinke, A. Flannery, P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, T. A. Petritsch, B. W. Landis, N. M. Rouphail, and J. A. Bonneson. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board of the National I Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjnchrp jnchrp_rpt_616. pdf 31. Evans IV, J. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Chapter 9-Transit Scheduling and Frequency. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_9 Sc9 .pdf 32. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.; Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultants; and DMJM+Harris. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner's Guide. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_118.pdf 33. KFH Group, Inc.; Urbitran Associates, Inc.; McCollom Management Consulting, Inc.; and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. TCRP Report 124: Guidebook for Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Demand-Response Transportation. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. http: j j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_124.pdf 34. Shioda, R., M. Shea, and L. Fu. Performance Metrics and Data Mining for Assessing Schedule Qualities in Para transit. In Transportation Research Record: journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2072, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 139-147. 35. Fu, L. Simulation Model for Evaluating Intelligent Paratransit Systems. In Transportation Research Record: journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1760, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. 36. Cevallos, F., Q. Yuan, X. Wang, J. Skinner, and A. Gan. Feasibility Study on the Use of Personal GPS Devices in Paratransit. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, D.C., May 18, 2009. http: j jwww.fta.dot.gov j documents /TRANS PO _Feasibility_ G PS_Paratransit_Final. pdf Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods Page 5-103 References

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3'd Edition 37. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Florida Transit Quality of Service Applications Guide. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, May 2008. 38. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. Draft Northern Virginia 2030 Transportation Plan. Fairfax, Va., April 2006. http:/ jwww.thenovaauthority.orgjtransaction2030 jReportsandMapsjTrans2030- April-2006-Draft-Plan.pdf 39. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. Transit Master Plan: Final Summary Report. Seattle, Wash., April 2012. http: j jwww.seattle.gov jtranspo rtationj docs jtmp j finaljTM PFinalSummaryReport andAppendices. pdf 40. Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner., M. Brewer, P. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E.S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and D. Lord. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. http: I I onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjnchrp jnchrp_rpt_562. pdf 41. Cleghorn, D., A. Clavelle, J. Boone, M. Masliah, and H.S. Levinson. TCRP Report 137: Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009. http :/ jonlinepubs.trb.orgjonlinepubsjtcrpjtcrp_rpt_137.pdf 42. Urbitran Associates, Inc.; Cambridge Systematics; Kittelson & Associates; Pittman & Associates, and Center for Urban Transportation Research. TCRP Report 116: Guidebook for Evaluating, Selecting, and Implementing Suburban Transit Services. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006. http:/ j onlinepubs.trb.org/ onlinepubsjtcrp jtcrp_rpt_116.pdf 43. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Washington, D.C., 2009. http:/ jmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov References Page 5-104 Chapter 5/Quality of Service Methods