Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability (2020)

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.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability 1.0 Research Process 1 1.0 Research Process 1.1 Overview The TCRP A-42 project represented for the first time a comprehensive assessment of fixed-route bus service reliability. This is the predominant type of transit service in North America and around the world. The focus was on identifying the factors impacting fixed-route bus service reliability, measures to estimate the degree of unreliability, diagnostic tools to assess the extent of reliability problems, potential treatments to improve reliability, and how to implement an overall reliability improvement program. The research culminated in the development of TCRP Research Report 215: Minutes Matter: A Bus Transit Service Reliability Guidebook, which provides a road map for transit agencies, other jurisdictions and consultants on identifying, evaluating, and solving reliability problems on fixed-route bus systems. This summary provides an overview of the findings of the research and the content of the guidebook. As an input into the guidebook, three final deliverables were completed which are also included in this document.  Literature Review  Transit Agency Survey Report  Case Study Summary Report This information constitutes a final report for the TCRP A-42 research, with the final deliverables included as appendices to this summary, and the separate guidebook. Further insights on the conduct of the research through these final deliverables are addressed in the following section. 1.2 Final Deliverables 1.2.1 Literature Review A comprehensive literature review was undertaken as the initial task of the TCRP A-42 research. The final deliverable summarizing this research task is included in Appendix A. A total of 168 documents were identified as being related to some facet of bus service reliability and reviewed. Topics focused on in the review included:  Reliability definitions  Metrics and measurement  Related factors  Improvement strategies and their impacts  Perception of reliability An annotated bibliography table prepared for each reference included where applicable the citation, reference, focus of paper, entities involved, measures/definitions, factors, improvement strategies, findings and results, and study limitations. 1.2.2 Transit Agency Survey Report To obtain input on how transit agencies are addressing reliability issues and improvement strategies, an electronic survey was sent out to all (over 400) fixed-route bus operators in the U.S. and Canada, and a handful of agencies overseas. Appendix B includes the final deliverable summarizing this task. Forty-four questions were posed, in the areas of Agency Characteristics, Definitions and Measures, Improvement Strategies, Before-After Studies, and

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability 1.0 Research Process 2 Implementation and Case Study Participation. Eighty-six agencies responded to the survey (either fully or partially), including two from the U.K. (including Transport for London). 1.2.3 Case Study Summary Report The initial TCRP A-42 scope of work in the Amplified Research Plan identified conducting one or more demonstration studies with selected transit agencies to identify the impact of specific reliability improvement strategies, including the costs and benefits of such strategies through “before” and “after” data collection and analysis. However, as a follow up to the transit agency survey there was limited response by agencies to partner in such studies. As such, the TCRP A- 42 panel directed the TCRP A-42 research team to conduct more detailed interviews with selected transit agencies who responded to the initial survey. Ten agencies became the focus of the case studies, with a sampling of different sized agencies based on bus fleet size. These agencies include:  Large Agencies (>300 buses) • Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, Illinois) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles, California) • New York City Transit (New York, New York) • Regional Transit District (Denver, Colorado) • Transport for London (London, England) • VIA Metropolitan Transit (San Antonio, Texas)  Medium Agencies (100-300 buses) • Pierce Transit (Tacoma Washington) • Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Agency (Cincinnati, Ohio)  Small Agencies (<100 buses) • Kingston Transit (Kingston, Ontario) • Manatee County Area Transit (Sarasota, Florida) Six of the 10 agencies were designated large agencies, as in the broader transit agency survey there was an under representation of respondents from such agencies (predominance of medium/small agency respondents). Representatives from different departments at each transit agency were interviewed together, including where applicable Planning, Financial, Operations, and Maintenance. The case studies were used to understand five critical aspects of the transit reliability assessment process: 1. High-level measures that the agencies use to determine reliability, including both traditional and non-traditional measures. 2. Standards used in assessing and communicating transit performance. 3. How specific causes of unreliability are determined through more specific data collection and diagnostic tools. 4. How improvement actions are taken. 5. How the response to improvement actions is measured to evaluate the level of success. The interviews and discussions conducted were not intended to be prescriptive. This allowed for “open” discussions from agency to agency. Appendix C includes the final deliverable summarizing the case study results. Major findings from the case studies include the following:

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability 1.0 Research Process 3 Reliability Program Organizational Structure  In most agencies, bus transit reliability is a shared responsibility between departments, most notably Service Planning, Operations, Performance Management and Information Technology.  Largest agencies have developed processes for on-time performance review, analysis of routes with issues through running time analysis, and addressing issues using a combination of resources and departments.  Most agencies produce reliability reports on a regular basis for agency Board review. Reliability Measures and Standards  Most agencies rely on On-Time Performance as their primary measure to assess bus service reliability.  For on-time performance, most agencies agreed on an “on-time” definition of 1 minute early to 5 minutes late.  Agencies were less similar in their reliability goals, with system size appearing to have little to do with the goal. Reliability Data Collection Analysis and Reporting  Most of the agencies rely upon the collection of CAD/AVL and APC data, recorded at time points, to measure bus system reliability.  Reliability and performance are reviewed on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, and used in real-time by supervisors and control centers to manage day-to-day operations. Diagnosing and Treating Reliability Issues  Most agencies lack specific rules to trigger an immediate response to reliability problems identified in real-time.  At most agencies, the first step to address recurring reliability is to conduct a running time analysis.  Schedule adjustments to address reliability problems are typically only made three to four times a year at scheduled operator picks. Evaluating the Reliability Improvement Program  Little documentation by agencies regarding any reassessment of reliability measures, standards, and goals, and overall reliability assessment process.  Strategies to address reliability largely focus on long-standing procedures, using supervisors to manage daily street operations and schedulers adjusting running times in the next pick if problems persist.  Some agencies conduct “before” and “after” evaluations of specific reliability improvements to assess their effectiveness.