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 Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-1 Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-2 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Survey As part of the initial data collection phase of the TCRP A-42 research, the research team surveyed fixed-route bus operators in the U.S. and Canada, as well as a handful of agencies in the United Kingdom (U.K.) and selected other countries. The purpose of this survey was to probe actions transit agencies are taking with respect to reliability measurement, monitoring and reporting, street transit priority treatment options, and intergovernmental agreements. The information obtained from the survey was packaged with insights obtained from the A-42 literature review, to identify the range and application of reliability measures, sources of unreliability, and reliability improvement strategies in Tasks 3 and 4 of the research. The survey was also used as an initial outreach for soliciting ideas from agencies on potential demonstration studies of certain reliability improvement strategies in Task 6 of the A-42 research. 1.2 Content of Report This report is broken out into three sections. Chapter 2 identifies the process of identifying the survey contact list, and the structure and content of the agency survey form. Chapter 3 presents a summary of responses to the various questions on the survey form. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the key findings of the survey. The appendices include a listing of the transit agencies who responded to the survey, the actual survey form in pdf format, and the responses to the open- ended questions in the survey.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-3 2.0 Survey Methodology This chapter summarizes the TCRP A-42 Agency Survey design process, methodology and administration. The survey effort consisted of the development of a list of agency contacts from whom to solicit survey responses, the development and administration of an electronic survey form, and the analysis of survey responses. The process was overseen by the TCRP A-42 Panel. 2.1 Development of Contact List A list of transit agencies that provide fixed-route bus service was developed through several sources. In the U.S., agency contacts were derived from the latest American Public Transportation Association (APTA) member directory. In Canada, agency contacts were provided by the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). Beyond North America, selected transit agencies in the United Kingdom, Australia, Singapore, and Dubai were identified. The list included agencies of all sizes in North America, with the international outreach limited to larger agencies. In total, 400 transit agencies were sent the invitation to complete the survey. During the survey administration process, additional changes were made to the list to reflect updated information from bounced e-mails and replies from individuals indicating secondary or alternative respondents. 2.2 Survey Form Given the geographic range of transit agencies to be surveyed, an electronic survey tool was deemed most appropriate. The “Lime Survey” tool was selected to allow for fine-grain customization of the survey questions, custom templates, and conditional questions. In Lime Survey, users are also able to save responses and continue at a later time, or even forward to another individual for continuation of the survey response. Lime Survey also provides for more complete control of sensitive data such as personal contact information since it runs on a server maintained by the project team. Through Lime Survey, the project team purchased the domain name http://tcrpa42transitagencysurvey.com/ hosted on a server hosted by the consultant team. The survey was developed in an iterative process with regular feedback from the TCRP A-42 Panel members. The survey was broadly focused on fixed-route bus service reliability with 44 questions, composed of the following topics:  Introduction (contact information, agency information)  Definitions and measures related to fixed-route bus service reliability  Reliability improvement strategies (operational, physical, perception, changed definitions)  Capital and operating costs  Before-after study results, if applicable  Case-study follow up 2.3 Survey Administration Three different solicitations of the survey were sent out to the identified agency contact list. Of the 400 agencies contacted, 71 agencies completely responded and 15 agencies partially responded, totaling 86 responses to the survey (identified in Appendix B-1). Unfortunately, only 2 of the 86 responses came from agencies outside of North America (both from the U.K.). The following section provides detailed information regarding responses obtained for each question, and a formatted PDF export of the survey instrument is included in Appendix B-2. Open-ended survey responses are presented in Appendix B-3. Separate from this report to be submitted to the TCRP A-42 Panel is a spreadsheet showing the individual responses to the survey by the different transit agencies.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-4 3.0 Survey Responses 3.1 Responding Agencies Respondents to the survey represented various transit agency sizes and geographies. A total of 86 agencies (from three countries) responded to the survey, reporting the operation of as few as one/two fixed bus routes to as high as 500 fixed bus routes. The majority of respondents were smaller transit agencies that operate between 1 to 50 fixed-routes (74 percent) and the average size of agency respondents was 62 fixed bus routes, as summarized in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 - Size Distribution of All Responding Agencies To provide a comparison to national trends using 2015 National Transit Database (NTD) data, the number of “vehicles operated in maximum service” (a.k.a. “peak buses”) was determined for each responding agency within the U.S. (71 out of the 86 agencies) – see Figure 3.2.1 In the U.S., 76 percent of transit agencies operate between 1 to 25 peak buses, compared to 19 percent of agencies responding to the survey who fell within the same category. Within the U.S. responding agencies, the majority (29 percent) fall within the 51 to 100 peak bus category, which typically averages only 5 percent of agencies nationally. Figure 3.2 - Size Distribution of Responding U.S. Agencies Compared to National Trends 1 NTD data was not available for the two responding agencies from the United Kingdom and the thirteen responding agencies from Canada, since it is only available for agencies in the U.S. 41% 33% 12% 5% 4% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 150 151 to 300 Over 300 Pe rc en t o f R es po nd in g Ag en cie s Number of Reported Fixed-Bus Routes Survey Results 76% 10% 5% 2% 3% 3% 19% 8% 29% 10% 21% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 1 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 101 to 150 151 to 300 Over 300 Pe rc en t o f R es po nd in g U. S. Ag en cie s Number of Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service National Trend Survey Results

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-5 For the purposes of further analysis going forward, all responding agencies were classified as “Small” if they reported operation of fewer than 50 fixed bus routes, “Medium” if they reported operation between 51 and 100 fixed bus routes, and “Large” if they reported operation of more than 101 fixed bus routes, shown in Figure 3.3 below. Three agencies were identified as potentially misrepresented when comparing their fixed bus routes (as reported in their survey response) to their reported “peak buses” in 2015 NTD data. These three agencies - Link Transit (Chelan/Douglas County, Washington), Knoxville Area Transit (Knox County, Tennessee), and IndyGo (Indianapolis, Indiana) - were re-classified into lower categories. Figure 3.3 - Classification of Responding Agencies Agency responses came from all over North America as shown in Figure 3.4, including 13 responses from Canadian agencies. Two responses came from agencies in the U.K (Transport for London and Birmingham Centro). Figure 3.4 - Location of Responding Agencies in North America 74% 12% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Small (less than 50) Medium (51-100) Large (over 101) Re sp on di ng A ge nc ies Number of Reported Fixed-Bus Routes

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-6 3.2 Reliability Measurement 3.2.1 Definition of Reliability When asked how their agencies define “fixed-route bus service reliability,” the majority of agencies replied that “on-time performance” was used, with varying targets identified. Other less- used methods included stop/scheduled time points to define on-time performance, or the use of “missed trips.” Table 3.1 shows the most common definitions stated by survey respondents. Full responses to this question can be found in Appendix B-2. Overall, out of the reliability measurement types outlined in this section, the most widely used by transit agencies was on-time performance at the system and route level (97 percent at the system level, 96 percent at the route level, 80 percent at the trip level, and 56 percent at the stop level). Table 3.1 - Most Common Definitions of Reliability How does your agency define fixed-route bus service reliability?* On-time performance (including variation of definitions of “on-time”) – 51% Missed trips – 7% No formal agency definition – 17% Schedule adherence – 30% Travel time – 4% Vehicle reliability – 4% * Agencies were able to choose more than one option. 3.2.2 Spatial Measurement Respondents were asked to identify which, from a list of 18 performance measures, their agencies use to identify fixed-route bus service reliability at the system, route, trip, and stop levels. As shown in Figure 3.5, Figure 3.6, Figure 3.7, and Figure 3.8, the majority of respondent agencies use “on-time performance” as their primary performance measure for reliability at all levels (system, route, trip, and stops). Performance measures used less frequently included “missed trips,” “headway adherence,” and “number of accidents.” At the system level, 11 agencies indicated that they do not measure reliability performance. If an agency responded that it only used one performance measure, it was “on-time performance.” One large agency, CTA, indicated that they used almost all (15 out of 18) of the listed performance measures at the system level. In the open-ended section, agencies indicated that some other measures they use are “hours of service interruption,” “passenger miles,” “farebox recovery,” and customer feedback.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-7 Figure 3.5 - Reliability Measures at System Level At the route level, 12 agencies indicated that they do not measure reliability performance. If an agency responded that it only uses one performance measure, it was either “on-time performance” or “missed trips.” Two agencies, CTA and TransLink, indicated that they use the majority (8 out of 11) of the listed performance measures at the route level. In the open-ended section, agencies indicated that some other measures they use are “hours of service interruption,” “pull out adherence,” “passengers/revenue hour,” and customer feedback. Figure 3.6 - Reliability Measures at Route Level 97% 69% 49% 42% 37% 35% 34% 32% 30% 20% 20% 18% 17% 14% 11% 10% 7% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% On-Time Performance Missed Trips Number Of Accidents Distance Between Vehicle Breakdowns Driver Attendance Pull-Out Performance Missed Pullouts/Missed Driver Runs Missed Or Unfulfilled Scheduled Hours Headway Adherence Recovery Time Time Between Vehicle Breakdowns Added Trips Maintenance Personnel Attendance Distance Without Service Interruption Travel Time Variability Other Excess Wait Time Average Wait Time Wait Assessment 96% 55% 41% 27% 27% 25% 24% 15% 10% 6% 4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% On-Time Performance Missed Trips Headway Adherence Travel Time Variability Recovery Time Number Of Accidents Missed Or Unfulfilled Scheduled Hours Added Trips Other Excess Wait Time Average Wait Time Wait Assessment

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-8 At the trip level, 22 agencies indicated that they do not measure reliability performance. If an agency responded that it only used one performance measure, it was either “on-time performance” or “missed trips.” One agency, TransLink, indicated that they use the majority (8 out of 11) of the listed performance measures at the trip level. In the open-ended section, agencies indicated that some other measures they use are “monitoring roadway traffic,” “trip times,” “passengers/revenue hour,” and customer feedback. Figure 3.7 - Reliability Measures at Trip Level At the stop level, 40 agencies indicated that they do not measure reliability performance. In the open-ended section, agencies indicated that some other measures they use are “passengers/day,” “timepoint on-time performance,” and “dwell time.” Figure 3.8 - Reliability Measures at Stop Level 80% 46% 31% 20% 18% 18% 14% 11% 11% 8% 6% 6% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% On-Time Performance Missed Trips Headway Adherence Travel Time Variability Recovery Time Number Of Accidents Missed Or Unfulfilled Scheduled Hours Added Trips Not Measured Other Average Wait Time Excess Wait Time Wait Assessment 56% 30% 11% 7% 4% 4% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% On-Time Performance Not Measured Other Headway Adherence Average Wait Time Excess Wait Time Wait Assessment Number of Accidents

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-9 3.2.3 On-Time Performance Since “on-time performance” was the most common way that transit agencies measure reliability, respondents were asked to indicate how many minutes before and after scheduled time their agency classifies as “on-time,” or the “window in which a bus is neither early nor late.” The majority of respondents (78 percent) indicated that their agency uses zero-to-one minute before the scheduled time and 67 percent use five minutes after the scheduled time to define “on- time performance.” There was little variation by agency size. When asked how their agencies definition of “on-time performance” is applied, 90 percent of respondents indicated “intermediate time points,” 75 percent indicated “trip start time” and 50 percent indicated “trip end time.” Figure 3.9 and 3.10 shows the time variation of “on-time” performance. A handful of agencies (primarily between 50-100 fixed bus routes in size) use longer time periods, as long as 6 to 10 minutes. Figure 3.9 - Time Variation of On-Time Performance - Before Figure 3.10 - Time Variation of On-Time Performance – After 47% 31% 10% 5% 1% 3% 1% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 to 10 Not Displayed Pe rc en t o f R es po nd in g Ag en cie s Number of Minutes Before Scheduled Time 2% 2% 3% 6% 6% 67% 10% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 to 10 Not Displayed Pe rc en t o f R es po nd in g Ag en cie s Number of Minutes After Scheduled Time

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-10 3.2.4 Utilizing Reliability Data There are a variety of tools and techniques available for agencies to collect reliability data, as shown in Figure 3.11. Over 80 percent of respondents’ agencies use “Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)” data, while nearly 50 percent use “Automatic Passenger Counter (APC)” data. “On-street manual observations” are used by 42 percent of respondents’ agencies while fewer agencies use “on-bus manual observations” (30 percent) or “commercial tracking software” (18 percent). Out of the 60 agencies who indicated that they use AVL data, 62 percent also use APC data, and 48 percent routinely benchmark their reliability performance against similar agencies. Ten (10) agencies indicated that they had no source of reliability data. Agencies with access to 4 or 5 of the listed data sources are from many large metropolitan areas, including Arlington, VA; Austin, TX; Calgary, Alberta; and San Francisco, CA. The majority of agencies using commercial tracking software are medium-sized. Figure 3.11 - Source of Reliability Data In terms of the department responsibility for reliability data (see Table 3.2), the majority of respondents indicated that either “Transportation” or “Planning” departments are responsible for collecting, reporting, and analyzing reliability data, with some involvement by “IT” or “Other” departments. Agency size doesn’t seem to be a factor in determining department responsibilities with reliability data – an agency as small as Wasaga Beach in Ontario, Canada (2 routes) collects data using their Budget department, while an agency as large as the Utah Transit Authority in Salt Lake City, UT (120 routes) collects and prepares reports on data using their IT department. Other responses from agencies include “Finance,” ”Operations,” “Maintenance,” “Scheduling,” and “Performance Management” departments. Table 3.2 - Department Responsibilities: Reliability Data Collection Reporting Analysis Transportation (45%) Planning (45%) Planning (52%) Planning (30%) Transportation (38%) Transportation (33%) IT (13%) Other (17%) Other (15%) Other (11%) 82% 49% 42% 30% 18% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Data Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) Data On-Street Manual Observations On-Bus Manual Observations Commercial Tracking Software Other

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-11 3.3 Reliability Improvement Strategies One of the primary purposes of the survey was to determine common obstacles to improving system reliability and strategies used to overcome these obstacles. To this end, survey respondents were asked a series of questions aimed at assessing the implementation rate and success of a number of reliability improvement strategies. 3.3.1 Operational Strategies Operational strategies denote different bus service operational or maintenance practices to improve reliability. The survey posed 17 operational strategies to respondents, including different service planning strategies and fare collection practices, and monitoring and improving the performance of bus operators and maintenance personnel. Respondents were asked which of the 17 strategies they had applied to improve reliability in their agency (illustrated in Figure 3.12). Overall, the highest share of responding agencies indicated that they use schedule changes to improve reliability (92 percent), realign routes (75 percent), or re-train drivers with poor performance (61 percent). Seventeen (17) agencies indicated that they had never used any of the listed operational strategies (ranging in size from 0 to 500 fixed bus routes). Several medium and large agencies have used many of the listed operational strategies, namely Arlington Transit, VA, TransLink in Vancouver, BC, Golden Gate Transit, CA, CTA in Chicago, IL, Kingston Transit, ON, and Houston Metro. Figure 3.12 - Application of Operational Strategies Since the vast majority of responding agencies indicated that they used schedule changes to improve reliability, an additional question was asked to determine exactly “how” an agency accomplished that (Figure 3.13). There was greater variety in responses from agencies, with the most indicating that they either adjust trip running times (77 percent), adjust intermediate running times (65 percent), or add end-of-line recovery time (63 percent). 92% 75% 61% 46% 34% 32% 31% 28% 27% 27% 23% 21% 15% 11% 10% 10% 3% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Schedule changes Route realignment Re-train drivers with poor reliability performance Stop consolidation Eliminating timepoints Monitoring driver performance/fatigue Reducing number of route variations Shortening length of route Skip stop services Use real-time information to make ad hoc service changes Use real-time information to deploy run-as-directed buses Adding timepoints Implementing on-bus vehicle diagnostic systems Accepting some fare evasion for reliability improvements Real-time dispatch for timed transfers Off-board fare collection/all-door boarding Pay-on-exit fare collection Other

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-12 Figure 3.13 - Application of Schedule Changes In Figure 3.14 and Table 3.3, respondents were asked if they had successfully implemented each of the 17 operational strategies posed earlier. While some of the most commonly adopted operational strategies had the greatest agency adoption, success in implementation was not always guaranteed. For the majority of implemented operational strategies, around half were deemed successful by the agency. Figure 3.14 - Success of Operational Strategies 77% 65% 63% 35% 35% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adjusting trip running times Adjusting intermediate running times Adding end-of-line recovery time Adding/deleting intermediate timepoints Adding dwell time at timepoints Other 46 19 10 29 16 16 6 14 3 9 8 0 4 3 6 21 6 21 15 9 24 5 6 9 11 4 11 8 2 3 5 17 23 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Nu m be r o f Ag en cie s Reliability Measure (See Reference Numbers in Table 3.3) Successfully Implemented Not Successful, Mixed Success, or Unknown

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-13 Table 3.3 - Success of Operational Strategies Operational Strategy Overall Adoption Successful Implementation Mixed Results Unsuccessful Implementation 1. Schedule Changes 92% 65% 30% 2% 2. Stop Consolidation 47% 55% 24% 21% 3. Skip Stop Services 27% 52% 48% 0% 4. Route Realignment 75% 55% 43% 2% 5. Shortening Route Length 28% 75% 23% 5% 6. Reducing Number of Route Variations 31% 75% 23% 5% 7. Adding Time Points 21% 40% 31% 20% 8. Eliminating Time Points 23% 54% 38% 6% 9. Real-time Dispatches for Timed Transfers 27% 47% 37% 0% 10. Using Real-Time Information to Make Ad-Hoc Service Changes 23% 50% 50% 12% 11. Use Real-Time Information to Deploy Run-as-Directed Buses 21% 10% 11% 0% 12. Pay-on-Exit Fare Collection 3% 0% 50% 50% 13. Off-Board Fare Collection / All Door Boarding 10% 57% 43% 0% 14. Accepting Some Fare Evasion for Reliability Improvements 11% 38% 62% 0% 15. Monitoring Driver Performance / Fatigue 32% 26% 62% 13% 16. Re-Train Drivers with Poor Reliability Performance 61% 50% 50% 2% 17. Implementing On-Bus Vehicle Diagnostic Systems 16% 55% 18% 18%

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-14 3.3.2 Transit Priority Treatments Transit priority treatments denote physical actions and infrastructure improvements to reduce bus travel time and improve reliability. Actions include the provision of transit signal priority, queue jump lanes and signals, exclusive lanes or semi-exclusive lanes, and curb extensions (e.g. bus bulbs). The survey posed 13 transit priority treatments to respondents, and respondents were asked which of the transit priority treatments they had applied to improve reliability in their agency (Figure 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17). Overall, the highest share of responding agencies indicated that they use stop relocation (46 percent), transit signal priority (39 percent), or parking restrictions (30 percent). Twenty-six (26) agencies indicated that they had never used any of the listed transit priority treatments. Agencies who had indicated that they regularly use AVL data were more likely to have implemented transit priority treatments, particularly transit signal priority. Several agencies have used many of the listed transit priority treatments, namely San Diego MTS, CTA, Centro (Birmingham, U.K.), Long Beach Transit, and RTC (Quebec). Figure 3.15 - Application of Transit Priority Treatments Figure 3.16 - Application of Exclusive Lanes 46% 39% 30% 25% 21% 20% 20% 18% 17% 17% 17% 14% 13% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Stop relocation Transit signal priority Parking restrictions Optimizing signal timing Separate turn lane and/or signal Exclusive bus lanes Queue jumps Improved bus design Semi-exclusive bus lanes Lengthening stops Yield to bus law Curb extensions Bus shoulder running Other 14% 4% 3% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Concurrent bus lanes Contraflow bus lanes Bi-directional (reversible) bus lanes Other

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-15 Figure 3.17 - Application of Transit Signal Priority In Figure 3.18 and Table 3.4, respondents were asked if they had successfully implemented each of the 13 transit priority treatments posed earlier. While some of the most commonly adopted transit priority strategies (stop relocation, transit signal priority, and parking restrictions) had the greatest agency adoption, success in implementation was not always guaranteed. In the majority of agencies where transit priority strategies were adopted, around half were successful. The majority of larger agencies indicated that transit priority treatments were successful, while smaller agencies seemed to have more “mixed” or “unknown” results. For instance, Exclusive Bus Lanes were more successful in larger agencies, while Queue Jumps and Curb Extensions were more successful in mid-sized agencies. The majority of transit priority treatments were attempted by agencies with over 50 bus routes. Figure 3.18 - Success of Transit Priority Treatments 28% 14% 13% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Green extension Early green (red truncation) Actuated transit phase Phase insertion Adaptive/real time control Phase rotation Other 11 7 10 6 6 11 15 13 12 22 6 9 3 14 12 14 9 10 15 28 18 21 33 12 13 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nu m be r o f Ag en cie s Transit Priority Treatment (See Reference Numbers in Table 3.4) Successfully Implemented Not Successful, Mixed Success, or Unknown

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-16 Table 3.4 - Success of Transit Priority Treatments Transit Priority Treatment Overall Adoption Successful Implementation Mixed Results Unsuccessful Implementation 1. Exclusive Bus Lanes 20% 73% 27% 7% “Concurrent Bus Lanes” 71% 60% 40% 0% “Contraflow Bus Lanes” 21% 100% 0% 0% “Bi-Directional Bus Lanes” 3% 100% 0% 0% 2. Semi-Exclusive Bus Lanes 17% 58% 33% 8% 3. Queue Jumps 20% 71% 14% 7% 4. Bus Shoulder Running 13% 67% 22% 0% 5. Curb Extensions 14% 60% 30% 10% 6. Separated Turn Lane and/or Signal 21% 73% 20% 7% 7. Transit Signal Priority 40% 53% 25% 21% “Early Green” 36% 70% 10% 20% “Green Extension” 71% 35% 25% 40% “Actuated Signal Phase” 32% 66% 11% 23% “Phase Insertion” 11% 100% 0% 0% “Adaptive/Real-Time Control” 7% 50% 0% 50% “Phase Rotation” 0% - - - 8. Optimizing Signal Timing 25% 72% 18% 0% 9. Parking Restrictions 30% 57% 38% 5% 10. Stop Relocation 47% 67% 24% 9% 11. Lengthening Stops 17% 50% 42% 0% 12. Improved Bus Design 18% 69% 8% 23% 13. Yield to Bus Law 17% 25% 33% 25%

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-17 3.3.3 Physical Improvements Physical improvements denote improvements to increase capacity at bus stops and terminals to reduce ingress and egress travel time and provide adequate layover space, to improve reliability. The survey posed four physical improvements to respondents, and respondents were asked which of the physical improvements they had applied to improve reliability in their agency (Figure 3.19 and 3.20). Overall, the highest share of responding agencies indicated that they use reconfigured bus terminals (27 percent) to improve reliability. In Table 3.5, respondents were asked if they had successfully implemented each of the 4 physical improvements posed. Several agencies from larger metropolitan areas indicated that they have had success with all four physical improvements, including Montgomery County, Maryland; RTC; Houston Metro; Long Beach Transit; Akron Metro; and Birmingham Centro. Figure 3.19 - Application of Physical Improvements Figure 3.20 - Success of Physical Improvements Table 3.5 - Success of Physical Improvements Physical Improvements Overall Adoption Successful Implementation Mixed Results Unsuccessful Implementation 1. Expanded Bus Stop Capacity 20% 71% 21% 8% 2. Expanded Terminal Capacity 21% 87% 6% 7% 3. Reconfigure Bus Terminals 27% 84% 16% 0% 4. Added Layover Facilities 17% 91% 9% 0% 27% 21% 20% 17% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Reconfigured bus terminals Expanded terminal capacity Expanded bus stop capacity Added layover facilities Other 10 13 16 11 14 15 19 12 0 10 20 30 40 1 2 3 4 Nu m be r o f Ag en cie s Physical Improvement (See Reference Numbers in Table 3.5) Successfully Implemented Not Successful, Mixed Success, or Unknown

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-18 3.3.4 Improving Perception of Reliability The perception by transit riders of the reliability of a fixed-route bus service is affected by actions to provide information on the arrival times of buses, undertaking public outreach, and publication of reliability reports and scorecards. The survey posed four strategies to respondents that could increase perception of reliability, and respondents were asked which of the strategies they had applied to improve the perception of reliability in their agency (Figure 3.21 and 3.22). Overall, the highest share of responding agencies indicated that they have accomplished this through providing real- time arrival information (77 percent) to improve reliability. In Table 3.6, respondents were asked if they had successfully implemented each of the 4 strategies. As compared to other strategies, many more agencies responded that they have undertaken strategies to increase the perception of reliability (41 in total). Providing real-time information is important to agencies of all sizes, as is customer outreach. Agencies who had indicated that they use AVL data were more likely to have implemented strategies to increase their perception of reliability, particularly by providing real-time arrival information to customers. Figure 3.21 - Application of Strategies to Increase Perception of Reliability Figure 3.22 - Success of Strategies to Increase Perception of Reliability Table 3.6 - Success of Strategies to Increase Perception of Reliability Strategies to Increase Perception of Reliability Overall Adoption Successful Implementation Mixed Results Unsuccessful Implementation 1. Implementing Amenities at Stops 60% 57% 24% 19% 2. Providing Real-Time Arrival Information to Customers 78% 67% 24% 9% 3. Outreach to Customers 61% 47% 42% 11% 4. Publish Reliability Reports and/or Agency Scorecards 21% 27% 33% 40% 77% 61% 59% 21% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Providing real-time arrival information to customers Outreach to customers Implementing amenities at stops Published reliability reports and/or agency scorecards Other 24 37 20 4 42 55 43 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 1 2 3 4 Nu m be r o f Ag en cie s Strategy (See Reference Numbers in Table 3.6) Successfully Implemented Not Successful, Mixed Success, or Unknown

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-19 3.3.5 Changing the Definition of Reliability Survey respondents were asked if they changed the definition of reliability to improve the reported reliability of their fixed-route bus service. This includes options such as changing the definition of “on-time”, relaxing “on-time” limits, changing or adding measures, and lowering goals during special event conditions. Respondents were asked which of the strategies they had applied to change the definition of reliability in their agency (Figure 3.23 and 3.24). Overall, the highest share of responding agencies indicated that they have accomplished this by changing the definition of “on-time” (13 percent) or by adding/changing measures (13 percent). As compared to the previous questions, a smaller share of agencies (20) responded that they have undertaken strategies to change the definition of reliability. In Table 3.7, respondents were asked if they had successfully implemented each of the 4 strategies posed. Figure 3.23 - Application of Strategies to Change Definition of Reliability Figure 3.24 - Success of Strategies to Change Definition of Reliability Table 3.7 - Success of Strategies to Change Definition of Reliability Strategies to Change Definition of Reliability Overall Adoption Successful Implementation Mixed Results Unsuccessful Implementation 1. Changed Definition of “On-Time” 13% 56% 33% 11% 2. Relaxed Unrealistic “On-Time” Definition 2% 50% 50% 0% 3. Added New Measures or Changed Measures 13% 33% 33% 34% 4. Lowered Reliability Goal during Certain Special Events 10% 43% 57% 0% 13% 3% 13% 10% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Changed definition of on-time Relaxed unrealistic on-time definition Added new measures or changed measures Lowered reliability goal during certain special events Other 5 1 3 3 9 2 9 7 0 5 10 15 1 2 3 4 Nu m be r o f Ag en cie s Strategy (See Reference Numbers in Table 3.7) Successfully Implemented Not Successful, Mixed Success, or Unknown

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-20 3.4 Reliability Costs and Benefits 3.4.1 Before-and-After Studies Fifteen agencies have undertaken before-and-after studies to assess the impact of fixed-route bus service reliability improvement. Larger agencies who had indicated that they use AVL and APC data were more likely to have undertaken before-and-after studies. Of those respondents reporting before-and-after studies, 13 agencies indicated a specific reliability strategy that was being tested in these studies (summarized below) and two agencies provided website links to the before-after studies or a copy of the study documentation to the email account provided at the end of the survey. Listed below are the specific reliability strategies being tested in the before-and-after studies that are currently underway by these agencies.  Removed loop route and added additional route  Schedule adjustments and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the adjustments  Express routes and interlining  Shifting all main line services into transit priority lanes  Transit signal priority  Transit signal priority and other operational improvements  Changes to bus schedules and service restoration and monitoring strategies  Bus stop consolidation project for 5 routes  Queue jumps, transit signal priorities, bus-only shoulder, signal optimization, etc.  Bus-only lanes 3.4.2 Benefits from Before-and-After Studies For those agencies who reported before-and-after studies, respondents were asked to quantify the benefits resulting from those studies, and comment on the degree of success. Out of the before-and-after study respondents, the most indicated that their agency experienced improved on-time performance (10 percent), followed by reduced travel time (4 percent) and increased ridership (4 percent). Detailed comments from before-and-after study undertakers are listed below in Table 3.8. 3.4.3 Costs Responders were asked to provide input on the costs their agency undertook to implement reliability improvement strategies by specifying the following capital and/or operating costs and time period over which the costs occurred. Approximately 20 percent of respondents provided Capital Costs for improvement strategy implementation. Costs ranged from $0 (smaller transit agencies) to $23.9 million (a mid-sized transit agency). Several comments indicated “unknown” and one comment indicated minor to no cost for “schedule adjustments”. In terms of time period, responses varied from no time period to 10 years, or “annually”. Approximately 20 percent of respondents provided operating costs for improvement strategy implementation. Costs ranged from $0 to $1 million, or “100 percent increase”. Several comments indicated “unknown” or no operating cost, and one comment indicated “staff time for analysis”. Another commenter added, “would need to pick specific set of changes, some have occurred during reduced revenue periods”. In terms of time period, responses varied from one year to 10 years, while others commented that this was unknown or not applicable. A couple of responders indicated that costs would be ongoing.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-21 Table 3.8 - Benefits from Before-and-After Studies Benefits % Comments Improved On-Time Performance 10% Approximately 10 percent, of the before-after study undertakers, indicated improved on-time performance ranging from 5-10 percent improvement to 60-80 percent. Of those that commented on the degree of success, responders’ comments varied from “looks promising” or they reported significant, good, and even excellent performance improvements. Reduced Travel Time 4% Responders indicated a labor savings and an operations and customer benefit and success was described by two respondents as good or significant. Reduced Passenger Waiting Time 3% Approximately 3 percent responded to the passenger waiting time reliability benefit reporting no quantified benefit or “half” and indicated a “mixed” or “no” degree of success. Increased Ridership 4% A total of 4 percent responded to the question of increased ridership quantified benefit, indicating community benefits and less decrease in ridership than other routes during a time of fare increases. Responses varied in comments on degree of success ranging from “ok” to doubling the ridership and a comment regarding the inability to “segregate the reliability improvements from other factors”. Fewer Buses Required to Provide Same Level of Service 3% Only 3 percent responded to the question of fewer buses required to provide the same level of service indicating a monetary benefit, labor savings or an unquantified benefit. Comments on degree of success included “little” and “marginal”. Fewer Mechanical Breakdowns 1% Slightly over one percent of respondents answered the question of fewer mechanical breakdowns as an achieved reliability benefit, which was not quantified beyond “better service” with reported success as being “great”. One responder indicated replacing RV’s with heavy duty buses had a “huge” benefit. Fewer Missed Trips 1% Slightly over one percent of respondents answered the question of fewer missed trips. The achieved reliability benefit reported was “better service” with reported success being “good”. Higher Driver Attendance 1% Slightly over one percent of respondents addressed this question, reporting no achieved reliability benefit and no degree of success. Improved Customer Satisfaction 3% Nearly 3 percent responded to improved customer satisfaction, indicating a better view of the agency or improved scores on customer satisfaction surveys as quantified benefits. Overall degree of success was reported as “good, high”, or no response. One responder indicated the inability “to segregate the effect of improved reliability from other factors”. Other 1% Slightly over one percent of respondents answered the question with “Other” achieved reliability benefits, which included improved schedule reliability with a positive degree of success. 3.5 Agreements Approximately 13 percent of respondents indicated that their agency has intergovernmental agreements related to the implementation of fixed-route bus service reliability strategies to improve performance. In particular, these intergovernmental agreements related to projects involving Adaptive Signal Control, Transit Signal Priority maintenance, Express Lanes, Bus on Shoulder program, and Queue Jumps.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-22 3.6 Participation in Demonstration Studies Survey participants were asked if their respective agency would be interested in participating in a demonstration study of one or more fixed-route bus service reliability improvement strategies surfacing from this research. Approximately 39 percent responded “Yes”; 10 percent responded “No”; and 51 percent responded “Maybe”. 3.6.1 Specific Strategies A total of 17 percent of the responding agencies’ representatives indicated a preference on a particular reliability improvement strategy for further evaluation in the Task 6 demonstration study phase of the TCRP A-42 research, while 73 percent responded “No”. Table 3.9 identifies the potential improvement strategies identified by listed agencies for the demonstration studies, including further assessment of bus stop consolidation, parking removal to create full-time or part-time bus lanes, and off-board fare collection and all-door boarding. Table 3.9 - Potential Improvement Strategies for Further Evaluation Potential Reliability Improvement Strategies for Further Evaluation Transit Agency Proposing Location Physical improvement strategies with partner agencies, such as bus on shoulder Airdrie Transit Airdrie, AB Parking enforcement during rush hours Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission Woodbridge, VA Bus stop consolidation Kingston Transit Kingston, ON AVL technology and analysis guidance Norwalk Transit District Norwalk, CT Strategy to improve on-time performance and increase ridership Sarasota County Area Transit Sarasota, FL Active service management and additional ad- hoc service strategies based on real-time AVL data and control center intervention Nashville MTA Nashville, TN Design, implementation and effectiveness of 1) all-door boarding initiatives, 2) transit scheduling and recovery initiatives TransLink (South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority) Vancouver, BC Bus priority on high capacity arterial roadways, including robust enforcement of parking rules Capital District Transportation Authority Albany, NY More on the 2 studies already mentioned Regional Transportation District Denver, CO Off-board fare payment and off-board smartcard value loading Arlington Transit Arlington, VA On-time performance, headway adherence, and travel time variability Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) Orlando, FL Adjusting schedules to reflect actual running time variations between time points (by time of day and day of week) CTTransit Connecticut Statewide

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-23 3.7 International Perspective Responses to the survey from international agencies were predominantly requested from native English-speaking countries and locations where English is the de facto second language. Nevertheless, differences in the contractual and organizational structures of bus transit delivery, together with differences in terminology, mean that international responses were always likely to be harder to obtain than for North America. Moreover, the lack of any existing relationship with the most appropriate contact for response to the survey meant that requests were sent to contact details obtained from the relevant agency’s website, and in some cases, this was a generic email address, which further reduces the likelihood of response. Responses were however received from two transit agencies in England, where the approach to the recording and publication of bus transit reliability data is relatively well developed. This does not mean that the level of bus transit reliability is better than in other jurisdictions but rather that the measures are more universally applied as they are based on a regulatory standard which is applied by a quasi-independent body of transportation commissioners appointed by central government. The standards for punctuality and reliability of bus services in England are as follows:  Frequent services (scheduled interval of 10 minutes or less) – 95% of buses to meet the standard of 6 or more buses within any period of 60 minutes, with no interval of more than 15 minutes.  Timetabled services (scheduled interval of more than 10 minutes) – 95% of buses to operate in a ‘window’ of 1 minute early to 5 minutes late. In general, all local transit agencies rely on these standards for monitoring and influencing bus operator performance. In London, where the regulation of bus services differs from the rest of England, the typical frequency of services is much higher (due to population density and policies intended to restrain car use) and therefore there is much greater prevalence of Excess Waiting Time (EWT) as the measure of performance. ‘Quality of service indicators’ (QSI) are published on a quarterly basis for each individual route (showing a trend for both timekeeping and mileage operated) and consolidated at the district level for each of the 33 London boroughs. Increasingly, Transport for London (TFL) is using bus speed data alongside EWT as a measure of reliability and to understand the impacts of changing road network conditions. Measured bus speeds include time spent stationary (for example at traffic lights and at bus stops) and recent sets of the statistics show that some buses move at an average of just 4.6mph during the morning rush hour. Additionally, TFL began a 10-year, £200,000,000 bus priority program in 2014/5 which will cover various schemes across London, with a particular focus on the Central area where bus speeds are at their lowest. Each priority scheme has its own targets and therefore the program as a whole will acquire varying results.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-24 4.0 Summary A comprehensive survey of fixed-route transit agencies was conducted as part of the TCRP A-42 survey. Eighty-six (86) agencies either fully or partially responded with a mix of small, medium, and large-size agencies in the U.S. and Canada. Unfortunately, a number of the largest U.S. transit agencies did not respond, and the response rate for international transit agencies (outside of North America) was very poor. However, a good number of insights were provided by those agencies who responded to the survey, such that the responses when packaged with the results of the exhaustive literature review provided a framework for classifying and evaluating reliability measures in Task 3, and identifying appropriate reliability improvement strategies in Task 4. Some of the key findings and analysis from the transit agency survey include the following:  Reliability Measurement o On-time performance, headway adherence and missed trips are the most frequently used reliability measures. o Most reliability measures are applied at the system, route and trip level, with only a few calculated at the stop level. o Typically, larger agencies use more reliability measures as compared to smaller agencies. o Most reliability data is collected today using AVL and APC systems. o The time interval for on-time performance most commonly ranges from zero minutes early to five minutes late. o Some agencies collect no reliability data, while agencies with access to multiple types of data are typically from larger metropolitan areas. o Most reliability data collection and reporting is the responsibility of transit agency Planning and Transportation Departments, though many agencies use other departments, such as IT, Budget, Finance, or Scheduling.  Reliability Improvement Strategies o Schedule changes, route realignment and re-training drivers with poor reliability performance are the most popular operational strategies applied to improve reliability, though some agencies have not used any strategies. o Transit signal priority is the most popular transit priority treatment applied to improve reliability. Green extension is the most applied strategy to institute TSP. The majority of transit priority treatments proved more successful in larger agencies, while smaller agencies seemed to have more “mixed” or “unknown” results. o As compared to other strategies, many more agencies responded that they have undertaken strategies to increase the perception of reliability data. Real-time arrival information was reported to be the most effective strategy to affect the perception of reliability to transit riders. o Changing the definition of on-time performance and adding or changing measures are the most common actions to change the definition of reliability.  Demonstration Studies o Most respondents’ agencies have undertaken before-and-after studies to assess the impact of fixed-route bus service reliability improvement, with many seeing improvements to on-time performance, travel time, and ridership. o Eleven potential reliability improvement strategies were identified for potential demonstration studies in Task 6 of the A-42 research, including further assessment of bus stop consolidation, parking removal to create full-time or part-time bus lanes, and off-board fare collection and all-door boarding.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-25 Appendix B-1 – List of Responding Agencies

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-26 Airdrie Transit (Airdrie, Alberta) METRO Regional Transit Authority (Akron, OH) Arlington Transit (ART) (Arlington, VA) Blue Water Area Transportation Commission (Port Huron, MI) Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission (Banff, Alberta) Brantford Transit (Brantford, Ontario) Calgary Transit (Calgary, Alberta) Capital District Transportation Authority (Albany, NY) Capital Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Austin, TX) Capital Area Transit (Harrisburg, PA) Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (Concord, CA) Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Orlando, Florida) Centre Area Transportation Authority (State College, PA) Centro (Birmingham, U.K.) Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (Urbana, IL) Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority (Charleston, SC) Green Mountain Transit (Burlington, VT) City of Niagara Falls Transit Services (Niagara Falls, NY) Coast Mountain Bus Company (Vancouver, Surrey) Corvallis Transit System (Corvallis, OR) Chicago Transit Authority (Chicago, IL) C-TRAN (Clark County, WA) Des Moines Area Regional Transit (Des Moines, IA) Durham Region Transit (Durham, NC) Everett Transit (Everett, WA) Foothill Transit (San Gabriel Valley, CA) Fort Worth Transportation Authority (Fort Worth, TX) Fredericton Transit (Fredericton, New Brunswick) Golden Gate Transit (San Francisco, CA) GoTriangle (Durham, NC) Grand Forks Cities Area Transit (Grand Forks, ND) Greater Dayton RTA (Dayton, OH) Greeley-Evans Transit (Greeley, CO) Guelph Transit (Guelph, Ontario) Halifax Transit (Halifax, Nova Scotia) Hampton Roads Transit (Hampton, VA) Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (Tampa, FL) Houston METRO (Houston, TX) IndyGo (Indianapolis, Indiana) Kingston Transit (Kingston, Ontario, Canada) Kitsap Transit (Seattle, WA) Knoxville Area Transit (Knoxville, TN) Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority (Lehigh County, PA) Link Transit (Wenatchee, WA) Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Livermore, CA) Long Beach Transit (Long Beach, CA) Los Alamos County (Los Alamos, NM) Manatee County Area Transit (Bradenton, FL) Marin Transit (San Rafael, CA) Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (Burnsville, MS) Mississauga Transit (Mississauga, Ontario) Missoula Urban Transportation District (Missoula, MT) Modoc Transportation Agency (Modoc, CA) Montgomery County (Montgomery, MD) Nashville MTA (Nashville, TN)

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-27 North Central Regional Transit District (Espanola, NM) Norwalk Transit District (Norwalk, CT) Pierce Transit (Pierce County, WA) Port Arthur Transit (Port Arthur, TX) Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburg, PA) Porterville Transit (Porterville, CA) Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (Woodbridge, VA) Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO) Riverside Transit Agency (Riverside, CA) Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District (MetroLINK) (Rock County, IL) RTS Monroe (Rochester, NY) San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego, CA) Sarasota County Area Transit (Sarasota, FL) Sault Ste. Marie Transit (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario) Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (Cincinnati, OH) Strathcona County Transit (Sherwood Park, Alberta) Torrance Transit (Torrance, CA) Town of Wasaga Beach (Wasaga Beach, Ontario) Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (Fort Wright, KY) Transport for London (London, England) Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake City, UT) VIA Metropolitan Transit (San Antonio, TX) Victor Valley Transit Authority (Hesperia, CA)

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-28 Appendix B-2 - Survey Form

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-29

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-30

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-31

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-32

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-33

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-34

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-35

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-36

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-37

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-38

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-39

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-40

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-41

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-42

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-43

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-44

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-45

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-46

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-47

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-48

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-49

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-50

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-51

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-52

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-53

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-54

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-55

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-56

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-57

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-58 Appendix B-3 - Open-Ended Survey Responses

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-59 How does your agency define fixed-route bus service reliability?  "100% of scheduled service will be provided 100% of the time.  Arriving at timed stops 3 minutes early to 1 minute late.  90% of trips meet this on-time criteria.  Departing timed stops 0 minutes early to 3 minutes late.  80% of trips meet this on-time criteria."  Develop and maintain an effective network of public transportation services for the benefit of all residents and visitors of the authority area through accessibility, convenience and speed, safety and comfort, efficiency, and responsiveness. METRO’s goal is to provide regular-route transportation to satisfy the major travel needs for the majority of residents in the service area as well as supplementary services for the elderly and disabled. METRO strives to provide a service that is reasonable, direct and effective while minimizing travel time, walking time, and transferring from bus to bus. The services provided are to be designed in a manner that is competitive with the automobile in terms of travel time and cost while utilizing clear and easy to read and remember schedules when headways exceed ten minutes. METRO Regional Transit Authority enhances the quality of life for our community by providing innovative transportation solutions that are safe, dependable, cost-effective, and customer-focused now and into the future.  0 Minutes Early - 0:5:59 Minutes Late. Note that we do not measure on-time performance (OTP) at the last stop on a trip. Nobody ever objected to arriving early!  On-time performance.  On-time performance.  On time.  Bus reliability is measured by the percentage of buses departing major bus stops on time (-1 to +5 minutes). This is measured by Automatic Vehicle Locators, which are GPS systems on every bus.  On-Time Performance at time points along a route - "On-Time" is considered -1 minute to +5 minutes.  "On-time performance is a critical measure of the quality and reliability of services. Buses are considered on-time if they depart a designated time point between 0 seconds earlier or 6 minutes later than scheduled.  Buses should never depart a time point ahead of schedule unless operators are given explicit permission to do so. Permission to depart early should only be provided for destination stops on limited stop or Express services during peak travel hours.  Under normal circumstances, system wide on-time performance should exceed 90% at end-of- line locations, and 75% at time points along the route. Services that fall below the guideline should be examined to determine the factors behind schedule adherence problems, which may include running time problems, traffic conditions, construction, or other issues. "  We would define reliability as getting our customers to their destination safely and on time.  "Miles between road calls should be greater than 18,000 miles between road calls.  On-time performance is measured on every stop for every trip using comprehensive monitoring software. Standards are set for 87% for local service and 75% for express service.  Percentage of scheduled trips missed standard is > 0.25%."  Agency does not have a formal definition. Agency refers to TCRP Reports 165 (TCQSM) and Report 88 (Performance Measurement).  Agency does not have a formal definition of fixed-route bus service reliability. Agency often refers to TCRP Reports 88 and 165 for guidance.  Our goals is to have zero missed trips, 95% on-time performance.  Missed trips and on-time performance.  A bus should not run more than 1 minute early & 5 minutes late.  0 - 5 minutes late is on time at any given time point.  Consistency of service, mainly defined by on-time performance.  On-time performance.  Measurement of on-time performance, elimination of missed trips, travel time variability. For our BRT service, we use headway adherence.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-60  On-time performance and canceled runs.  No definition.  C-TRAN on-time performance standards are designed to be achievable; therefore, the standards vary by service type due to the variability in operating conditions. While deviations from this standard may occur as a result of unexpected events, service that consistently operates outside this standard will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary. Services arriving at time points consistently early will also be reviewed and considered for immediate schedule adjustments.  On-schedule means a bus arrives at time point not more than 5 minutes late and departs from the time point zero minutes ahead of schedule. We define a missed trip as any time the next bus in the headway operates ahead of a given trip (due to mechanical breakdown, accident, incident, or other factor). We pay close attention to missed trips by cause. We are currently in the process of rolling out AVL technology system wide that will provide detailed information on on-time performance and actual running times between time points.  On-time performance is defined as no bus arriving at a time point more than five minutes late, or leaving a time point early. We also measure missed trips, which are defined as any instance in which the next bus in the scheduled headway operates ahead of a given trip.  Our ultimate measure of reliability is adherence to the published schedule, although we do measure and monitor other metrics that may affect this ultimate metric.  For a bus to arrive at each bus stop 0 minute ahead of schedule and no more than 5 minutes late.  On-time performance percentage.  Customer response.  The on-time performance of each route is equal to or more than 85 percent.  We use on-time performance. We do not allow early departures and up to five minutes late.  Schedule adherence, route adherence and customer complaints.  Percentage of trips operating from -1 minute early to 5 minutes late.  1 minute early to 5 minutes late. Measured for all time points and end-of-line only.  We watch the on-time performance and through customer feedback.  We monitor on-time percentage (0 minutes early and 8 minutes late) as well as hours of service interruptions (i.e. how many hours were planned but not provided). Please note we currently identify late as over 8 minutes. We know this is over the national standard, but identified this as our standard due to our BOC buses and the number of wheelchair/walker/ambulatory clients needing the lift due to the stairs. This will be changing over the next several years as we transition to low-floor HD buses and hence our late threshold will change to five minutes.  On time and trip delivered as promised in schedule; headway adherence.  No more than 3 minutes late at scheduled time points.  Departing no more than 2 minutes early or arriving no more than 5 minutes late per the printed public timetable, no missed trips.  TBD.  Service reliability for most fixed-route bus service is defined by on-time performance. Local buses are considered to be on time if they depart 0 minutes early or up to 5 minutes later than the scheduled departure at all scheduled time points. Commuter (Park & Ride) buses are considered to be on time in the AM if they depart from the lot 0 minutes early or up to 5 minutes later than the scheduled departure but have more time points in the PM.  Service provided on time.  On-time performance vs. scheduled timetable.  On-time performance.  All routes operating every day they are scheduled.  Percentage of breakdowns.  Departing scheduled time points within 59 seconds of scheduled time 97% of the time.  We determine bus service reliability based on on-time performance at the scheduled time points for each route. We also view it based on whether the routes are maintaining the proper headway that have been set on a route level basis. We examine whether there are missed trips due to non- adherence to the headways and whether there is overcrowding requiring additional trips/vehicles.  Less than 1% missed runs and 94% on time (no more than 6 minutes late at any time point).

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-61  A variety of measures including OTP, vehicle reliability, and customer satisfaction.  Monitor bus pull-out records closely, plus other performance measures including on-time performance and vehicle breakdown.  Never early, and no more than five minutes late - as far as it depends upon us.  Getting buses out on time every day.  90% on-time performance at major stops and transfer hubs and <1% of trips missed or removed from daily schedule. Late defined as more than 5 min after scheduled departure, and early defined as anything before scheduled departure time (i.e., 0 min).  N/A.  "Our agency only has a local Dial a Ride service within a 10 mile radius of Alturas and there are (3) Intercity services from Alturas - Reno, NV, Alturas - Redding, CA and Alturas - Klamath Falls, OR."  On-time performance 87%.  "The primary measure is on-time performance as recorded by our AVL system. Our on-time window is between 59 seconds early and 5 minutes 59 seconds late.  We also tracked missed service (trips, hours, and miles) as a percentage of schedule service, as well as accidents/incidents and vehicle breakdowns."  Zero minutes before scheduled arrival and no more than 10 minutes after scheduled arrival.  Fixed-route reliability is based on a number of factors, most notably on-time performance and the provision of service to all routes. Reliability is achieved by the proper maintenance of vehicles and an adequate number of spare vehicles to ensure the vehicles needed for pull-out are ready. This goes along with the proper scheduling of drivers and utility (spare) drivers. There is zero tolerance for service delays or missed trips. On-time performance is based on adherence to the printed schedule.  On-Time Performance; departure based; -1 to +4 minutes = on-time.  All buses must run within 5 minutes of the scheduled time.  Route level on-time performance, system level miles between road failures, system out of service.  Wait time and headway adherence.  On-time performance; leaving the first stop on time.  -1 to +5 min within schedule is on-time.  On-time performance. 30 secs ahead to 5 min 59 secs after scheduled departure time = on time. Target 85% on time.  On-time performance is defined by a vehicle's departure no earlier than one (1) minute and no later than five (5) minutes beyond what has been scheduled. The standard for on-time performance is to ensure than 85% of all trips are completed within this criteria. Metro Link’s average on-time performance is 93%.  We define it with goals regarding some key indicators. o -On-time performance o -Canceled trips o -Regulation maneuvers  We utilize a CAD AVL system for reporting departure based on-time performance from published/scheduled time points. The window we use to determine a deviation from on-time is 02:00 minutes early to 05:00 minutes late. We have both quarterly and an annual goal for the system as a whole.  Primarily through on-time performance measurement.  5 minutes or more is late.  1 minute or more is early.  On-time performance is the primary measure of fixed-route reliability. We also monitor missed pull-outs and missed trips as additional measures of service reliability.  We have a target of 95% reliability for connections and on-time performance.  Fixed-route bus service reliability is defined through travel time, service delivery, safety and security, and capacity.  On-time @ stops on either route.

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-62  Service reliability is defined internally as the degree to which service is operated and provided to customers in a manner that is consistent with the service schedule and service level expectations. TransLink is in the process of updating our Transit Service Guidelines in order to provide customers and our local government partners about our definition and expectations for bus service reliability. Our existing guidelines are considered outdated.  Never early and 0 to 4 minutes and 59 seconds from the scheduled arrival time in on time. Five minutes is considered late.  OTP & Wait assessment.  On-time performance; road calls per thousand miles; complete pull-out. What specific performance measures does your agency use to identify fixed-route bus service reliability at a system level? [Other]  Farebox Recovery.  Our contractor, of course, does measure attendance, added trips, and other factors. Because County staff produce the bus schedules (not driver runs), we do review travel time variability and where OTP is an issue, ability to adhere to headways.  Passenger miles.  Hours of Service Interruption.  Provide only DAR and Intercity Services.  Customer feedback. What specific performance measures does your agency use to identify fixed-route bus service reliability at a route level? [Other]  We record every customer comment by issue type (Courtesy, Safety, etc.), route, and operator number. We also measure deployment of the WC ramp by route. We have not identified a pattern regarding accidents by route.  Route performance in passengers per revenue hour.  Hours of Service Interruption.  None yet, we are in the process of implementing a new AVL system to allow us to collect some of this data.  Intercity Services and Dial a Ride Services are provided.  Pull out adherence.  Customer feedback.  Courtesy hold times at pulsed transfer locations (3 min max). What specific performance measures does your agency use to identify fixed-route bus service reliability at a trip level? [Other]  I can recall one instance in which OTP became an issue for one particular trip, which we solved by adjusting the timetable. We have found several instances in which OTP varied by driver run - by a bus operator who just was not as competent as the others on the route.  Trip times, or time point-to-time point analysis.  Passengers per one-way trip.  Provide Dial a Ride is on a first come first serve basis with (3) Intercity Services that are reservation required.  Monitoring roadway traffic.  Planning reviews routes at trip and time point level to develop schedules that meet OTP target. No formal measures reported at trip level. What specific performance measures does your agency use to identify fixed-route bus service reliability at a stop level? [Other]  In the example cited above - one trip that always ran late, the bus had almost 30 people boarding at one stop on one trip. An adult ESL class had let out. Solution was to have one trip come by just after class let out - students faster by foot would catch it - and the next bus would gather the rest

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-63 of the class. Bus operators alert us to a poorly placed or difficult-to-serve bus stop location - and to traffic signals needing timing adjustment or a left turn signal.  Currently the system wide on-time performance is reported by measuring the percentage of buses departing major bus stops on time (-1 to +5 minutes).  Dwell Time.  Passengers per day and by time of day.  This metric only applies to time points, not all stops.  Provide Dial a Ride on a first come first serve basis, along with (3) Intercity Services that are reservation based.  Time point on-time performance.  Planning reviews routes at trip and time point level to develop schedules that meet OTP target. No formal measures reported at trip level. What is your agency’s source of reliability data? [Other]  Question 14 should be revised for contract operations such as ours. My response assumes that Audit refers to the State or FTA and Planning refers to the jurisdiction. Fourteen should also allow for multiple actions. "Transportation" (the contractor) is responsible to ensure that the APC and farebox data downloads and to notify us and the AVL contractor that buses are reporting. Planning (the County) can also see that these functions work. Both should be analyzing the data.  Monthly Operating and Maintenance Reports.  See above comment. We are just starting to collect AVL and APC data for all trips on all routes every day.  NOTE: We have only recently implemented AVL and APC technology.  Dispatching information.  Farebox transaction data.  All mileage, riders, fares etc. are done manually with a driver manifest and transferred daily to a spreadsheet.  AVL for directly operated; on-street manual observations for contracted service (AVL for both by end of 2016). Do you have any comments regarding the success or failure of any the strategies to change definitions or measurement that were implemented?  We will add a new feature, which most systems already do, in the run cut & service change coming in late August. We will add a long break for long runs through a variety of techniques. These can be used by operators for any purpose. Sometimes, the actual recovery/layover time on some routes is regularly less than scheduled and insufficient. The two biggest causes of service delays are unscheduled bathroom breaks and a highway accident in the core area that causes cascading backups throughout the highways and arterials feeding into that core.  We monitor routes in two very different ways: 1) Normal fixed-route time point-based services and 2) MetroRapid (skip stop BRT Lite) headway-based services, but both have the same standard for on-time performance. This leads to BRT buses laying over or dragging the street to maintain proper spacing rather than running as a faster and more reliable service than standard local routes. We have struggled to find a way to define on-time performance for the headway-based routes in a way that would better our services from the customer perspective.  Agency is just beginning a brief evaluation of current definitions and measurement of on-time performance.  See earlier comments regarding the quantum increase in on-time performance and running time data that will result from system wide deployment of AVL.  We try to let passengers know of major events in downtown that put everything on detour. But that is pretty much every weekend from March through October.  At one point in time, [Transit Agency A] had an incentive in the union contract for OTP. OTP reached as high as 98%, clearly an unrealistic level. By the time OTP was revised, [Transit Agency A]'s credibility had been destroyed by the unrealistically high number. Likewise, with the implementation of APCs / AVLs, the OTP was reported in the 65 - 75% range. While this was

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-64 more realistic, it was poorly perceived. Finally, [Transit Agency A]’s APCs measure to the second, meaning that we have buses showing as departing early when they leave early by one second. This rigid adherence to untouched data from a previous management leads to lower overall OTP, lower overall perception based upon the data, and incredulous riders who do not understand why we are in effect penalizing ourselves.  The adoption of AVL technology has improved the reliability of the service due to better data tracking and supervisory oversight.  No problems, we are a small town with limited traffic.  We went from setting runtimes with an average/median to using a 0 + 5 window in 2015. Therefore, we shift most of early passages to in window or late passages. We improve overall on- time performance but we had a hard time with driver's change management.  Impact unknown as change was implemented April 2016.  TransLink and CMBC recently adopted the IBBG definition of on-time reliability (-1/+3 minutes, measured at timing points). This allows for comparison and benchmarking against other IBBG peers. This definition generally yields lower on-time performance outcomes compared to other definitions used (e.g., -2/+2 minutes, no later than 2 minutes late). TransLink is currently updating our Transit Service Guidelines which will establish new route level on-time reliability thresholds (e.g., % of trips that should operate on time).  "We added wait assessment for two frequent routes.  We would like to try a reduced goal for certain special events. (Fiesta road closures in downtown for our hub-&-spoke system)." Please indicate specific reliability strategies tested in the before/after studies.  We compare OTP before and after for that route.  Before/after studies were conducted for queue jumps, transit signal priorities, bus-only shoulder, signal optimization etc.  Shifting all main line services from Congress Ave. to Guadalupe & Lavaca in Transit Priority Lanes.  Studies to document on-time performance improvements.  Changes to bus schedules and service restoration and monitoring strategies.  Generally, just changes in on-time performance over similar time periods. I wish we could do more detailed and nuanced evaluations.  TSP.  "Examination of on-time performance at the first timepoint of every directional trip.  Also have bus stop consolidation project for 5 routes underway."  TSP - Study currently underway. Also, measuring OTP before and after schedule changes and other operational improvements.  We monitor and assess on-time performance after schedule adjustments to evaluate the effectiveness of the adjustments. Additional adjustments are made, as needed.  Removing loop route and adding additional route for coverage. Data shows almost double the ridership due to this strategy.  In 2013, an internal study was completed to evaluate the general effectiveness of dedicated bus- only lanes implemented on the Marine Drive corridor around the Lions Gate Bridge in the District of North Vancouver. Construction of the improvements was completed in 2011.  Express routes and interlining. What were the achieved reliability benefits? Indicate all benefits which apply and quantify the benefit (e.g. monetary, travel time savings, on-time performance improvement), as well as any comment on the degree of success. [Improved on-time performance][Degree of Success]  We might be able to do that for the 41 weekend/weeknight change  Significant  Good  High  Excellent

Developing a Guide to Bus Transit Service Reliability Appendix B – Transit Agency Survey Report B-65  Looks promising  Up to 10% improvement in OTP  Yes Please specify and provide a copy of the agreement if possible to the email address indicated at the end of the survey.  VDOT permission was required for the queue-jump.  MOU with municipalities regarding maintenance and upkeep to Transit Signal Priority.  DfT regulations see Government website.  Improvements for Adaptive Signal Control with TSP are now being pursued, but are not yet implemented.  Transit Signal Priority.  Community Transit Swift Service was implemented in 2009 and has eased the ridership demand along the Evergreen Way Corridor. This has improved the on-time performance of Everett Transits local service along that corridor.  Metro Express Lanes Program.  TSP IGAs.  Bus on shoulder program overseen by Virginia Dept. of Transportation.