This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Transcription

1 November 2013 i

2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

3

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ES Introduction Study Process Objectives of the Study Peer Agency Review Panel Recommendations of Peer Agencies Service Provision Goals Service Types Key Local Bus Qualifications Service Standards Minimum Stop Spacing Application of Standards Performance Measures Data Collection Process Service Change Process Service Planning Working Group Service Change Timeframe Phase II - Next Steps Appendix A... A1 Appendix B... A2 Appendix C... A6 November 2013 i

7 Executive Summary In coordination with representatives from member agencies, initiated a process to establish agency transit service and capital standards and performance measures. In addition to the collaborative participation of member cities, also received input from a panel of peer agencies with experience in the formation and implementation of transit service standards and performance measures. The scope of s transit service standards and performance measures effort requires the completion of the process through two phases. The initial phase, which is documented in this summary considered elements critical to the establishment of transit service standards including the identification of service provision goals, service types (including minimum operating standards for each), performance measures, and the process for evaluating and recommending service changes. The second phase will focus on service implementation standards, transit facilities and fleet standards, and additional considerations for performance measurement criteria, thresholds, and policies. Service Provision Goals staff, working with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of member agency representatives, drafted five tangible goals related to values viewed as important for the region that were used in development of transit service standards and performance measures for funded and operated services. The five goals established through this process include: Implement services identified in the Regional Transportation Plan in consideration of a performance based system. Give high priority to services that focus on the transit-dependent population. Provide transit service that is desirable as an alternate mode to automobile travel. Improve s overall performance and promote the long-term financial stability of the agency. Promote expansion that builds existing services to meet standards and focuses new services in key areas, including higher population density areas, locations with limited auto availability, residential geographies with lower incomes, and the locations of major activity centers. Service Types Multiple types of transit services can be applied to help meet a transit provider s objectives or serve a target market. It is important to identify transit service types due to differences in the expected level of service (service standards) and performance (performance measurement) of each service type. Traditionally, has identified fixed-route transit services into three categories: Local Bus, Express/RAPID November 2013 ES-1

8 Bus (commuter service), and Light Rail Transit. Through a collaborative planning process new subcategories of transit services offered by were defined as part of this initial phase of work. Each service type, including Rural Connector, Community Circulator, Local Bus, Key Local Bus, Limited Stop Peak, Limited Stop All- Day, Commuter Express, and Light Rail Transit, is accompanied by service standards and performance measures. Service Standards Recommended transit service standards, including frequency, span of service, and days of operation were identified for each transit service type. Transit service standards assist in the general design of services but also provide for a more consistent and reliable regional transit system for passengers. The recommended service standards assigned to each service type are based on the anticipated demand (number of riders), markets served (e.g. all day travel market versus commuter market), and proven industry practices employed by peer regions. For example, routes identified as Key Local Bus routes have higher demand, therefore they have a higher minimum recommended standard for frequency (every 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 minutes off-peak) compared to Local Bus routes (every 30 minutes all day) which have lower general demand. Recommended service standards for each service type are displayed in Table ES-1. ES-1. Recommended Service Standards by Transit Service Type Service Type Minimum Headway or Daily Trips Minimum Span Week / Sat / Sun Minimum Operating Days Dial-a-Ride (ADA) NA ADA service shall be available throughout the same hours and days as fixed route service Rural Connector 4 trips inbound / 4 trips NA Mon Fri outbound Community/Circulator 30 min 12 hrs / 0 hrs / 0 hrs Mon Fri Local Bus 30 min* 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun Key Local Bus 15 min peak / 30 min base* 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun Limited Stop Peak 4 trips AM / 4 trips PM NA Mon Fri Limited Stop All-Day Headways same as LRT, up to 2X Peak 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs (Same as LRT) Mon Fri Commuter Express 4 trips AM / 4 trips PM NA Mon Fri Light Rail Transit 12 min peak / 20 min base 18 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun *60 min early morning and late night service November 2013 ES-2

9 In addition, recommended standards were prepared for bus stop spacing. Transit routes that provide localized service typically have stops more frequently spaced in contrast with limited stop services, where stops are made at greater distances. The stop spacing recommendations (shown table ES-2) represent minimum spacing distances, and in many cases are reflective of existing conditions. However, where development patterns are of higher or lower density than typical within the region, an exception to the recommended stop spacing standard may be warranted. ES-2. Recommended Minimum Stop Spacing Service Type Base* Dial-a-Ride (ADA) NA Rural Connector NA Community/Circulator** ¼ Mile Local Bus ¼ Mile Key Local Bus ¼ Mile Limited Stop Peak 1 Mile Limited Stop All-Day 1 Mile Commuter Express 4 Maximum Inbound Stops Light Rail Transit 1 Mile *There can be stops spaced up to 1/8 of a mile in High Density Areas **Some circulators have flag stops so spacing may vary Performance Measures annually publishes the Transit Performance Report (TPR), a detailed record of information on system and route-level performance from the previous fiscal year. As with service standards, tracking the performance of the transit system is an important method to evaluate the effectiveness of transit services provided. On a preliminary basis, performance measures included in the TPR are recommended to be carried forward. Through input received from the peer panel and member agencies, three additional performance measures were identified, including on-time performance, vehicle revenue hours, and boardings per revenue hour. Table ES-3 identifies the recommended Phase I performance measures. November 2013 ES-3

10 ES-3. Recommended Performance Measures Measure Contained In TPR Route Level Service Type Level Total Boardings On-time Performance (%) Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Boardings/Revenue Mile Boardings/Revenue Hour Average Fare Farebox Recovery Rate (%) Operating Cost / Revenue Mile Operating Cost / Boarding Subsidy / Boarding Service Change Process As part of the transit service standards and performance measures development process, a more comprehensive process to address how service changes should occur was drafted. These changes include the formation of a Service Planning Working Group and modifications to the time periods during which service adjustments will be implemented. Beginning in October 2014, major transit service adjustments will occur in April and October, rather than in January and July as they are administered today. This modification also adjusts the time period in which member agencies may submit proposed service changes. The proposed service change process, which focuses on performance accountability, includes an annual route performance analysis, and a Title VI equity analysis for qualified service changes. Application of Service Standards and Performance Measures Service standards and performance measures will initially be applied through the establishment of the Service Planning Working Group (SPWG). Using the service standards and performance measures as a planning tool, the SPWG will participate in the review and evaluation of transit services using the appropriate performance measures, while service standards will be incorporated into the SPWG s recommendations with respect to existing and planned future transit services. During Phase II, the application of these service standards and performance measures will be further defined. Next Steps The process for developing s Regional Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures was divided into two phases. Board approval of Phase I elements as discussed and recommended in this report will conclude the Phase I process. However, there are several items that need to be addressed in Phase II. These include: November 2013 ES-4

11 1. Identify service implementation standards 2. Refine performance measures and develop targets for performance measures that are consistent with goals and objectives. 3. Define capital facility and fleet standards 4. Refine service standards for Phase I (local bus and key local bus) and additional service types (streetcar, commuter rail, vanpool) 5. Develop implementation process for standards and measures These items will be evaluated and analyzed during Phase II, anticipated to be complete in early After the completion of Phase II, s regional transit service standards and performance measures will be updated regularly (as appropriate) to assure they are consistent with the evolving goals of. November 2013 ES-5

12 1.0 Introduction Transit service standards and performance measures represent rules and guidelines by which the performance of the region s transit system may be evaluated, and decisions regarding transit investments may be prioritized and measured. In order to provide highlevel transit service that is affordable to passengers and taxpayers in the greater Phoenix metropolitan region, tradeoffs are required between the costs and the benefits of providing the service. Service Standards will provide a formal mechanism for making these tradeoffs in an objective and equitable way, and provide both decision-makers and the public with the necessary data and evidence when discussing routing, scheduling, and service change decisions. This document constitutes the initial report documenting the first phase of a multi-phase process for the development and implementation of transit service standards and performance measures for. The initial phase considered a variety of elements critical to the establishment of service standards, including the identification of service types, minimum operating standards for each service type, initial performance measures, and the process for evaluating and recommending service changes (when necessary). The following sections of this document describe the work that was completed in this initial phase and the next steps in the development of service standards and performance measures during Phase II of the project. 1.1 Study Process On February 16, 2012, the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Board of Directors voted to amend the intergovernmental agreement between the RPTA and Rail, Inc. to employ a single Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and function as a unified transit agency. However, both agencies still operate as two separate legal entities and report to two separate Boards of Directors. As part of the joint agency s goals, the CEO was tasked with furthering the regionalization of public transit by the development of transit service standards and performance measures to ensure that all transit modes meet established agency transit objectives and operational baselines. To achieve this goal, the Planning and Development Division initiated this effort in close coordination with representatives from member agencies. Another influencing factor in the development and adoption of performance measures and service standards is the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) federal transportation reauthorization bill. MAP-21 furthers several important goals, including safety, state of good repair, performance, and program efficiency. MAP-21 gives FTA significant new authority to strengthen the safety of public transportation systems throughout the United States. The act also puts new emphasis on restoring November

13 and replacing our aging public transportation infrastructure by establishing a new needs-based formula program and new asset management requirements. In addition, it establishes performance-based planning requirements that align Federal funding with key goals and tracks progress towards these goals. 1 These requirements will be integrated into the Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures (TSSPM) following guidance from the United State Department of Transportation (USDOT). This effort will be coordinated with the region s metropolitan planning organization, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). This document provides regional public transit service standards and performance measures to evaluate both current and proposed service and capital investments that include any PTF funds. In addition these standards will be utilized to evaluate services operated by. Local transit providers and jurisdictions participated in the development of the regional transit service standards and performance measures and are encouraged to adopt them for all transit services regardless of funding source. 1.2 Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study are: To develop a series of transit service standards that guide the development of existing and future transit service operations. To develop measures that can be utilized to assess the performance of existing and future transit services. To develop regional processes for implementing, modifying and constructing transit services and facilities. To provide transit system performance information to policy makers, member agencies, and the public in an integrated format. To assist in this effort, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was formed with representatives from partner organizations and member jurisdictions, the Maricopa Association of Governments, and the Arizona Department of Transportation. The TAG generally met monthly to provide guidance and input on the study process. The TAG held its first meeting on December 4, At this meeting, due to the complexity of the project, the TAG determined that a two phase study would be undertaken with first phase deliverables presented to the RPTA Board in mid In order to meet this ambitious timeline, the TAG focused on the operational characteristics of selected transit modes during Phase I. In Phase II, which will be undertaken after the conclusion of Phase I, the TAG will address transit modes not 1 Federal Transit Administration, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21) A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions, Summary Publication, August, 2012 November

14 discussed in the previous phase, create service implementation standards, and transit service standards and performance measures of transit capital investments. Phase II will also explore the condition of ridership data sources; refine the definition and application of proposed performance measures as well as the formulation of outcome performance measures that assess progress towards Board goals and objectives. Phase I of the study will be completed and submitted to the Board for adoption in Fall of 2013, Phase II of the study will be completed in late Items addressed by the TAG in the development of this Phase I report include the following: Development of a summary matrix of the current contract performance measures utilized by and its operating partners, such as on-time performance. (Refer to Appendix A for the summary matrix) Development of goals and measurable objectives to guide the transit service standards/performance measures process. Development of a standards and performance matrix of other public transit operators in the nation and compare with s current standards and measures that could be used to compare and contrast what the agency is currently doing in the area of transit service standards and performance measurements. (Refer to Appendix B for the summary matrix) Conducted a peer agency evaluation to assist in identifying challenges and opportunities faced during the development of similar planning efforts. Identified and defined transit service types (e.g. Local bus, Express bus, Light Rail). Development of goals for the provision of the following: o Development of service standards, addressing minimum headways, minimum spans of service, operating days, and bus stop spacing standards, recognizing that Phase II may adjust the service standards. o Preparation of an initial list of performance measures, recognizing additional refinement will be conducted during Phase II of this effort. o Application of service standards and performance measures to existing and future service. November

16 2.0 Peer Agency Review Panel During the initial stage of the planning effort, held a two-day peer agency workshop attended by representatives from western region peer transit agencies directly involved in the development of transit service standards and performance measures for their respective agencies. The intent of the peer panel was to provide input on the region s transit operations planning effort based on their unique experiences. The panel recommended key measures in order to ensure completion of a transit service standards and performance measures document with tangible implementation methods. The peer panel members are identified in Table 1. Table 1: Peer Agency Participants Agency City/State Name Title Dallas Area Rapid Dallas, Texas Gary Hufstedler Senior Manager Transit King County Transit Seattle, Washington Lisa Shafer Strategic Planning and Analysis Regional Transportation Denver, Colorado Jeff Becker Senior Manager of Service Development District San Diego politan Transit San Diego, California Michael Daney Contract Services Administrator (formerly Transit Operations) System Tri-Met Portland, Oregon Ken Zatarain Director Service Planning & Scheduling Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, Utah Hal Johnson Manager of Project Development The first day of the peer agency forum brought together staff from, the City of Phoenix, and MAG to provide the peer panel with background information related to transit in the Phoenix metropolitan region. This information included an overview of the evolution of transit service, funding structure, transit operations, responsibilities of regional and local agencies, and future efforts per the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Additionally, the peer panel was provided a status update of the Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures tasks completed up to that point. The peer panel was then tasked with collaborating to prepare a presentation outlining thoughts and recommendations to be presented to the TAG. On the second day of the workshop, the peer panel presented transit service standards and performance measure findings and recommendations to the TAG. Several key recommendations provided the group with focus areas necessary to complete the Phase I effort. The peer panel also provided insight on necessary short-term regional transit operations investments that need to be considered to ensure that the developed November

17 transit service standards and performance measures truly guide current and future operations planning and investments. 2.1 Recommendations of Peer Agencies The peer panel review resulted in the following recommendations: Transit Service Standards / Performance Measures are a Business-Like Effort In terms of transit service operations and system planning, the peer panel recommended that decisions and investments need to be based on a well laid-out plan. For instance, each of the agencies noted the importance of having agency goals and values upon which transit operations decisions are made. For example, Utah Transit Authority (UTA) considers future planning efforts to meet the agency s goal of operating a transit system that falls within three-quarters of a mile of each resident in their planning area. These goals and values can be identified in the transit agency s strategic plan and serve as guiding principles for adopted transit service standards and performance measures. In addition to following agency goals, it is important to understand the specific transit market. In some cases, market studies were performed to determine potential ridership and future services are tied back to identified needs. Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures should be Simplified At the beginning of this planning effort, the TAG developed a large number of transit service standards that was largely based on standards identified as important with various transit agencies. The peer panel recommended that only a few standards with accompanying performance measures should be developed, especially considering that had proposed to complete this effort in two phases. The benefit of having a limited number of standards is that the region can focus on a select few that tie directly into agency goals, whereas numerous standards could result in too many deficient services. Value of Data should not be Underestimated One of the biggest challenges that service and operations planning faces is insufficient or inaccurate data. Data can be used for items such as detailed ridership analyses, funding responsibilities, and optimal bus stop locations. The peer panel unanimously agreed that their transit service standards and performance measures would have little value if it weren t for accurate, comprehensive data. Data supplies the decision makers with concrete evidence of the status of the transit system and reveals where transit capital and operations require attention and where investments could be focused. However, the peer panel fully disclosed that to get accurate data, a substantial financial November

18 commitment must be made. Automated passenger counters (APCs) were offered as an important tool, but it was stressed that these require ongoing resources to ensure technical accuracy, data collection, and analysis. Performance Measures Serve Two Important Purposes The first purpose of performance measures is to assess whether current services are reaching, exceeding, or falling short of established targets. Having attainable and defined targets in place allow decision makers to make informed choices based on a data-driven approach to transit service planning. The goal of the TSSPM is to define and make recommendations to the Boards of Directors on the targets used to evaluate the performance of the Phoenix metropolitan region s transit system. An additional important takeaway related to this discussion focused on overperforming services. The peer agency stressed that transit agencies are often uniquely focused on improving deficient services that they assume well-performing services are operating at an acceptable level. However the panel noted that agencies should not neglect well-performing services as these are the ones that often require schedule adjustments, increased frequency, and other improvements to serve a high-volume travel shed. Secondly, the peer panel provided advice related to the introduction of new transit services derived from transit service standards and performance measures. It was recommended that collaborate with member agencies to develop a ranking process with criteria focusing on adopted transit service standards, routes identified in the RTP, funding availability, and populations served. With an established process in place, communities are aware of regionally agreed-upon baseline requirements for service implementation. Although performance measures may be irrelevant for new services at the onset, projected performance should meet targets within an established timeframe. The peer panel differed in terms of their respective evaluation periods, but it was generally acknowledged it was up to to determine an appropriate evaluation period (e.g., up to 6, 12, 24 months) and the consequences or mitigation if targets are not met. Reporting Performance to Decision-Makers is Crucial In addition to monitoring the performance of services as they relate to transit service standards and performance measures, the peer panel noted there should be some formal schedule so that the committees such as the Regional Transit Advisory Group (RTAG), Transit Management Committee (TMC), Rail Management Committee (RMC), and the Boards are informed of transit service performance on regular intervals. With respect to s Board organization, members of the TAG noted the November

19 importance of this step considering that their Board members would likely have interest on how services in their communities are performing. Maintain Flexibility in the Development and Implementation of Standards One of the most important takeaways from the peer panel was the recommendation that needs to frequently monitor established transit service standards and performance measures. Certain circumstances may require that established standards and measures be adjusted; therefore it was recommended that they are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure applicability and relevance. As previously noted, the recommendations assisted in refocusing and streamlining the transit service standards and performance measures effort. Additionally, the peer panel provided several thoughts related to the implementation and reporting of service performance that are embedded in this document and are in s short-term objectives. November

20 3.0 Service Provision Goals As identified in the Peer Transit Agency Panel section, transit agency representatives recommended establishing agency-wide goals to guide transit service provision, which would be evaluated through the performance measures process. staff, working with the TAG drafted five tangible goals related to values viewed as important for the region that were used in development of transit service standards and performance measures. These goals were summarized and presented to the Board in June 2013 for consideration. The goals identified herein are intended for funded and operated services. The five goals established through this process include: Implement services identified in the RTP in consideration of a performance based system. Give high priority to services that focus on the transit-dependent population 2. Provide transit service that is desirable as an alternate mode to automobile travel. Improve s overall performance and promote the long-term financial stability of the agency. Promote expansion that builds existing services to meet standards and focuses new services in key areas, including the following: Higher population density Limited auto availability Low income Major activity centers 2 Transit Dependent Population is currently defined as low income and zero auto ownership households. November

22 4.0 Service Types Through the planning process, transit services are typically designed to meet specific mobility objectives or serve distinct markets (i.e. serve commuter work trips, connect neighborhoods to local area destinations, provide communities access to urban services, etc.). There are multiple types of transit services that can be applied to help meet a transit provider s objectives or serve the target market. It is essential to identify distinct transit service types due to a fundamental difference in the expected level of service (service standards) and performance (performance measurement) of each route. For example, a route connecting a low-population rural area to urban services would likely require fewer trips to meet community needs and be expected to carry fewer passengers than a route that serves a densely populated low-income and lowauto ownership urban/suburban area. Traditionally, the region has identified fixed-route transit services into three categories for performance measurement purposes as identified in the Transit Performance Report: local bus, express/rapid bus (commuter service), and light rail transit. These services provide a basic structure for a regional transit system; however, the region has a much more complex array of transit services. Through coordination with the TAG, eight service types have been defined for the region during Phase I. Each service type, along with a brief description and definition of the service, is provided in Table 2. Service Type Rural Connector Community Circulator Local Bus Table 2: Phase I Transit Service Types Description Provides rural areas with connections to urban services. Service typically operates in flex mode to offer required complementary paratransit service within 0.75 miles of the route alignment. Passenger stops may be fixed by location or offered on a flag or hail basis. Generally operates in neighborhoods or activity centers (i.e. central business district, historic town center, etc.) providing connectivity to local area resources /amenities, providing area circulation, or connecting to fixed local route service. Routes are typically short in length and may offer circuitous routing to provide direct connections to local area destinations. Passenger stops may be fixed by location or offered on a flag or hail basis. Traditional fixed-route transit bus service that generally operates on arterial roadways. Except where there is limited development, passenger stops are typically posted on frequent intervals to maximize passenger access. The generally operates on a grid system (north-south/east-west routes) that facilitates transfers to reach destinations. November

23 Service Type Key Local Bus Limited Stop Peak Limited Stop All-Day Commuter Express Light Rail Transit Description Similar to local bus service, but located in corridors that are expected to meet a higher level of performance based on proximity to transit dependent populations (low-income and low-auto ownership) and demonstrated performance. New local routes should be classified as a local bus, until performance at the Key Local Bus level is demonstrated. Please see an expanded description in the Key Local Bus Qualifications Section. Limited stop peak service generally operates on arterial roadways during peak periods with a limited or infrequent number of passenger stops. The limited stop configuration provides for increased operating speeds. This service type can be operated as an overlay service within a corridor or roadway that is served by one or more other service types. Characterized by limited stop, high frequency, all-day service. Generally operates on arterial roadways with a limited or infrequent number of passenger stops. The limited stop configuration provides for increased operating speeds. This service can be operated as an overlay service within a corridor or roadway that is served by one or more other service types as demonstrated by servicedemand studies. Transit service designed to serve commuter markets. Typically operates during peak periods with a limited number of inbound passenger stops (express), connecting residential areas or suburbs/cities with regional employment centers. This service uses park-and-ride facilities as primary inbound passenger access points and freeway high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV) or other fixed/semi-exclusive guideways where available. A high capacity rail transit technology operating on a fixed or semi-exclusive guideway. Generally serves moderate to high density urban/suburban areas providing connections to regional employment centers and other major activity centers. 4.1 Key Local Bus Qualifications With the exception of the Key Local Bus service type, the service types are defined by operating characteristics or transit technology. Key Local Bus routes are proposed to be defined in part by their operating characteristics, but also by three (3) distinct qualifiers: Low-income population served Zero-auto ownership households served Past transit performance The process for determining key local routes includes comparing the percentage of lowincome persons and zero-auto households within a quarter-mile of each local route with the average percentage of low-income persons and zero-auto households for all local bus routes in the system. 3 In addition, the identification of high volume routes (routes with more than 1 million annual weekday boardings) provides a third metric by which local bus routes could be identified as Key Local Bus routes. In several 3 Data on income and auto ownership is retrieved from the U.S. Census Bureau, using the most recent data available. November

24 instances, routes may meet one or two of the proposed criteria; however, to be classified as a key local route, all three criteria are expected to be achieved. This methodology for determining key local routes yields a total of 15 Key Local Bus routes, which represents approximately 28% of all local routes. A complete list of the local routes (January 2013) and the routes proposed to be classified as key local routes under the criteria are presented in Table 3. During Phase II, will refine the service type definitions and consider the incorporation of route segment analysis as part of the methodology for defining key local routes, dependent upon the availability of reliable boardings data. Figure 1 illustrates the 15 Key Local Bus routes. Route Name Table 3: Phase I Proposed Key Local Routes Above Average Zero-Auto Households Above Average Low-Income Population 1,000,000 Annual Weekday Boardings 1 Key Local Route 0 Central Ave X X X X 1 Washington St X 3 Van Buren X X X X 7 7th St X X X X 8 7th Ave X X 10 Roosevelt X X 12 12th St X 13 Buckeye Rd 15 15th Ave X X 16 16th St X X X X 17 McDowell Rd X X X X 17A McDowell Rd 19 19th Ave X X X X 27 27th Ave X X X X 29 Thomas X X X X 30 University Dr X X 35 35th Ave X X X X 39 40th St 40 Main St 41 Indian School X X X X 43 43rd Ave X X 44 44th St 45 Broadway X X X X 48 48th St X X 50 Camelback X X X X 51 51st Ave 52 Roeser 56 Priest Dr 59 59th Ave X X 60 Bethany Home X X November

25 Route Name Above Average Zero-Auto Households Above Average Low-Income Population 1,000,000 Annual Weekday Boardings 1 Key Local Route 61 Southern X X X X 62 Hardy Dr 65 Mill Ave 66 Mill Ave 67 67th Ave X 70 Glendale/24th St X X X X 72 Scottsdale Rd X X X X 77 Baseline 80 Northern 81 Hayden Rd X 90 Dunlap X 96 Dobson 104 Alma School Rd 106 Peoria Ave X X 108 Elliot Dr 112 Arizona Ave 120 Mesa Dr 122 Cactus Rd 128 Stapley Dr 136 Gilbert Rd 138 Thunderbird Rd 154 Greenway Rd 156 Chandler Blvd 170 Bell Rd 184 Power Rd 186 Union Hills Dr st Ave November

26 Figure 1: Key Local Bus Routes November

28 5.0 Service Standards Transit service standards provide an objective and impartial set of criteria by which the performance of transit services may be evaluated to make informed decisions regarding the allocation of transit resources. At their core, service standards are a policy tool that reflects the goals and objectives of the Board in providing transit service across the Phoenix region. The standards provide a set of explicit and defined guidelines that assist in the general design and operating characteristics of existing and future transit services (such as service frequency, service spans, and stop spacing). To date, the TAG committee has focused on the definition of service types and considered preliminary service standards for each service type. Based on service type, the proposed services standards include a minimum operating frequency (or headway), or a base number of daily trips. The standards also include minimum spans of service (hours of operation) and the days during which service for each service type will be offered. For example, the service standards for Local Bus routes include service every thirty minutes at a minimum during normal daylight hours (including the peak travel periods) for a minimum of sixteen (16) hours on weekdays, fourteen (14) hours on Saturday, and twelve (12) hours on Sunday. By contrast, the proposed service standards for Limited Stop routes operating only during the peak periods call for a minimum of four (4) trips during the morning peak period and a minimum of four (4) trips during the afternoon peak period. Service would only be provided during normal weekdays. Because the service standard for Limited Stop Peak Period routes is measured by the number of trips made, the span of service does not apply. Table 4 summarizes the service standards considered by the TAG. Refinements to service standards will be considered (and made) during the second phase of the project, as warranted. November

29 Table 4: Recommended Service Standards by Transit Service Type Service Type Minimum Headway or Daily Trips Minimum Span Week / Sat / Sun Minimum Operating Days Dial-a-Ride (ADA) NA ADA service shall be available throughout the same hours and days as fixed route service Rural Connector 4 trips inbound / 4 trips NA Mon Fri outbound Community/Circulator 30 min 12 hrs / 0 hrs / 0 hrs Mon Fri Local Bus 30 min* 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun Key Local Bus 15 min peak / 30 min base* 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun Limited Stop Peak 4 trips AM / 4 trips PM NA Mon Fri Limited Stop All-Day Headways same as LRT, up 16 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Fri to 2X Peak (Same as LRT) Commuter Express 4 trips AM / 4 trips PM NA Mon Fri Light Rail Transit 12 min peak / 20 min base 18 hrs / 14 hrs / 12 hrs Mon Sun *60 min early morning and late night service The recommended service standard values are assigned to each service type based on expected demand (number of riders), market served (e.g., all day travel market or commuter market), and proven industry practices (e.g., minimum 30 minute headway on primary services). For example, Rural Connector routes are expected to serve a limited population base, and potentially cover large distances of undeveloped land; therefore, a limited number of trips are expected to reasonably serve the estimated demand. Descriptions of the rationale for the service standards for each service type are provided below: Dial-a-Ride (ADA) As per federal American s with Disabilities Act (ADA) service requirements, the service span standard and operating days for Dial-a-Ride (ADA) service must match the region s local fixed-route and light rail transit service area. However, service span of the region s Dial-a-Ride (ADA) service must meet the minimum standards within 0.75 miles of all local fixed-route and light rail transit services.. Operating headways are not relevant for Dial-a-Ride (ADA) service. Rural Connector Operating in rural, low-density areas, these routes provide service to an important market, but are expected to have lower demand compared to services operating in higher-density urban areas. Service standards have been adjusted for rural connectors to limit the number of weekday trips based on the projected demand for less dense areas. Community/Circulator Community and circulator routes connect neighborhoods with local services and activity centers as well as local and regional activity centers. These routes typically operate in areas with limited existing local fixed-route transit services, November

30 and serve as either feeder or relief service within the regional transit network. As a secondary fixed-route service, the minimum service standards are lower than those designated for local and key local fixed-route services. Local Bus Local bus routes serve as the backbone of the region s transit system by providing a network of interconnected services that allow passengers to travel throughout the region. These routes serve destinations along and within close proximity to arterial roadways. To meet the potentially higher demand for service along the corridors these routes serve (compared to rural areas or neighborhoods) a modest level of consistent service is necessary. Seven day a week service with 30 minute headways provides a reasonable level of service but still requires passengers to carefully plan their trips to ensure successful route transfers and accurate arrivals to their destinations. The minimum service span standard of 16 hours each weekday provides a basic level of service from approximately 5:00AM to 9:00PM, with reduced service hours on weekends. Key Local Bus Key Local Bus routes are defined in part by their operating characteristics, but also by three (3) distinct qualifiers: Low-income population served Zero-auto ownership households served Past transit performance These routes represent the premier local services that have achieved or are expected to achieve a higher level of demand than most other local bus routes. Based on this higher expectation, the minimum standard of service for headways is set at more frequent intervals during peak periods. This allows passengers to have greater flexibility in trip choices and minimizes the overcrowding conditions. Limited Stop Peak Limited stop peak routes often serve as an overlay to an existing route, augmenting transit service in a higher demand corridor, where traffic/road conditions do not allow effective fixed local service and demand is low or moderate, or serve as an arterial commuter express route where demand is predominately during peak periods. Minimal service standards (limited number of trips and minimum 5-day a week service) are prescribed for these routes because they supplement existing service or limited demand markets. Limited Stop All Day Where limited stop all day service is warranted, there is typically a high level of transit demand; therefore, a high level of service is associated with this route type. The prescribed service standard is similar to that of light rail transit to November

31 provide optimized transfer connections with the regional light rail system and other limited stop all day routes. Commuter Express Commuter express service provides access to regional employment centers. Service standards for commuter express routes are commensurate with the general time periods when demand is highest for commuter activity. A minimum number of trips are required to ensure adequate trip choices to attract and retain passengers. Light Rail Transit Light rail transit is implemented in regional corridors with high transit demand. A frequent level of service, seven days a week, is warranted to be consistent with demand requirements and minimize capacity constraints. In addition to these service standards, there will also be a Lifeline service designation. This service designation may base transit service on specific characteristics of the population, for example, using socioeconomic conditions. This transit service would be tailored to meet the transit demand, as defined by regional goals. The proposed lifeline service designation targets the following service areas: Low income Low auto ownership ADA populations Senior populations Lack of access to basic services This service designation will not have standards, such as minimum headway or operating days. However, this will be further defined in Phase II. Another service designation is the transit routes that have a premium service overlying another service, such as the Rail and the Route 0, Central Ave. Each of the underlying services should be evaluated individually. The different types of transit services appeal to different markets. The frequency of service for the overlapping routes will be determined on an individual situation basis. An analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of existing transit services by service type relative to the recommended service standards. Findings of this analysis are provided in Table 5. Appendix C provides a detailed table of all existing transit services and whether they meet the recommended service standards. November

32 Table 5: Existing Transit Services Meeting Recommended Standards Service Type Total Routes Routes Meeting Standards % Routes Meeting Standards Rural Connector % Community/Circulator % Local Bus (all standards) % Local Bus (weekday) % Key Local Bus % Key Local Bus (weekday) 15 Limited Stop Peak % Limited Stop All-Day 2 0 0% Commuter Express % Light Rail Transit % Total (all standards) % Total (local bus weekday) % 5.1 Minimum Stop Spacing In addition to considering service standards, the TAG has also considered minimum stop spacing standards by service type. Transit routes that provide localized service typically have stops more frequently spaced in contrast with limited stop services, where stops are made at greater distances. It is important to note that the stop spacing recommendations (shown in the table below) represent minimum spacing distances, and in many cases are reflective of existing conditions. In this regard minimum refers to absolute minimum; therefore, on Local Bus routes, the proposed standard is that local bus stops be placed, wherever possible, at a minimum of one-quarter mile intervals, recognizing that street geometry or other built environment characteristics may mean Local Bus stops are spaced just within or just beyond the quarter-mile distance. The exception to this rule is in high-density locations, such as downtown Phoenix, where demand may warrant stops being spaced at less than one-quarter-mile intervals. For Commuter Express routes, the stop spacing metric is modified to reflect the maximum number of stops made on inbound trips, rather than the actual distance between stops. Table 6 identifies the minimum stop spacing distances proposed. November

33 Table 6: Recommended Minimum Stop Spacing Service Type Base* Dial-a-Ride (ADA) NA Rural Connector NA Community/Circulator** ¼ Mile Local Bus ¼ Mile Key Local Bus ¼ Mile Limited Stop Peak 1 Mile Limited Stop All-Day 1 Mile Commuter Express 4 Maximum Inbound Stops Light Rail Transit 1 Mile *There can be stops spaced up to 1/8 of a mile in High Density Areas **Some circulators have flag stops so spacing may vary 5.2 Application of Standards The application of the standards for existing transit routes is an issue that will be further refined in Phase II. However in Phase I, a preliminary process was identified to address how these service standards could be applied. If an existing route does not meet transit service standards, and depending on the particular standard(s), then performance should be measured to determine the appropriate action. If a route is performing according to the applicable measures, then the transit route should be kept. and member agency staff should then create a process to achieve and fund service improvements to meet service standards. If a route is not performing to the applicable measures, the route should be modified and improved. If the route is still not performing, then it becomes a candidate for elimination. However, these decisions will be addressed by policy-makers, either at the Board level or the member jurisdiction council level. This process will be further refined in Phase II. Although the process for bringing routes up to service standards is complicated, the goal is to design new transit service that meet the transit service standards. Each new transit route will be evaluated annually for the first two years of operation. After each evaluation, staff (or operating agency), in conjunction with staff from the jurisdiction in which the service operates, will make adjustments as needed, and as prioritized for funding, to assure the service meets performance measures. When new transit routes are proposed, an implementation plan will be developed to make sure the new routes will meet the standards. However, the decision-making process will consider the circumstances of implementation and other factors as necessary. November

34 6.0 Performance Measures Annually, conducts a performance audit of transit service operated in the Phoenix metropolitan region. publishes the Transit Performance Report (TPR), based on the previous fiscal year that includes detailed information on system and route-level performance. As with service standards, tracking the performance of the transit system is an important method to evaluate the effectiveness of transit services provided, helping the agency and the public understand deficiencies and emerging service needs. Among the performance measures considered are total boardings, vehicle revenue miles, revenue hours, and operating cost per boarding. As the definition of service types advances, and refinements are made to the services standards discussed above, performance measures will be applied at route-specific and service type levels to further investigate the performance of routes on an individual basis. Table 7 provides an overview of the performance measures currently contained in the TPR, and how those same measures might be considered at the route and service type levels. On a preliminary basis, performance measures focused on current measures analyzed in the TPR. Through input received from the peer panel and member agencies, three new performance measures were identified. These include on-time performance, vehicle revenue hours, and boardings per revenue hour. On-time performance will assist the agency in identifying operating efficiencies, and is consistent with current measures included in local fixed-route service contracts (although on-timeperformance varies between operating contracts). Vehicle revenue hours and boardings per revenue hour are being added to help further analyze service effectiveness, and are used by many peer agencies. Table 7 identifies the recommended Phase I performance measures. The performance measures identified will be implemented on an interim basis using the quartile methodology until targets are established in Phase II. Refer to section 7.1 Service Change Process, in this report for a description of the proposed quartile methodology. November