Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase I Report

November 2013 i

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... ES-1 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Study Process ...... 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study ...... 2 2.0 Peer Agency Review Panel ...... 4 2.1 Recommendations of Peer Agencies ...... 5 3.0 Service Provision Goals ...... 8 4.0 Service Types ...... 9 4.1 Key Local Bus Qualifications ...... 10 5.0 Service Standards ...... 14 5.1 Minimum Stop Spacing ...... 18 5.2 Application of Standards ...... 19 6.0 Performance Measures ...... 20 6.1 Data Collection Process ...... 21 7.0 Service Change Process ...... 23 7.1 Service Planning Working Group ...... 23 7.2 Service Change Timeframe ...... 24 8.0 Phase II - Next Steps...... 25 Appendix A ...... A1 Appendix B ...... A2 Appendix C ...... A6

November 2013 i

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Executive Summary In coordination with representatives from member agencies, Valley Metro initiated a process to establish agency transit service and capital standards and performance measures. In addition to the collaborative participation of member cities, Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’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, Valley Metro has identified fixed-route transit services into three categories: Local Bus, Express/RAPID

November 2013 ES-1

Bus (commuter service), and Light Rail Transit. Through a collaborative planning process new subcategories of transit services offered by Valley Metro 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 Minimum Span Minimum Daily Trips Week / Sat / Sun 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

November 2013 ES-2

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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro 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

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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’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

1. Identify service implementation standards 2. Refine performance measures and develop targets for performance measures that are consistent with Valley Metro 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 2015. After the completion of Phase II, Valley Metro’s regional transit service standards and performance measures will be updated regularly (as appropriate) to assure they are consistent with the evolving goals of Valley Metro.

November 2013 ES-5

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 high- level 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 Valley Metro. 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 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Board of Directors voted to amend the intergovernmental agreement between the RPTA and Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro 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 21st 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 2013 1

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 Valley Metro. 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 Valley Metro 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, 2012. 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-2013. 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 21st Century Act (MAP-21) A Summary of Public Transportation Provisions, Summary Publication, August, 2012

November 2013 2 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 Valley Metro 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 2014.

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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’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 2013 3

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2.0 Peer Agency Review Panel During the initial stage of the planning effort, Valley Metro 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 Metro Seattle, Washington Lisa Shafer Metro Strategic Planning and Transit Analysis Regional Denver, Colorado Jeff Becker Senior Manager of Service Transportation Development District San Diego San Diego, California Michael Daney Contract Services Administrator Metropolitan Transit (formerly Transit Operations) System Tri-Met Portland, Oregon Ken Zatarain Director Service Planning & Scheduling Utah Transit Salt Lake City, Utah Hal Johnson Manager of Project Development Authority

The first day of the peer agency forum brought together staff from Valley Metro, 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 2013 4

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 Valley Metro 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 2013 5 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 Valley Metro TSSPM is to define and make recommendations to the Valley Metro 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 over- performing 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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’s Board organization, members of the TAG noted the

November 2013 6

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 Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro’s short-term objectives.

November 2013 7

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. Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro Board in June 2013 for consideration. The goals identified herein are intended for Valley Metro 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 population2.

• Provide transit service that is desirable as an alternate mode to automobile travel.

• Improve Valley Metro’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 2013 8

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

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 low- auto ownership urban/suburban area.

Traditionally, the Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro region has a much more complex array of transit services. Through coordination with the TAG, eight service types have been defined for the Valley Metro region during Phase I. Each service type, along with a brief description and definition of the service, is provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Phase I Transit Service Types Service Type Description Rural Connector 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. Community Generally operates in neighborhoods or activity centers (i.e. central business Circulator 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. Local Bus 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 Valley generally operates on a grid system (north-south/east-west routes) that facilitates transfers to reach destinations.

November 2013 9

Service Type Description Key Local Bus 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 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. Limited Stop All-Day 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 service- demand studies. Commuter Express 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. Light Rail Transit 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 low- income 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 Valley Metro 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 2013 10

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, Valley Metro 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.

Table 3: Phase I Proposed Key Local Routes Above Above 1,000,000 Key Route Name Average Average Annual Local Zero-Auto Low-Income Weekday Route Households Population Boardings1 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 2013 11

Above Above 1,000,000 Key Route Name Average Average Annual Local Zero-Auto Low-Income Weekday Route Households Population Boardings1 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 251 51st Ave

November 2013 12

Figure 1: Key Local Bus Routes

November 2013 13

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

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 Valley Metro 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 2013 14

Table 4: Recommended Service Standards by Transit Service Type Service Type Minimum Headway or Minimum Span Minimum Daily Trips Week / Sat / Sun 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 2013 15 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 2013 16 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 Valley Metro 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 2013 17

Table 5: Existing Transit Services Meeting Recommended Standards Service Type Total Routes Routes Meeting % Routes Meeting Standards Standards Rural Connector 1 1 100% Community/Circulator 18 12 67% Local Bus (all standards) 43 12 28% Local Bus (weekday) 43 35 81% Key Local Bus 15 11 73% Key Local Bus (weekday) 15 Limited Stop Peak 2 1 50% Limited Stop All-Day 2 0 0% Commuter Express 19 13 68% Light Rail Transit 1 1 100% Total (all standards) 101 51 50% Total (local bus weekday) 101 74 73% 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 2013 18

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. Valley Metro 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, Valley Metro 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 2013 19

6.0 Performance Measures Annually, Valley Metro conducts a performance audit of transit service operated in the Phoenix metropolitan region. Valley Metro 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 Valley Metro 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-time- performance 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 2013 20

Table 7: 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  

6.1 Data Collection Process To accurately assess how transit services compare to the approved TSSPM, access to quality data is imperative. Today, a majority of ridership data is collected through farebox collections for local bus route services, although a portion of the Valley Metro bus fleet is outfitted with APC counters, and all train vehicles have APCs to provide data for light rail ridership. Other services including neighborhood circulators and rural connectors collect ridership information through on-board surveys and driver counts. While these sources of data are important for understanding system ridership, several data deficiencies exist that need to be addressed for a comprehensive, accurate count of transit riders.

Valley Metro ultimately proposes to utilize a segment-level analysis method to differentiate Local and Key Local Bus routes. By utilizing a comprehensive Bus Stop Database through vetted APC data and accurate farebox data, a segment-level analysis would be much more feasible and provide greater data accuracy. By January of 2014, Valley Metro/Tempe will have 162 vehicles (60% of the fixed-route fleet) will be equipped with APC equipment that operate from the Greenfield and Rio Salado facility.

Table 8: Automatic Passenger Counters by Operator (January 2014) Agency Buses with APC % Fixed-Route Fleet Valley Metro/Tempe 162 60% City of Phoenix4 208 26%

4 Phoenix will accept delivery of 120 APC-equipped buses by January 2014, for a total of 208 buses with APC equipment. However, there may be some bus vehicles that are replaced as part of this purchase order and delivery that may be equipped with APCs currently. This would lower the total number of buses with APC equipment.

November 2013 21

Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix now require that all new purchase orders of fixed- route buses (measuring 40 feet or more) include APC equipment, and since 2009, all fixed-route buses have been outfitted with factory equipped APCs. By the year 2020, the entire bus fleet is expected to be equipped with APCs. However, while outfitting transit vehicles with passenger counting equipment will help produce valuable ridership data, a second element is the data’s collection, analysis, and interpretation. According to Valley Metro operations staff, there are currently insufficient financial resources to appoint staff to analyze APC data regularly. However, a plan is in development to utilize APC data that will require a regional financial commitment to account for personnel, equipment, and maintenance to implement this program. Another source of data is the Origin and Destination Survey performed every three to five years. Relevant information could be utilized in the service change process. The Origin and Destination Survey provides data on travel patterns in the greater metropolitan region by those persons taking transit, along with collecting basic demographic data on system users. The results provide both a portrait of current system users, and may be used to help understand travel flows along transit routes or corridors, helping to identify and prioritize investments to help spur ridership growth.

November 2013 22

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

7.0 Service Change Process Service changes to transit routes, including route alignment modifications and schedule adjustments, occur on a bi-annual basis. As part of the transit service standards and performance measures project, staff have developed a more comprehensive process to address how service changes should occur. This process includes establishment of a Service Planning Working Group, as well as shifting the service change timeframe to April and October from January and July.

7.1 Service Planning Working Group Valley Metro has organized a Service Planning Working Group (SPWG) comprised of member agencies and Valley Metro staff who will meet either quarterly or monthly (depending on need and staff availability). As part of this group, Valley Metro will collect and analyze data in preparation for early 2014 service changes, and likewise for subsequent service changes in the coming years.

The purpose of the SPWG is to:

• Review the performance of existing services and address potential changes for low performing routes • Service revisions/expansion in regard to the Short Range Transit Plan • Understand service expansion desires of member agencies • Coordinate service change process

o Funding Source(s) o Bus Stop Locations o Updates/corrections to existing bus stops o Public Outreach The following issues have been identified for discussion by the TAG

• Provide a forum to discuss other service planning issues

o Short Range Transit Plan o Bi-annual service change transition to October/ April o Feasibility of transitioning from the Transit Book o Future updates of Transit service Standards / Performance Measures Once a year this group will analyze the lower and upper quartiles of existing bus routes based on data from the Annual Ridership Report and Monthly Ridership Reports. This group will use the ridership data in comparison to prior year data, and in relation to factors influencing ridership such as service modifications, as part of the evaluation of

November 2013 23

transit services in effort to identify potential improvements or necessary changes to bus routes. The group will produce a set of recommendations based on the analysis. This group will also look at the feasibility of transitioning from the Transit Book to another form of information delivery, such as fliers on busses. Finally, the SPWG will be tasked with assessing and updating the transit service standards and performance measures, adjusting values as necessary.

7.2 Service Change Timeframe As part of the SPWG, an analysis will be performed on the benefits and obstacles of shifting the service change timeframe to April and October, whereas now it takes place in January and July. Some of the benefits include aligning the budget cycles with member jurisdictions and having all of the changes be considered final. However, some obstacles to shifting the timeframe include items such as contractor issues as well as adjusting multiple Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs).

Figure 2: Valley Metro Service Change Process

Valley Metro Service Change Process

Status Date: 07/26/2013 Run Date: 07/26/2013 Schedule Process Element 2013 2014 Duration O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Process Element End of Fiscal Year

Data Collection 3

Service Analysis 2

Cost Estimates 2

Title VI Analysis 1

Prioritization 4

ADA Service Compliance 2

Public Outreach 3

Board Process (Includes IGA's and Contract Changes) 2

Scheduling 4

Transit Book Requirements 4

Planned Activity Service Change Implementation Date: 10/20/2014

Note: Above service change process to be implemented in October, 2014

November 2013 24

8.0 Phase II - Next Steps The process for the 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:

These items will be evaluated and analyzed working closely with the TAG during Phase II, which should be complete in late 2014. These transit service standards and performance measures will be updated regularly as appropriate, to assure they are consistent with the evolving goals of the Valley Metro organization.

November 2013 25

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendix A

Existing Valley Metro Service Performance Indicators Cost Efficiency/ Service Effectiveness Effectiveness

• Farebox • Total Boardings (#) • On-time performance Recovery • Boardings avg. weekday, • Complaints per “x” Ratio Sat. Sun. boardings • Operating • Boardings per revenue • Miles between cost per mile mechanical failures boarding • Boardings per revenue • Customer satisfaction • Subsidy per hour boarding • Boardings per revenue • Cost per mile per city revenue mile • Safety Incidents per • Cost per 100,000 vehicle miles revenue hour • Security incidents per “x” • Average Fare boardings

November 2013 A1

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Appendix B

Matrices of Peer Region Service Standards and Performance Measures Service Productivity Measures

Agencies Rank Ridership Paratransit(onAnnual Bus) Ridership PassengersAnnual Mile Passengers/ Revenue Passengers/Mile Passengers/Trip Passengers/ Hour Service Hour Passengers/ Revenue Hour Miles/Passenger Revenue Load Average Peak Ridership Average Daily Average Weekday Passengers Average Weekend Passengers Evaluation Portion Route of Usage Lift Wheelchair Bus Passenger LAVTA 1 Honolulu DTS 1 1 1 1 RTD 1 1 1 MTA 1 1 1 MTS 1 1 1 1 King County Metro Transit 1 1 1 MBTA 1 1 1 1 SEPTA METRO (Houston) RPTA (SEES) 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 1

List of Agencies and Acronyms: LAVTA – Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Livermore, CA) Honolulu DTS – City of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (Honolulu, HI) RTD – Denver Regional Transportation District (Denver, CO) MTA – Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Los Angeles, CAMTS – San Diego) MTS – Metropolitan Transit System (San Diego, CA) King County Metro Transit (Seattle, WA) MBTA – Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Boston, MA) SEPTA – Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, PA) METRO (Houston) – Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston, TX) RPTA (SEES) – Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study

November 2013 A2

Service Performance Measures

of Transfer of

Time Performance Time - Service Miles Hours Service Speeds Service Service/ Miles Total - - - - Agencies On Minimum Headways Standard Maximum Load Recovery Standard Time Standards Area Coverage Service of Consistency Span of Standard Duplication Service stop ofbus mile .25 within % Pop of Schools and High Middle to Provide Service EventSpecial Service Transit Service Dependent AssignmentVehicle Standard Requirements Peak Vehicle Transfer Opportunities/ Coord . In In In In In Hours Service/ Total LAVTA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Honolulu DTS 1 1 1 1 1 RTD 1 1 1 1 1 1 MTA 1 MTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 King County Metro Transit MBTA 1 1 1 1 1 SEPTA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 METRO (Houston) 1 RPTA (SEES) 1 Totals 8 6 4 1 4 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2

November 2013 A3

Safety & Maintenance Safety/ Maintenance

Agencies % of Completed Trips Bus Trips Cancelled Distance Between Failures SafetyIncidents/ Specific Mileage Passenger Injuries/ Passenger Trips Accidents/ Customers Accidents/ Specific Mileage CollisionsResulting Injuries/ in Specific Mileage Accidents/ Bus Miles Operated Preventable Accidents/ Bus Miles Operated Security Incidents/ "x" boardings Presence of Cameras for Passenger Safety LAVTA 1 1 1 Honolulu DTS 1 1 1 1 1 RTD MTA 1 1 1 MTS 1 1 King County Metro Transit MBTA SEPTA METRO (Houston) 1 1 RPTA (SEES) 1 1 1 Totals 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1

November 2013 A4

Service Design and Financial Design Measures Financial Indicators

Standard

Agencies Directness of Route Simplicity of Route Minimum Stop Design/ Amenities Walk Distances to Stop Standard Stop Spacing Standard Roadway Design Standard Subsidy/ Passenger Operating Cost/ Passenger Cost/ Revenue Mile Cost/ Revenue Hour Cost/Trip Recovery Average Fare Full Cost LAVTA 1 1 1 Honolulu DTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RTD 1 1 1 1 1 LACMTA MTS 1 1 King County Metro Transit 1 1 MBTA 1 SEPTA 1 1 1 1 1 METRO (Houston) RPTA (SEES) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Totals 2 1 3 1 3 1 6 2 2 2 1 6 2 1

November 2013 A5

Appendix C

Existing Transit Route Characteristic with Recommended Service Standards Performance Metrics Service Operated Route Funded by Frequency Span Days of Issues Type By Base Peak Wkday Saturday Sunday Operation Wkday ALEX Circulator Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES Frequency DASH Circulator Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES NO Wkday MARY Circulator Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES Frequency Wkday SMART Circulator Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES Frequency Grand Ave Limited Valley Wkday Phoenix NO NO N/A YES Ltd Stop Peak Metro Frequency Wkday GUS 1 & 2 Circulator Glendale Glendale YES NO YES Span Wkday Base GUS 3 Circulator Glendale Glendale NO NO YES Frequency; Wkday Span Arizona Valley FLASH Circulator State YES YES YES NO Metro University Valley Mercury Circulator Tempe YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Venus Circulator Tempe YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Earth Circulator Tempe YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Mars Circulator Tempe YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Jupiter Circulator Tempe YES YES YES NO Metro Valley BUZZ Circulator Mesa YES YES YES NO Metro Downtown Wkday Circulator Scottsdale Scottsdale YES NO YES Trolley Span Neighborh Circulator Scottsdale Scottsdale YES YES YES NO ood Trolley Miller Road Circulator Scottsdale Scottsdale YES YES YES NO Trolley Valley Avondale, ZOOM Circulator YES YES YES NO Metro Tolleson Phoenix, METRO Valley Light Rail Tempe, YES YES YES YES YES YES NO LRT Metro Mesa Limited LINK – Valley Valley Wkday Stop All NO YES YES YES Main St Metro Metro Span Day Wkday LINK – Limited Base and Valley Valley Arizona Stop All NO NO NO YES Peak; Metro Metro Ave Day Wkday Span Key Local 0 Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Wkday & 1 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Frequency Phoenix, Key Local 3 Phoenix Valley YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Metro Wkday Key Local Peak & 7 Phoenix Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Bus Wkend Frequency 8 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Wkend 10 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency

November 2013 A6

Performance Metrics Service Operated Route Funded by Frequency Span Days of Issues Type By Base Peak Wkday Saturday Sunday Operation Wkday & 12 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Frequency Wkend 13 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Wkend 15 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Key Local 16 Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Key Local Phoenix, 17 Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Scottsdale Wkday & Wkend Frequency; Phoenix, Wkday & 17A Local Bus Phoenix Valley NO NO NO NO NO NO Wkend Metro Span; No Sunday Service Key Local 19 Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus 19th Ave Wkend Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Connector Frequency Wkday Key Local 27 Phoenix Phoenix YES NO YES NO YES YES Peak Bus Frequency Key Local Phoenix, 29 Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Scottsdale Phoenix, Valley 30 Local Bus Mesa, YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Tempe Wkday Key Local 35 Phoenix Phoenix YES NO YES YES YES YES Peak Bus Frequency Wkday & 39 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Frequency Valley Valley 40 Local Bus YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Metro Key Local Phoenix, 41 Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Scottsdale Wkend 43 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Wkday & 44 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Wkend Frequency Phoenix, Tempe, Key Local Valley 45 Mesa, YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Metro Valley Metro Tempe, Valley 48 Local Bus Valley YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Metro Phoenix, Key Local Scottsdale, 50 Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Valley Metro Wkday & Glendale, 51 Local Bus Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Phoenix Frequency Wkend 52 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Phoenix, Valley Tempe, 56 Local Bus YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Metro

November 2013 A7

Performance Metrics Service Operated Route Funded by Frequency Span Days of Issues Type By Base Peak Wkday Saturday Sunday Operation Phoenix, Glendale, Wkend 59 Local Bus Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Valley Frequency Metro Phoenix, Wkend 60 Local Bus Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Glendale Frequency Phoenix, Key Local Valley Mesa, 61 YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Metro Valley Metro Valley 62 Local Bus Tempe YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Wkend 65 Local Bus Tempe NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Frequency Tempe, Valley GRIC, Wkend 66 Local Bus NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Valley Frequency Metro Phoenix, Glendale, Wkend 67 Local Bus Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Valley Frequency Metro Phoenix, Key Local 70 Phoenix Valley YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Bus Metro Wkday Key Local Valley Valley 72 YES NO NO YES YES YES Peak Bus Metro Metro Frequency Phoenix, Valley Mesa, 77 Local Bus YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Valley Metro Phoenix, Wkend 80 Local Bus Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Glendale Frequency Scottsdale, Valley Tempe, Wkend 81 Local Bus NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Valley Frequency Metro Phoenix, 90 Local Bus Phoenix YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Glendale Valley Valley 96 Local Bus YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Metro Wkend Mesa, Valley Frequency; 104 Local Bus Valley NO YES YES YES NO NO Metro No Sunday Metro Service Phoenix, Scottsdale, 106 Local Bus Phoenix Glendale, YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Valley Metro Tempe, Valley Wkend 108 Local Bus Valley NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Frequency Metro Valley Valley Wkend 112 Local Bus NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Metro Frequency Valley Wkend 120 Local Bus Mesa NO YES NO NO NO NO Metro Frequency Wkday & Phoenix, 122 Local Bus Phoenix NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Glendale Frequency Wkend Frequency; Valley Wkday 128 Local Bus Mesa NO YES NO YES NO NO Metro Span; No Sunday Service

November 2013 A8

Performance Metrics Service Operated Route Funded by Frequency Span Days of Issues Type By Base Peak Wkday Saturday Sunday Operation Wkday & Wkend Valley Valley 136 Local Bus YES YES NO NO NO NO Span; No Metro Metro Sunday Service Wkend 138 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Wkend 154 Local Bus Phoenix Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Frequency Valley Valley 156 Local Bus YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Metro Metro Phoenix, 170 Local Bus Phoenix Glendale, YES YES YES YES YES YES NO Scottsdale Valley Valley Wkend 184 Local Bus Metro, NO YES YES YES YES YES Metro Frequency JARC Phoenix, Wkend 186 Local Bus Phoenix NO YES YES YES YES YES Glendale Frequency Wkday & Valley GRIC, 251 Local Bus NO NO YES YES YES YES Wkend Metro JARC Frequency Valley Seasonal 277 Circulator Mesa YES YES YES Metro Service SR-51 Commuter Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES NO RAPID Express I-10 East Commuter Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES NO RAPID Express I-10 West Commuter Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES NO RAPID Express Commuter I-17 RAPID Phoenix Phoenix YES YES YES NO Express Central South Limited Valley Phoenix YES YES YES NO Mountain Stop Peak Metro RAPID Commuter Valley Valley 511 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley Wkday 514 NO NO YES Express Metro Metro Trips Commuter Valley Valley Wkday 520 NO NO YES Express Metro Metro Trips Commuter Valley Valley 521 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 522 YES YES YES NO Express metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 531 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 533 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 535 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 541 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley 542 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley Wkday 562 NO NO YES Express Metro Metro Trips Valley Commuter Valley Wkday 563 Metro, NO NO YES Express Metro Trips ADOT Surprise, Commuter Valley 571 Valley NO NO YES NO Express Metro Metro

November 2013 A9

Performance Metrics Service Operated Route Funded by Frequency Span Days of Issues Type By Base Peak Wkday Saturday Sunday Operation Commuter Valley Valley 573 YES YES YES NO Express Metro Metro Commuter Valley Valley Wkday 575 NO NO YES Express Metro Metro Trips ADOT, Rural Valley Valley 685 YES YES YES NO Connector Metro Metro, JARC

November 2013 A10