![BOARD ACTION: Approved As Recommended [ ] Other [ ] Approved with Modification(S) [ ]](http://data.docslib.org/img/e0949a520e1637a17c14889c2d661849-1.webp)
BRIEFING MEMO
AC TRANSIT DISTRICT GM Memo No. 05-173 Board of Directors Executive Summary Meeting Date: August 17, 2005 Committees: Planning Committee Finance Committee External Affairs Committee Operations Committee Board of Directors Financing Corporation
SUBJECT:
Receive further review of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors: Comfort and Convenience
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Information Only Briefing Item Recommended Motion
Fiscal Impact:
None; background only.
Background/Discussion:
In June, staff provided an overview of Part 3, Chapter 2 of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM: Quality of Service Factors.) Chapter 2 presented issues relating to quality of service focusing on availability factors as they relate to transit Quality of Service. This month, staff will provide a review of Comfort and Convenience Factors.
BOARD ACTION: Approved as Recommended [ ] Other [ ] Approved with Modification(s) [ ]
[To be filled in by District Secretary after Board/Committee Meeting]
The above order was passed on ______, 2005.
Rose Martinez, District Secretary By GM Memo No. 05-173 Subject: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors Date: August 17, 2005 Page 2 of 7
Transit Trip Decision-Making Process Summary:
As identified in the May 2005 GM Memo, the main factors influencing transit trip decision-making are availability, comfort and convenience. These factors are defined as follows:
S Availability: Transit service is only an option for any given trip if it is available for use. It must be available within a reasonable walking distance of one's origin and destination. Riders need to know where and when service is scheduled. Availability factors include service coverage, scheduling, capacity and information.
S Comfort and Convenience: If the Availability factors have been met, passengers weigh a variety of other factors in determining whether to use a particular transit mode for their trip. These factors include convenience in getting to the bus stop, ability to find a seat, reliability, wait times, safety, ride comfort, cleanliness, and cost.
Comfort and Convenience in Transit Trip Making: Comfort and Convenience factors can be grouped into three main categories: C Passenger Loads and Stops C Reliability C Travel Time
PASSENGER LOADS AND STOPS: From a rider’s point of view, passenger loads reflect the comfort level while on board the bus both in terms of being able to find a seat on the bus and overall crowding. The manual suggests that a Level Of Service (LOS) standard from A-F appropriately reflects the various conditions that passengers experience for both the load factor as well as passenger area.
LOS Load Factor Comments (pax/seat) A 0.00--0.50 No passenger need sit next to another B 0.51--0.75 Passengers can choose where to sit C 0.76--1.00 All passengers can sit D 1.01--1.25 Comfortable standee load for design E 1.26--1.50 Maximum Schedule Load F >1.50 Crush load GM Memo No. 05-173 Subject: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors Date: August 17, 2005 Page 3 of 7
The passenger load LOS is based on both the Load factor (passengers per seat) as well as the standing passenger area, which is a measurement used on vehicles that are designed to accommodate more standees than seated passengers.
AC Transit practice: Board Policy 550 identifies standards for Load Factors on a route-type basis. The standard for Transbay and Owl service is a load factor of 1, while other route types have a load factor standard of 1.25. Considerations about standing and seated loads are also measured when purchasing vehicles that are intended for uses related to recommended load factors, such as Transbay.
RELIABILITY Several different measures of reliability can be used, including:
C On-time performance C Headway adherence (evenness of intervals between buses) C Missed trips C Miles between mechanical road calls
On-time performance is a measure that most customers understand and can be related to the other aspects listed above. However, as service becomes more frequent, it is equally important to riders that buses do not travel in bunches, which can cause overcrowding on the lead vehicle.
On-time Performance Most operators in the nation use the standard that if a bus is 5 minutes late, it is still considered to be “on-time”. However, in Canada, the standard is defined as being no more than 3 minutes. On-time performance can be applied to any transit service, but it is most useful in service that operates greater than every 10 minutes.
From the riders’ viewpoint, a bus that is late or early is considered “not on time”. From a review of operators by the authors of the Manual, more than 50% of buses that would be considered “not on time” were actually running early.
For purposes of monitoring on-time performance, the locations to measure should be of interest to passengers. For instance, buses arriving early at the end of the line when most passengers would be disembarking prior to that end point would have little consequence to the rider. On the other hand, if a terminal is a timed-transfer point, the arrival at the location is important.
It is also important to identify the most appropriate standard for the given circumstance. Early departures should not be considered “on time” in locations where riders are boarding. But, early arrivals may be accepted at the end of a route or at other locations GM Memo No. 05-173 Subject: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors Date: August 17, 2005 Page 4 of 7
where passengers are only disembarking. On-time performance should be measured on a route over a series of days, or as a systemwide value. LOS ranges for on-time performance are presented below. It takes a minimum of 20 observations to achieve the 5% resolution between LOS grades. This LOS range is from the passengers' standpoint and reflects the passengers' experience riding the bus one round-trip each weekday (i.e. 10 boardings per week to and from work, if no transfer is required).
LOS On-time Performance Comments A 95.0--100% 1 late bus every 2 weeks (no transfer) B 90.0--94.9% 1 late bus every week (no transfer) C 85.0--89.9% 3 late buses every 2 weeks (no transfer) D 80.0--84.9% 2 late buses every week (no transfer) E 75.0--79.9% 1 late bus every day (with a transfer) F <75% 1 late bus at least daily (with a transfer)
LOS A means that passengers experience a highly reliable service and are assured of arriving at their destination at the scheduled time. At LOS C, an average passenger will experience more than one late bus per week. At LOS D and E, passengers have less and less confidence that they will arrive at the scheduled time and may be required to take an earlier trip to ensure getting to their destination on time. At LOS F, the number of late trips is noticeable to passengers.
AC Transit Practice: AC Transit conforms to national standards that a bus is considered “on-time” if it is up to 5 minutes late. However, the District considers that a trip that is early by greater than 60 seconds as “not on-time.” AC Transit currently measures on-time performance on a systemwide basis at established measurement locations. On-time performance on a route level is conducted as needed to determine route-specific characteristics. However, as more data is collected and analyzed through both the UTA and ORBCAD automatic passenger counter systems (APC's), it will be increasingly possible to conduct line profiles on a regular basis.
TRAVEL TIME An important factor for a potential transit trip is the amount of time it takes to make a trip on transit in comparison to the automobile or other transit that is available. Although it is fair to say that transit riders have more “free time” on the trip than the auto drivers, most people that have a choice will find it more convenient to drive unless there are some financial disincentives or the travel time on transit is competitive.
A travel time evaluation must consider the door-to-door time. This includes the walk time to access the transit stop, wait time, in-vehicle time, and finally, the walk time to a GM Memo No. 05-173 Subject: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors Date: August 17, 2005 Page 5 of 7 rider’s final destination. Walk time is based on a ¼ mile walk to and from the transit stop. Wait time for the transit trip is ½ of the posted frequency (e.g. 5 minutes for a bus that operates every 10 minutes).
Smaller cities may find it much more difficult to achieve high levels of service for travel time, because the walk and wait times for transit may be equal to or greater than the actual time it takes to drive the entire trip.
LOS Travel Time Comments Difference (min) A 0 Faster by transit than by automobile B 1--15 About as fast by transit as by automobile C 16--30 Tolerable for choice riders D 31--45 Round-trip at least an hour longer by transit E 46--60 Tedious for all riders; may be best possible in small cities F >60 Unacceptable for most riders
Transit/auto travel time ratio is sometimes used by transit agencies as a service design standard (i.e. a trip by transit should not take longer than twice the time it would take by automobile). However, this standard may result in very large values in areas where the auto travel times are often very short relative to transit.
Sometimes, the transit travel time itself can be used as a performance measure. However, the time that riders will find acceptable will vary depending on a variety of other issues, such as the perceived value of the transit trip, whether the trip is occurring in the peak or off-peak, and other value factors such as comfort and safety.
Future Considerations:
The District does not currently have policies that assess transit service delivery from a passenger’s standpoint--specifically with regard to the questions that passengers ask themselves when determining whether or not to use transit if they have a choice. Level of Service measurements for elements such as load factor, reliability, and travel time could provide a codification of existing District practice.
Irrespective of policy, the District generally proposes service based on the factors presented in the Manual. Lines are routinely analyzed for loads (capacity availability). When designing new service or service changes, a fundamental concern is where service is provided, and how one gets to it. Finally, on-time performance continues to GM Memo No. 05-173 Subject: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual: Part 3, Chapter 2: Quality of Service Factors Date: August 17, 2005 Page 6 of 7 be an important aspect of monitoring and improving service so that our customers can rely on published schedules.
The next review of the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual will provide a discussion of Chapter 4, Introduction to Demand Responsive Service Measures. As staff presents more information about these concepts and the measurements that could be used to assess how well the District meets them, the Board may wish to direct staff to develop standards and measurement methods.
Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies: GM Memo 05-137: Part 3: Service Availability GM Memo 05-027: Designing with Transit GM Memo 05-109: Part 3, Transit Decisionmaking GM Memo 05-083: Part 3, Transit Performance Measures GM Memo 05-062: Part 1 TCRP Manual GM Memo 05-022: Review Timeline for Review of TCRP Manual GM Memo 04-361: Overview of TCRP Manual GM Memo 03-262a: Approve Actions Related to Park and Ride Transit Centers Board Policy 520 – Promoting Public Transit in Land Use Planning Board Policy 550 – Service Standards and Design Policy
Attachments: None
Approved by: Rick Fernandez, General Manager Nancy Skowbo, Deputy General Manager, Service Development
Prepared by: Tina Spencer, Manager Long Range Planning
Date Prepared: July 21, 2005