Bus Service Evaluation Procedures: a Review April 1979 HORT ANGE RAN SIT

Bus Service Evaluation Procedures: A Review April 1979 HORT ANGE RAN SIT

LANNING

Special Studies in Transportation Planning

of TR4A,. U.S. Department of Transportation o * Urban Mass Transportation Administration

^ Office of Planning Assistance

Technical Report Documentation Page

1.. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. lMrA-m-09-7001-79-1

4. TitI* and Subtitle 5. Report Date Bus Service Evaluation Procedures: A Review March 1979

6. Performing Orgonizotion Code

8. Performing Orgonizotion Report No. 7. Author's) John P. Attanucci (MBTA), Leora Jaeger (MBTA),Jeff Bectker (TTDC)

9. Performing Organization Nome ond Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Transportation Authority District Cornnission 11. Contract or Grant No. 50 High Street P.O. Box 660 MA-09-7001, VA-09-7001

02119 23501 13. Type of — Boston, MA Norfolk, VA Report ond Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Interim Report No. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration AGO Seventh Street, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D. C. 20590

15. Supplementary Notes

UMTA Project Director — Mr. Brian McCollcm, UPM-13

16. Abstract

The report presents the results of a literature review and survey of 71 transit properties in the U.S. and Canada regarding bus service evaluation procedures currently in use. The focus of the study was to identify service performance indicators and criteria used to evaluate bus service on a route by route basis. Three types of evaluation indicators (service design measures, operating performance measiires, and economic or productivity measures) were identifiedf and a range of standards which have been developed for each indicator are reported. The results are presented separately for transit properties owning less than and greater than 400 buses. Detailed appendices provide more corplete information on the survey response. These appendices also provide the transit operator and regional transit planner with a conpendium of a wide range of performance measures, descriptions of how they are used and how the needed data is collected, and a listing of contact persons in each property. The analysis of the results provides several insights and suggestions regarding the development of a systematic bus service evaluation program.

17. Key Wordj. 18. Distribution Statement fixed-route; Bus, evaluation techni- Available to the Public through the productivity; planning ques; and National Technical Information Service, analysis; transit performance; plan- Springfield, Virginia 22161. ning, tools; transportation systems, management; performance indicators.

19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Clossif. (of this page) 21- No. of Poges 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pogc authorized

Report No. Grant No. UMTA-MA-09-700 1-79-1 MA-09 -7001 VA-09 -7001

BUS SERVICE EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

A REVIEW

Prepared By-

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Tidewater Transportation District Commission

Prepared For

U. S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Office of planning Assistance

March, 1979 FORWARD

Many transit operators have a critical need for a service evaluation system v/hich can measure existing service performance. To assist these operators, UMTA's Office of Planning Assistance, through its Special Studies Program, has initiated operator prototype studies in Boston and Norfolk. The purpose of these studies is to develop and test systems for bus service evaluation. The emphasis of these studies is on how local operators can use existing planning techniques to meet their evaluation needs.

This document represents the first interim report from these studies. It summarizes a survey of evaluation techniques used by transit operators in the United States and Canada. We believe this "State-of-the-Art" review will be of great value to transit operators who are interested in improving their evaluation systems.

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. Please reference UKTA-MA-09-7001-79-1 on the request.

Charles H. Graves, Director Office of Planning Assistance (UPM-IO) Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590 The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a grant from the U. S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. The contents of this report were prepared by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Tidewater Transportation District Commission and do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the U. S. Department of Transportation or the Urban Mass Trans portation Administration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express our appreciation to the many transit authorities which provided detailed information regarding their bus service evaluation procedures. This report could not have been written without this cooperation.

Staff members at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Tidewater Transportation District Commis- sion also provided valuable assistance. In particular, we would like to thank Richard Jacobs, Wayne Talley and James M. Krumke from TTDC, and Eugene Wright and Mary Maclnnes from the MBTA.

Funding for this project was provided by the UMTA Office of Planning Assistance. The authors appreciate the able assistance provided by Brian McCollom, who supervised this project and who was very helpful in reviewing drafts and making thoughtful suggestions for improving this report.

Finally, we would like to thank Gordon Fielding, Roy Glauthier, and Charles Lance for permitting us to reprint the bibliography included in their report Development of Performance Indicators for Transit, December 1977. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Literature Review 3

2.1 General Literature 3 2.2 Operator Literature 4 2.3 Conclusions 6

3.0 Results of Survey 7

3.1 Description of Survey 7 3.2 Survey Response 8 3.3 Service Evaluation in Small and Medium 8 Sized Properties 3.3.1. Evaluation Criteria Used 10 3.3.2. Effectiveness of Small System Service Evaluation 14

3.4 Service Evaluation in Large Properties 15

3.4.1. Responsibility for Service Evaluation 17 3.4.2. Service Design Criteria 18 3.4.3. Operating Performance Criteria 20 3.4.4. Economic and Productivity Criteria 23 3.4.5. Effectiveness of Service Evaluation in Large Bus Systems 25

4.0 Summary and Conclusions 27

Appendix A - Bibliography I 29

Appendix B - Bibliography II 51

Appendix C - Survey Questionnaire 55

Introduction to Appendices D and E 6 0

Appendix D - Abstracts of Authorities 62

Appendix E - Route Specific Measures 153

-iii-

. ,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Over the past few years, rising costs and limited budgets have encouraged transit authorities to evaluate the "cost-effectiveness" of the services they provide. In many cases, budget constraints have forced public transit properties to reduce service provided, either across the board or in selected areas. In almost all urban areas, new bus or service proposals have been critically examined, and evaluated in some way related to their potential effectiveness. While, to date, existing services have not been scrutinized as carefully, there is growing emphasis in this area. Recent UMTA Section 15 reporting requirements have further encouraged properties to collect the data necessary to assess transit services.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Boston, Massachusetts, and the Tidewater Transportation Dis- trict Commission (TTDC) , Norfolk, Virginia, are among many properties interested in updating and improving bus service evaluation programs. The MBTA and TTDC have received funding for the development of prototypical bus service evaluation programs from the Planning Research and Evaluation Division of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U. S. De- partment of Transportation. These otherwise independent projects include a j'oint review of the state-of-the-art in bus service evaluation techniques across the country. This information will be used to develop bus service evaluation programs for both TTDC and the MBTA. To identify current evaluation procedures, the review included a literature search as well as a survey of transit properties in the United States and Canada

TTDC, an authority with 17 5 buses, contacted properties with less than 400 buses; the MBTA, which operates 954 buses, concentrated on the larger authorities. Of the 23 0 U. S. and 10 Canadian properties that were contacted, 32 percent provided information on their evaluation techniques. Information was gathered on service policy standards, evaluation criteria, data requirements and collection techniques, and management procedures.

This report analyzes the results of this survey, presents the findings of the literature search, and provides a compen- dium of the specific data gathered from each authority. Sec- tion 2 discusses the results of the literature search; Section 3 presents the results of the survey of transit operators; and Section 4 includes a number of conclusions regarding the current state-of-the-art in service evaluation methods. The five appendices provide more detailed information on the available literature on the subject and more specific information on the

-1- various evaluation procedures currently used by transit properties responding to the survey.

-2- 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

An initial review of the literature related to evaluating bus transit service indicated that several well-documented bibliographies have recently been compiled. The comprehensive literature review included in "Development of Performance In- dicators for Transit" (Fielding) , University of California, Irvine, December, 1977, concentrated on reviewing that literature which is most directly related to this present study. This recent, well-referenced review is presented in its entirety in Appendix A.

2 . 1 General Literature

The largest portion of the literature reviewed in the Irving study directly addressed the issues surrounding transit service evaluation. The authors found that evaluating transportation alternatives in particular cities and regions has received the most attention in the literature. In these cases, the effectiveness of different modes or various types of transit service was compared rather than the differences in effectiveness between similar services of the same mode.

The Irvine review (see Appendix A) also includes a discussion and bibliography of topics including service standards, alternative analysis, government assistance, as well as evaluation research theory and other bibliographies. Reports on service standards include literature reviews, listings and discussions of possible transit performance criteria, weighting of performance criteria, and development of evaluation strategies. Studies on governmental assistance include discussions of the effect which government subsidies currently have on promoting transit industry efficiency.

A number of other sources reviewed for this study discuss evaluating system performance in general and include possible evaluation schemes for comparing similar services. Several additional sources on this latter area of study are included in the bibliography compiled as part of this current study

(see Appendix B) . Fielding's work for the Irvine study, a thorough study on transit service evaluation, adds to this literature by discussing the importance of developing transit performance indicators and by analyzing the usefulness of specific indicators. These indicators are later used to compare transit properties in California and Washington.

Several key findings in this review of the general literature are particularly relevant to this current study:

-3- . ;

• A variety of literature exists which details different transit service evaluation methods and performance indicators;

• Although some of the literature provides guidance on the usefulness of various service indicators, it is important for individual transit properties to develop their own conceptual framework for using these indicators and other performance criteria;

• A distinction should be made by management in monitoring so-called "effectiveness" indicators (which have a direct impact on ridership) as opposed to "efficiency" indicators (which relate more to internal productivity)

• Attention should be focused on developing indicators and evaluation techniques which are sufficiently detailed to reveal differences in the performance of similar bus routes and the impacts on various user groups

2 . 2 Operator Literature

A limited amount of literature on current service standards and policies was also reviewed by the Irvine study team. These sources emphasize the measures, such as passengers per bus mile or subsidy per passenger, used to analyze and compare existing and proposed bus services. They also often describe the development of a rational basis for making service reductions brought on by budget constraints.

The bibliography compiled as part of this present study (see Appendix B) expands on this aspect of transit service evaluation, and provides a list of publications and working papers which describe on-going bus service evaluation programs at U. S. and Canadian transit authorities.

Not surprisingly, the majority of the literature cited here deals with large authorities. Eleven service policies from authorities are included. Two authorities, Seattle Metro and Toronto, provided the most interesting and comprehensive information. Both authorities produced follow-up publications documenting steps taken to implement their service policies. Using adopted evaluation procedures and standards , Toronto has produced a report which evaluates and ranks a number of proposed service improvements, and lists the least cost-effective existing bus routes. Seattle produced a report which summarizes the seat availability, productivity, and on-time performance of each route. A

-4- discussion is presented of the results as well as of some of the limitations of the data.

A number of papers have been written which describe . Southern California Rapid Transit District's service policy, adopted in 1975, and discuss steps which have been taken to implement and revise the standards. Six standards are currently being utilized. "Data Requirements for Transit Plan- ning", written two years after the service guidelines were first adopted, describes the desirable properties of good information systems and then outlines specific data needs and methods of data collection and processing. "The SCRTD Serv-

ice Evaluation Program" (1978) , presents a brief history of the methods which have been used to evaluate service, provides a rationale for this line evaluation program, and as- sesses its results.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has compiled a list of 43 performance measures and 11 operational standards. In a report entitled, "Metrobus Performance Meas- ures and Indicators", the authority compares 1978 's actual results with the stated objectives for 1978, and establishes new objectives for 197 9.

Edmonton has designed a study to evaluate its bus operation on a route by route basis. Rough estimates of the manpower needed to implement the evaluation recommendations are included. Proposed transit service improvements for San Diego were published in an "Action Plan" in February, 197 4. The plan was based on an evaluation of existing routes using 7 performance measures. In addition, areas were identified which were being underserved and neighborhoods were ranked according to their ridership potential.

Some of the reports generated by the various transit properties briefly discuss the cost-effectiveness of implementing service standards. Positive results have been presented in various reports from Montreal, Seattle, Toronto and Los Angeles. This data is presented in Section 3.4.5, "Effectiveness of Service Evaluation in Larger Bus Systems." However, there has been virtually no empirical analysis of how cost-effective it has been for authorities to implement service policy guidelines and standards. This type of analysis would require a very thorough understanding of each authority in question. Since most authorities which have developed comprehensive performance guidelines have only begun to implement them, such a study in the United States would be limited to a few operators.

-5- .

2.3 Conclusions

Much work has already been done on developing methods of evaluating transit service. Ample material has been written on evaluation schemes, measures and indicators which can be used to evaluate service, and appropriate standards to be applied to various types of service. Measures, such as passengers/vehicle hour, passengers/vehicle mile, peak vehicle loads and subsidy/passenger are cited as being typically useful evaluation indicators. Through consultation with the surveyed authorities (see Appendices D and E) , any transit property or transportation planning organization can review and select from a wide range of alternative evaluation methods and measures

Generally, the literature suggests that the same type of evaluation measures and standards can be and, usually, are applied to both newly proposed and existing services. The degree to which the evaluation techniques are applied does vary, though, depending on the performance of existing routes and the budgetary considerations which dictate the degree of expansion or reduction of service in any given year.

Unfortunately, there is still little known about the cost- effectiveness of implementing systematic evaluation of transit services. More emphasis needs to be placed on the testing of actual applications of transit service standards and systematic evaluation procedures. Reports and critical appraisals of such tests will serve to further the knowledge of those techniques which are most useful, and provide operators a surer choice of the least costly, yet effective, methods.

-6- 3.0 RESULTS OF SURVEY

The survey of transit properties throughout the United States and Canada produced a wealth of information about how transit operators currently undertake self-evaluation. The reports submitted by transit authorities have been systematically reviewed, and this section presents the distilled results of the survey. In addition, it was necessary, and hopefully enlightening to present several anecdotal cases. A description of the survey is followed by discussion of the survey response, reported results from small and medium sized properties, and results from the analysis of the larger properties. While an effort has been made to report the same type of information about both large and small operators, the complexity of the operating environments and current evaluation methods vary so dramatically that it is not practical to structure the analysis presented here in the same way for both system size categories. The results presented in this section are largely based on the more detailed, property- specific and criteria-specific information presented in Appendices D and E.

3.1 Description of Survey

In August, 1978, an informal mail-back survey was sent to 240 transit properties of all sizes in the United States and Canada. Basic bus system descriptive data was requested so that similar size and type of operations could be grouped. A copy of the survey questionnaire and the accompanying letter, which solicited any available information on current bus evaluation practices, is included in Appendix C.

Generally, the survey asked managers of the various transit authorities to describe their service evaluation procedures by listing the criteria or standards used to assess service delivery and performance, as well as those indicators used to rank or choose selected service improvements or reductions. Also requested were the methods used to collect data needed to determine the values of these criteria, the frequency of collecting these data, the department responsible for the data collection and analysis, and the cost associated with the use of the various evaluation measures. Finally, operators were asked to assess the impact or effectiveness of the evaluation procedures used, recognizing that this would require a somewhat subjective judge- ment .

For ease of analysis, the MBTA and TTDC, shared the review of the returned surveys. The TTDC analyzed small and medium sized bus operations (up to 400 buses) and the MBTA examined those larger systems with more than 400 buses. This division generally marks the system size which requires the operation of more than one bus division or garage and for which data collection procedures becomes more complex.

-7- . .

3 . 2 Survey Response

Of the 195 small and medium sized transit properties contacted by the TTDC, 48 responded to the survey. A response was received from 23 of the 45 properties with over 400 buses contacted by the MBTA.

Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the respondents by system size and basic operating characteristics.

The response sample appears to be representative of the industry in terms of system size, geographic location, and type of area served. As with any survey of this type, the response is probably biased towards those systems currently using an organized service evaluation procedure since these systems could most easily describe their ongoing efforts. An example of this bias is seen in the nearly 100 percent return rate for the Canadian systems which were solicited. For the most part, the Canadian systems have on-going, highly organized bus service evaluation policies and procedures.

One note on the type of evaluation information reported is in order. Many of the responses from operators contained information about how they evaluate their internal management performance (through the use of so-called "efficiency" measures) as well as the evaluation of actual service delivery performance

(using so-called "effectiveness" measures) . An example of an efficiency measure is "revenue bus miles per employee" while a typical effectiveness measure would be "passengers per bus mile" Since this study concerns the monitoring and evaluation of transit service and passenger response to this service, discussion of the results and data presented in the appendices relate only to the use of effectiveness measures. While it is clearly recognized that aggressive monitoring of the efficiency of internal functions such as scheduling and maintenance has a profound influence on resources available for service delivery in every property, these efficiency issues are left to other reviews

3 . 3 Service Evaluation in Small and Medium-Sized Properties

From analyzing the forty-eight responses of small and

medium sized properties (operating up to 400 buses) , it is apparent that the use of a wide range of explicit, service evaluation techniques is not common practice. Three notable exceptions are San Diego Transit (San Diego, Ca.), Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (Syracuse, N.Y.) and the Transit Authority of River City (Louisville, Ky.). In addition, one third of the respondents do not use any explicit (or formal) service evaluation criteria.

The smaller number of buses and routes operated by small properties is conducive to frequent collection and analysis of ridership, operating and schedule adherence data. Also,

-8- CO i in 00 ON o CM in ro O 00 in 00 00 in 0 rH CM rH OC 00 CTi Eh 04 «« CM

>1 to O (N in o o o rH to Q) o o VD o o H CM O o rH o o o to PQ -H Q '=3' ro o ro iH o rH CM o in CM

iH rH CM ro Jh to

,Q 4H +J Lf) in in in o ro g O ^3 CM o rH ro o ^ S rH CM

CM rH in o OJ o o •H 00 V£> in o rH o o CO rH Xi in O o o o o EH (U Xi rH U CM o 00 o rH o to P CD o rH in o Q) 04 CO ro CO rH 00 o o U 0 o 0 PL4 ro rH o o e rH 0 u +J 0 SH 0 o ro CM o in rH 4-> H o o O in in rH o o e o CM rH ro ro O rH

CM Cn C C C H H •H CM -P P -P rH CO ro (0 to to CO H CO u 5h U w H W Q) 0) H Eh H 04 04 04 Eh « 0 0 0 W W 04 w to to to 04 O Oi

-9- . while labor agreements exist in most systems, flexibility in the assignment of extra duties (such as data collection) seems to be much greater for small and medium sized properties. How- ever, comprehensive service evaluation is not common.

The reasons for the apparent lack of comprehensiveness in the use of service evaluation criteria and methods by small and medium sized properties are not entirely clear, but several reasons can be postulated:

(1) These operators generally do not feel that they have sufficient management, planning or administrative staffs with the capability and/or time to evaluate service in a comprehensive manner;

(2) For small properties in particular, basic route data (such as passengers per trip) is recorded and used by those responsible for service design or scheduling in their on-going evaluation of their systems. While systemwide data is available and adjustments are made as carefully and regularly as in larger systems, written reports or other documentation are simply not prepared.

(3) It appears that the use of evaluation methods is directly related to the aggressiveness of the authority in selecting new markets, expanding service or reducing operating deficits. ' Since many small authorities are stable, managers of such systems are likely to be m.ore concerned with routine service delivery tasks then with evaluation analysis.

The next section describes the use of evaluation criteria by small and medium sized properties. Examples of particularly detailed and/or unique evaluation criteria are presented. A brief section on the effectiveness of the evaluation methods used by small and medium sized properties follows the description of the criteria currently used.

3.3.1 Evaluation Criteria Used

Table 2 presents the most commonly cited service criteria used by the small and medium sized respondents as well as responses with respect to standards used, how data are collected, how often data are collected, cost for collection and analysis of data, and the number of respondents using the criteria. Of the eight criteria, the two criteria used most often by the respondents are the ratio of revenue to cost and schedule adherence. The use of these two criteria indicate that the respondents are primarily concerned with the economic and the schedule performance of their systems. The range of acceptable revenue to cost ratios for those properties responding was 0.20 to 0.50. Of course, these standards depend to a large degree on the fare structure used by each property. In some cases, the revenue to cost ratio is an informal input into fare increase deliberations

-10- H a Z 3 U CO Q < o e: ^ cu tyP Ui 01 CO 00 at H H n

O c a! w o O -rl 4J M -M 4J o < in Id £1 M Q Q) •«T rH -H U fa jQ 13 X: rH » o •H d 0 •H M H u nj D> ID 4J 01 (U •H >, •H Oi -H 4) O H rH o iH rH t: U W «r (D 0»O Q) Q) vo H 0) O <0 0 «s z cu v> Z o Z UH 01 o < •rl c •• o " D> o •• O -rt < 0) o •rl (0 CO 0) O -0 ^ Eh H DiO H O W Q c - tr c C ^ nJ 0) O Z 0) (0 0 nJ rH O J3 O < OS z

>i o o O >i •a M P rH >1 5 0) lrH c •H s > >i Id 0 U 0 lU rH 3 Q e O u) •H (0 •H C -p •n+i > o n Id a a z (8 C Q < o 0) a d) 01 0) 2 EH +J rQ b O (U C (U •• rH O (1) A O (U -P rH .p a 01 M OiHJ 0) 0» s rH tn c Id C C VI c c o o >i (U fl] o Id Id s U J3 a: o OS e +»

(0 u -p e -p O CO -O H -H Ul Id Id >i -a -p lU +> e Ul 0) U i-p 13 u a) 3 -a 9 > Q. C C 3 Id 0) -H T3 0 i o . u tn (H u rl 3 § a M -P (d P o S nt Id J3 o Id o s Pti o u Id si

1 0 •H >i 10 -P Ot C rH p c •H U (U C >i •H 01 MH Id J3 « rH U 4) c 0) 41 p -a VI Id rH 0 dp •a c Id 0.-P g 4) in <*» to 0) >, 0 4) 4) O 4) to s Id D> t-» o (D lU -P 0< -P P 4) C 4) ^ rH in e -p Id 10 to Id to UH 4) 4) to Id 0 -H 3 rH C 4) 4) rH P C 4) M H O P C 0 M -P to O -P 3 0 •rl in > o VI -P 1 (0 •H 3 to 3 VO 4) O Vl 4) P (N c e cj -P IM C 4) J} vo 4) U O Id to o m 4) to *• dP (U -P •H -H +) i« 4J > +J •rl f O O in O rH in 3 C S3 VI c > rH CN J3 >w • C •H >, C O •• O O 4J 0) o VI Id rH -rj U-i 4J v« CT'O HH rH V. c Id C in Id (0 Id o a c Id Id o Id -H o £ Id (0 -H (d a 0 Id W « to +J 05 • tn VI Oj rH z VI

g U to 4) 4) Id > CU 4) 4) •H rH to -a 05 -P rH CO -H U 4) z to 4) •H (0 V4 S 4J -p o MH O 4) U A 4) 4) 01 Id >i M 0 O rH C H -P 01 4) 01 C 41 -P OS 3 4) to 3 C H C 0) Ul -H M 0 o •O VI (0 O 4) O •rl to u E-< •H -P 4) 4) 01 Oi to -H to Id" H 4J U M s: Id Id o OS Id O u o Id 41 o cu Id u OS Ul ><< < Eh 0^ > i4 ^ i*P o

-11- H 05 2 D U CO Q dp cn o S (N Oi W CO

o o z • M O OT 2 D I U O O (U o o u ji o P nj O « • in (D ^ 0> .-t c c «> Eh XI j3 •H U fa •rl O -U •H M O t7> ITS jG V4 O •H 0) D> c o CO m a-P O M VI rH VI 0) (0 o U CO V 0 (4 p vi o o >1 Z «M u o a •H .. o o xj> a c >,o b « o 0) •H O nj r-l B ti CO (B r-l C O (U o 000 O 03 «>'H Z M-l U Z

o 4J o -H J2 < W •P Q E-< C U 0 z a s a >1 a >« 6h j rH fc, 0 0 u 0) fO 0 (0 tJ> 3 s w C C C C 0 0; n] C n] C 03 01 <

D> to a M

>i-P C d) 0 e 0 4) -n Q V4 5 M 0 o u "4-1 D» tT> -P "O -P VI « .J c G'O j: « -o < rQ E-< iJ -H 0) c o> C M (U VI iH < 0 01 rH (0 n] -H •H ID -P 0 ax: Q CJ C 3 M rH g >M U -P O m M m 0) 14 J} u lU rH VI S U C O 4) 0 0; p j= e tj +) rtl rH 0 M -a s < lU Vi 0 0. 10 -H 4i 0 (0 0 A Q -P U 0 Cm Vi

o (N "O U Vl «W +) <*• 0) (fl 0 "0 M 0) 0 01 (B 0) 1 rH c m C -P iH HH C -H fi .. X <0 0) . Id > 0 U 0 cn cu S ^ 4J fl) JS CO (0 C Vl U > W • OJ rH Vi • 01 rH 01 (0 -a u cum a 3 10 (0 (0 10 U) > Vi 3 >M 10 Vl -P Vl £ -p tn Ul > -P -P 4) 0 0 cud) c (0 rH 3 CO 4J iJ 3 J3 a C lU C C MH M 0) •a (0 E M 3 Vl E P •O OJ Q) W 01 dP D>-P 0 c u •H 0) 0 3 •H VI •H C 3 •H CU >i S T) 0 -H •H -O 0 0 >H v -0 (0 O4 CO i Vl (0 Vl 0 CO M rH rH CO VI Vi 0 (0 U A MH -P 10 O4 3 IH

CO >, 10 01 Oi U -a 9 lO •H in o z 0) M u s 0 s Vl o> H (D » 0) 03 >i CrH u 0 (0 0) o •H c ca-H M rH n> (Q xi Oi 0 U <4 0) 0 a, 0« > -12- For schedule adherence ^ the majority of respondents defined a bus as being on time when it is zero minutes early to five minutes late. For those properties responding, Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake, Utah) has the most explicit standard; schedule adherence standards vary by headways and the percent of trips required to be on-time is specified.

Bus stop spacing and route spacing are measures of the accessibility criterion. The range of acceptable bus stop spacing for the respondents is 660 feet to 2000 feet; for route spacing the range is one-fourth mile to one mile. Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (Syracuse, NY) has a particularly detailed standard which includes density as a variable.

The standard for passengers per vehicle mile varies among the respondents. However, several respondents state that 1.5 passengers per vehicle mile for a given route is acceptable and less than 1.5 requires re-evaluation.

The criterion frequency of service (often referred to as policy headway ) is a measure of the maximum time between conse- cutive buses. The standard for the majority of respondents is that headways should not exceed 30 minutes for peak service and 60 minutes for off-peak service.

The criterion loading is a measure of the number of passengers as a percentage of seated capacity. The range of maximum loading standards for those responding is 100% to 175% for peak service and 75% to 175% for non-peak service.

The standard for transferring is expressed as a percentage of the total number of boarding passengers, by the majority of those properties responding. Utah Transit Authority has a particularly interesting standard: 90% of the persons transferring should be able to do so within an average of one-third of the connecting route's headway. If more than 30% of the route's riders require a specific transfer, new or through routes should be established or scheduled transfer times established with a five minute maximum waiting time.

The standard for the criterion passengers per vehicle hour varies among the respondents. The following Metropolitan

Transit Authority (Nashville, Tenn. ) standard is one of the more developed: continue the route if the route ridership per hour exceeds 90% of the system average; review route if the route ridership per hour falls between 70% and 90% of the system average; if the ridership per hour falls between 60% and 70% of system average, recopjiend~possible actions for improvement or discontinue; and if the ridership per hour falls below 60% of system average, continue service in six month intex"vals or discontinue.

-13- A review of the frequency of use of the eight criteria described above, shows that the use of explicit evaluation is not common for small and medium sized properties. Thirty-three percent of the respondents do not use any of the eight criteria. Furthermore, almost half (or 48%) of the respondents use no more than one of the criteria.

In most smaller systems, it appears that the costs of data collection is not a particular problem. Data are generally collected by on-board surveys and from accumulated statistics

In many cases , accurate ridership and revenue information is recorded and collected routinely by drivers for each trip and often these data are summarized daily. It is noteworthy that most of the standards reported by the respondents did not require significant expenditures and, in most cases, were made a part of the routine accounting and scheduling tasks. It appears, therefore, that the major cost of implementing comprehensive evaluation programs in small and medium sized systems would not be in data collection, but rather in developing an evaluation program and analyzing available data. Since each management staff person in the small and medium sized properties has many different responsibilities, it appears that the effort required to develop and carry out a systematic evaluation program has yet to be identified in most cases.

3.3.2 Effectiveness of Small System Service Evaluation

Although very little was directly reported on the effectiveness of small and medium sized system evaluation, it is apparent that those properties currently carrying out service evaluation see a positive effect for their efforts. The very size and extent of these systems and their service areas allows both technical staff and policy boards to more easily under- stand the meaning of the various effectiveness measures for individual routes.

Comparisons between routes are more easily made throughout these systems for the same reasons. For example/, San Diego Transit has produced a detailed evaluation report ranking the effectiveness of each of their routes. This evaluation was then used along with other data to develop a set of adjustments and expansions for the San Diego system.

What remains unclear is the ability of most smaller systems to find new resources, or more importantly, reallocate existing resources to adjust service so that it is most effective. Even the most minor service improvements usually require an increase in operating costs, and it is often difficult for a system that operates many routes at policy headway at far less than full capacity, to take from one route to improve another route. On the other hand, if a reduction in service and operating deficits are called for in a given area, the types of effectiveness measures reported here undoubtedly are used to identify the most appropriate candidate routes for service reductions. The economic performance of various routes, r;ombined with information

-14- . relating to scheduling efficiencies which can be achieved, most often form the basis of specific service reduction decisions .

3 . 4 Service Evaluation in Large Properties

Table 3 lists the systems owning greater than 400 buses which responded to the MBTA request for information and indicates those which are currently using service criteria to evaluate the performance of their bus system. The range of procedures and analysis performed varies greatly among these systems, as well as the extent to which these procedures are applied to current routes and proposed changes.

Generally, the emphasis placed on service evaluation procedures is highly dependent on policy-dictated factors, such as a funding constraint. For example, the Minnesota Legisla- ture has imposed a maximum allowed subsidy per passenger which, for the Minneapolis/St. Paul system, has been applied on a route by route basis. In Toronto, the subsidy policy requires that seventy (70) percent of the cost of transit service be paid out of the farebox. In many cases, service standards were adopted to provide a justifiable basis for significant reduction in services which were too costly and ineffective, while at the same time improving those services which have been most effective. In Boston, the adoption of the service policy standards allowed the elimination of a number of very poorly patronized bus routes and the subsequent reallocation of much of this manpower to provide headway improvements to other overloaded . routes

The evaluation of bus service in large systems is often performed using a variety of criteria or measures and by utilizing the inputs of a number of departments. The next section outlines which departments are generally responsible for specific aspects of service evaluation. Immediately following are several sections which describe the use of the three types of evaluation criteria or standards which were reported: service design measures, operating performance measures, and economic and productivity measures. A distinction has not been made as to whether each measure is applied to both existing and newly proposed services. Generally, the reported measures are almost always applied to proposed services, often applied to specific existing services where reductions or improvements to service in the same general geographic area are proposed, and only occasionally are applied systematically to all existing services. In many cases, different criteria or standards are used for different subgroups of the population (e.g., elderly and handicapped) and for different types of service (e.g., feeder vs. express bus service). A final section includes a discussion of the effectiveness of using these evaluation techniques in large properties.

-15- y 1 ,

Table 3

LARGE SYSTEM SURVEY RESPONSE

UTILIZING DEVELOPING DOTTT'T? Q'D'R'PT'E'TP KUUiiii bxrJiv-Xr lU b X b irjM Urest? i5Ubi!ibTillCCC blliKVU^Ci V^KllrjKlA biiKVXL.±!i UKXiiiKXA

1 1 /—\ ^ 4~ yQ 3 '14 AY

yl "7 "3 Burraio 4 / J A V caxgar fi y fi A uxeveianu AV Denver Q C AY Detroit Q C /I AV jiaruont-on,Li' TV\ 4~ *^ D J U AV

nous uon 1 / u AY V jjOS Angexes z , J y 1 A Mlami D 3 un A AY jyiiiwauKee O ^ J A iYiinnecipo ns/ Q+- Pan! J. f ux y Y 2 07 5 V Y X / U Q

I" 11Pi-L I— I— Oc;h>nL-i -LTcrVi1 955 X San Francisco 1,003 X Seattle 725 X St. Louis 1,140 X Toronto 1,219 X Vancouver 858 X Washington D.C. 2,187 X Winnipeg 543 X X

-16- 3.4.1. Responsibility for Service Evaluation

Traditionally, the scheduling department has been the primary focus of service evaluation activities. At the current time, scheduling managers in large systems are still very much involved in these activities, although in most cases they do not have primary responsibility for producing evaluation reports or recommendations. Almost uniformly, the schedulina departments still determine appropriate headways and base needed headway adjustments on periodic maximum load counts on each route. They also often monitor route operating speed and schedule adherence and adjust schedules slightly to accommodate varying run times.

The traffic checkers in most systems, who collect most of the data ultimately used in service evaluation, are generally located in the scheduling department. For the survey respondents, the number of traffic checkers employed ranged from five to forty, with most of the systems currently using from ten to twenty checkers. There is not a strong relationship between the number of checkers used and the size of the system.

The revenue departments in large properties often provide basic data analysis used in evaluation of existing service. Such analysis is a useful by-product of the various audits which they must complete for revenue control reasons.

Large properties which indicated that they utilize rigorous evaluation procedures generally have a small analytical operations or service planning staff which ranged from two to ten persons. This is sometimes augmented by staff support from municipal or regional planning agencies which receive UMTA Section 9 planning funds. These planning staffs will usually produce written evaluation and short-term feasibility reports which recommend changes in route design, hours of service, or significant changes in frequency of service.

The operation planning staffs depend heavily on their ability to obtain current and relevant data on system performance, an ability which seems to vary widely from system to system depending on the size of the property, labor agreements, checkers available, and processing requirements. For example, the Pittsburgh and Minneapolis/St. Paul systems are able to obtain a virtually one hundred percent sample of revenue and ridership on each route because drivers have always been required to fill out a daily trip report. On the other hand, Los Angeles planners sometimes have to wait up to a year in some cases to obtain completed processing of relevent evaluation data.

The "data problem" is recognized by most large systems as a critical component of any evaluation scheme. The response to this study indicated that creative approaches to

-17- this problem are being actively sought in many large properties. For example, the Toronto system uses field sheets for passenger characteristics (on-off) counts which can be opti- cally "read" directly into a computer data bank. Other Cana- dian and U. S. systems are currently testing automatic passenger counting and vehicle monitoring systems. The UMTA Office of Planning Assistance is currently sponsoring a companion study to the MBTA and TTDC projects which will result in the production of a comprehensive guide to service evaluation data collection techniques. The final report of this study is expected in 1980. 3.4.2 Service Design Criteria

The surveyed properties use eight different criteria to evaluate the design of their bus services. Table 4 describes the various criteria, summarizes how and how often the necessary data is collected, and indicates how many authorities use each evaluation measure.

As can be seen from Table 4, 70% of all the reporting systems which utilize service criteria indicated that they use loading standards as an important measure to evaluate and adjust their services accordingly. Peak load point counts by time of day are usually used for determining these measures, although average occupancy is sometimes calculated from characteristic (on-off) counts along the entire route or some segment of a route. One system suggested that peak load point counts alone are not enough to adequately evaluate loading conditions since the duration of the peak load and the various loadings beneath it are critical to passenger satis- faction. Another system seems to have solved this problem by adopting a standard for the maximum amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes) that a bus passenger would have to stand, although such a standard is extremely difficult to systematically monitor.

The use of policy (or maximum) headways is probably under- reported in this sample, since it is suspected that most systems use at least an informal guideline in setting minimum levels of services. Most large systems 'try to maintain at least 30 minute headways during peak hours and 6 0 minute headways during off-peak periods.

The s ervice distribution criterion refers to where and how much service is maintained within a region. This variable can generally be measured given one of two philosophies of service distribution: 1) route spacing standards based on population density (a productivity emphasis) , or 2) amount of service in a political jurisdiction based on funding provided by that jurisdiction (a funding emphasis) . Each of the five authorities which indicated that they monitor service distribution place their emphasis on productivity. However, Los Angeles is currently in the process of redefining their policy to better reflect funding issues. Bus stop spacing standards

-18- dp ro O o dP CM (N

1 >1

8 >1 < 0) Is

m(0 un un in o •H CO I in >. rH (0 2 M (A "1 Oi lA cm-l (1) I i3 k

1 I >:<*-( 4-) 0)

•H to •H

U OJ (0 Cfl

•H

9 •g.s

u c in I 33 S3 -19- are actually alternative, more frequently used measures of overall service distribution. Bus stop spacing usually varies with population density and character of the neighborhood .

Directness of service is evaluated in several ways: the number of transfers required to complete a trip, standards which define minimum transfer rates to determine suitability for through routing, and maximum route deviation standards which are applied to proposed improvements.

Passenger shelter standards are used to measure the equitable placement of passenger amenities throughout a large system. Shelter standards are generally based on a combination of boarding counts and frequency of service. These standards also may include some consideration of the user demographics and the characteristics (e.g., geography, weather exposure) of the area.

New service design measures involve the different criteria used to assess new service proposals. These often include the minimum service distribution, ridership and economic standards described elsewhere in this section, such as projected passengers per mile or revenue to cost ratios for the improvement. The obvious difference between the new service and existing service standards is that most of the new service measures must be estimated since no actual operating experience exists. Ex- pansion proposals also are ranked on socio-economic characteristics of the neighborhood served, such as medium income, population density, auto ownership or percent elderly and youth population. More subjective criteria to assess the intergra- tion of new proposals with the existing system are also used. Appendix E, "New Service Design", includes descriptions of the three authorities which provided specific evaluation programs. However, individual criteria which new services must meet are included in other portions of Appendix E which deal with productivity.

3.4.3. Operating Performance Criteria

As can be seen from Table 5, the most widely used operational criterion is schedule adherence . The standards which are used to measure schedule adherence generally are comprised of two com- ponents which can be varied by type and frequency of service: 1) a definition of "on time" which includes an acceptable early and late range (e.g. one minute early and up to five minutes

late) , and 2) the percentage of trips on each route which are expected to be on-time (e.g. a range of 80-99 percent is con-

sidered acceptable by large properties) . Schedule adherence data is generally collected by traffic checkers as they observe maximum load counts, although most properties also have starters and inspectors doing spot checks or assigned to specific routes

-20- dP * dP (IP o\ w vo in

4J 2

(d Htn 4J x; •H c (U 0 tn s § 5 lo £ I. OJ _ M ^ ii

§ .s

J Sj a i (0

^ 0 tn tn I 4J i tn H nj t/3 < a u I I

-21- . . where problems have been identified. As most operators indicate that the scheduling department is responsible for analyzing these data, it is not clear whether many properties use this information for comparing the performance of different routes.

The remaining criteria listed in Table 5 are often used by transportation or operations department personnel as informal measures to identify specific corrective action, but are rarely used in overall system planning and evaluation. Operating speed standards are reported to be regularly used by only two respondents. Since transit operators do not have direct control over the traffic conditions which affect operating speed, these standards are often used in discussions with other governmental agencies to take action on improving particular traffic conditions. The transit operator may have the opportunity to initiate the implementation of priority traffic signals for buses or special preferential roadway lanes. In the extreme case, such standards are used to recommend rerouting around particularly troublesome spots.

The use of accident data is primarily confined to improvement in driver performance or vehicle safety, although a service related comparison between routes can be made to identify specific locations or turning movements v/hich are especially dangerous. If so identified, service planners can identify alternative routings which would minimize the need to negotiate the more dangerous movements

Complaint data are used in much the same way as accident data, that is, to spot troubled routes for some type of remedial action. The various standards used include a specified percent deviation from the system average and maximum thresholds by type of complaint which initiate special action. Again, a tie can be made to the service planning function if service type complaints are analyzed periodically for unsuspected problems or trends.

Data on miles per trouble call are used primarily for monitoring vehicle performance. If passenger delay is recorded on trouble call reports, routes can be monitored for the occur- rence of undue delays and corrective action can be planned for recurring long delays.

The monitoring of lost runs is important from an operations planning perspective since, theoretically, a shortage of manpower or vehicles could be anticipated by preparing a plan for allocating such a shortage among routes which would impact the least number of people for the shortest period of time. In any case, the evaluation of lost run data can help identify any obvious biases in the allocation of the resources available systemwide

-22- 3.4.4. Economic and Productivity Criteria

The economic and productivity criteria listed in Table 6 form the basis for the major portion of any transit service evaluation methodology. Service performance must ultimately be measured by the number of riders attracted and revenues generated by any system. The various measures used provide different biases towards different types of transit service (eg. express line-haul service, crosstown service, or feeder service) depending on the length of passengers' trips and the fare levels paid. Many large systems monitor several of these economic criteria to balance the specific bias inherent in each or, alternatively, attempt to develop some type of composite measure which combine two or more different measures.

Ridership trend data is monitored regularly by several properties and allows the quick identification of routes which deserve further analysis. A sudden increase or decrease in the ridership level of a route indicates that some change has taken place in either service delivery or trip generators in the area. More gradual ridership trends provide an opportunity to analyze specific subareas to plan for commensurate improvements for ridership increases and appropriate remedial action for a decreasing trend.

Passengers per vehicle hour and passengers per vehicle mile are alternative ways to measure productivity of specific routes or route segments. The per vehicle hour measure is biased against urban routes which are slowed by traffic congestion, while the per vehicle mile measure is biased against faster, express-type routes. Standards for individual routes often vary by time of day and type of passengers carried. For example, routes with high percentages of elderly or transit dependent passengers need to meet lower standards in the Boston region. It is interesting to note that none of the respondents reported that they currently use any measure of passenger miles , the specific performance measure required by UMTA regulations under the Project FARE, Section 15 reporting requirements. This is in spite of the fact that the passenger miles measure successfully avoids the biases discussed above with the "per mile" measure. It is known that London Transport uses this measure as its primary indicator of total benefit for service proposals.

Average fare per passenger measures the revenue generated by routes based on the type of passengers carried. It also may be used to identify routes which may have specific revenue control or fare evasion problems. The revenue per mile and cost per mile measures are straight-forward indicators of how routes compare on the basis of similar mileage, although they exhibit the same type of bias discussed above.

-23- 1

OP- dP *> dP dP 00 o in (N r~ n n n (N (N 1-4 r-l

r- 00 in V0 1-1

I 2 2 85

> 1 as 2 2 g M-i «i3 .5 'a S8 §8 §2 3

3 rp 0 gj

Q) -P >4-lo >1 01 Q) 01 CI (0 Id -O -J > in in (M

U M o o

a 2 •H

M 0) HJ r-l

-24- The revenue to cost ratio is a well-formulated composite measure which can be used as a systemwide management goal as well as an indicator of individual route performance. The Toronto system must cover seventy percent of their yearly costs through legislative mandate. Using this measure as an overall screening tool, remedial action can be planned either in the direction of rerouting to serve larger trip generators or reducing the level and, therefore, the cost of providing the service. The precision of the revenue/cost ratio is, of course, dependent on the sophistication of the cost allocation model which is used. Factors such as operating speeds, administrative and maintenance overhead, and whether a trip is operated as a tripper or a regularly scheduled run, all affect the cost of operating a particular route.

Finally, subsidy per passenger is another measure which can be used in justifying funding levels; the Minnesota legi- slature has recently provided funding for the Minneapolis/ St. Paul system based on a specific subsidy per passenger figure. This provides an incentive to a system to attract nevj passengers and allows a reasonable increase in the amount of service provided to accommodate the new passengers. For policymakers, a route by route comparison using this measure provides a bottom line analysis of the financial health of the system, even though it will be biased against those routes carrying a. larger number of discount fare passengers.

3.4.5. Effectiveness of Service Evaluation in Larger Bus Systems

While most of the authorities surveyed have developed and are currently using some service criteria, data on the effectiveness of these evaluation efforts are limited. However, even where empirical cost-effectiveness data are not available, several authorities indicated that the presence of service standards has made it easier to gain support for management decisions.

The experiences of Montreal, Seattle , Toronto, and Los Angeles, indicate that efficiencies can be gained by carefully adhering to established standards. The Montreal Planning Director indicated that their data collection program has allowed the authority to slightly reduce the level of service provided without a ridership loss. While Seattle has not reduced the number of vehicles used, the established service standards have allowed management to systematically shift buses from less productive routes to those with higher demand.

As a result of work undertaken in Toronto since 1977, the consistent application of vehicle loading standards has resulted in systemwide net savings in peak hour vehicles. It is estimated

-25- . .

that 12 3 vehicles were saved during the two peak periods and 4 5 buses were added, leading to a net saving of 79 vehicles. By analyzing how the economic performance of routes in the bottom economic quartile could be improved, an additional 17 peak period vehicles were saved.

In Toronto, as in all other systems, the vehicle savings will be greatest during the first year of implementation. During this first year, the most blatant inefficiencies were identified and corrected. Adherence to loading standards in subsequent years will be useful in responding to minor shifts in ridership patterns

Los Angeles appears to have made the greatest savings as a result of implementing established standards. From 1976 when formal standards were adopted, the peak bus requirement was reduced by over 100, and vehicle miles were reduced by 11 million. Without significant passenger loss the authority saved approximately $20 million. This savings compared quite favorably to the $1 million spent annually to collect the data necessary to implement the standards

-26- 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis and discussion of bus transit service evaluation procedures presented here reveals that transit operators in the United States and Canada are aware that useful evaluation techniques are currently available. Most systems are beginning to recognize the importance of a systematic service evaluation procedure to ensure an efficient as well as a more effective delivery of service. Given this recog- nition, many properties have made commitments to move from sporadic use of evaluation measures toward the establishment of a systematic evaluation effort. Very few systems have achieved this goal fully at the current time. It appears important to note that most of those properties currently utilizing systematic service evaluation procedures have turned to these procedures in the face of severe legislative or policy-dictated funding constraints. The positive experience of these few properties has led other properties to con- sider the development of more rigorous procedures.

Several important points should be made regarding the development and use of any bus service evaluation program:

• The criteria and standards presented here are used in most cases to guide decisionmaking, but flexibility is reserved in most cases for consideration of more subjective factors; measures can often be used simply as screening tools to determine where to concentrate more rigorous analysis efforts.

• Data collection probably deserves the most intensive consideration when developing a service evaluation program; data collection procedures must ensure that the information obtained is truly valid and accurate; care must be taken to avoid collecting too much or inappropriate data; careful consideration must be given to how the data will be routinely processed in a timely fashion.

• The final products of the evaluation program must not be unduly complex; they must be understood and useful to policymakers; it may be best to develop and use a few reliable standards consistently, while relegating a number of secondary standards to occasional use in more technical reviews of problem-plagued routes.

• Given the variation in transit evaluation procedures, policy settings and funding conditions that have been observed in this study, it is apparent that each transit property should individually tailor the development

-2 7- .

of an evaluation program to their own local operating environment

From the review of service evaluation procedures now in use, it appears that an effective, systematic evaluation program is certainly achievable by every transit property at a reasonable, and often surprisingly low, additional cost. A short, but intensive staff effort is needed to examine existing data resources, new data requirements, and evaluation techniques in order to design a system which can effectively evaluate service performance. This study has shown that there is a relative abundance of information available from a wide range of transit properties on service evaluation techniques. Most properties contacted during the course of this study would welcome inquiries about their current methods.

In many ways, transit authorities are being held more accountable for their performance, and they can no longer af- ford to ignore the basic evaluation procedures outlined in this study. Effective management demands a continuing assessment of the service being delivered. Transit service evaluation need not be complex; it needs only to exist and be used by all levels of transit management.

-28- APPENDIX A

BIBLIOGRAPHY I

This bibliography is included with the permission of Gordon J. Fielding and has been reprinted in its entirety from:

Fielding, Gordon J. , Roy E. Glauthier and Charles A. Lance, Development of Performance Indicators

for Transit , Institute of Transportation Studies and School of Social Sciences, University of Cali- fornia, Irvine, California, December, 1977. NTIS- PB-278-678, prepared for UMTA.

-29- INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed is best discussed and presented in two distinct categories: firstly, sources which directly relate to transit and the evaluation of transit performance, and secondly, sources dealing with theoretical subjects readily applicable to the research topic but with only peripheral importance to the present study.

Each section shall highlight the major areas of research, the outstanding sources, and then list the sources alphabet- ically by author or issuing agency.

This search has been conducted through the Information Resource Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine. In compiling this bibliography use was made of on-line information retrieval data- bases including TRIS-ON-LINE , NTIS, Dissertation Abstracts, and Psychological Abstracts.

The sources included are available in the Information Resource Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies, and the University Library of the University of California, Irvine. Those documents available through the National Tech- nical Information Service are so noted.

-30- TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION SOURCES

TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT EVALUATION:

The largest segment of literature reviewed relates to the evaluation of transit and transportation systems. The majority of this literature deals with the evaluation of alternative plans in particular cities and regions while a les- ser number of sources address the problems inherent in evaluating system performance in general and advocate possible evaluation schemes.

Among those sources which discuss the problems and dif- ficulties of evaluation, the study by Tomazinis stands out for the clarity with which it defines the conceptual and methodol- ogical aspects of evaluating productivity, efficiency, and quality of urban transportation systems. Tomazinis argues that the total transportation system of an area must be evaluated as an interrelated system. He also insists that measures of efficiency in the use of resources be separated from measures of effectiveness in achieving ridership.

Unquestionably the most comprehensive study is that done by the RAND Corporation (Pardee, et al) which developed a systematic, accounting-based methodology for evaluating the potential benefit of alternative transportation proposals. The major emphases of this study are the definition and measurement of transportation attributes and their aggregation into measures of benefit. The shortcoming of this volume is that it is comprised of loosely joined papers and is not cohesive.

Among the most applicable sources to the present study-- and the most recent— are two studies which came out in 197 5 and 1976. The first of these, by Allen and DiCesare, discusses the need for evaluation of transit service and provides an overview of the theory of evaluation methodology. Allen and DiCesare conclude that transit service can indeed be measured and that the effort to develop a comprehensive evaluation scheme--while being considerable--would be justi- fied. The second paper, by Gilbert and Dajani, examines possible perspectives (federal, state, local, user and operator) which an evaluation system might take and determines that the interrelated nature of these perspectives necessitates a conceptual framework to assist in selecting appropriate performance indicators and combining their values into meaningful evaluations. Their conceptual framework emphasizes three levels of evaluation: efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. Gilbert and Dajani recommend that a basic leval of funding should be provided to systems with additional funding for

-31- . —

those which achieve increased effectiveness.

Several sources deal with the evaluation of particular aspects of transportation. Hoel discusses transportation requirements for dependent users and points out that traditional analysis techniques have not been sufficiently microscopic to isolate the needs or special problems of particular groups The effects of geography on transit costs and evaluation are the subject of Miller's paper, and he finds that costs or urban bus operation vary across cities in ways which cannot be entirely accounted for by factor price of output differences. Miller further lists several "city descriptor" variables such as congestion and density—which affect transit service but are outside the control of the operator.

Roess examines the evaluation of efficiency in rail transit, and argues that it is an extremely narrow subject and not capable of focusing on truly significant issues. Ef- ficiency evaluation, he states, is limited to economic efficiency and labor utilization efficiency, yet the important questions are those relating to the public service aspects of transit.

SERVICE STANDARDS:

Specification of service standards are germane for this study of transit. Classics in this field are the reports pub lished in 1958 by the National Committee on Urban Transporta- tion. They still hold value as the origin of many of the evaluation techniques in use today. These reports were among the first to address the planning of transportation as a comprehensive urban system and to specify service standards, objectives, and measurement techniques for transit. More recently, Aronstein discusses the setting of performance standards, computation of achieved values, and the weighting and aggregation of factor scores into a single system score. Aronstein emphasizes the quality factors from the rider's point of view.

Research presently underway may resolve some of the prob lems posed in the above articles and establish an effective system of service standards. The California Department of Transportation's Level of Service research should be reviewed as indicative of the direction being pursued in current work. Although not yet completed, reports published to date have in eluded the literature search, a listing of possible criteria, the evaluation and selection of an 11-criteria scheme of eval uation, and an explanation of the weighting of evaluation cri teria

-32- .

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:

Alternatives analysis, as mentioned above, received the attention of a major portion of literature sources, some of which have been cited above (see Pardee, et al) . Other sources dealing with this topic were oriented toward the importance of transportation externalities and hard-to-quantify factors in the alternatives analysis (Klein and Irwin) Rea and Miller develop a method by which different modes of transportation may be evaluated as to their potential service and flexibility in a particular corridor or environment. Finally, the theory of transport pricing, demand forecasting, project evaluation, and systems planning is covered compre- hensively in the two-volume Brookings Institute Study by Meyer and Straszheim.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE:

Studies of governmental assistance to transit are also relevant to this project. The study by Jones, et al, is among the most valuable of these sources, and presents a detailed analysis of the sources and procedures of transit assistance. Jones finds that transit subsidies in general lack clear objectives, promote capital-oriented solutions, and fail to correspond to actual levels of need. Citing the fail- ure of current subsidy systems to encourage efficiency and more effective service, three possible strategies are outlined for the allocation of additional funding: (1) a flat rate allocation per rider with a higher rate for senior citizen riders; (2) a lower, flat rate allocation per rider, higher flat rate per senior patron, and a flat rate allocation per coach mile; and (3) same allocation basis as strategy #1, yet in- suring all operators a minimum allocation of 25 per cent of the shortfall between farebox revenues and operating costs. These three strategies are evaluated as to their potential effects in California, and found to require additional funding of $54, $59, and $62 million respectively.

Several other sources are worthy of note with respect to government assistance. The first, by Beshers, presents the arguments for federal operating subsidies, defines the subsidy options available, and concludes that a block-grant procedure combining operating and capital funds might be the most effective subsidy strategy. The second, by Tye, takes the position that the long-run trend of increasing deficits in the transit industry will result in escalating government subsidies, and that use should be made of potential inherent in subsidies to bring about improved financial conditions and efficiency. Lastly, Oi, analyzes the deficit situation of transit through the 1960 's and into the 1970' s and discusses the rationale for

-33- .

transit subsidization. Assuming that subsidies are necessary for the continuance of the transit industry, Oi seeks the op- timal allocation procedure for federal funds. Formulas based on urban population, transit revenue passengers, vehicle- miles of service, and potential transit riders are evaluated in terms of efficacy, economic efficiency, distribution costs, and equity; and the vehicle-miles and potential transit rider formulas are recommended over the others

From the standpoint of justifying governmental transit subsidies, the paper by Elliott is an interesting attempt at isolating the "bottom line" cost to society of the automobile. Elliott computes costs of the hidden budgetary costs, smog, and congestion, and arrives at a hidden public cost of peak- hour driving of 6.3<: per mile, or approximately $2 per drive per day during the summer and $1 per day during the winter.

EVALUATION SYSTEMS: APPLICABLE CASES

While most sources dealing with actual evaluations were limited to single areas, several have wider scopes and are particularly applicable to this study. The Council of Muni- cipal Performance's report (Sagner) sets forth an evaluation scheme for an area's public transportation system and then proceeds to evaluate the systems of twenty-eight major U.S. cities. The report also reviews America's car-dependence, the need for public transportation to assist with problems of en- ergy, pollution, and environmental quality, and sets forth low-cost ways of improving public transit. The Council's report is designed to raise public awareness of the problems and potentials of transit and provide directions for seeking fea- sible improvements.

Actual service standards are established in the Massachu- setts Bay Transportation Authority report, as well as an evaluation system by which the performance of transit within that region shall be measured. This report also details the administrative actions to be taken in cases of substandard performance. One of the most well-known systems of service standards is that of Portland's Tri-County Metropolitan District (King). The system is based on an explicit set of goals for transportation improvement over the five-year period 1974 through 197 9 which include: increasing average daily ridership 100% by 197 9; doubling the percentage of downtown travelers arriving by bus by 1979; achieving a farebox support ratio of 40%; and increasing the level of public transportation available to elderly and handicapped both through improved accessibility to regular service and through special service essential to better mobility to these groups. Tri-Met followed these goals with an equally-direct set of service standards based on

-34- .

principles of access, convenience, speed, and cost. "The criteria spell out where bus lines ought to go, what hours and how often they ought to run, how fast they should reach a given destination, and how much is an acceptable cost." (King, p. 24)

Finally, the evaluation processes created within the Pennsylvania Mass Transportation Assistance Program (see Penn- sylvania, Department of Transportation) are reviewed in the paper by Vuchic, et al. The Pennsylvania system specifies operating guidelines and service standards, then establishes the evaluation and enforcement procedures necessary to ensure com- pliance— either voluntarily or through fiscal leverage. The process later established for evaluation of grant requests under the Pennsylvania program is the subject for Underwood, et al. This paper explains the evaluation process and the actions taken by the funding agency in response to achieved scores

BIBLIOGRAPHIES:

Good bibliographies are invaluable to any research. That compiled by the San Diego Transit Corporation (Wood, et al) is comprehensive and includes annotation. The bibliography compiled by Stroh is extremely well annotated and emphasizes literature relating to transportation policy and planning. Many of the other sources included bibliographies of better-than- average quality: Tomazinis, Sagner, Smerk ( Urban Mass Trans- portation : . . . ) , and DeBeer contained probably the best.

-35- Allen, Gary R., "An Analysis of Subsidy Issues in Public Transportation,"

Traffic Quarterly . Vol. XXX, No. 4 (October 1976). pp. 595- 614.

Allen. William G., Jr.. and DiCesare, Frank. Transit Service Evaluation : An Introduction and Preliminary Identification of Variables

Characterizing Level of Service . Prepared for presentation at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.. January, 1976.

Alter. Colin H., "Evaluation of Public Transit Services: The Level-of-

Service Concept," Transportation Research Record , No. 606, 1976, pp. 37-40.

American Society of Civil Engineers. Urban Transportation Efficiency , Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on. New York, New York, July 26-27, 1976.

Aronstein, Robert H., "A Proposed Standard for Transportation Systems," Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Intersociety Conference on

Transportation , July 18-23, 1976, Los Angeles, Calif.

Austin, City of. Traffic and Transportation Department. Analysis of

Existing Transit Systems . October, 1972. (NTIS PB 213 413)

Babcock, Henry A., "Desirable Standards for Transit Facilities and

Services," Transportation and Metropolitan Planning . California Chapter of the American Institute of Planners, University Extension, University of California, 1956, pp. 45-58.

Bair, Brent 0., and McKelvey, Douglas J. Current State Practices in

Transit Funding . Center for Urban Transportation Studies, The Institute of Urban And Regional Research, The University of Iowa. July 1975.

Barnum, Darold T. Collective Bargaining in Urban Mass Transit Systems . Philadelphia, Penn.: Transportation Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania, 1972. (NTIS.PB 221 886)

Baum, Milton S., et al . , Cost and Benefit Evaluation of the Sacramento Transit Authority" Sacramento Transit Authority, California. October 1970. (NTIS PB 197 823)

Beesley, M.E. Urban Transport: Studies in Economic Policy . London: Butterworths, 1973.

Bellomo, Salvatore, J. "Toward An Evaluation of Subarea Transportation Systems," Highway Research Record #293, 1969, pp. 14-32.

Bergman, D.R., "Development of Urban Transportation System Standards and Project Evaluation Criteria," prepared for the Michigan Department of Commerce, 1972. (NTIS PB 216 164)

-36- . .

Berk, Richard A., "Performance Measures: Half Full or Half Empty?"

Social Science Quarterly , Vol.54, No.4(March 1974), pp. 762-764.

Beshers, Eric W., "Federal Transit Operating Subsidy Options,"

Transportation Research Record , No. 573, 1976, pp. 12-17.

Botzow, Hermann, "Level -of -Service Concept For Evaluating Public Transport

Transportation Research Record , No. 519; Public Transportation Planning Issues, 1974, pp. 73-84.

Brand, D. "Seminar on Systems Attributes and Performance," Highway

Research Record Special Report 124 , 1971, pp. 69-87.

Breuer, R., and Shafer, J., "Transit Evaluation: Demand and Non-demand

Aspects," Defining Transportation Requirements . New York, N.Y.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968, pp. 24-32.

Bruck, h.W., and Kneafsey, James T., "Toward the Development of a Generalized structure of Transportation Service Measures,"

Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting , Transportation Research Forum, Vol. XV, No. 1 (.1974), pp. 399-405

California, Department of Transportation. UMTA Technical Study Grant

CA-09-8001 : Level of Service Criteria For Public Transit Service. Working Papers Presently Available: Task' B: Literature Search Task C: Potential Level of Service Criteria Task D: Recommended Level of Service Criteria Task F: Transit Weighting Factor Survey Task G: Mode Definition For Application to Level of Service Criteria

California, Department of Transportation, Division of Mass Transit. Thp

SCARCE Amenities in Public Transit . By George E. Gray.

Carstens, R.L.; Mercier, C.R.; and Kannel , E. J., "Current Status of State Level Support For Transit," Transportation Research

Record , no. 589: Urban Transportation Finance, 1976, pp. 14-19.

Center for Transportation Studies. Cost Analysis Tool for Bus Transit

Systems, Volumes I & II . September 1970. CNTIS PB 206 207)

Cherwony, Walter, and McCollum, Brian, "Development of Multi -Modal Cost Allocation Models," Proceedings of the Fourth Intersociety

Conference on Transportation , July 18-23, 1976, Los Angeles,

Ca., P & P - 1

Comprehensive Planning Organization. Transit Operator's Performance

Audit Guide . San Diego, July, 1976.

Crosby, Thomas, "FARE," Mass Transit , Vol. IV » No.6(June 1977), pp.8+. DeBeer, Ann Maurer. Financing Operating Subsidies For Urban Mass Transit

Systems: An Analysis of State and Local Tax Options . Consortium of Universities, Washington, D.C., Urban Transportation Center, June, 1974. (NTIS PB 239 634)

Deen, Thomas B., "The Potential For Transit Standards," Traffic Quarterly , Vol, 31, No. 1 (Jan 1977), pp. 119-137.

Domencich, Thomas A., and Kraft, Gerald. Free Transit . A Charles River Associates Research Study. Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington Books, 1970.

Elliott, Ward, Giving the Plan A Bottom Line: Suggestions For Adding Cost -

Benefit Comparisions to the California Transportation Plan . Rose Institute of State and Local Government, Claremont Men's CoVl ege, Claremont Calif., May 1976.

Farris, Martin T., and Harding, Forrest E. Passenger Transportation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.

Faulks, R.W. Principles of Transport . London: Ian Allan, Ltd., 1973.

Fearnsides, John; Hedrick, J. Karl; and Firouztash, H., "Specification of Ride Quality Criteria for Transport Systems: The State of the Art and a New Approach," High Speed Ground Transportation

Journal , Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer 1974), pp. 125-132.

Fielding, G.J. and Glauthier, Roy E. Distribution and Allocation of Transit

Subsidies in California . Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, September, 1976.

Fitch, Lyle C, and Associates. Urban Transportation and Public Policy . San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1964.

Fuller, John W., "Financing State Transit Subsidies," Proceedings of

the Fourteenth Annual Meeting , Transportation Research Forum, October 1973.

George, Stephen, "Transportation System Development and Evaluation as

Practiced in Seattle," Highway Research Record , No. 238, 1968, pp. 116-120.

Georgi, Hanspeter. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Public Investment in

Transport: A Survey . London: Butterworths , 1973.

Gilbert, Gorman, and Dajani, Jarir. Measuring The Performance of Transit

Service . University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1975.

Haefele, Edwin T. (ed.). Transport and National Goals . Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, Transport Research Program, 1969.

Hayward, Nancy S., "The Productivity Challenge," Public Administration Review, Vol. 36, No. 5 (Sept-Oct 1976), pp. 544-550.

-38- Heathington, Kenneth W., "Application of Levels of Service and Marketing

in Public Transportation Planning," Urban Transportation Efficiency . Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on.American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New York, July 26-27, 1976, pp. 177-185.

Heathington, Kenneth W., "Evaluation of Urban Public Transportation,"

ASCE Engineering Issues; Journal of Professional Activities , American Society of Civil Engineers, July 1974. pp. 241-249.

Highwav Users Federation, Technical Services Division. Technical Study

Memorandum No. 7: Public Financial Support For Transit . By William D. Hart. Washington, D.C., September 1973.

Hill, Morris, "Method for the Evaluation of Transportation Plans," Highway

Research Record , No. 180: Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation of Alternative Plans, 1967, pp. 21-34.

Hilton, George W. Federal Transit Subsidies: The Urban Mass Transportation

Assistance Program . Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, June 1974.

Hoel , Lester A., "Transportation Requirements of Dependent Users," Defining

Transportation Requirements . New York, N.Y.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968, pp. 190-194.

Institute of Traffic Engineers. Areawide Traffic Performance Evaluation

Measures . Draft report of Committee 4H-M, Areawide Traffic Performance Evaluation Measures Committee, September 1, 1974.

Irwin, Neal A., "Criteria For Evaluating Alternative Transportation Systems,

Highway Research Record , No. 148, 1966.

James, D.H., "Public Transportation Operating Standards," Special Report

144: Issues in Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July 1972.

Jones, David W., Jr.; Mollenkopf, John; and Rowen, Hilary. Transit Operating Assistance: Options For A Second Generation Program of

State Aid . Prepared For the California Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Planning by the Stanford Transportation Research Program and the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Stanford University, February, 1976.

Kasoff, Mark J., "The Quality of Service and Transit Use," Traffic

Quarterly , Vol. 24 (January 1970), pp. 107-119.

Keller, Walter F. Development of an Evaluation Model for Mass Transit . Ph.D. dissertation prepared at University of California, Los \ngeles, 1972. Available through University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

King, Thomas Starr, "A Rational Approach to Planning: Tri-Met's Criteria

for Service," Transit Journal , Vol. 1, No. 1 (Feb 1975), pp. 23-26.

-39- Klein, George E., "Evaluation of New Transportation Systems," Defining

Transportation Requirements . New York, N.Y.: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968, pp. 70-82+.

Kresge, David T., and Roberts, Paul 0., Techniques of Transport Planning ,

Volume II: Systems Analysis and Stimulation Models . Washington,

D.C. : The Brookings Institute, Transport Research Program, 1971.

Levine, Harvey A., "An Evaluation of the Procedures for Allocating Operating Deficits from Urban Transit Systems," Proceedings of the Fifteenth

Annual Meeting , Transportation Research Forum, Vol. XV, No. 1 C1974), pp. 87-95.

Levinson, Herbert S., "Strategy Selection Criteria and Efficiency Measures."

Urban Transportation Efficiency , Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New York, July 26-27, 1976, pp. 16-46.

Lynch, Thomas D. Policy Analysis in Public Policymaking . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1975.

Massachusetts, State of. Governor's Task Force on Transporataion. Report

To Governor Sargent, Part II . June 1970.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Service Policy for Surface

Public Transpof^tation . December 30, 1975.

McManus, Robert H., "Financing Public Transportation," Special Report 144:

Issues In Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July 1972, pp. 31-38.

Merewitz, Leonard, "On Measuring the Efficiency Of Public Enterprises: Bus Operating Companies in The San Francisco Bay Area,"

Transportation , Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 1977), pp. 45-55.

Meyer, John R., and Gomez-Ibanez, Jose A. Measurement and Analysis of

Productivity in Transportation Industries . Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., November, 1975.

Meyer, John R., and Straszheim, Mahlon R. Techniques of Transport Planning ,

Volume I: Pricing and Project Evaluation . Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institute, Transport Research Program, 1971.

Miller, David R., "Differences Among Cities, Differences Among Firms, and

Costs of Urban Bus Transport,'' Journal of Industrial Economics , November 1970, pp. 22-32.

Miller, David R., "Financing Mass Transit: Mobility Is Among The Assets,"

Technology Review , December, 1973, pp. 45-51.

Miller, David R., "Financing Public Transportation," Special Report 144 :

Issues In Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July 1972, pp. 47-62. -40^ Mohring, Herbert, "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus

Transportation," American Economic Review , Vol. 62, No. 4 (Sept. 1972), pp. 591-603.

Mohring, Herbert. Transportation Economics . Cambridge, Mass.: Bal linger Publishing Company, 1976.

K'indy, Ray A., "The Economic Use of Subsidies For Urban Mass

Transportation," Transportation , Vol. 5, No. 2 (June 1967), pp. 123-133.

flundy, Ray A. Utilization of Standards in Urban Mass Transportation . Paper presented at the National Planning Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, San Diego, California, April, 1977.

Munro, it:eve, and Biemiller, Andrew, "Standards For Public Transit, Part I: Criteria For Transit Service; and Part II: Allocation of Operating

Costs," Transit Canada Magazine , Part I: March-April, 1977, pp. 5-8; Part II: May-June, 1977, pp. 5-8.

National Committee on Urban Transportation.

Better Transportation For Your City .

Procedure Manual 4A: Measuring Transit Service . Procedure Manual 8A: Recommended Standards, Warrants, and

Objectives For Transit Services and Facilities . Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1958.

National Cooperative- Highway Research Program. Report 120: Data

Requirements for Metropolitan Transportation Planning . Washington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1971.

New York State, Department of Transportation. Public Transportation

Operating Assistance: Evaluation And Options; Summary Report -

February 1 , 1975.

New York State, Department of Transportation. Public Transportation

Operating Assistance: Programs in New York State- 1976 . Albany, New York, October, 1976.

New York State, Department of Transportation. Transit Service Standards For

Small Urban Areas; Review and Planning Approach . By Resource Planning Associates, Inc., and Applied Resource Integration, Ltd. March 1976.

f^ew York State, Department of Transportation. Development o f Service Standards ;

Technical Memoranda Number 11 . By Resource Planning'Associates, Inc. March 1976.

New York State, Department of Transportation, Planning Research Unit.

Preliminary Research Report 106: Dimensions of Transit Service . By Robert G. Knighton, Nathan S. Erlbaum, and Richard J. Malec. December, 1976.

-41- 6

Oi, Walter Y., Alternate Formulas For A Federal Operating Subsidy Program

For Transit . Institute For Defense Analyses, Arlington, VA. November, 1973. (NTIS, PB 225 718)

Pardee, F.S., et al . Measurement And Evaluation Of Transportation System

Effectiveness . The RAND Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Memorandum RM-5869-D0T, September, 1969.

Pashigian, B. Peter, "Consequences and Causes of Public Ownership of Urban

Transit Facilities," Journal of Political Economy , Vol.84, No. (1976), pp. 1239-1259.

Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. New Systems Requirements Analysis Program ;

Transportation System Evaluation Indicators, Final Report . May, 1973.

Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation. Operating Guidelines And

Standards For The Mass Transportation Assistance Program . January

Peskin, Henry M. An Analysis of Urban Mass Transit Subsidies . Arlington, Va.: Institute for Defense Analyses, January, 1973.

Pol in, Lewis, and Mauro, George T., "Toward The Development of An Accommodation Service Policy," Proceedings of the Fourth

Intersociety Conference on Transportation , July 18-23, 1976,

Los Angeles, Ca. , P & P - 2.

Pozdena, Randall Johnston, "A Methodology For Selecting Urban Transportatior Projects." Thesis at Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, July 1975.

Prest, Alan Richard. How Much Subsidy? London Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1974.

Rea, John C, and Miller, James H., "Comparative Analysis of Urban Transit Modes Using Service-Specification Envelopes," Highway Research Record, No. 449: Transit Planning and Development, 1973, pp. 1-13.

Regional Plan Association, "Where Transit Works: Urban Densities For

Public Trnasportation," Regional Plan News . No. 99 (August 1976).

Rice, Joseph F., "Public Transportation Operating Standards," Special

Report 144: Issues In Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July 1972, pp. 72-76.

Roess, Roger P., "Criteria For Measuring Rail Transit Efficiency."

Urban Transportation Efficiency , Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New York, July 26-27, 1976, pp. 222-230.

Sagner, James S. Municipal Performance Report: City Transportation . New York: Council on Municipal Performance, 1975.

-42- .

J)eattle, Municipality of Metropolitan..., Transit Department, Metro Transit Service Evaluation Criteria: A Report on System and Route

Performance . March, 1977.

Sheldon, Nancy W., and Brandwein, Robert. The Economic and Social Impact

of Investments in Public Transit . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, 1973.

Sherman, Michel Marcel. Subsidization Of Transit Operating Costs: A Case

Study Of Metro . Consortium of Universities, Washington, D.C, May, 1973. [NTIS PB 229 086)

Smerk, George M., "Operating Subsidies for Urban Mass Transportation,"

Traffic Quarterly , Vol. 28, No. 4 (October 1974), pp. 603-618.

Snerk, George M, Urban Mass Transportation; A Dozen Years of Federal

Pol icy . Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1974.

-Stopher, Peter R., and Meyburg, Arnim H. Transportation Systems Evaluation . Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976.

Stroh, Peter A.L., "Urban Transportation Policy: An Annotated Bibliography The Transportation Institute, University of Michigan, November 1973 (NTIS PB 232 264)

Taueker, C, "What Can The Bureau of Census Supply?" Special Report 121 :

Use of Census Data In Urban Transportation Planning . Highway Research Board, 1971, pp. 9-14.

Tennyson, E.L., "Financing Public Transportation," Special Report 144 :

Issues In Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July 1972, pp. 38-42.

Tomazinis, Anthony R. Productivity, Efficiency, and Quality in Urban

Transportation Systems . Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath and Company, 1975.

Tomazinis, Anthony R., et al . A Study of Efficiency Indicators Of Public

Transportation Systems . University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn., June 1976. DOT-OS-50228

Transportation Research Board. Special Report 155: Research Needs For

Evaluating Urban Public Transportation . 1975o

Tye, William B., "Problems and Potentials of Federal Transit Operating

Subsidies," Transportation Research Record , No. 573, 1976, pp. 21-29.

Underwood, William C; Bennett, John C; and Holec, James M. Procedures For The Financial Analysis Of Transit Operating Assistance Grant

Requests . Draft. Bureau of Mass Transit Systems, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, January, 1976.

-43- ,

U.S., Department of Transportation. Economic Characteristics of the Urban Public Transportation Industry^ Prepared by the Institute for Defense Analyses, February, 1972.

U.S., Department of Transportation. 1974 National Transportation Report :

Current Performance and Future Prospects . July, 1975.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Urban Mass Transportation Industry System of Uniform Accounts And

Records and Reporting System . Report No. UMTA-IT-06-0094-77-1

January 10, 1977. Volumes I -IV.

U.S., Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration Office of Policy and Program Development, Program Evaluation

Division. The National Urban Transportation Reporting System . By James E. Sale. February, 1976.

U.S., General Accounting Office. Standards For Audit of Governmental

Organizations, Programs, Activities & Functions . 1972.

Virginia, Department of Highways and Transportation. Virginia Statewide Transit Statistical Data: Summary of Fiscal Year 1976 Financial Service, and Operational Characteristics and Trends for Fiscal Years

1974, 1975, and 1976 .

Vuchic, Vukan R. Design For A National Urban Transportation Reporting

System . Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1976.

Vuchic, Vukan R.; Tennyson, Edson L.; and Underwood, William C, "Application of Guidelines For Improving Transit Service And Operating Efficiency,"

Transportation Research Record , No. 519, 1974, pp. 66-72.

Wachs, M., and Schofer, J.L., "Evaluating the Transit System and Access to Jobs in Chicago." Paper presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers and American Society of Mechanical Engineers National Transportation Engineering Meeting, Seattle, Wash., July, 1971.

Wachs, M., and Schofer, J.L., "Public Transit and Job Access in Chicago,"

ASCE Transportation Engineering , Vol. 98, (May, 1972), 351-356.

Whittaker, James W. , "Financing Public Transportation," Special Report 144 :

Issues in Public Transportation . Transportation Research Board, July, 1972, pp. 42-47.

Wickstrom, George V., "Transportation System Performance Measurement and

Application," Proceedings of 43rd Annual Meeting , Institute of Transportation Engineers, Minneapolis, Minn., pp. 159-174.

Winnie, Richard E., and Hatry, Harry P. Measuring the Effectiveness of

Local Government Services: Transportation . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

-44- .

Wohl , Martin, "Public Transport Pricing, Financing, and Subsidy Principles,"

Traffic Quarterly , 27, 4 (Oct., 73), pp. 619-634.

Wood, Rebecca, et al . Mass Transit Research: A Bibliography With Special

Emphasis on Bus~Transit and With Annotations . San Diego Transit Corporation, San Diego, Calif. (NTIS PB 245 676)

Yunich, David L., "Efficiency and Productivity in Public Transportation,"

Transit Journal , Vol. 2, No. 4 (November, 1976), pp. 33-40.

Zakaria, Thabet, "Urban Transportation Accessibility Measures: Modifications

and Uses," Traffic Quarterly , 28 (July, 1974), pp. 467-479.

-45- THEORETICAL AND OTHER RELATED SOURCES

A large number of sources were reviewed in search of material applicable to the present research project. Many- sources were clearly inapplicable and will not be cited. The remaining sources represent many different subject areas and varying degrees of applicability. Broad categories of works which were found to have relevance for this project include evaluation research theory and applied evaluation techniques.

EVALUATION RESEARCH THEORY:

Among the evaluation research theory literature, the work by Suchman is a basic, highly readable volume on the theory and processes of evaluation research and program evaluation. Beginning with a review of the present state of e- valuation, it covers types and conduct of evaluation, research design, measurement, and administration of evaluations. More complex collections of articles on various aspects of evaluation theory are not quite so comprehensive, yet more detailed on particular aspects. Typical of these is the two-volume collection by Struening and Guttentag which addresses the context of social research. Within this work, the article "Evaluation Research in the Political Con- text" by Weiss is particularly good and discusses the political context of governmental evaluation.

The evaluation of social programs also addresses factors common to the transit environment and particularly the exist- ence of unquantif iable outputs and effects. Rossi and Wil- liams provide a valuable collection of readings dealing with the evaluation of social programs and highlight the need for the consideration of secondary effects. That social programs must be evaluated on the basis of secondary effects as well as direct effects is quite significant to the evaluation of transit.

The use of performance measures in general is the topic of Ridgway's article. He analyzes the use of single, multiple, and composite measures of performance and particularly their dysfunctional effects. A composite measure of performance has the least negative effects of these three options, he concludes, yet all have undesirable consequences for overall organizational performance.

APPLIED EVALUATION LITERATURE:

Much of the applied evaluation literature relates the application of cost-benefit analysis to various governmental

-46- functions. Increasingly, attention is being given to the measurement of productivity and to program and policy evaluation in government. The study by Skogan relates the evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness in police services. Skogan presents conceptual and operational definitions of efficiency and effectiveness and emphasizes the application of statistical analysis to program evaluation and the effect of incomplete/inaccurate data on evaluation studies. Keller presents a multiple-indicator evaluation system developed by the District of Columbia's Office of Executive Management and Budget. It includes measures of efficiency, effectiveness, input, output, and productivity and is called the "Perform- ance Measures System". Multiple-measures, Keller points out, facilitate the scheme's use at many levels of government and increase its diagnostic power.

The evaluation of productivity in government is the subject for the studies by Hatry and Ross. Hatry, Winnie and Fisk is an oft-cited primer in the techniques and concerns of program evaluation for state and local officials. It concise- ly describes the need, administration, techniques, and uses of program evaluation and reviews the range of evaluation possible from pre/post evaluation to controlled experimentation. Ross and Burkhead focus primarily on the evaluation of productivity in the 'soft' government services found at the local level (health, planning, etc.) in which outputs are generally not readily identifiable.

Cost-benefit analysis literature contributes significant- ly to the present study through particular aspects of its experience and theory. Peterson and Mittlebach compared implementation effects of selected projects with cost-benefit analyses executed during their consideration. They found that significant differences between expected and actual effects could be traced to the overemphasis on tangible economic benefits and costs as compared to intangible. And further, that such analyses are often undertaken to justify predetermined conclusions. Prest and Turvey conclude that cost-benefit analysis is anything but an infallible tool. However, it does force decision-makers to quantify costs and benefits as far as possible. Harrison provides a detailed study of the application of cost-benefit analysis to the external effects of transportation. He focuses especially on the valuation of costs and benefits. He points out that although precise evaluations may be desirable in some circumstances, a range or an upper or lower limit is more realistic and helpful when evaluating alternative proposals.

-47- . ,

Conner, Ross F.; Rosener, Judy B.; and Weeks* Edward C. Program Evaluation

withtn California State Agencies; An Assessment . Public Policy Research Organization, University of California, Irvine, May, 1976.

Deakin, B. M., and Seward T. Productivity in Transport; A Study of

Employment. Capital . Output j Productivity and Technical Change . Cambridge, England; The University Press, 1969.

Fisk, Donald M. and Winnie, Richard E., "Output Measurement In Urban Government: Current Status And Likely Prospects," Social Science

Quarterly , Vol. 54. No. 4 (March, 1974), pp. 724-745:

Globerman, Steven, and Book, Sam H., "Formulating Cost and Output Policies

in the Performing Arts," Canadian Public Policy . Vol. II, No. I (Winter, 1976), pp. 33-41.

Gola, Beia. Explorations in Managerial Economics : Productivity, Costs,

Technology and Growth . New York; Basic Books, 1971

Goldberg, Marsha S., and Hayes, Terry A. Monitoring the Quality of Life;

A Tool for Public Policy Analysis . Planning Environment International, A Division of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. (no date).

Harrison, Anthony John. The Economics of Transport Appraisal . London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1974.

Hatry, Harry, "Approaches to Productivity Measurement And Program

Evaluation," Public Productivity Review , Vol. I, No. 3 (March, 1976) pp. 21-28.

Hatry, Harry P.; Winnie, Richard E., and Fisk, Donald M'. Practical Prog ram Evaluation For State And Local Government OfficialrT Washington

D.C. : The Urban Institute, 1973.

Haveman, Robert H., and Margolis, Julius (eds.). Public Expenditures and Policy Analysis. Chicago, Illinois; Markham Publishing Company, ld70.

Holmes, J. C, "An Ordinal Method of Evaluation," Urban Studies . Vol. 9 (June, 1972), pp. 179-191.

Keller, Lawrence E., "Performance Measures System and Local Government,"

Public Productivity Review , Vol. 1, No. 2 (December, 1975), pp. 30-45.

Kneafsey, James T. The Economics of the Transportation Firm . Lexington, Mass.; Lexington Books, 19/4.

Kneafsey, James T. Transportation Economic Analysis . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1974.

Lancaster, Kelvin. Introduction to Modern Micro-Economics . Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1969. Lineberry, Robert L., and Welch, Robert E., Jr., "Who Gets What: Measuring the Distribution of Urban Public Services," Social Science

Quarterly , Vol. 54, -No. 4 (March, 1974), pp. 700-712.

Mark, Jerome A., "Progress in Measuring Productivity in Government," Monthly

Labor Review , Vol. 95 (December, 1972), pp. 3-6.

McGuire, Martin C, and Gam, Harvey A., "The Integration of Equity and

Efficiency in Public Project Selection," Economic Journal . Vol. 79 (December, 1969), pp. 882-893.

Moursund, Janet P. Evaluation: An Introduction to Research Design .

Monterey, Calif. : Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1973.

Ostrom, Elinor, "Exclusion, Choice, and Divisibility: Factors Affecting The Measurement of Urban Agency Output and Impact," Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4 (March, 1974), pp. 691-699.

Peterson, Elizabeth, and Mittelbach, Frank G. Before And After Benefit-Cost

Analysis In Urban Transportation . Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, September, 1972. (NTIS PB 218 831)

Prest, A. R., and Turvey, R., "Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey," Economic

Journal , Vol. 2 (December, 1965), pp. 683-731.

Ridgway, V. F., "Dysfunctional Consequences of Performance Measurements,"

Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 1 (September, 1956), pp. 240-247.

Roberts, Paul 0., Dewees, Donald N., et al. Economic Analysis for Transport

Choice . A Charles River Associates Research Study. Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington Books, 1971.

Ross, John P., and Burkhead, Jesse. Productivity In The Local Government

Sector . Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974.

Rossi, P. H., and Williams, W. (eds). Evaluating Social Programs: Theory ,

Practice and Politics . New YorFi Seminar Press, 19/2.

Sherman, Len; Barber, Brian; and Kondo, Walter, "Method For Evaluating

Metropolitan Accessibility," Transportation Research Record , No. 499: Travel Demand, Mode Choice, and System Analysis, 1974, pp. 70-82.

Skogan, Wesley G., "Efficiency and Effectiveness In Big City Police

Departments," Public Administration Review , Vol. 36, No. 3 (May/ June, 1976), pp. 278-286.

Struening, E., and Guttentag, M. (eds). Handbook of Evaluation Research . Vols. I and II. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1975. ouchman, E. A. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Service and

Social Action Programs . New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. -49- Thomas, Edwin N., and Schofer, Joseph L. Strategies For The Evaluation of

AT ternati ve Transportation PI ans . (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 96). Slashington, D.C.: Highway Research Board, 1970.

Thomson, John Michael. Modern Transport Economics . Harmondsworth., Middlesex, EnglarTHl Penguin Books Ltd., 1974.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. Notes on the State-of-the-Art of Benefit-Cost Analysis as Related^Io"

Transportation Systems . By Joseph D.Crumlish. Technical Note 294 (November 1.'^1966).

Whitaker, Gordon P., "Who Puts The Value In Evaluations?" Social Science

Quarterly . Vol. 54, No. 4 (March, 1974), pp. 757-761": fiise, Charles R., and McGregor, Eugene B., Jr., "Government Productivity

And Program Evaluation Issues," Public Productivity Review . Vol. 1, No. 3 (March, 1976), pp. 5-19.

-50- APPENDIX B

BIBLIOGRAPHY II

This second bibliography has been compiled as an out- growth of this current study and has as its emphasis publications which deal with specific transit properties

-51- ,

APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arthur Anderson and Company. Project FARE Task IV Report : Urban Mass Transportation Industry Financial and Operat - ing Data Reporting System . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.M.T.A. (NTIS PB 226-353). 1973

Booz, Allen & Hamilton. New York MTA Management Study , Task IV Report, March, 197 9

Buckley, Richard L. , and Ward, Peter E. "Service Standards and Operating Criteria in Nashville, Tennessee." Trans-

it Journal , Summer, pages 41-46. 1978.

Drosdat, Herbert A. Transit Performance Measures their Sig-

nificance in Local Funding Allocation . Seattle: Uni- versity of Washington, National Technical Information Service #PB-276 141. 1977.

Edmonton Transit Development Section, "Route Evaluation Study (Study Design)," 1978.

Fielding, Gordon J., and Glauthier, Roy E. "Obstacles to Com- parative Evaluation of Transit Performance." Irvine, California: University of California, Irvine. Institute of Transportation Studies. 1977.

Fielding, Gordon, J. , Glauthier, Roy E. , and Lance, C.A. De-

velopment of Performance Indicators for Transit . Irvine: University of California. NTIS #PB278 678. 1977.

Heathington, Kenneth W. , and Brogan, James O. Fixed-Route

Fixed Schedule Bus Systems , The University of Tennessee, prepared for the Bureau of Mass Transit Tennessee De- partment of Transportation.

Houston Metropolitan Transit Authorities , "Metro Regional Trans-

it Plan," July, 1978 .

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority. "Public Transpor- tation Standards and Criteria: Kansas City Metropolitan Region." Kansas City, Missouri. 1976.

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority. "Transit Route Monitoring and Planning System." Kansas City, Missouri. 1977,

Kirby, Ron and Green, Melinda , "Case Studies on Transit Service Development Practices," Urban Institute, June, 1978.

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, "Service Policy for

Surface Public Transportation," August , 1977.

-52- "

McCrossen, Dennis F. "Choosing Performance Indicators for

Small Transit Systems." Transportation Engineering , March, 1978, pp. 26-30.

Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc ., "Milwaukee County Transit System: Recommended Transit Service Policies, April, 1977."

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation , "Operating Guide- lines and Standards for the Mass Transportation Assist- ' ance Program," January , 1973.

Resource Planning Associates, Inc., Transit Service Standards

for Small Urban Areas; Review and Planning Approach , Vienna, Virginia, March, 1976.

San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC) , "San Diego Transit Action Plan for Fiscal Year 1974-1975," San Diego, Cali- fornia, 1974.

San Francisco Municipal Railway , "Developing a Methodology for Determining Future Passenger Waiting Shelter Sites in San Francisco."

Seattle Metro Transit, Transit Department , "Report on Metro ," Transit Service Evaluation Criteria December , 1976.

Seattle Metro Transit, Transit Department, "Metro Transit Serv- ice Evaluation Criteria^ A Report on System and Route Performance March, 1977.

Southern California Rapid Transit District , "Service Evaluation Program.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "A Revised Service Evaluation Program."

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "An Improved Line

Informat-ion Program," April , 1977 .

Southern California Rapid Transit District-, "Costing of Serv- ices, "June, 1977.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "Data Requirements

for Transit Planning," July , 1977.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "The SCRTD Service

Evaluation Program," February , 1978.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "Statistical Digest

(Available Quarterly) ," August , 1978.

Southern California Rapid Transit District, "Toward a Customer

Oriented Loading Standard ," July , 1978.

-53- Southern California Rapid Transit District, Woodhull , Joel, "Interim Report on Area Accounts /' June 1978.

Toronto Transit Commission, "Standards for Evaluating Exist-

ing and Proposed Routes ," August , 1977.

Toronto Transit Commission, "Service Standards: Results of the Analysis Undertaken for the Year 1978," April, 1978

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Budget and Management , "Analysis of Metrobus Performanc Measures and Indicators Quarterly Report," August, 197 8 APPENDIX C

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

-55- The Tidewater Transportation District Commission and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority are working together, under the sponsorship of the Planning Research and Evaluation Division of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration on a research project to develop a prototype program for the evaluation of bus system performance.

An early step of this project is to review the current state of bus service evaluation measures. The most important element of this step is finding out what other bus operators in the nation are doing to evaluate their existing bus services, and how proposed new services are initiated.

More specifically, we are interested in answers to the following questions:

1. What specific standards does your authority use to evaluate new and existing services and are these standards official policy statements or informal internal standards?

2. What data do you gather to check whether these standards are being met and how do you gather it?

3. Who is responsible for seeing that the data is collected and analyzed?

4. How often is the data collected?

5. How much does it cost in manpower and dollars to collect the information?

-56- . ,

6. How do you use the criteria and information to try and make service changes? How effective has this been in terms of service delivery, ridership, and operating costs?

7. What problems have you encountered in trying to adjust your service in response to the data collected?

8. What is the source of funds for your evaluation efforts?

If you have written materials (e.g., reports, evaluation forms, etc.) which address any of the questions outlined above, we would appreciate receiving copies.

We realize that if this data is not readily available it can be very time consuming to try to provide it. The attached form was developed to make answering questions 1 thru 6 easier. Even if you can only fill in portions of the form, the information you supply will be very useful. Some of your answers will probably be too lengthy and complicated to fit into the format we have provided and we would, of course, welcome any additional sheets you would like to attach.

Ho^vever, since we will make follow-up phone calls to authorities which have developed evaluation techniques, we may be able to save you some time in organizing the material.

Once this initial survey has been analyzed, a one-day information exchange meeting may be held in Boston or Norfolk with interested authorities which have particularly effective techniques

During this meeting, as well as during the phone interviews, we would like to deal with the more difficult questions regarding the problems associated with and cost effectiveness of trying to apply service standards.

On behalf of all the project's participants, I wish to thank you in advance for your help. Your response by August 31, 1978 will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Leora Jaeger at (617)7 22-5216.

Sincerely

yohn P. Attanucci Manager Service Planning pav PROTOTYPE BUS SYSTEM EVALUATION STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

Company

Address

Contact Person

Title

Phone Number

Size of Area Seirved

Population Served

Total Niimber of Buses

Number of Peak Period Buses Required

Number of Bus Garages

Last Fiscal Year's Bus Ridership

Number of Bus Routes

Number of Revenue Bus Miles

% of Trips Missed Per Day

Total Number of Employees

Total Number of Bus Drivers

Number of Drivers Assigned to Regular Runs

Number of Maintenance Personnel

Number of Employees Assigned to Inspect Line Operations

Number of Other Supervisory Personnel

-58- LIST OF SAMPLE CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS BUS SERVICE

OPERATING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Average Operating Speed Recovery Time Load Factors Schedule Adherhance Trips Lost Vehicle Availability Bunching of Trips Complaints

SERVICE DESCRIPTION

Route Spacing Directness of Routing Coordination of Leave/Arrive Times for Routes with Common Termini # of Transfers Needed to Complete Trips Safety Considerations Service Frequency Placement of Bus Stops and Shelters

ECONOMIC STANDARDS

Revenue/Cost Passengers/Hour Passengers/Mile Cost/Passenger

-59- . .

INTRODUCTION TO APPENDICES D and E

Appendices D and E summarize the bus service evaluation programs of the 77 authorities which responded to the August,

] 978 survey. As was indicated in this paper's introduction, this survey was not intended to provide case studies of selected transit authorities but rather to provide a broad overview of the bus service evaluation programs currently being conducted in the United States and Canada. Consequently, the data received from each authority varies as to the type and detail of information, and this difference is, of course, re- flected in the following presentation. Given the scope of this study and the fact that such a large number of authorities completed surveys, the majority of the information presented below is based on these written surveys. Some follow- up data was gathered via telephone interviews.

Appendix D briefly describes each of the authorities' bus operations and reviews the measures used by each to evaluate bus service. In order to facilitate identifying authorities with similar characteristics and evaluation problems, the data is grouped into two categories: small and medium sized authorities (less than 400 buses) and large authorities (400 buses and up) . In addition to briefly describing the scope of each authority's bus service evaluation program, any unique and/or particularly cost-effective method for evaluating bus services is presented. Finally, the route specific measures for each authority, which are presented in Appendix E, are listed

While Appendix D provides a broad overview of various authorities evaluation programs. Appendix E specifically describes the various route specific criteria used, what and how the data is collected to implement the criteria, who gathers the necessary information, who is responsible for seeing that the data is collected and analyzed, and how much it costs to collect the information. As was expected, the cost of implementing various service standards was difficult to estimate since the necessary data for one specific standard is often collected by personnel who are performing other duties simul- teneously

Under the description of each criterion, it has been noted whether the criterion is "formal" or "informal". For large authorities (over 400 buses) , "formal criteria" are defined as those which have been adopted by policy makers or have been specified in writing as accepted evaluation standards. "In- formal criteria" are those which are used for internal decision making but have not been formalized as accepted standards

-60- In small and medium sized authorities, the distinction be tween formal and informal measures is more clear cut. There- fore, in the accompanying charts, "formal criteria" for these systems are simply defined as having explicit numerical values "Informal criteria" are performance measures for which no numerical values have been specified.

Many authorities which have developed service policies are, to date, only implementing portions of the policy. Only those standards which are currently implemented on a route specific basis, and for which a minimum level of information was provided are included.

-61- APPENDIX D

ABSTRACTS OF AUTHORITIES

Abstracts of the authorities which responded to the survey are presented in this appendix in two sections.

I. Small and Medium Sized Systems (0-400 buses) p. 63

II. Large Systems (over 400 buses) p. 120

To facilitate use of this appendix, two tables of contents have been prepared for each section. The first is organized by City and the second by Authority. This latter table includes a contact person at each authority. SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED AUTHORITIES (less than 0-400 buses)

Albany, NY Capital City District Transportation Authority

Allentown, PA Lehigh and Northampton Transportation District

Areata, CA Areata & Mad River Transit System

Battle Creek Battle Creek Transit

Bay City, MI Bay County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Brockton, MA Brockton Area Transit Authority (BAT)

Canton, OH Canton Regional Transit Authority

Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill Community Transit

Chattanooga, TN Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation

Corpus Christi, TX Corpus Christi Transit

Des Moines, lA Metropolitan Transit Authority

Detroit, MI Southeastern Michigan Transporation Authority

Erie, PA Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority

Evansville, IN Metropolitan Evansville Transit System

Fayetteville, NC Fayetteville Area System of Transit PAGE NO.

Fort Wayne, IN 85 The Bus Company (Fort Wayne PTC)

Fresno, CA 86 Fresno Transit

Gastonia, NC 87 Gastonia Department of Transit

Halifax, Canada 88 Halifax Transit Corporation

Harrisburg, PA 89 Capital Area Transit

Hartford, CT 90 Connecticut Transit

Hilo, HI 91 County Of Hawaii Mass Transportation Agency

Indianapolis, IN 92 Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation

Iowa City, lA 93 Iowa City Transit

Jacksonville, FL 94 Jacksonville Transportation Authority

Lancaster, PA 95 Red Rose Transit Authority

Louisville, KY 96 Transit Authority of River City

Medford, MA 97 Hudson Bus Lines

Middletown, OH 9 8 Middletown Transit System

Monterey, CA 99 Monterey Peninsula Transit

Montgomery, AL 100 Montgomery Area Transit System

Nashville, TN 101 Metropolitan Transit Authority

-64- PAGE NO,

Newport, KY Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky 103

Norfolk, VA Tidewater Regional Transit 104

Omaha, NE Metro Area Transit 105

Oneonta, NY Greater Oneonta Bus Service 106

Rochester, NY Regional Transit Service 107

Providence, RI Rhode Island Public Transit Authority 108

San Diego, CA San Diego Transit 109

San Jose, CA Santa Clara County Transit District 111

Salt Lake City, UT Utah Transit Authority 112

Syracuse, NY Central New York Regional Transporation Authority 113

T a coma , WA Tacoma Transit 114

Urbana, IL Champaign - Urbana Mass Transit District 115

Savannah, GA Savannah Transit Authority 116

Ventura, CA South Coast Area Transit 117

Yakima, WA Yakima City Lines 118

Youngstown, OH Western Reserve Transit Authority 119

-65- SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED AUTHORITIES (less than 0-400 buses)

AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON PAGE NO.

Areata and Mad River Transit Sharon L. Batini 72 System Areata, CA

Battle Creek Transit James B. Faircloth 73 Battle Creek, MI

Bay County Metropolitan Michael Stoner 74 Transportation Authority Bay City, MI

Brockton Area Transit Michael Padnos 75 Authority Administrator Brockton, MA

Canton Regional Transit Robert B. Kessler, Jr. -ic. Authority

Canton , OH

Capital Area Transit Charles M. Weeks 89 Harrisburg, PA Executive Director

Capital Citv District Trans- Jack Reilly 70 portation Authority Albany, NY

Central New York Regional J. Todd Plesko 113 Transportation Authority Program Development Syracuse, New York Assistant

Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit David Krchak 115 District Senior Planner Urbana, IL

Chapel Hill Community Transit Robert J. Godding 77 Chapel Hill, NC Director of Transpor- tation

Chattanooga Area Regional Robert S. Ronka 73 Transportation Chattanooga, TN

Corpus Christi Transit James Wiesehuegel Corpus Christi, TX General Manager

-66- AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON PAGE NO.

Connecticut Transit-Hartford Stephen W. Warren 90 Division Director of Planning Hartford, CT and Marketing

County of Hawaii Mass Trans- Steven Schinchi 91 portation Agency Mass Transit Analyst Hilo, HI

Erie Metropolitan Transit Thomas W. Burke 82 Authority General Manager Erie, PA

Fayetteville Area System of Eddie A. Cook 84 Transit Superintendent of Fayetteville, NC Operations

Fresno Transit Ronald B. Williams 86 Fresno, CA

Gastonia Department of Transit William C. Bradley, Jr Gastonia, NC Transit Director 87

Greater F. Oneonta Bus Service Edmund Shultis 106 Oneonta , NY Transportation Planner

Halifax Transit Corporation Brian R. Taylor 88 Halifax, Canada

Indianapolis Public Trans- Dennis F. McCrosson 92 portation Corporation Director of Operations

Indianapolis , IN Planning

Hugh A. Mose, Jr. Iowa City Transit 93 Iowa City, lA Transit Manager

James M. Green Jacksonville Transportation 94 Authority Jacksonville, FL

Northampton Trans- A. V. Greco Lehigh and 71 portation Authority Executive Director All entown, PA

Metro Area Transit John Bennett 105 Omaha , NE

Metropolitan Evansville David W. Steed Transit System 83 Evansville, IN

-67- .

AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON PAGE NO.

Metropolitan Transit Forest Swift 80 Authority General Manager Des Moines, lA

Metropolitan Transit Peter E. Ward 101 Authority Assistant General Nashville, TN Manager

Middletown Transit" System Donald J. Hill 98 Middletown, OH

Monterey Peninsula Transit Frank J. Lichtanski 99 Monterey , CA Assistant General Manager

Montgomery Area Transit Mark Dor fman 101 System Transportation Planning

Montgomery , AL Coordinator

Red Rose Transit Authority James J. Lutz 95 Lancaster, PA Administrative Assistant

Regional Transit Service, Ed. Musynski 2,07 Inc Planning Program Manager Rochester, NY

Rhode Island Public Transit Richard L. Wonson 2.O8 Authority Supervisor of Schedules

Providence , RI

San Diego Transit Richard A. Murphy 109 San Diego, CA

Santa Clara County Transit James Lightbody 111 District Senior Transportation San Jose, CA Engineer

Savannah Transit Authority L. Eugene James 116 Savannah, GA Executive Director

South Coast Area Transit Robert Fornes 117 Ventura, CA

Southeastern Michigan Trans- Charles Swtizer 81 portation Authority Service Evaluator Detroit, MI

Tacoma Transit System M. J. Porter 114 Tacoma , WA

-68- AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON PAGE NO.

The Bus CoiriDany Daniel J. McMaken 85 Fort Wayne, IN Director of Marketing

Tidewater Regional Transit A. Jeff Becker Norfolk, VA Service Development 104 Manager

Transit Authority of Northern Arthur N. Gaudet 103 Kentucky Newport, KY

Transit Authority of River Steve Shelton 96 City Planner Louisville, KY

Utah Transit Authority Charles Preston 112 Salt Lake City, UT

Western Reserve Transit L. Brenda Martin 119 Authority Young Stown, OH

Yakima City Lines Reta R. Johnson 118 Yakima , WA

-69- AUTHORITY Capital City District Transportation Authority 110 Watervliet Avenue

Albany, NY 12206

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 12,500,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 100 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 500,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 188

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 52

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 6,000,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority did not report an evaluation program. The authority collects data on passengers revenue and cost. These data are collected monthly by a transportation clerk and reviewed by the senior planner. The total annual cost is $10,000 for a clerk and $8,000 for contracted data collection.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

No standards reported.

-70- .

District AUTHORITY Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Twelfth and Cumberland Street

Allentown, PA 1810 3

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 4,400,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 91.7 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 290,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 51

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 29

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 2,358,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority has a comprehensive evaluation program. Financial and operating data are collected. The data are collected semi- annually. Cost of data collection and analysis have not been estimated. Two employees are assigned on a part time basis to evaluation. This authority has finalized a five year development program.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

and 60 minutes forbase 1) Headways should be 30 minutes during the peak for base. 2) Loading should be 150% or less for peak and 100% minutes 3) Schedule Adherence is defined as 3 minutes early to 3 late; peak period 20 minute or less headway should be 75% on time; 20 to 40 minute headways should be 85% on time; and over 40 minutes headways should be 90% on time. during 4) New service should be able to cover 30% of its cost the first 90 days. of the operating 5) The system revenue should not be less than 40% expenses of develop- 6) Route spacing should be consistent with the density ment and economic characteristics of the population. AUTHORITY Areata & Mad River Transit System 736 F Street

Areata, CA 95521

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 106,592 8.5 square miles SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES /YEAR 87,120

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This system does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. All data are collected and looked at informally and irregularly. Data collected include ridership, schedule adherence and transferring and user perceptions of services. This effort is conducted by the Transit Manager for $805 per year.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-72- AUTHORITY Battle Creek Transit

P O Box 1717

Battle Creek, MI 49016

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 60 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 77,922

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 18

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 10

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 540,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

A service evaluation program has not been developed.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-73- .

AUTHORITY Bay County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

621 N. Water Street

Bay City, MI 48706

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

: . SIZE OF SERVICE AREA ^"square utiles POPULATION SERVED 80,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 12

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 10

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 780,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority did not report an evaluation program other than to evaluate informally the number of passengers per route. Two part time employees are assigned to evaluation. Data collection cost is negligible

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

No formal standards reported.

-74- AUTHORITY Brockton Area Transit Authority (BAT) 106 Main Street

Brockton, MA 02401

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 2 ,794 ,181

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 50 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 125,000

30 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES . : ^

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 1

^'^ NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 600,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Brockton evaluates new and existing services, informally, in- ternally and irregularly. New service is installed when the Authority feels there is a public demand for it. The only time service is reduced is when a review of the ridership indicates it is not being used. Ridership data are collected from register- ing fareboes. A very small effort is put into service evaluation and only three part time employees are used for this task. Cost of evaluation was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-75- AUTHORITY Canton Regional Transit Authority

1501 West Tyscarawas Street

Canton, OH 44702

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : NA

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 27 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 213,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 71

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : 9fi

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Data are collected for route transfers, loadings and passengers. Number of employees assigned to evaluation and cost of data collection are not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

This authority has informal standards for passengers per vehicle mile, transfers and loadings.

-76- .

Chapel Hill Community AUTHORITY Transit 306 North Columbia Street

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

1,800,000 DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 10.39 square miles SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 34,000 POPULATION SERVED 24 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 690,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES Chapel Hill has a comprehensive evaluation program. Data are collected monthly for ridership and schedule adherence by spare drivers and supervisors. Data are collected daily on revenue and costs. Other data collected include bus stop spacing and accessibility. No personnel are assigned specially to evaluation. Evalu- ation costs about $12,000 annually.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The following standards are used by the planning staff.

1) Coverage/accessibility - 90% of household should be within h of a bus stop.

2) Loading - the maximum for shuttle service is 175%, express 100% and arterial 100% base and 150% peak.

3) Headway - the maximum is 30 minutes peak service and 60 minutes base.

4) Dependability - 95% of buses should be no more than 5 minutes late

5) Bus stop spacing - stops no closer than 1/7 mile.

6) Revenue/cost ratio should be at least 50%.

7) If any route's passengers per mile are lower than one-half of the system, the route will be discontinued.

-77- AUTHORITY Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation 1617 Wilcox Boulevard

Chattanooga, TN

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 3,695,626

: SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 587 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 260,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 57

1 NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES :

24 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Schedule adherence and passenger data are collected quarterly. Cost for collecting data was not reported. One employee is assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

This authority uses two formal standards to evaluate service. Schedule Adherence: on time is defined as zero minutes early to five minutes late.

Passengers per trip less than 5 is unacceptable.

-78- AUTHORITY Corpus Christi Transit

P O Box 5277

Corpus Christi, TX 78408

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 1,882,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 109 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 215,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 28

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 18

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,325,700

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Corpus Christi Transit does not conduct any regular system performance evaluations, using either formal or informal standards. The authority collects some ridership data for yearly statistical summaries and uses this information when budget restrictions require a service reduction. No employees are assigned to evaluation. Data collection cost was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-79- AUTHORITY Metropolitan Transit Authority 1100 MTA Lane

Des Moines, lA 50309

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 4,074,184

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 96 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 268,500

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 76

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 13

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 2,526 ,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority has developed a comprehensive manual for the analysis of system performance on a periodic basis. Data are analyzed for the system by transit corridor and by route. Financial, operating, demographic, socio-economic, geographic and other data are collected and summarized for periodic reports. Standard criteria are used for evaluations which are then used^ to develop service proposals. Five employees are assigned to evaluation. Cost of data collection was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Informal Standards: Schedule Adherence Transferring Passengers per vehicle hour Ratio of revenue to cost Loading Frequency of Service

-80- . .

AUTHORITY Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority 211 West Fort Street

Detroit, MI 48231

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 7,632,271

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 1,012 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 3,850,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 239

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 4

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 40

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 8,100,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program but does have several written standards for fixed route evaluation. Total cost for data collections $17,199 annually. Ten employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

1) On time performance is one minute early to three minutes late.

2) Passengers per vehicle mile; over 1 acceptable; less than

. 5 unacceptable

3) Operating speed - less than 125% of auto travel time per trip

4) Cut service if peak hour CBD trips have less than thirty passengers in vehicle.

-81- .

Authority AUTHORITY Erie Metropolitan Transit 127 East 14th Street

Erie, PA 16512

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 6,666,061

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 81 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 205,737

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 63

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 13

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 2,190,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES No evaluation program was reported, but three employees are assinged to evaluation. No mention was made of data collection.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported

-82- :

AUTHORITY Metropolitan Evansville Transit System

Room 30 4 Civic Center Complex

Evansville, IN 47708

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 37 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 137,537

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 16

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 13

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 821,100

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This system does not have a comprehensive evaluation program, but doeshave a "Procedure Manual for Transit Operators." Data are collected for system revenue and cost, system ridership, socio- economic data and transit system characteristics. Cost of data collection is approxiamtely $11,890 annually. One employee is assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Evansville uses two formal standards to evaluate new and existing service

1) Route segments revenue to cost ratio. If ratio is below 20%, the route is to be modified.

2) Schedule Adherence - Arrivals more" than 10 minutes before departure and after departure time are unacceptable.

-83- AUTHORITY Fayetteville Area System of Transit 426 Mayview Street

Fayettevilee, NC 28 306

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 819,757

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 30.9 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 168,643

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 15

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 14 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 900,000 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority did not report an evaluation program. The authority performs boarding and alighting counts and schedule adherence checks. Cost of data collection is $5,760 per year The number of employees assigned to evaluation is two.

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

No standards reported.

-84- Wayne PTC) AUTHORITY "^^^ Company (Fort 801 Leesburg Road

Fort Wayne, IN 46808

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 160 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 250,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 52

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 24 2,250,000 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This Authority is in the process of developing a service evaluation process. Type of data collected and cost were not reported. Two employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-85- AUTHORITY Fresno Transit 2050 "E" Street

Fresno; CA 93706

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 6,590,910

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 79 s<|uare miles

POPULATION SERVED 300,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 73

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 21

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 3,918,600

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority did not report an evaluation program. Type of data collected and cost were not reported. Three employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-86- Gastonia Department of Transit

609 W Airline Avenue

Gastonia, NC 28052

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 21.9 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 50,570

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 5

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 11

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 264 ,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES No other information is provided. Presently the Gastonia Depart- ment of Transit does not have an evaluation program. Two employees are assigned to the evaluation of the bus service. Type of data collected and cost of collection were not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-87- AUTHORITY Halifax Transit Corporation

P O Box 174

Halifax , NS B3J 2M4 Canada ~

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 20.6 square miles POPULATION SERVED 118,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 92

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 19

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 2,370,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES The authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Two employees are assigned to evaluation: a transportation technologist and a transit inspector.

The authority collects the following data:

1) Maximum Load Point Schedule Adherence 2) Transit Cordon Count 3) On Board Surveys 4) Farebox Dump

Schedule adherence provides the actual arrival of each route at its maximum load point; cost $1,800 per year. Transit cordon count provides schedule adherence by CBD cordon line. This is used for planning (only at a cost of $1,8 36 .) For on board surveys, passengers boarding and alighting for each route at least once every five years is obtained. For farebox dump, a revenue check for each route is made quarterly at a cost of $7,456.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

No formal standards reported but has several informal standards.

-88- AUTHORITY Capital Area Transit 901 N. Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA 17105

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA w POPULATION SERVED o NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES w

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES Eh NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES O

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES The authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. The authority evaluates service by collecting data on the number and classification of every passenger to determine the ratio of revenue to cost. This effort costs approximately $2,500 per year.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

47.5% of total cost must be gained through the farebox.

-89- .

AUTHORITY Connecticut Transit Hartford Division

Hartford, CT 06106

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : NA

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA ; NA

POPULATION SERVED : 1,381,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : NA

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : NA

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : NA

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : NA

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Ridership and cost data are collected. Cost of data collection and employees assigned to evaluation were not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The authority has one formal standard to evaluate new or existing services. The formal standard requires that new service cover 50% of its operating cost through the farebox within a 60 day operating period. Existing service is also required to meet this standard

-90- Transportation Agency AUTHORITY County of Hawaii Mass

25 Aupini Street

Hilo, HI 96720

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 367,773 square miles SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 4,038

POPULATION SERVED 75,000 11 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 10 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 270,000 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program, but collects the following data:

1) Passengers per month 2) Cost/Revenue 3) Cost per day by route 4) Revenue per day by route the The mass transit analyst is responsible for collecting data and is paid $13,200 per year. CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

Subsidy cannot exceed 75% of operating and maintenance cost. .

AUTHORITY Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation P 0 Box 2383

Indianapolis, IN 46206

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 392 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 475,380

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 168

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 33

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 4 R9f; . 4nn

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority did not report an evaluation program. Data aise collected, but the type of data collected was not reported. The cost of data collection is approximately $35,000 a year. The number of employees assigned to evaluation was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported

-92- AUTHORITY Iowa City Transit

410 E. Washington Street

Iowa City, lA 52240

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 1,500,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 1^ square miles

POPULATION SERVED 50 ,000 15 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 12 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 600,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority did not report an evaluation program. Time points and passenger loads are checked infrequently. One part-time employee assigned to evaluation. Cost of data collection was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-93- .

AUTHORITY Jacksonville Transportation Authority 1022 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, FL. 3220 7

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 14,900,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 840 square miles POPULATION SERVED 580,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 163

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 54

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 6,139,500

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Data are collected on schedule adherence, passengers per vehicle mile and revenue cost ratio. Ten employees are assigned to ; evaluation. Cost of collecting data is approximately $88,000 annually.'

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE \

1) Schedule Adherence - on time is defined as two minutes early to | minutes late. three |

2) Passengers per vehicle mile for a given route should be 1.50 1 or more

3) Revenue to cost ratio- if less than .33 close study is given to the route. System wide goal is to obtain .50 or better.

-94- AUTHORITY Red Rose Transit Authority

825 East Chestnut Street

Lancaster, PA 17602

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 948 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 200,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 30

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 17 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,322,700

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Financial and operating data are collected daily to monthly. Cost for data collection and analysis is $7,164 annually. Three employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

This authority has four formal standards.

1) Schedule Adherence: zero minutes to 5 minutes late.

2) Passengers per vehicle mile: over 1.5 acceptable; 1.0 to 1.5 continue to evaluate; and under 1.0 unacceptable.

3) Revenue as a percent of cost: over 50% acceptable; 30% to 50% continue to evaluate; and under 30% unacceptable.

4) Transferring should be held to 25% or less by route.

-95- . .

AUTHORITY Transit Authority of River City Room 302, 333 Guthrie Street

Louisville, KY 40202

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 16,300,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 375 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 700,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : ^0^;

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 1

36 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES The authority has a comprehensive evaluation program and collects data on schedule adherence, ridership, revenue costs and headways. The number of hours and miles of operation is also collected.

Ridership data are collected by temporary checkers.

Other data collection procedures were not reported. The cost and number of personnel assigned to service evaluation were not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE SERVICE

The following formal standards are used:

Loading - not to exceed 100% for an extended period of time on regular service; not to exceed 100% four times per month on express service; not to exceed 150% for a period of more than three hours per weekday on circulator, feeder and other short hall service

Headways - maximum headway on off-peak service v/ill be the time consumed by one bus making around trip on the route

Schedule adherence - on-time is zero minutes early to 3 minutes late. AUTHORITY Hudson Bus Lines

70 Union Street

Med ford, MA

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA Q POPULATION SERVED w NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES O

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES EH

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

NOTE: No information was provided, This bus line is private and receives no subsidies.

-97- AUTHORITY Middletown Transit System 1 City Center Plaza

Middletown, OH 45042

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 339,080

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 20 Square miles

POPULATION SERVED 50,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 324,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES The system does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Ridership and transfer data are collected by route. The cost of data collection is not reported and no employees are assigned to the bus service evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Frequency of service

Accessibility to routes

-98- AUTHORITY Monterey Peninsula Transit One Ryan Ranch Road

Monterey, CA 9 3940

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 1,274,008

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 46 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 133,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 17

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 16

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 628,800

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES Monterey has a set of very general guidelines. The guidelines do not state any specific standards to be used in evaluating new or existing service. Data are collected through on-board survey checks to determine passenger usage of routes. Three employees are assigned to the bus evaluation involving approximately 25 person hours per week. Dollar cost of data collection is not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Accessibility to routes.

-99- AUTHORITY Montgomery Area Transit System Montgomery Department of Planning and Development

P 0 Box 111 Montgomery, AL 36102

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 2,805,235

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 52 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 155,000 28 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 17

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 967,800

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES Montgomery Alabama uses the MPO for transit planning and services evaluation. The MPO does have a comprehensive evaluation program in manual form. The operator, Montgomery Area Transit System (MATS) collects the data monthly and the MPO analyze the data quarterly. The data collected includes revenue ridership and costs. The cost of data collection was not reported. The MPO uses two individuals for service evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

The following formal standards are used:

1) Revenue per hour - not less than $5. 2) Passenger per mile - not less than 1.5. 3) Subsidy per passenger - not more than $0.60. 4) Retnetion cost per hour - not more than $7.25.

Retention Cost = variable cost less revenue.

-100- AUTHORITY Metropolitan Transit Authority 60 Peabody Street

Nashville, TN 37210

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 500 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 500,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 120 NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 43 NA NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES Nashville has a comprehensive evaluation program in manual form. No budget or cost information was provided and no staff size is given. Ridership and schedule adherence data are collected monthly-

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The following standards are used:

Maximum Loading - 75% on base, night, and weekends, 100% on express service and 125% on arterial service during peak periods.

No headways should exceed 6 0 minutes.

All routes with headways less than 10 minutes should be 80% on time; all other headways should be 95% on time. On time is defined as zero minutes early to 5 minutes late.

Bus stops should not be closer than 700 feet.

Passengers per hour - above 80% of system average is acceptable. Between 70% to 80% needs to be studied. Between 60% and 70%, a report must be made to the authority recommending actions to be taken. Below 60% the route will be discontinued unless a social need is prevalent.

Passenger Amenities - a. Bus shelters shall be provided at any stop having more than 100 passengers per day. Shelters with 200 or more passengers per day shall be heated and lighted. All park and ride shelters shall be heated and lighted. Also park and ride shelters should have a telephone service provided. -101- Metropolitan Transit Authority Page Two b. Central telephone infoiamation shall be provided 16 hours per day. c. 100% of fleet must be air-conditioned and 90% must be in working order at all times.

Buses shall operate on weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. and from 5:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Sundays and Holidays.

-102- AUTHORITY Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky 11th and Lowell Streets

Newport, KY 41071

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 5,237,745

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 350 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 251,407

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 76

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : 2,331,300 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR :

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority has no comprehensive evaluation program. The authority conducts checks on schedule adherence, passengers per vehicle mile, revenue and cost, and load factors. Cost not reported but approximately 2,000 person hours required. Two employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The following standards are used:

Schedule Adherence - on time is defined as zero to 5 minutes late.

Load Factor - a maximum of 100% or less during base, 100% on peak express, 125% on arterial services.

-103- AUTHORITY Tidewater Regional Transit

P. 0. Box 660

Norfolk, VA 23501

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 10,484,344

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 1,079 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 725,000 139 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 41 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 4rSfi7,non

REVIEV7 OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority regularly collects financial and operating data for the system and by route. Route data are summarized quarterly and used for evaluating services. Demographic and other information are reported annually. Formal system financial and operating reports are made monthly. Six full time and additional part time employees are used for data collection and analysis for a total cost of about $100,000.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Standards are mostly informal.

Schedule Adherence - 2 minutes early to 3 minutes late.

Transferring - 20% systemwide or less.

Passengers/mile - based on system average.

Deficit/passenger - based on system average.

Passenger/hour - based on system average.

-104- AUTHORITY Metro Area Transit 2615 Cuming Street

Omaha, NE 6 8131

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 10,094,218

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 125 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 425 ,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 154

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 32

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,838,400

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program but does collect loading, headway, schedule adherence and bus speed data. Transportation planners and schedulers are responsible for data collection which is done primarily by traffic checkers. Six employees are assigned to evaluation at an annual cost of appoxi- mately $7,000.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The following formal standards are being set: early to 1) Schedule Adherence is defined as being zero minutes five minutes late. as a percentage of seat 2) Loading - maximum number of passengers capacity for peak service will not exceed 130%. - mile standard for 3) Assessibility five minute or quarter walking distance to and from bus stop.

-105- .

AUTHORITY Greater Oneonta Bus Service 11 Ford Avenue

Oneonta, NY 138 20

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 362,121

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : NA

POPULATION SERVED : 16 ,030

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 9

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : _j NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : nem.nd R^.nnn.iv P. NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

No fixed route service is provided by this authority. However, an analysis of user characteristics, trip characteristics, and user perceptions of the dial-a-bus system has been conducted. Cost of this study was not reported but two individuals were assigned to this account.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported

-106- AUTHORITY Regional Transit Service 1372 East Main Street

Rochester, NY 14609

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : NA

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 675 §9^^^^^ miles

POPULATION SERVED : 750 .qoq

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 200

^ NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : __1 ^ NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : 46

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 5,400,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

RTS does not have a comprehensive evaluation program but collects various types of data and makes comparisons with the prior year. The system collects the following information: systemwide riderr ship by type, fares by type, revenue miles, vehicle miles, charter service revenue and vehicle miles and individual route ridership. The individual route ridership is collected for approximately $30,000. The other data are collected for $2,400 per year. Ten individuals are assinged to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Informal standard: Passengers per vehicle mile

.r •

-107- AUTHORITY Rhode Island Public Transit Authority

265 Melrose Street

Providence, RI 02907

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 17,051,334

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 18 3 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 842,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES i 174

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES • 2

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES • 8 3 5,970,000 NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR :

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Data are collected on schedule adherence, passenger counts, transfers and line revenue checks. Cost is $6,171.20 per year. One full time employee is assigned to the service evaluation, in addition to part time use of other employees.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

There are informal standards using the above data but no written standards other than that operators are cautioned for running more than two minutes ahead of schedule.

-108- AUTHORITY San Diego Transit

P. O. Box 2511

San Diego, CA 92112

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 36,000,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 385 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,200,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 285

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 42

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 12,600,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority has a comprehensive evaluation program for the analysis of system performance on a periodic basis. Financial, operating, demographic, socio-economic, geogi^aphic and other data are collected and summarized for periodic reports. A five year plan has been finalized for 1979-1983.

San Diego has a set of written standards which were adopted in March, 1978. It has a manager of planning and two full time transportation planners. The cost of collecting the data is approximately $45,000 per year.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

The authority uses two types of standards, the first type being service standards and the second being operational standards.

The service standards are as follows:

1) 70% of population should be within h mile of a route. 2) 30 minute headways during peak and maximum 6 0 minute headways at other times. 3) All peak buses 90% or better on time and off peak 95% on time. Definition of on time is zero minutes early to 5 minutes late. 4) No more than 40% transferring. 5) Maximum loading for peak period is 150% off peak is

100% . 6) No bus over 15 years old. 7) 100% of buses to be upholstered and 90% to be air conditioned. 8) Bus stop benches to be provided at any stop at a major generator or with more than 50 persons per day.

Operational Standards - a) Total passengers per bus hour: 20 or more. -109- San Diego Transit Page Two b) Operating ratio: 30% or better c) Percent revenue hours to total hours

-110- .

AUTHORITY Santa Clara County Transit District 1555 Berger Drive

San Jose, CA 95112

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 15,700,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 250 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,200,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 190

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 44

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 10,129,800

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority has a comprehensive service evaluation program. Two employees are assigned to evaluation. Financial and operating data are collected at an annual cost of $2,520 annually.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

1) Passengers per vehicle hour - minimum line ridership is 60% of system average.

2) Average number of seats filled - minimum is 5 seats

3) Percent operating cost recovered -minimum of 50% of system average (proposed standard)

4) Schedule Adherence - 95% of all trips on time; on time is defined as zero minutes early to 3 minutes late

5) Percent Transferring - maximum 40% of total boarding passengers.

6) Average Load factor - minimum is .30; maximum is .90.

-Ill- AUTHORITY Utah Transit Authority 355 Rio Grand

Salt Lake- City, UT 84111

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 16,325,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 1,581 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 759,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 249

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 105

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 12,900,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This authority has a comprehensive evaluation program and developed a manual for this purpose. At present, service evaluation criteria are being tested for a one year period. Data collected include ridership, hours and miles of operations, demographic data, land use data, revenue, costs, schedule adherence, transferring and accidents. Fouir individuals are assigned to evaluation; however cost of evaluation was not reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Operational standards are checked against system performance each month. Operational standards are as follows:

1) Schedule Adherence - on time is defined as being zero minutes early to five minutes late.

2) Transfers - if transferring on a route is over 30%, a through route or new route will be" developed.

3) Safety - accidents should not be more than 10% greater than the national average for like-sized systems.

4) Service Frequencies are developed on the basis of medium household income for a given service area. The lower the income, the higher the service level.

5) Route Design - bus stops will be spaced not closer than 660 feet nor greater than 2,000 feet. This can be modified due to population concentrations.

6) Travel time on all routes shall not exceed twice the auto travel time.

-112- . .

AUTHORITY Central New York Regional Transportation Authority Room 508 Midtown Plaza

Syracuse, NY 13210

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 11,600,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 125 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 360,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 143

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 57

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 4,371,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority has a set of written standards but they are under review and hence are not operational at this time. Passenger data are collected using temporary employees who are paid $3 to $3.50 per hour. For a given year, 2,000 man hours are required to collect this information plus several hundred hours for coding, keypunching and processing. Three part,.time employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Proposed standards

1) Schedule Adherence - on time is defined as being zero m.inutes early to five minutes late

2) Passengers per Vehicle Mile - minimum standard of 2.52.

3) Loading - maximum number of passengers as a percentage of seated capacity for peak service will not exceed 155% and for off-peak service 130%.

4) Headways - the minimum headway for urban trunk lines for peak and off peak service is 30 and 40 minutes respectively; for suburban trunk lines, the minimum headways are 40 and 60 minutes respectively

5) Minimum passengers per hour per route is 33 for urban routes and 20 for suburban routes.

6) Assessbility - it is common for a person six blocks from a bus line with five minute headways to perceive that he has good access to mass transit. -113- AUTHORITY Tacoms. Tiransit P O Box 5037

Tacoma, WA 98405

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 55 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 196 ,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 106

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 17

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 3,450,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES No evaluation program was reported nor data collected and its cost. Three part time employees are assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-114- AUTHORITY Champaign - Urbana Mass Transit District 801 East University

Urbana, IL 61801

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 2,781,114

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 35 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 108,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 33

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 10

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,819,500

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This Mass Transit District does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. However, data are collected on schedule adherence, revenue and expenses. There is one individual assigned to service evaluation, The cost of evaluation is $5,400 annually or 90 hours at $5.00 per hour.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICES

A formal standard for schedule adherence is zero minutes early to ten minutes late.

An informal standard for revenue to expenses is 30% covered by farebox; any route with the ratio being 20% is closely checked.

-115- AUTHORITY Savannah Transit Authority P. O. Box 9118

Savannah, GA 31402

- DESCRIPTION ANNUAL RIDERSHIP : 4,844,433

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 53 square miles

POPULATION SERVED : 16 3,000

^2 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES :

1 NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES :

^5 NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 1,767,900

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES The authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program but collects data on schedule adherence, revenue and passengers per bus mile. Data are obtained by supervisors and from accumulated statistics. One employee is assigned to evaluation. Cost of schedule adherence is $4,380 per year.

CRITERIA USED TO ACCESS SERVICE

1) Schedule Adherence - Ih minutes early to 4 minutes late.

2) Passengers Per Bus Mile for a given route - acceptable range 1.5 to 2.0; below 1.5 re-evaluate.

-116- AUTHORITY South Coast Area Transit 336 Sanjon Road

Ventura/ CA 93023

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 1,914,839

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 80 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 220,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 22

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 10

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 866,100

PvEVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have a comprehensive evaluation program. Two part time employees are assigned to evaluation. The authority only collets data on passengers per vehilce hour. Cost of collection not available.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

Service increase: greater than 40.0 passengers per vehicle hour. Service continuation: 20.0 - 39.9 passengers per vehicle hour. Service decrease: 10.0 - 19.9 passengers per vehicle hour. Service elimination: less than 9.9 passengers per vehicle hour.

-117- AUTHORITY Yakima City Lines

2 300 Fruitvale

Yakima, WA 98902

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 668,136

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 13 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 51,100

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 295,500

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES This authority does not have comprehensive evaluation program. The only, data collected by the authority are schedule adherence, passengers per mile, and transfers. Cost for collecting passenger per mile data is $268 every two months. Cost for collecting other data is negligible. One-fourth of an employee is assigned to evaluation.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

1) Passengers per vehicle mile - 1.0 or more is acceptable.

2) Transfers - No written standard but a uniform standard is used.

-118- AUTHORITY Western Reserve Transit Authority 604 Mahoning Avenue

Youngs town, OH 44502

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 98 square miles

POPULATION SERVED 275,588

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 78

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 1

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 17

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,617,900

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES No evaluation program was reported by this authority. Two employees are assigned to evaluation. No cost reported.

CRITERIA USED TO ASSESS SERVICE

None reported.

-119- LARGE AUTHORITIES (over 400 buses)

PAGE NO,

Atlanta, GA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority 124

Boston, MA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority -^25

Buffalo, NY Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. (METRO BUS) 126

Calgary, Alberta, Canada Calgary Transit 127

Cincinnati, OH 128 Queen City Metro

Cleveland, OH 130 Greater Cleveland Transit Authority

Denver, CO 131 Regional Transit District

Detroit, MI 132 Detroit Department of Transportation

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 13 3 City of Edmonton Transit

Houston, TX 134 Houston Transit System (HOUTRAN, INC.)

Los Angeles, CA 135 Southern California Rapid Transit District

Miami, FL 137 Metropolitan Dade County

Milwaukee, WI 138 Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc.

Montreal, Quebec, Canada 139 Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission

Philadelphia, PA 141 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transporation Authority

-120- Pittsburgh, PA PA Transit

St. Louis, MO Bi-State Development Agency

St. Paul, MN Metropolitan Transit Commission

San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Railway

Seattle, WA Metro

Toronto, Canada Toronto Transit Commission

Vancouver, B.C. , Canada British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Washington, DC Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Winnipeg Transit System

-121- LARGE AUTHORITIES (over 400 buses)

AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON PAGE NO,

Bi State Development Agency Jerome Kirzner 143 St. Louis, MO Director of Transit

British Columbia Hydro V. L. Sharman 150 and Power Authority Manager, Research and Vancouver, B.C., Canada Planning

Calgary Transit F. C. Underhill 157 Calgary, Alberta, Canada Acting Superintendent of Operations

Detroit Department of Trans- G. E. Gordon 132 portation Superintendent of Trans- Detroit, MI portation Operations

City of Edmonton Transit W. D. Liggett 133 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Transit Development Supervisor

Greater Cleveland Transit Don Yuratavac 130 Authority Director of Service Cleveland, OH Development

Houston Transit System T. A. Niskala 134 (Houtran, Inc.) Director of Marketing Houston, TX and Planning

Massachusetts Bay Transpor- John Attanucci 125 tation Authority Manager, Service Boston, MA Planning

Metro Dan Munroe 146 Seattle, WA Manager, Transit Devel- opment

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Ann F. Johnson 124 Transit Authority Manager of Support Atlanta, GA Services

Metropolitan Dade County David R. Fialkoff 137

Miami , PL Chief, Operations Planning

-122- .

AUTHORITY CONTACT PERSON

Metropolitan Transit John C. Little, Jr. Commission Special Projects Co- St. Paul, MO ordinator

Milwaukee Transport Services, Kenneth J. Warren Inc Milwaukee, WI

Montreal Urban Community Henri Bessette, Eng. Transit Commission Director Service de 1 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Planif ication

Niagara Frontier Transit Metro C. T. Barber System, Inc. (Metro Bus) Vice President, Trans Buffalo, NY portation

PA Transit R. M. Parker Pittsburgh, PA Director of Transit Operations

Queen City Metro Cincinnati, OH

Regional Transit District John J. Gaudette

Denver , CO Assistant General Manager Policy Analy- sis

San Francisco MUNI Barbara Brown San Francisco, CA Transit Planner

Southeastern Pennsylvania John F. Tucker, III Transportation Authority Manager, Route and Philadelphia, PA Service Planning

Southern California Rapid Joel Woodhull Transit District Senior Transportation Los Angeles, CA Planner

Toronto Transit Commission H. J. Sansom Toronto, Canada Manager, Transit Planning

Washington Metropolitan Theodore C. Lutz Area Transit Authority Washington, D.C.

Winnipeg Transit System R. G. Ferguson Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Superintendent of Canada Schedules

-123- AUTHORITY Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

2200 Peachtree Summit

401 West Peachtree Street, N,E,

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 79 ,724,700

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 799 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,090,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 704

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 130

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 28,363,400

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority allocates approximately $200,000 for 18 full-time traffic checkers. The checkers collect the data necessary to implement the performance standards. Occasionally, operators are asked to gather specialized data such as the number of patrons paying a specific fare.

A "Load Profile and Survey System," not yet in full operation, has been developed to electronically process raw service data into fin- ished internal reports.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Loading Standards Headways Schedule Adherence

-124- AUTHORITY Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

50 High Street

Boston y Massachusetts 02110

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ; 65,000,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 1043 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED : 2,800,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 844

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 10

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES ; 177

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 22,564,151

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The MBTA Board of Directors adopted a Service Policy in 1976. This very extensive policy covers service goals and objectives, service planning and evaluation processes, standards and guidelines, as well as amendment procedures. One unique characteristic of the policy is that productivity standards take into account the number of autoless, as well as elderly and handicapped passengers on a route.

10 checkers at a cost of $146,000 are employed to help monitor ridership and schedule adherence standards. An ongoing systemwide ridership survey by an outside consulting firm will also be used to help implement these standards.

Methods of updating this survey data and coordinating it with existing ridership data as well as methods for implementing other aspects of the service policy are being developed as part of this present study. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Bus Stop Spacing Schedule Adherence Passengers/Mile Directness Complaints Passengers/Hour Loading Standards Miles/Trouble Call Revenue/Cost Headways Lost Runs Subsidy/Passenger

-125- .

AUTHORITY Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. (METRO BUS)

P.O. Box 5010

Buffalo, New York 14205

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 43,100,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 941 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,300,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 369

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 45

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 10,300,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Metro Bus utilizes two official and two informal bus evaluation criteria

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Schedule Adherence Load Checks Complaints

-126- AUTHORITY Calgary Transit

8 01 - 36 Avenue N.E.

Calgary, Alberta T2E 6T9

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ; 48,776,260

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA : 162.9 Square Mile s

POPULATION SERVED ; 503,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 410

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 2

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :_63

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 13,654,619

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Calgary Transit has two official and two informal system effectiveness standards. $36,000 is spent annually on collecting schedule adherence data. An additional $5,000 is used to pay collector for distributing Origin-Destina- tion survey. None of the other surveyed authorities use collectors for survey distribution and collection.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Schedule Adherence Complaints Passengers/Hour Revenue/Cost

-127- Page 1 of 2

AUTHORITY Queein citv Metro

c/o Soutwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority

4th and Walnut Building, Rm. 1110; 4th and Walnut Streets

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED 924,018 NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES AM NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

PxEVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Research Planning Division of Queen City Metro developed a formal bus evaluation procedure in 1976. Four indicators are used to conduct annual systemwide reviews of each route. In- depth corridor analyses are also conducted.

A two week preliminary evaluation is conducted on routes which fall below all 4 standards. On-board counts, socio-economic factors, land-use profiles, and comments from riders and drivers are used to confirm if a route is below standards. Affected communities are asked to make suggestions for service changes and meetings are held with these communities to discuss various alternatives.

Following this preliminary analysis, detailed on-board surveys, counts, and schedule adherence, are conducted and used to evaluate ridership needs and transfers, and scheduling data is reviewed. Proposed service changes are then presented to community groups for discussion. The SORTA Operations Committee must then approve proposed changes. After several months of monitoring

service changes , routes which do not meet standards are recommended for discontinuance. These recommendations must be approved by the SORTA Board and City Council.*

*Kirby, Ron and Melinda Green - Case Studies on Transit Service Development Practice - June 14, 1978.

-128- Queen City Metro - Page 2

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Passengers/Mile Subsidy/Passenger Cost/Hour

-129- AUTHORITY Greater Cleveland Transit Authority

1404 East 9th Street

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 105,902,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 475 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,700,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 830

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 98

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 26 , 462 ,000

P^VIEVJ OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Greater Cleveland Transit Authority allocates approximately $427,000 to collect performance data, including $120,000 for processing complaints. 3 informal and 5 informal standards are used to evaluate the authority's bus service.

One unique characteristic of Cleveland's evaluation methods is that its service distribution standard, which is reviewed annually, is based on the household income of an area, as well as its density,

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Service Distribution Loading Standards Headways Schedule Adherence Accidents Complaints Passengers/Hour Revenue/Cost

-130- AUTHORITY Regional Transit District

1325 South Colorado Boulevard

Denver, Colorado

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 34,000,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 2284 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,600,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 440

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 115

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 19,400,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

In September, 1978, RTX) restructured all of its routes and is currently developing service standards.

-131- AUTHORITY Detroit DepartmeKc of Transportation

1301 East Warren

Detroit, Michigan 48207

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 66,000,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 247 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 4.500.000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 632

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 75

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 65 .979, 000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Detroit Department of Tranapoirtation used one informal criteria and periodic passenger checks to evaluate its bus service.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Loading Standards

-132- AUTHORITY City of Edmonton Transit

10426-81 Avenue

Edmonton, Alberta^ Canada TGE 1X5

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP :

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA :

POPULATION SERVED : 471,474,

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES :

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES :

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES :

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR :

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Edmonton is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive route evaluation program. The program will include a ranking of all routes based on economic factors, service coverage, operational characteristics, and transit dependency. This initial evaluation is scheduled to be completed by June 1979 at which time the recommendations will be implemented a::." a monitoring program instituted.

-133- AUTHORITY Houston Transit System (HOUTRAN. INC.)

5700 Polk Street

Houston^ Texas 77023

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 30,100,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 232 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,500,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 372

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 36

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 1,400,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Houtran has recently adopted a set of service standards and is currently developing a methodology to implement the stand-

ards .

-134- Page 1 of 2 \

AUTHORITY Southern California Rapid Transit District

42^ S. Main Street

-Los Angeles, CA 90013

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ; 316, 000, 000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA "; 2 28 0 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED ; 7,000,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES : 1800

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES : 11.5

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : 203

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR ; 92,759,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

An intensive line by line checking program began in the Southern California Rapid Transit District in 1975.

Formal service standards were adopted in 1976. Currently approximately one million dollars a year, one half of one percent of the authority's operating cost, is allocated to collect the data necessary to implement the guidelines. 40 checkers conduct point checks and ridership checks.

By February 1978, 150 routes had been analyzed according to the standards. As a result of this analysis the peak bus requirement was reduced by over 100, and annual vehicle miles were cut by 11 million. Without significant passenger loss, the authority saved approximately $20 million. Moreover, over the last few years service levels were sub- stantially increased, particularly in low density areas, without reducing productivity.

There has been a recent shift in emphasis at SCRTD from efficiency to equity of service distribution. As a result the computerized area account system was developed. Area accounts are lists of data accumulated by census tracts. Bus stops are assigned to census tracts and corresponding service and patronage data is obtained from line data. This data can be easily updated as new ridership counts become available. Demographic factors in a census tract

-135- . .

Southern California Rapid Transit District - Page 2 of 2

can be compared to the ridership data. After 2 years of effort, SCRTD is beginning to answer questions such as the average speed, occupancy, and cost of service in specific areas

Factors are also being developed to compare the amount of service actually being provided in an area to the amount that should be provided.

In addition to collecting route and area specific data, a comprehensive systemwide statistical digest is prepared quarterly.

SCRTD staff have addressed many of the problems associated with implementing service guidelines in a series of papers, (see Literature Review and Bibliography)

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Service Distribution Loading Standards Headways Passengers/Mile Passengers/Hour Subsidy/Passenger

-136- AUTHORITY Metropolitan Dade County

3300 NW 32nd Avenue, P. 0. Box 520882

Miami y Florida 33152

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED : 1.500.000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES :

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Metro Transit Agency is in the early stages of developing a bus service evaluation program. While to date numerical standards have not been established, the authority does gather basic passenger as well as service reliability data. Within the next year or two the authority hopes to computerize the storage, retrieval, and processing of the data.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Load Factors Schedule Adherence Revenue/Mi le

-137- AUTHORITY Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc.

4212 West Highland Blvd.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED 945,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Milwaukee Transit Services, Inc., has adopted a set of system standards. To date, their "service evaluation measures" have been geared to reacting to obvious situations of inefficiency rather than a routine process of in-depth analysis of all services. It is anticipated that a recently approved system service study funded by Section 9 monies will permit ongoing monitoring of the service policies.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Bus Stop Spacing Loading Standards Schedule Adherence Passengers/Hour Revenue /Cost

-138- AUTHORITY Montreal Urban Connunitv Transit Commission

159 Saint-Antoine Street West

Montreal, Quebec H27 IH3

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 144 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,900,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 1819

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 11_

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 134

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 49,626,841

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Montreal has a set of written standards which were documented in June, 1978. The Authority has a relatively large staff and budget dedicated to data collection and analysis. The section of the Transportation Department v^iich collects and analyzes service data has a budget of $950,000 and 49 employees. The 1.2 million dollar 1978 Planning Department budget includes the cost of 21 staff members vto work on the road as well as a quadrennial origin-destination survey which is used in evaluating how the existing service fits the needs of the population.

The large data collection staff in Montreal allows peak load counts and time checks to be taken 5 times per year on each route; 3 times for weekday service and once each for Saturday and Sunday service.

Of the 25 authorities v^ch responded to this survey, only Montreal conducts regular O-D surveys to determine v^iether the existing service is meeting the needs of the population.

The first quadrennial telephone survey was conducted in 1970. It is estimated that it would cost approximately $500,000 to hire an outside-organization to conduct the survey. However, the cost has been minimized to approximately $100,000-$150,000 per survey by using in-house personnel for all the key jobs and allocating $80,000 for teiTporary survey personnel.

During the telephone surveys, households are asked questions regarding the number of persons in the household, their age and sex, the number of cars owned in the household, and full details regarding every trip made by any member of

-139- .

Montreal Urban Community Transit Commission - Page 2

the household.

Seventy thousand households are contacted over a nine week consec- utive period between late September and the beginning of December. The telephone calls are made each weekday evening and the trips surveyed are those made the previous weekday.

When major modifications are under consideration, the information stored in the computer regarding trip patterns may be used in a simulation of the proposed system to determine whether the revised network responds properly to the known needs of present and potential customers. For smaller projects, the infomation can be analyzed manually.

Information from the origin-destination survey can be validated with screen-line load counts at designated points and can be supplemented by such counts or by passenger counts on board the vehicles

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Bus Stop Spacing Loading Standards Headways Passenger Shelters Schedule Adherence Passengers/Hour

-140- AUTHORITY Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

2028 PSFS Building

12 South 12th Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED 4,000.000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

A consulting firm is currently reviewing SEPTA 's bus service evaluation procedure.

-141- AUTHORITY PA Transit

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Beaver and Island Avenue

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 101,000,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 730 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,900,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 732

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 166

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 35,700,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

While PA Transit has no official standards, informal ones do exist for management decision making. The Authority is one of the two surveyed which uses the low-cost method of using drivers to collect daily ridership data.

Each operator registers the total at the end of each trip on a fom called a "day card." Transfers collected are also recorded on the day card. In order to determine the number of senior citizens and handicapped passengers, on occassion the driver's are requested to only count these two groups of passengers. This information is collected as part of the driver's regular duties and management is confident of the data's reliability.

Completed "Day Cards" are entered into an EDP system and total ridership is available by route each day and an average weekday, Saturday and Sunday. The computer is programmed to print out a list of each route which has rider- ships of + 10% of the previous month.

A cost analysis, by route, is made at least semi-annually; the cost per day, mile, passenger and per passenger mile is developed for each route.

In addition to the ridership 's data provided by the drivers, 10 checkers collect on-off data on the routes.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Ridership Trend Subsidy/Passenger Passengers/Mile Cost/Passenger Mile Passengers/Hour

-142- AUTHORITY Bi-State Development Agency

3869 Park Avenue

St. Louis ^ Missouri 63110

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 66,818,818

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 360 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 2,400,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 815

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 161

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 26,736,593

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Bi-State has adopted and begun to implement a set of service standards. An on-going study is currently being conducted to review Bi-State 's bus service evaluation.

In addition to employing nineteen (19) traffic checkers at a cost of $300,000 per year, Bi-State drivers are asked to count passengers on each trip of their run. Counts for the entire system are taken on two (2) week days, one (1) Satur- day, and one (1) Sunday. Operators are paid $3.00 each day for this special check and the total cost runs about $10,000- $12,000 per year.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Service Distribution Bus Stop Spacing Loading Standards Headways Bus Assignment Exclusive Bus Lanes Passenger Shelters Schedule Adherence Travel Speed

-143- AUTHORITY iXtetropolitan Transit Conmission

801 American Center Building

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 63,100,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 2900 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 2,000,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 818

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 124

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 430,500

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

St. Paul has a very conprehensive route by route evaluation program based on a set of performance measures. The Routes, Schedules and Planning Depai±ment prepares monthly reports by number of passengers, pass users, passenger characteristics, transfers, fares, passengers, route, total revenue, operating costs, and per passenger subsidies. These reports are broken down by route, as v\?ell as by weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays and holidays.

Drivers collect daily ridership data, thereby minimizing collection costs. Research assistants check trips for exact ridership data and 5 full time load checkers and 1 supervisor monitor load standards at an annual cost of $94,600.

The Authority is currently developing standards to be used for making policy decisions.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Loading Standards Schedule Adherence Passengers/Mile Subsidy/Passenger Average Fare/Fare Paying Passenger Revenue/Mile

-144- AUTHORITY San Francisco Municipal Railvyav

94 9 Presidio Avenue

San Francisco^ California 94115

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 118 ,685,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 49 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 715,674

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 757

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 75

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 823,764

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Muni bus service is evaluated based on routing, operating and transit criteria. The Authority has a very comprehensive procedure for determining future passenger waiting shelter sites.

In addition to Muni's more traditional service standards, the inspector's department has a set of criteria to be met by Muni inspectors. These criteria include the number of daily service checks which must be made by an inspector as well as the number of farebox checks.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Service Distribution Bus Stop Spacing Loading Standards Passenger Shelters Schedule Adherence

-145- Page 1 of 2 AUTHORITY Metro

Exchange Building 8

821 Second Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98104

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OP SERVICE AREA 2,128 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 1,555,700

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 591

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES 4

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 103

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 24,413,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Seattle Metro adopted a set of service evaluation criteria in 1977. Metro is the only authority which responded to this survey which incorporates both headway and population of an area into route productivity standards.

Using October-November 1976 data, productivity seat availability, and on the reliability for each route was siimmarized in a 1977 report. A prioritization scheme was developed to rank routes which failed one or more productivity standards. In contrast to most authorities which have limited schedule adherence data, this summary report presents on time performance for each route by service period; this data was collected at peak load points.

Metro has found that establishing and evaluating services based on service standards has been useful in gaining support for management decisions.

"In general, few problems have been encountered in adjusting service where the evaluation .criteria have shown a need. Obvi- ously, compromise has been necessary on occasion. Typically, one mere fact that recommendation and subsequent decisions are not made on an arbitrary basis, but rather on tangible support- ing data, has often smoothed the path of gaining public, governmental, and internal acceptance of operating changes".*

*August 1978 letter from Donald Munroe, Manager, Transit Development.

-146- Metro - Page 2 of 2

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Service Distribution Miles/Trouble Call Directness Last Runs Loading Standards Passengers/Hour Schedule Adherence Subsidy/Passenger Accidents Cost/Hour Complaints

-147- Page 1 of 2

AUTHORITY Toronto Transit Commission

1900 Yonge Street

Toronto, Canada M4S 1Z2

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 148,971,581

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 244^ square- Miles

POPULATION SERVED 2,145^^43

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 1,043

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 102

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 46,141,867

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The Toronto Transit Commission adopted "Standards for Evaluating Existing and Proposed Routes" in August 1977. $550,000 is allocated for traffic checkers which collect data necessary to implement the established standards.

Unlike many authorities, which are only responding to obvious situations of inefficiency, Toronto has developed and is implementing an annual review program of all routes.

"Under the Service Standards program, maximum and minimum acceptable vehicle loading ranges have been specified for the various modes and different periods of operation. In addition, minimum service levels for the different periods of operation have also been detailed.

By utilizing stationary and riding counts, a comparison is made between vehicle loading ranges and observed average vehicle loads on the various routes. Service changes are implemented only when (a) average vehicle loads on a given route exceed maximum acceptable vehicle load for the time period under consideration or if (b) average vehicle loads are less than the maximiim acceptable vehicle load and service reductions would not result in the level of service being greater than the minimum service level for the time period under consideration.

Existing route performance, over the long term, is also monitored through the quarterly analysis of reported revenue passengers. Through this procedure, TTC attempts to identify trends in ridership on all routes in the system.

-148- Toronto Transit Commission - Page 2

For example, if a route has had a significant decline or increase in ridership, a check is made to see if mileage on the route has declined or increased proportionately. If, for some reason, the change in mileage has not kept pace with the change in ridership, the route is investigated in detail to determine the reasons for the change and to ascertain what service options are possible. This includes a comparison of average vehicle loads on the given route to loading ranges and the frequency of service to minimum service levels.

In addition to the above detailed procedure for the evaluation of the level of service on existing routes, new service requests are also evaluated under the Service Standards program. New service requests are compared to existing poor performing routes by utilizing six evaluation factors: revenue costs, access, transit dependency, transit' travel times, land use planning and physical constraints. The new service requests and existing poor per- foming routes are then ranked based on the above factors and recommendations for implementation are made to the municipality if the new service requests place higher in the evaluation than existing routes.

In 1977, as a result of the rigid application of vehicle loading ranges and minimum service levels, a net saving of approximately $1,528,000 was realized.

Studies are currently underway with the purpose of determining '** the impact of service changes on ridership .

*Taken from an August 28, 1978 letter from H.S. Sansom.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Bus Stop Spacing Loading Standards Headways Ridership Trend Revenue/Mile Service Improvement

-149- AUTHORITY British Coliimbia Hydro and Power Authority 850 Southwest Marine Drive

Vancouver, B.C. V6P 521

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP ; 87,291,366

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA ; 448.75 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED t 1,064,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES ; 763

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES :_6

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES : 128

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR : 32,731.811

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The EC Hydro and Power Authority currently utilizes several informal productivity service standards. The Authority is in the process of reviewing its performance indicators and informal service standards in order to develop a formal set of standards.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Loading Standards Passengers/Trip Lost Runs

-150- .

AUTHORITY WasI\ington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

600 Fifth Street

Washington, D.C. 20001

(Theodore D. Lutz)

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA

POPULATION SERVED 2,500,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

While Washington Metro has not adopted route specific service standards, the authority has done extensive work on developing and implementing systemwide quarterly measures of efficiency and effectiveness.* The first systemwide report was prepared in May 1978. Metro's standards are unique in the emphasis that is placed on measuring the operating efficiency of vehicles and manpower

Future plans include gathering performance measures by routes and establishing garages as cost centers.

* Since to date these measures are not gathered on a route by route basis, they have not been incorporated into Appendix B, "Route Specific Measures". AUTHORITY Winnipeg Transit System

100 Main Street

Winnipeg, Manitoba, C anada R3C-1A5

DESCRIPTION - ANNUAL RIDERSHIP 65,600,000

SIZE OF SERVICE AREA 220 Square Miles

POPULATION SERVED 567,000

NUMBER OF PEAK PERIOD BUSES 488

NUMBER OF BUS GARAGES

NUMBER OF BUS ROUTES 53

NUMBER OF REVENUE BUS MILES/YEAR 15,800,000

REVIEW OF EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Winnipeg has adopted a set of formal service standards and allocates approximately $175,000 to implement the standards.

Winnipeg Transit is the only authority which indicated that it uses drivers to help monitor schedule adherence standards. Drivers are required to punch clocks, located at selected terminals, as they leave the terminal. Clock cards are turned in at the end of each day, checked, and summarized for daily reports.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Directness Loading Standards Schedule Adherence Complaints Passengers/Mile Revenue/Cost

-152- APPENDIX E

ROUTE SPECIFIC MEASURES

PAGE NO.

I. Small and Medium Sized Systems (0-400 buses) 154

Ratio of Revenue to Costs I54 Schedule Adherence 158 Accesibility to Routes 152 Passengers/Vehicle Hour 166 Passengers/Vehicle Mile 169 Loading Standards 172 Headways 176 Transferring 180

II. Large Systems (over 400 buses) I8I

A. Service Design Measures I8I Service Distribution 1S2 Bus Stop Spacing 183 Directness of Service 184 Loading Standards 185 Headways 189 Exclusive Bus Lanes 191 Passenger Shelters 192 New Service Design 193

B. Operating Performance Measures 197

Schedule Adherence 198 Travel Speed 200 Accidents 201 Complaints 202 Miles/Trouble Call 203 Lost Runs 204

C. Economic/Productivity Measures 205

Ridership Trend 206 Passenger/Mile 207 Passenger/Hour 208 Passenger/Trip 212 Revenue/Cost 213 Subsidy/Passenger 214 Average Fare 216 Revenue/Mile, Cost/Mile 217 Revenue/Hour 219

-153- .

1 1 o T3 1-^ to -- 1 4J o 0) 4) 1h M 0 to -O c8 X 0 4-1 4J J= -C 0 3 Vi tiO U 4J 0 U 1 Vh 4J Vl d- C CJ to OC^H 60 41 to O -

tu Q u iJ Z ^ c ca < < (U H Eh E C/3 Z < ^ 4-) ZOO j: Vh 5>s •a C O M u -a CO ^ c 0 0< E-i fci c o. •o CO 1-1 WOO 4) 4J 4) 4-1 ^ - u to 4-1 B ij cn t>C 1-t c 4; 4J U "O C £ ^3 (U O r-l U 0 mow (U tH cj 3 E a. 1-1 0 Vh a H O iH 0 0. 4) 4) >^ 0) BJ to M u )H to c Vl O K < 4-4 q C s o z 4-1 C Vl to < ^ *^ /!% ?> 4> o S Eh 0 4) o < U 4) ^ S ^ fs X o

i-H 1 r-l e to to 0 Vh CJ 0 CO 41 1-1 4) > 60 to T) to to •H c 4J 0 4J C Vl •H to •H C V U 4) 0. VI 4) E X 4) to to 4-1 a. 4) 4) !h 0 < to 4J Eh to X <0 o 4J CO 0 a. o U 4J 4-1 to X CO CO 60 [ 4-> •a to >v 3 • to CO to CtU c 4) C X 0 o to 4-1 4J WHAT 1. 0 u ^ o 4) 1-1 iH •T3 X 0 iV^ £ 4) to 4) U 4) W TJ u x: 0 3 4.1 x: C 60 to D. • X 0 to CJ z a to c E >v •rH 4) Vi < o 4) 4) 0 4J X M 0 mo tri rev reve uper ligh wed X are d 0 >v 4J 4) X to to 4) 4) i-H .1-1 4J 4) to in 1-1 f> 4> Vi 4J •0 to to to 4) t-l CO to c c b a u a. Q to to

S-S J= CO 1^ 3 4J 4; 4> 4-1 t-l a. u f-l a CM o •rH i-H 4J v 0 to "O IM 4-l C U 4-1 4) 4-1 to 1 > c JZ to to to pa o u •f-i 0 4J to <4-l i-H 4-1 0 U >^ e 0 1 •r4 D. 4-1 c 41 to 4) to 3 CO r-H to 4) 4) x •iH tH 41 bO 4-1 S 4-1 0 u-i to o > iJ to -o 41 to 1—1 JZ C 0 C B 3 to 4-1 4) to "4-1 4-1 .-4 U 41 to 41 0 4) !h 0 1 • T) 41 i-H x: 0 4-1 0 4J 1 1—1 -o C u ^ to -H C 1-4 0 to to 3 to IS iJ O Xi i 0 3 >-i to X to x 41 C 0 cu to 4.J 4J o 4-J O 4-1 tj 4) 1-1 4-1 g to o, 4) 1—1 4-1 C CO Vl 14-1 to a 3 > to u 4-1 .r^ M to > to 4) C 14-1 to c o 4; 0 0 to > 0 0 to u to 0 0 41 4-1 Vl < O <4-l M U M t-i 4-1 [d 4J 14-1 U 4J OS OS CAl

J-l - •1-1 to 1—1 r-l to tlO to M rH i-l >H - c u 1 C to •H >^ tH Eh .-H to 3 ^ 1-1 Sh 4-1 41 tOS - - 4J -as H to V4 J3 1-1 U to 0 •H to •rH 4-1 CO rH 4J « 4-1 H to to o c CL c: M 3 CO to -rH C 1—1 C 1-1 o u >> 0 to 0 0 0 0. C CO C 4) 3 CO 01 4J 4-1 s to M •H C •1-4 jr to E CO C to a. SCO. 4J J-i Eh Cl V U c s t>0 to J-i to -Q to J3 to = CO to to (J >~.>H D to < 41 tu 4) )-l to ,3 x; vi M vi 0 U X CJ < u < PS a. u s e; Eh 4-1 < CO S CJ 3 H 3 CJ U H U 2:

-154- o u R o i-l o o •a (U o (0 o ^ 1-1 (U o C OCM o (U o O u a. a. >< < a-i a 1^ j: ts (0 m o c CQ < (U 0) M £ E o w z 4-1 u U z o u *J c o H >1 « c o e x> a m U (U 0) •a -w a) § •a Q S c a 4J <-} nJ 0) 4J u 4-1 01 U 4J o O W H 05 c o a. 0) c •r-i a v 01 T-l U 0} h CO « < C 0] R) 0) c C o z O a CO (0 b < 3 )^ h M(A a: >v 0) Eh ^ > o u Ui vH 1-H 01 to J= I u >. o» o b 4-1 4J O 4-1 c c S (U )^ 1 o o 0) o > jC c s z M 4-1 O

,C 01 y 4= I O Cfl 4-1 0) 60 > • c, o C DC 1-1 4J V ' )-< V c 01 o J= 4J (X 0) 4J o 4J JS 0) 0] - o y 0) t4-( 0) O M T5 •O i-H 4J 1-1 01 T-( !-l 63 1-1 C8 -H 0) r-i J x: T3 jz s u -] 0) eg C c C •a 0) Z >J 01 C y "O 0) 3 0) 0) 4-1 < o 0)_ u > O e •O -r^ o 4-1 > 3 4J u 00 0) I-l "O 3 0) 0 01 u 30 a. 60 •a csi 01 4J 0) 4-1 iH - m c c 1-4 C -H C V4 01 > o w 0) 0) > & 0} 4J P 14-4 E M-l ^ 0)

0} 60 OJ 01 B o 4J 60 0) 0) -H cs 01 0) c > 0 x: 9) 60 0) • 0) CO y 4J 01 C 1-1 o 4: 9> Vi V4 o 01 i4 4= "1 4-1 43 (U 9) I-l 60 x: td 4J y • o. 4-1 4-1 9) G 60 u-i a. to to I 4J O to to PQ 1^ M-l I-l z 3 I-l o 01 o iJ o M 0) o o 01 B 4: 4-1 60 U 42 44 o o 1-4 I-l 4J 01 E-i 01 4-1 9) «1 T* 4J i-H o U 01 w Q- y • 0) i-( 4J y to tl-l y O 1-1 O "O X as 6043 to 0) X O U-I « 1-) 01 0) e to I-l u 01 o •I-l O U as 43 4.J 4J "a cn O 01 4-1 "O 0) 0) 0 tfl 0 V C CM o > 0 c 60 3 01 0; E Q C to ta .H C 60C y 3

0) 1-1 . o y c C a> 43 y c 0) -a 1-1 4-) I-l oj a % o 4-1 s c to u 01 0) 43 01 01 ><: 01 0) 01 1 1-1 4= „o 9>. u to to 43 o X) 4-1 >^ 3 e 2 01 6 ^ 0) 4J 01 43 •r4 to 05 C (U g 0) 01 a, -I 4-1 0) 01 I-l 0) 4J 4-1 1-14-1 C 4J 9i 01 }^ 43 01 01 01 01 to 3 y 3 4-1 3 (0 3 D. 4S OJ o C O >>4= o u O <: e>4H CO o H H U CO to O 03 4J OS <: OS

4.) 03 01 I 3 01 c 73 - - y I to c C I c •I-l -73 4-1 O S ^4 I IJ o > CO 1^ 4-1 g 4J 4J ' O C H •H r-l C O •HO o >i-l 4J •^^ 4-1 y o >^•H O. C 0 4J VI O J x: I c o. c M - 01 01 >4-l 4-1 -H Ul O y 01 (U cd O 03 plH 6043 O 01 O O C O 01 01 4-1 0) 4J C C C <0 C •'-I c o 4<; 44 4= ^ •H 4-1 4J C -H 43 9) U C C 01 C 4J 4-1 4J 4J C as U 3 3 to 0) .-I y I-l y 43 U Q. CO I-l 4-1 C to to >. CO O M efl H O to 1-1 CO 60t^ to O 3 to 0) 0JOEl-ic03i-l<; 0) to > I-l > Z u H ac U U XI H 4J < 5C a.< n I-l H-JZ eOH4J<<(X, 4-1 W H CO W M

-155- —

•a (U •i-i 0) 0) u 1-1 1-( u U I u o u u U 1 U O 0) o 1-1 01 u 4) 1-1 0.0" Z 60 Z 60 z u a.

u a c OJ CQ < s w z ca o T3 o a (U V JJ a U u Q g u O CO o 60 ca 0) 60 a. c y iH 1-1 c 0) tH 1-1 o > p •H c c c c £ u OJ 0) c IQ U c 0) r-l 0) o Pk H H S f>« Eh Q U T3 W OJ 0) H U u 4J u z o o U tJ a 5n Eh O 1-1 r-l 0) b U u i >H O 4J < a c c 4J S Eh o CO o o < z X o -3! >

k o CO y C -a o C C CO y ca 73 y B U 0) 3 CO a> 1-1 en ca u u 4J CO to ca U CO cfl ja 3 1-1 O 4-1 1-1 Xi Cu CO 4-> CO ca y Q CO u ^ •a U rH JJ ca CO U CO Eh Q 01 ca o y CO < a r-H u r-H O X Eh •i-l •O £ C S u B 0) f-l CO 4J <0 iJ CO c a c u 1-1 a iJ u 01 y CO u CO u O Z J ca u U < o B O y CO CO J-l u 3 "O 3 • •1-1 • y o CO ca 60 CO oi 3 o CO u 3 y c O O o >. o U CO 4S >-> y u 35 H c y M CO CO Oi CO u V 60 - O •o 3 > C 0) . ji y 0) u 1-1 o U 60 3 3 43 60 3 60 CO U CO M JJ > ca u > 1-1 CO y >> J-l u y > y y o 1-1 0) O. (0 CO CO O. < P6 o a J= CO "O a

c» >. 4-1 43 I CO C3^ c JJ 0 u o r-H 73 c CO CO lO y u y u CO 4: 0 y u C -•o CO M 0 0 3 3 0) o> O u C O 6043 U y U-l y 4: ' 4J y M 0 0 > y ^1 y u 0 CO y 60 3 z ^ Q s y 0 IH c c 43 o c y 43 B 60 1 fn y H CO 3 CO J-l CO u >'a Eh c 1-t 4-t 0 4J 0 y o y y d. r-» 0) u o c c m u y OS tJ H r-- > CO C y CO •a •rH •a CT> y > u Vj 3 •a > o u rH W ^>4-l y u y 1-1 § u CO CO o 60 y > CO CO 0 73 u *J h C a 0 > •a 1-1 Q c >> CO CO ^ 3 y y c 4J y • 0 • CO 4J tn <0 CO u o y o CO CO 1 y CO 0) 4J u 3x: CO 0 i-H 4J Vj 3 4J CO c CO CO y u 43 CO 0 3 1 )H ^ CO c y iH 0. CO r-H CO 60 ^4 0 r-H 0 O o > y 43 y 4J C U 73 CO l+H ^ O •rH 0) O, y CO 3 D. CO CO •r4 >, U 6 d- •a 3 u C y B U 4J 43 y to u O • 1-t c ^ •rH c (X •rH 0 u CO 43 73 o •H CO 0) CO CSI CO 0 y y JJ 0 O 4-1 )H 73 4-1 C C4-I JJ CO -u U (0 • 43 > 0 c CO y-i to y y to • 0-4JCiH c CO to O 0) y r-~ 3 y 0 0 C o 4J M OS .-H<0- <

73 I c c - CO I E <^ C >> tfl to y •r4 to y vi c y y iH 1-H U o o o 1-1 C *j c 0) CO 4J 14-1 60 E y y 4-1 ^ H O O o rH U CO o (H 73 • to O H O S 60 CO C r-4 60 OS to O cfl (U O iH Q U 43 cfl c y 4-1 C 4: o 73 r-l 43 > c 4-1 4J 4J cfl •U C to c y 4-1 a CO > c 73 cfl 4J c o 43 O C (J Cfl y Cfl 3 y < 0)-i-rHajr^(U0iJ y U 3 tfl < 43 3. W 3 M H < S 4J < Q M X < coQOiQS-^ es H <; hJ o< OS Oi to <: O, OS CO H CO U -156- 0) U U<3J

U 3 I h 0) -H (U o r-i Cf

a) •a o 0) u 4J c ij rH hJ CD o CO 3 u a, o cn •O M o >l C (U (U 3 O o o a: < o o o o z u u fa < o <: z or M s

•l-l 3 (U 0) cr* O rH (U j: V4 CO c c (U CO o o < S B a Q

s •fi ^1 }^ bO u !-i C o. CU (U (U CO t>u 00 CO "O 0) c C CO 3 o CO (U 4J c 4J ^4 CO CO Q. CO r-l 3 CO CO O o ?» •t-( O CO a. CO U t» (U > > )-i C 1-1 u u (x; b: 0) CO e 1 CO CU >^ CU bO CU 3 >^ CO CO O c V 3 u u o > >v C CO s . u PQ

JJ CO bO O c u

lU bO . 3 • bO c-- CO CO <0 CO 4-J u u • T) (U_ CO (U CO 0) B o > !-i CO 4.1 CJ CO CO T-i 0) H Ss r-l "O T-l (0 a: CO u CO CU CO lU 4J CO 4J CO o CO M t-l CO CO CO CO CO u •a <4-l CJ l-l (U CO (U CO O cn CO bO iJ CO CO e •H E C -H B o 1 u o m Vj CU C4-I CU o •H O CO 0) o o U ^1 m cn C 14-1 u c CO O C CO 01 c CL, es 4-1 M D,43

c 5" > Vl 0) VI 4-1 - - ^ 4-1 V4 CJ CO 4J (0 4J ^ 4-1 ^ 4J 4-1 -l-l QJ ' •l-l CO •l-l l-l o C •r4 l-l >-l O M •r-l M > > to 3 U 3 O CO O cn O O 3 O cn o - CO 1 C 1) -l-l C M-i c x; z 4J CU e x; OS >.-i-i CO CO E C 13 bO CO CO 4J C ? CO 4-) 4-J 3 CO i-H O >j -H (0 •rH < 0) Vi O 3 M-l 0) 0) M 3 C4-I •r-l O >1 CO CJ U H Q M CJ H « H Z H < O biS Z H < O U k3 t! +->

I u I u o 0) o O 0) o aj o o (U o 0! o 00 0) 0) u o. z h a u a to u a

ca u o o M m w H P c z > c o o u •a T3 0) -H 0) 1) T3 P o. p 0 (S S d 3 ;h p o CO o ;-l a o. O o +j P a u o ai -a (0 (1) dj tu (u c p a d o o •H (D O 3 iH 2 z Q OS CZl

o u >> 05 a >> d p M U] rH g z h 3 -H S o CIS o O cS 3 u a 3 >, El a 3 T) M 1) c

js -a 0) P OJ p c E c in O o (U d to P o •H 0) P r-( 73 P Ul X S d d •H d >« o (1) u M -P a to a M e u o s d (U U -H O -H u (D P P T3 a d •H d 0) O rH B U o to a; cu o c •a u x: > E >. OS O -H u P Ji! M p o o o u c •H oi 0 tfl eS d Q o H o o U -H •d DQ to -H P • p o a 0) ;< Q) (fl u P . o s: ca P X! & a (1) CO a-o z 09 a o o d O

CO oj > tp to jQ in o 0 >. rH +J d o o ee p CO » o o +» p o u a n o p p 00 B 0 E d rH >> >> 0 rH 0 0) 6? x: c Sh P U (U p IT) d ^4 u d d O H d (U XI 3 02 £ J3 d 0) d (U d > CO P CO 3 3 3 m r-{ d £ C (U 3 •H -H to S o P a p B P a 0) T3 P iH 3 •H ta £ 3 3 T< 3 E E CO P d fi E E B E a Q H 3 H 0) C O -H -rH •H E X3 S x: o a E O O E O E

II II 0 0) E E E E •H +J B a a s O O O o vr I d a d tfl he d p a a o u >,-H -H U 0 d O I E-1 p > d O tfl U o d a 0) •H a a a 3 d d Eh H a d « rH in O o to O O a a a 0 tfl 0 p d d P to (0 O to H a a XI d E d to d c a a p d a p p a a x: ^ bfl d c P d X! to tfl X3 d d d d O O U d o d o p o 0 H 3 >>>« u d -r^ u s: u s: u x! -H o x; Z d !h -H 3 d J 1-3 o z « E-i p < CO z O 3 S Q D O Eh (LJ z o < M ao H "-J Eh P < pi<

-158- 1 .

E- V c Q OJ 0 +J u 0 u M -P 1 ^ M TO +^ 1 %^ CD o d) 0 CO 0 (D 0 d) 0 W Q 0 wro M^f" ^«^ H f-t P (J) 0 oi Q C CO ^ •a *H Ci^ E-* Cui p •r( P woe r* CO cti Sh *»H 05 At 0 G P o ft-H C o. 0 u 4-3 ^ C ^ W O 03 0 -H C TO H JH •H cn TJ p U (0 c CO <3 Cfl c c O CS < c •a -H = 02 •p oi -o CO o fH 0 C CO 3 fci < 2; Eh &, Eh 2 05 ol <

H CO TI 1^ H 4^ CO rH c 0 T3 S 0 "P 0 M U (p Am B B P H P ] H I 2 0 U Z J ^ •H Cfl K ^H Sh 0 a iJ Q Q< Eh O 04 )^ +-* *rn >» 0 Eh rH CO /-> U U XI 0 J3 0 ^ -P ;h P P P 0 C 3 0 o < C) 0 ^ > 0 0 0 B 2; ^ P _o M Ci_j ^ t

IX) • 0 H 0 w 0 0 0* w(11 (11 vjrrt sc ("* 0 Oh 0) Qi U •P "H 0 -P 3 CO £ » fn O iJ 0 rH (^ d ^ d •2 2 1-5 CU rH Qi 0 >> < O rH Cj oi 01 P > 0 tp a XI U 0 S 0 -P 0 0 M P +J C fH •H CO 3 P "O o w •rH cS 0 0 0 0 S H po r at by with chec and midp collei report the

time

Surveyors

Checked Checked

route Trail along down Data at ning, and

1 u n 0 si in in in a D, 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 -o p p p u 0 >. 0 0 >. E >. rH >. •H P rH •H rH O H ;m rH 0 Sh Eh fH ei 0 ^4 0 Xi 0 OJ 0 in in UO LO Oi M OS 0 0 P 0! -P 0 P C C« 00 05 05 Eh ca s 0 p CI] 0 at CO -H Oi Oi Eh 0 a M rH 1— 0 -p CO rH CO rH H M 0 0 •p 0 0 6^ 0 P M P M 3 0 S P (0 p CO 3 0 3 0 a U-r^ 3 0 3 0 w C -P C -P •H 3 P S P C P H 3 H 3 E p H 3 •H 3 Q O e c E e u 0 E C E c H H •H B C H 0 B rH E rH Q. 3 0 E •H •H 0 E E E II II II II 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 >1 CO to rH 0 s E E E rt c Oi E •H •rt •H H S •H 0 0 •H •H p P -P p -a E P P> 0 P oi 0 a c C 0 000 O, c 0 0 0 0 32 rH rH n OD 0 c c C 1 oi 0 ca p 0 0 P - CO ETY p p w •H rH rH H >> 0 fn" 68 a ^< -2 rH rH >H rH PC 0 P 0 0 Q -H - -H . E p 0 0 P -H -H Cfl P -H P Sh H - :hoi P a > S > a-H !j 0 0 -H fH Cfl c Cfl Oi Cfl to 0 0 0 >> > 2 0 s- 3 0 0 fH 3 oi Eh < < J 2 < < ft s <: Eh 0 S W CO W M a Eh < 0 l-H « Eh < ft -159- .

5 8 01 p-l -HO o OS 00 iH CO u rt

s o 33 •H H ;4 4J w a! 2 c 3 O c r-( si w c o > h 0) a H M rH c c 0) 3 O CO T3 •H s 0) E-i > cS £ a U u O 3 "H (0 CO CO 0 m -1- CO

H (1) rH s a h U Eh 3 V O to 4-> C >H to U 1-1 o >. as >> CQ 3 >. rH 0) Z CTrH J3 +-> u u P 3 E" r-l W 9) (L> Ul C4 e o ^^ T3 0 h O O O e C 3 a 0) (0 T3 Q 1 rH O O 3 J5 -H C CQ •H rH o < S ^^ U > cS O CQ c4 S Q T3 c +J ai 3 o to I >. -H E aj s ed O -•H CO £ 3 O T3 •P o o +J d s a CO U «] 0) • •H ai <0 EB T3 o M (U e a u •-•H 0) o a to -P • O P OJ d o J3 a O rH C JS o •H CJ rH 0) < > -p o o o • O -H c a 0 S d g u 3 -H 0 +J +J O >> C -P S J3 CO O •o ai d -H 3 3 rH •a 4) -P

o o o +j o

>> rH 0 0 u U +J ^4 E d z d d d 0 0 0 u 0 o 0 rH 0 -p p d -p M d (0 d 0 d Eh CO CO CO rH B 0 rH rH &< 0 0 0 O P 0 H P +J +j CO 3 to +-> M 3 3 3 0 to B 0 3 0 o a a C -P •H +J fi -p CO •H -H •H 3 E 3 •H 3 u E E E B B E a a •H H«-H •H O lO O E rH E rH E

0 0 0 E tp E E o H +J c a in S E O o 05 O O

d P I Sh -h d o o d to - - +-I >> rH C +-> 0 p £ E P - 0 tJ d o to d do -H -p •H ^4 -H O B be a. ^ -H '-3 Q a (r d x: c c s: u B E -we > B o d o P -P d < d O -H d <: d < t4 -H t4 -H 3 0 M OT tj CO U Q tZl tJ CO H CO O CO0SH+J

-160- o T3 •a o 0) c O (->

o in I h I u CO Q. a, a ,co a o 0) d u a u O HCQ w c 2 o c d o T3 c a< w a c +> a

Eh a o T3 o •O M CO c H o. d o H ^> o u +j a >> a iH 03 b o : > ;4 JS 0) O E 0) CO P -P 1 U (D C 3 s •H x: £; o 0 O o CQ z S a Q

0 +-> •o n •H -rt W CO o p a. O 3 0 0 CO O T3 E •H 0 >> O P' A! • < rH rH O C . Eh O P 0 •H E a c al O 0) T3 h Ih Q as: S 0 -P Z X P O a < y o 3 >. .'a S s o XI a B M o d 0 Q H Q. T3 0 ffl > 0 0 CO P O U u JK P U 0 u s •H 0 Q. 0 -H X! J= 3 o J3 O H -P W z o a

CO 0 +J 3 0 O C >. -P rH i-H 01 in 0 CO 0 d 0 d 0 O H Cfl -P 0 P 0 p M K 0 3 d d Eh W +J c CO rH CO rH a Eh 3 -H 0 0 H H C E -P CO +j CO u « a: •H 3 0 3 0 d u o E 0 C +J a -p 0 w 0 •H 3 •H 3 0 O fH E C E s •p -p D O s s: H •H O d p +j O E O E Z rH

0 0 0 E E E •H •H

B o OB o

0 Ih >> > >> 0 0 P p P J«! P d P J > o to o O O O CO o -H - CO CO O 0 H B > -H s: a J3 P >> T3 hi) d P d P P 3 d d P rH 0 O 3 SH 0 >H 3 "P -H O >< p U 3 d o; E-i Z < O z w Eh < O U J M D Eh < CO cj

-161- V —

a T3

4- +J I U a> 0 0 0 0 o o o u a. 1^ a z h a. i4 2; i^- S2 < < w 2: < S O Q O H a a Ii. H 4) CD o o +^ +j a u •P tj to c 0 a ao o. O 0) (1) u u u, O K =: o o 0 2 zo z —en +-> CO CO o a a 0 T3 a 0"D 0) 'rt sj 0) ^ CO 0 Q) u o o O U a a a JS 0) +J (U fa a) u u x: jC O B 4-> •t-i C o o S-l z z O 0 0

0) o > CO -o s 0) CO CO •o o CO o o a B o d 0 0 0

a CO o El coo c •a o O -H CO CO

l-H eS CO tH rH 0) •H O 3 O 3 a ^-> B 73 eS >. O O 0) s o -M a rt > -H as U U o d rH C << •H O J3 B 0) .a O rH •H o 0) •!-> -H +J O -H > cd -H +J d CO H Q X! C a oj O o o a 0 O 3 ^< C 3 E T) O O 3 -H O 0 C z W E T3

JS u hll ^— 0 o (J 3 CO B -P CO CO CO u 0 +J •rt CO to ^ H CO ^ (!) (U 0 w o no 1 0) .-IOC CO 0 o s 0 o o •H •H +J •H C CO ;h ;h X CO CO l> S •H CO o >> C rH OS B ei -H 3 c CO .rl 0 >. 2 •H •+1 1 E Q m HN 1 cii C js a X! O O o rt M CO ;h -h 0 +-> oi T3 p x; J3 -H J3 O P til H a rH +-> a. CQ S O o B 0) CO O CO o 0 'tH pi

> a 0 O 3 X oi 0 65 x: O -H •H I CO O I CO H £ U 0 P > o o O CO O — P oi J2 oi CO oi cji CO H O CO O C 00 O !h O 73 CO J= 3 > !h c a o d ^ a O rH 0 tp o P E "P 0 U o a X! a-H P 0 O E 0 3 T) 0 x: o o Q c o u o a •H O E rH CO JS oj O CO P . H •H x; -H -H O "H CO a 3 ^ S CO < I CO CO < rH CO CO E S CO E K Z O

I oj I P>« >>-H ffi -p - cj p > rH Sh -H O H p z •H E Oj O B ^1 a rH B rt rH u o >• CO o o - 0 3 CO o CO CO O CO P c -H j:: a E E arH C B JS B S M OS +J p ^ 01 E CS oi rH o o! o p o <: 0) O O oi 3 02KE-iP

-162- •V •a 0) in 0) -p

I u I 1> o o u (D 0) -P 0} O > « q,j: u a e < M 2 O M O P0) p U •p >J o * o 1-9 O P c. O (U a (U U u] s s s « -M ci OS o o O H 0. "T! M (U m B P >> H o o 0) . 0 P > T3 W 73 (H rH 01 rH "O cS 3 P P O (U 3 W O 2 O XJ a 3 O c -a -a U to CJ > 0) O cd c l-H P O XI P 0) a 3 M ( o e o 3 rH C > £ B 2 Q » •H f4 O

~~3 Q. O > O, 3 •a s cS •a~~

~~0) Eh s O < o S o I c c •H oS o Q P 2 eS a < >> T3 c rH c4 > •H >, (4 e p a 3 o CS -H (0 s -H a < p w o~~

~~p B1~~

s 0 1 to 0) U) o bC C 73 "p p p B y to O •H a B Si B a y a (1) p 0 p c4 0) to dJ o (U p V( o o O -H CO > a ^4 B p rH E p O "H 0 o rH P d rH CO p B B 3 0 bC o s 0 0) to 0) 3 -H p be a 0 3 rH p y O B •H B p u x: x: 0 O H XI (U (h 3 B 0 O •H to a E ca cS 0 p p B 1 •H H « •a •H 0 3 CO 0 3 0 a H rH C c y H o y TT rt p. p >> P o 0 rH o P 0 M X3 P •H p u c 0) y ni to rH bS p to B p rH cti (U •H to H y a s a-H E o g u s O d 0 E 0 rH x: p 0) CO o E Q H bfl 0 D, (D s 3 to £-> 0) bil p O CO in 1 to P B p to XI o a •H 0 (D •H 3 U O 3 bfi n! a to p y 0 >. P O V rH rH 0 .p H 0 (U B B un £ .M 0 0 y O 3 P "0 . a 0 •H rH rH a u P S -2 rH rH rH E" o H O O -H P - -H d a ^ p a > -H E > bflx: to OB O to d O to to 0 to •H P a a x: 0 ^^ a j3 c fi p a x: ^1 d O P rH p d d p d d to d 0 o -rl 3 rH < Due 0) > ^ >> > 2 J 2 E-i P < < a S H O s w H CO w HH

~~-163- •a V +J 0) I h c I U O u CtS ID > a~~

~~K 0) (1> O O^JS 2o O O 3 O 2 2 W CO CO T3 0) a u O o u 01 +-> H i-> u O T3 2 !h 0) a J o O O E-> O a Q. 03 fa o (U 0) o CIS c T3 •M w o < 2o o <~~

~~Eh <~~

a CO c cS d -p 3 » v !h 0 OJ c o ^ aj«s d bC d O "H axi rH CO •H P E o d rH •H 0 XJ •H 0 (D CO !h o CO a -P -P CO C P ;h J= (D E 0 0- fH a •H cd a u C OS 0) o P rH (D (D (D T3 0 O h +-1 s e S c 73 be m j3 c< rH

> 0 •o ^ •H 0 rH (D CO •a o !h 3 -P (U H rH C C +j M x: •H d P s: d c OS £l x: a o a d a CO CO 0) •H rH -H fl 1 d) c -p M i-H -P +J >H . 0 C O 3 -P 0 >. s CD ID o (D "H CO CO eS rH 0) •H 0 >H > p 0 0) rH 0 O 0) Cfl r-4 o E E P rH P C (D (D CO d -H C (U s -a • E 3 C 3 O -H (D T3 >> a u E CO W 0 O > X3 (D CO +-> 0 0 X (DOC (-> (D CD 0 P s 0 Si -p 3 c 0 C J3 •H C J3 -P C >. d r^ g tp Vi d d h 3 C X CD 1-1 CO >-i -p CO £-1 o X3 -a -P a E p a B H-1 CJ d c c >. (U s s >. o +J o c P c O -H rH - p p p >> 3 p >, P -H (U a-H in -H (D -H E (D CO H ^1 73 O •H 73 o CO o > rH (0 (D rH ID C CO (D (D C -H CO -H c x: x! O 73 C +-> 73 O P -H c P "O d rH C J= > p d -p CO •O d CO 73 -H C C d C O rH X3 d P O >-H £ O

~~-164-~~

~~I .~~

T3 I T3 T3 u I »H c o OJ -H 0) O > u u c a C 0) rH a a a d cd M o rH (D u Q) a 0 o b a Q E-i « < 2; H s I Eh a s: w T3 c •a W 0) H CJ o 0) u e •p 2 •J O !h ij a o U a 0) Eh o 0 c, u (1) o Ih 0) > (-> o o O < 2 Ce rH 2 EC Q

~~(a Eh 3 CO s~~

~~Eh Q o < U X Eh T3 3 U S U a a O •H U J= T3 CO •O 0) ^4 +J W (1) P lU s c4 p U •o o O »4 o H -H o a h -p bO a u s~~

I s: c P 0 -H •a p> •H ? s CO (D P CO 0) d 0) O U rH ^ » a a o 3 o d -a POP a-o X c -o c CO ;o (U rH O (D "O 00 u d t& 0) a 3 (U o CO 05 o o CO 3 C O ID J3 a U rH o £1 d O H x: w d bfi X! O EH p CO ^ B P O Cn m o T3 C -H -ID •H 0) -H H C (U T3 73 (U u c. d d S TJ U -P O -H cS 3 to 0 P a-H 0) > O 0 p CO O "H •H CO o C XI 0 O. IV a !h d to rH a a p -p >. 3 m P 0 0) ID o. (0 o 0) o 3 !h in P P 0 rH fH 0) a a

0 I u O O >> C O P >> - rH - - Eh M 0 P !-i d J3 rH P H 0 P 0 P d P ^ P -H 0 ^ p d -H •H H -H K a a -H f-i H U > > Eh 3 C« O O Q to Q S o to o CO O -H to < a 0 -H C Vl c x: ta >. 'H - K c c X: 0 XI H d •O hD d (h d P P 3 d p >,J«! d D d in d < •H 0 ti O M 3 "H -H o >i P -H p d p CO £-1 tZ} Eh < O OS H 2 H < O U J SiJ O to -H pj 3

~~-165- u o o u o a. i-l fl) 13 u-i -i-i E a. -us I u ttii-iSwcaocnojo o TJ O Cl.£ z vi a~~

~~Ed O •J z o < •O CO n z c ••o lU z o CD 4J eg O H -a 60 n-l 0) v 0) jC •a 01 CO o X> (XO) CO IS (U 4J a u (U Q r-l U c ^ (d X o o •o M a, 01 o O T* o « u _ o fa z u w Mi,ffl °3'~~

Vl CO 0) •a 1-1 a. Vl (U 3 4J CO y O x: 1-^ ^ CO rH Vl Vl 0) O "O 0) y c CO o 01 a 4J CO 3 _ ti 3 s 0) Vl 3 Q iJ O Vl 3 O Z iJ r-l M v CO X 3 Vl 0) Vi CO Vl O 0) bO CO • (Hi o tkO c vi e -a c 0) O 0) r-l r-l •rl » o o O O CO Pk 4J CO H

TJ CO B > i- u •a o> rH o B 6 CO CO •rl •rl 4J CO vO g o> Vl "O Vl CO Vl Vl CO MH o > 3 3 tj 0) B y o o 01 Eh W a. o a •rl D Xi 60 Vl •4-1 u T3S-S CO 0 Bi fri •• CO Vl t~. 01 •rl CO Vl MH M l-l CO u u e>04J CO CN CO CO B a o o C4H "O CO CO B C 3 TD 30 0) J3 CO CO -u CU CO cn en o -o 01 o > CO >. B 3 B r-l CM r-l V4 r-l •H 0) y • V4 CO Vl CO OJ o E -a 1 CO CO CO O p:S 3X0) B <= b 0) Vl -rl 01 0) •rl CO (u o; 0) •rl O •rl •rl •rl -rl CO 3 o 00 O Vl 60 4J ij a Vl •H 3 4J Vl CO 73 C >w B <4-l Vl B 3 B -rl 0) > 4-1 CO ^s to Vj 3 C CO B O CO O 0£ > 0) (U >4H O 0 Vl D to M M y Pi es U CO CO Pi j2 CO M C 0

~~U 4J~~

~~3 1 - CO 1 •rl - >^ y •H 1 >^ 4-J H B -rl CO B B 4-1 VI J3 Vl Si B & 60 CO 4-1 Vl B CO ^1 4-1 C 4-1 4J (0 4-1 B 4-1 CO 0) (U 0) Vl CO >.5« O V4 CO H o; CO rl 3 a)< (U CO 3 CO Z CJZOiH 4J~~

~~-166- T3 o o N 2 M~~

4-1 c rH H I CO u u u U u o o to C -u M 4-1 (0 S hJ C C H W c )-4 to w o C to M O U U H •H >H C 4-1 (U IX (U c O c O O to oc tn C 3 c •H 1-1 •H to cc ceo o to C « 01 C to to o X o 1-1 (U CO CO to !-i 1-1 U 3 Eu 4J CO <£ H etc <

~~0} 4-1 u o~~

~~r-l u r-l to~~

i-H i-H r^l x: •rl JZ 4-1 4-> 4-4 U c c c s o o o o o . s u s B o o 4-1 V4 c O -rl 4J •o 0) fU T) 3 0- 4J 0) C O g 01 u CO (U rH O 4-1 o 3 > <*A 3 (U CO k (U o •H to to C>0 0) r-( x; a cu >W14-C C 1-1 O £>0 a i4 01 u •1-1 4J a •rl U to r-l •z !•:) o cu B 4J h 4-1 to CQ u o to 3 to 0] 4-1 y-i to "a •s s u O O (U >w -O 'O O 03 c X H 0] ^ CO M cu to 4-> to U & o U s (U 4-1 CJ to - 0) u C 4-1 O 13 01 T3 3 g to 01 M 4-1 0) to -rl O to O U U CO C CO O T) x; 01 C o CU M CU a.4-j e to M C (U > o U 03 e 4J 3 Vh M C 3 01 3 CO ^4 ^4 cu • MH >, O O cr 0) 0) •rl cr to O rH 0) (U ^ M cn B H (U M a. o S cu fl- U &< CO CO CO CO

CO u o o CO - 4-1 00 oo rH (U CU 1 (U 4-1 (U u 4J O 01 CO 4-1 4£i •iH •rl H >^-rl -H O Cfl C •iH rH Q 01 Q CO 4-1 01 1-) X 3 S O 01 O e *J C C 4-1 4-1 to - 4-1 0) iH C "JH C CO C C 3 CO 03 C 3 (U 4-1 C •a bO CO !h CO (H to <; CO O M •rl to < O iH rl H O < CO H CO CJ CO O H O CO O CO < 01 > O H Cti H Z >

~~Il67- u0) I u (U o u o.~~

~~Ed a w § wa. u u o p- (U CO u~~

~~cn o s Eh~~

~~(U M >-. w O rH > Eh O u o C C~~

~~CO o o D a to CO 3 w o u < Q pa Eh Q a 03~~

~~Eh uce; O M H « Eh W H0< MEh CU Oi u o o to CO •a c Q O to 4J 03~~

~~to e o~~

~~>> U U •rH 0) w > O -H to c 4= pa >^•^^ to -U 4J 3 k 3 14-1 -H O >H H < O U hJ W~~

-168- >. C5 S-l •H 0) (U O O O o o •o =a £ M O o U 3 E x: +J - •M O - a) 'H 0) o CO CO 0 O O (1) O OJ o M 2 tfl u a. €0- ax: +^ ax: oi O C r-i C J3 O <« O CSI Q CQ < < 2 <£-< C Q a T3 •O O C !-> 0) (U h p +-> w o H o. O O _ w 0) a a iH CuO S u 0 3 c. o C 0] . 3 -H cd rH •H H a u > u s s o 3 o o Q f- M 03 0) 2 w a

T3 0 a m 0 CO a c u o 3 Sh 73 -H o 0 O 0 > a u CQ C rH o! CO H B 0 H 3 -P ;h rt u u •p a M S o 73 o a> •H 0 0 n| o bc a a E U U-C Q. 0 B 0 CO CO u •H u 0] <0 - U •rt 0 a -a +J i !-( (0 0 E 0 a u OJ 0 C •• nl >. CO d a 73 .J3 d ^4 c • XI s Eh a o o a s u (S 0 E >. u 0) 3 0 CO •a a U 0 CO Q CO s a o8 s 0 0 0 >> 0 >. bo CS rH >> CO 73 2 0 > P C CO c ;h Fh •rt - > 0 a 0 cS O . > 8 Ih u >> >.rH to o to u CO o s 3 X3 eS 3 C -H CO o •H u o m CO X a-a O -P a! a > a • as H +-> o a cs a E U b£ a •a xi •H • •w' +J Ih 0 0 B fH -H M >> !h 0 x; 4-> Oj -P •a +j a-H O X3 ^ d at »4 CO C (0 a 3 u 3 -P •P CO O eS u (a u 2 CO x: d u > ^

~~>> cii~~

I CO • E u I d 0 -p 3 CO x: bC 3 rH CO (h 0 CO 0 I a o E d x: a bC B a CO 0 •p 0 •p cS C -H CO o CO ^ CO 0 o 0 u (A 0 u d >> u 2 h 0 O .Q 0 a aT3 CO • O H 0 o > u bo d rH rH CO p cS 0 CO B x: U 00 0 cs; E 0 0 3 -H 0 -P bfi • )h Eh O a O 0 W •o •H CO d x: arH •H 04 Eh H H 0) u o > x: CO CO u CO 3 u o rH u o u d 0 0 CO CO O* o: a « u cS 0 0 3 0 a s > 0 U d 0 u u cS a o XI CO E bO d rH 0 s w a s o B x; •H hd s o CO 1 o 0 E E a Q O c4 o o CO 0 0 CO +-> CO CO +-> CO CO S rH +J 0 CO o

W M CO CO cS •H CO rH CO I 0 H • 0 0 ;h • a 0 E >. O d lO e rH •t-" rH O 73 +J CO -H ai> d d 3 o 0 0 E 3 0 x: • E O M CO o u 3 3 I O rH 0 0 E rH P u 0 0 be o O 0 -H B E t( y x: > 0 a o +-I > > 0 -H rH •H +-I ^ 7J O •H 3 3 0 o o o o > B Ctf >>x: u CO o CO -H 0 0 O fH o o u u 0 -HO a 0 o a CO ^ iJ d -4- H—(- CO I B !-. - •H >, -H p >>-H a Sh x: >> IH bo CO 0 33 -P -K U P > 3 H -P d S d p -H rH 0 B CO H -P O •H C o 3 en a -rt (i a ni OJ Si a u 3 a o o o <: o CO o o ;h ^ o o O 0 3 CO 0 (0 O CO u - >, HEX! p o P H H x; d a E a a a a xi^ +J +J >, p >, bo d -P a -H a ^1 p -p u d E d d d o p o -H d 0 P -H d 0 3 d x; 0 O rH d 3 >. t x: o x: u •H 3 d i rt p < CQ o u Eh o 2 Eh P (

~~T3 o in o o •H 0) +-> be 43 ao cs ao 1-1 -p a n (D D. - O D O < 60- >>J Q o «s bo J c o S 0 o •H u o O >-P o S s c i-H C c i3i o a c c JS •H 3 c X o 0 •H o c4 O o Q O~~

~~0) a u 3 o •4-> z u o p.~~

M 0) 0) c— rH CO "H (D T3 O Eh +j 0) > C «1 ^^ bO > S Ih ta -c H • a cS c t-l to M o a ID ;h d oi CD P .-o >. cn a! a o CO XI u T3 73 a! a CO 0 a T3 O a-o c CD ^ •rl -H +J o >> I j3 ;h Si u O C CO (0 03 0) •a 0 O X! i-H (D !-> 0) Q s CO B rH -O •a 3 •o (S o O C •H O •H •H 2 m e

CD rH o H >i X: rH u 03 O H CD O P o P O rH U a to (D O 0 rH o >. a XI 03 (D rH C +j o 03 XI H !-, O H I x: 0) CD -a 01 CQ be rH (D CD f-i G 3 -H P 03 •a (D (D O 01 03 ol rH O 03 > 03 x: S- 3 ol a (D bO am 0 > I a u XI B d 0 c CD (D Oi 3 rH J= 1 CD c ol a a U rH P O rH o p 0) U oi •H S CD P X! 03 03 03 be 03 O > S O o! •H a ;4 03 r-l TJ J2 CD P f-l 03 a CD X2 0) (D CD CD 03 3 a Ol bO « bD O O

I >1 fn C 0) ;4 0 o 0) 0) I O c (D . 03 bjo - bO XI P J3 E E C 0) p d P CD P 01 P 03 d -p -H oi O P oi oa E O •H ;h 03 C -H O 03 •H 'H 'H C -H C hO !- -I a ho 03 O oi O 03 H 03 Q 03 Q G 03 O B p ol a 5/3 O P e J3 O H c > J3 c d c J= d c a C rH C d p > O 0) H 0) O J ;h 3 oi H cd ol < d ^< 3 d < S Q O c > s < a; H < rj a K Eh W Cfi 2 CO Eh CO en Eh

~~J -170- I I~~

~~I—I I— Sh 00 3 CO (U -H O C N 2: -Sfi U Q~~

~~03 at a -p CO U S S s iJ o o lU o U -M o a (V B u 3 OS > O u o u 0 CO o 0) H a, < < o > H B~~

~~W >~~

2 p -p > a >v M S rH sj O JS 0) £ o 3 »-> 1— S a c s S o o o . < s s a Q -ar p a •H O P o. a OS 1) a s o o J-H •H •a •o • > fl 0) . Eh s p >> d O cS a cm 0) -0 c aj Eh Q o H 3 a T3 C Eh (U O c4 > 01 U (1) •H c4 O p P x: +j -a .Q u B 3 o ol O 2 1-5 -P s £ o x: < O u] 0) o o U 0 bfl h Ih 3 •a c a 3 O CO O CO S CO •H E <0 -P rH -rt O 0) a 3 e rH a (U +J •U -P +j o o rH 3 t» eU C 3 o O O tu ^J aj O o Q CO

~~pI 3 O o~~

o V O. at P B •H a in 2 cs u OS rH Bt 0) J3 O •p o O £ > M o. E • -P rH c« Eh u a u CO •H e 0) o o .. to CO £ 0) H cS •a •O 0) O S -P u B Fh (0 at o 3 +J at n >> CO •a at 73 -P (0 u B 3 •• B B o at rH (U +J at rH +j > +j (1) B 01 > J2 CO 0 •rt at

~~u < > O !>3~~

~~I u >. I ^ B U 0) rH - - -p x: -p at O P as P J< o Q) 2 J >!~~

-171- >> m u ()) v •a I O 0) «H >> d o a »3 J5 ^ o 0 o cc £ S> be O -P O © o 1-1 - I u C m Q d bfi-H bfi 0 n in u 0) o E a o • t- CSOSr-iajSCr-^ o m u u • »i 3 u a. W i2 -rt eS -rt O O e'J- O h > u u> a u a -v Vi C J3 cS d 3 d o o a 0 = o CO CO 0

w >. 0 * M u u CO >> 0 a ^^ 0 -O d u •a > d +J rH E • U T3 d 0 0 3 3 p >> CO H Uirn 0 0 0 B -H M U +J >. u 0 . CO o -a a 0 fi a 0 h CO 0 o. 1i M E 0 o U 0 3 > n >> A! E CO 0 d 0 d o a +J H W •H ;h E > P •p E 0 d B >< ^ 2 O -H 2 r« tH 0 B 3 0 O 2 w S in 0 CO x: a

1 CO bo u ;h c B *H 0 d 0 CO CO -H o bo 0 0 0 JS c !- -a +J >> •a B d X) !h 0 0 0 +J -p 3 3 0 O d 0 O 0 > -a 3 »4 -p rH 0 T3 X3 CO •H C c 3 U CO o 0 E d ;h d -H - d -a •H 0 CO 3 3 •a Q. 0 a J3 3 a • O B bfi 0 -P 0 £ p d u 0 c H C 0 n O y < H -H +j m P d . d d 0 -H o o B 0 E •a CO d • c 0 H -H CO T! 0 ^4 < 0 CO d CO o >. X >.T3 0 J= > -a o >> U rH 0 0 0 0 d -O o •H •o • rH Sh r-H D. rH o 0 rH >, ^ o d E 0 u Q d 0 ai P 0 E -a •a u CO a E 2 0 T3 0 O o T3 •rt d 0 0 0 T3 E 0 > a 0 0 0 0 -H • u rH d CO p CO - o CO 0 OT u O >. CO JS P X E ^ d o P CO 0 CO Sx O s s 3 p bfi r-l -H y U d • d > CO 6* 0 S 0 ^ d fH -H CQ o CO •H B > •H 0 rH 3 a d -a 0 0 E a O £ X O -H U Ih bl3 rH E O 0 0 -H 0 ;h d W •a d Sh 0 c •o * •H r-H CO O -P i- O Ih CO ;h a 3 a CO O -H c d +J d H d m d -a H 3 +J O 0 d CO 0 to i o o O 0 -p £ 3 P B H CO 0 0 d A -P B <: CO B 3 +-> "O -H •p E d > 6^ Sh --~d rH a •w >> 3 3 d B rH d -p 0 H 3 a h 0) B >. O O a: -P d =tt rH in -a o O £! o add a d o E- -a Eh O O H CO S d • a CO E 0 < >.-H E CO 0 c tp H • -H rH o O d J3 u y • 0 0 0 0 >. 0 d E O bt) u u bO B a bfi d o a • B 0 a. d o d d 0 l-H d d +J +J a a 2 < y >> t. -P B >> S O M cn -P 3 0 a O 0 in o o u CO I iH TT CM d t- CM in Eh u a y o O Id 3 y cq -o u Sh E' X3 w da-"s 0 E O d 0 H M a 3 CM o a O 3 CO •o a •a •o a: b: d u u E a u o •H d S o o O d >. -H d d >i in o o d d to x: 0 d p -p !i E6« X CO +j -p t> o o a •3 U [I. CO a CO CO 0 CO -H 3 in d -rt CO CO -H s B Q O 3 0 C> > d O E in d y d d " 0 • 00 bfiCS o d •H rH T3 d +J T3 E • ^ fn • CO a X 0 CO a 0 CO a d rH h d d CO 73 d a U d •H rH d 0 y S -H A! +-> B 0 o >> o CQ bfi d o be p 0 CO d d bO d CO bfi-p CO 0 -H a "O 0 B -a -H CO -H E B E 3 E f-l rH B 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 u u -H +J +j X! 0 bfi^ 0 CO I O CO -P u 0 o -a u in 73 E d P CO d d *H O CO d 3 3 a-P >H d ^ 3 • 0 0 d 0 0 >H 0 d 0 O x: E O c HH "O rH P CO a a a CO a o K a CO CO CiJ <

- >>o I >i rH -P ^ rH u 0 d -P -H - d O -H CO X -P X B a 'H a d O a a ;4 3 rH B d - d O O CO o o CO o o U 0 3 CO 0 +j -H E x: -p a -H x: d a E a a a-H a bc d -p a a 3 be d -p -p U d E d d rH d 0 t< 3 d 0 0 0 d 3 >>t J= o x: o O d CO e Eh < o 2 cs H p < CO : CJ O Eh CJ 2 X E-i U S 2

~~-172- —~~

T3 I b "H I b CO +J 0) O c4 0) O cti cd ac' *> ac (Di-H+j o CO ^ (V ^3 o a d o a, 0) O 0 o m o i-t 81 0 T3 rH M M -O "O ih a U Q, U a z a < w w s s z o o o H •H E-i +j -a (U U ct a M •t-> Ui U u § »J U d) O o >J O U i-l a a, (0 o a (u 3 si u s: 3 a O o X o E-< oj C W 0 to z s

~~CO 0] 0) S -P E O (U •w > fH iH (1) -H > A! "H 0) u y a 3 0) a) JS (0 v CO y (u > u o > 0) u y -H cS •H s C "O O~~

I I a B ca •H y cj- CO CO T3 ca y o a p &'i 6^ &9 o w d o m ifl lo > ca •H bo y o CO at o a o p E ;h CO c y X U fa •H Q O CO •I-l u u d 1 o CO T3 y ac y 'J' ca a CO a CO o u a u > i-H ei . bO o CO OX ca C TJ X3 B s ca -0 >i > y >i y ca z X O P -H -H O P ca Eh a-H sh o a-H 0 ca o to o s o CO o > at s: !h B x: U B p 03 ca p ca p to p ca P CO U e y ;^ 3 y <: y ^1 3 ca z Me < O a Eh < Q M S Eh < z Eh

~~-173- I h e HJ ui o u u -a u 3 U 0} $4 a (1) -rt r-( x: a o* d a £ Z be a-g p. a) M Q iJ s Z 0) pE o c« a ca 3 (U D. i-i Q 0)~~

~~Q > bfi u c bo •H c iH (U l-< •rt 3 O 3 c a •rt e •a O K < > = 02 ^ O o fa < CO CO CO s hi •53 CO V •d H -M~~

~~z O •H u a 3 Eh O" ofc( P 0) •p U 3 s o cS C CO o 3~~

u B bfi o X! O . e . oi bO •H S < s T3 h Eh 0) (V 3 •p I CO +J "O cS I (0 cS CS CQ Eh O u a 0) u p • H • e A! S (U > s o O c4 O -P 3 P « u O +J 0) B O 3 Q c4 eS > £ 0) O O en Z U S U < a . B 0) CO O A! (U E bfi D s U O a O -H cS O a o T3 •H cS Cfi +j bfi CO cS •H c eS cS O o -H Eh ca Q -P a O a -H

Q I •P 0 to CO ea bfl 73 bfl-O +-> D I >> 0 "O e4 i-H eS rH ca 0 -p to a +J 3 +J 3 (U > B ea a O B O to m 0 H -a (U £ 0) X! ;h 0 » a 0 0 0 O 03 O to to (U 0 0 -p ca >. 0 a !h p > a-o o -P 0 o E-" D >> ca -H • M B a u to 0 bfl X a-p a-p to eS ea U -H bfl ea 0 « •H • •H to -p X! 3 x: a a u O H cS O 6^ to 0 to +-> o -p 0 » 0 M OS a! O cS O u a 3 arH CO OJ (1) 0) 1) H +j x: 0 -H Q O B cS X B ca B E B o o in -o •H 0 0 u to u ;h 0) 0) (D 0) (D (U ea a CO 05 in -H rH a 3 a ca M 0 to to m to 0 0 ca • • ca >> ea -P jH > o 0 o to to -P bfl o ;h +J -H a ea T3 a B a B u T3 a bfl > ea 0 0 o - 0 0 0 E E E a M x: bfl ca to 0 bfl ca B B cS > Tl to bfl 3 3 3 --H 0 a 0 to rH a a o o o ea 0 O ca E E E 0 73 to to 0 a 0 o 0 ea B 0) l-H a U -H -H •H tH a a to rH -rl to o eSfeS cS to ca U rH o 0 B X x: u ea +J -H CO +-> x: to o in +J cS 0 -H u > -H ca ca -H +j 3 ea 3 (it

~~ea >H~~

- o o ea - I >, >.>H bfl bfl rH -P 0 a u +j - P W - o -p o to a ca o H p -P -H +J >>-rt -H O u bfl a a U -H •H ^< • ^ Q to Q ea p to fci |^ 0 •H to o o o to o o o a p a a p P X! a -H x: ti a x: z a a ca a a 3 ea to a to o ca p -p -p ea +-> s ea ca f-i

~~~~-174- •a 0)~~~~

~~~~zo a a z < M w z z o H o T3 & Eh CO O (D a >j !-> >j O O. CO o u a o Z0 "m M 0) X 0) Eh •o c CO cS • z to c Ih en in 0) 0 > O~~~~

~~~~h O O. 0) ;h~~~~

~~~~O • p m~~~~

~~~~0) (U O +J~~~~

•a o O 0 +-> u s O H c a a c ats o H 05 0) rH 0 X o E Eh a o 3 -a 0 0 o fU Eh ;h 0 0 U rH u D S3 73 0 c 0 o. CO c ft O T3 ft 0 0 >.+J OS >> 0 P u 0 to •H 0 CO -H X e d o ffi o 0 d +J to a a CO ftp a V( cS 0 O Ih 0 o c 3 biD 0 ho o c T3 "H a ts "a

~~~~0 >> P t > CO O -H - CO a js ca >>-H +J p 3 Sh 3 i E-i < O O J M~~~~

~~~~- 1 -175- I 4) T3~~~~

~~~~I 4J O O O CO o o a >^ £ ^ o I jr i-i M a u o u - O to OD-H (jO Q-jn ^ T-l t3 -rJ u o~~~~

~~~~El) a J z a < M E-i W Z ' 2 O o O M •a 0< E-< (U . tu U o. a. E-i (U tu i-H 0) tu to (U O~~~~

C I CO CO to 4-1 CU U XI SO 01 (U bO C « > T^ 0) •r-l f-H >. M CO o T3 to r-l o < O. a I >^ to C c )H Eh •H eu CO >,T3 CO o u I-I CO • O to to > T3 05 o a e oj 0) XI 4J cn c 4-1 to O o cn ^ cn CO c -I to • u CU ffl o O M CO o O OJ,! u CO cn (U "a CO u CJ +J cn 4J CO to 1-1 0) to u a u >x: CO < r-H 4J 2 O. 00 CO h 6 o >^ to 3 C O o CJ x> a CO -H M 4J E-i

D eu I a CO 4-1 B - en CU 3-H CO fK, D O e to to (U to ;4 o 13 ao -l u u x: to r-l )H to XI vO CU CO OTa 3 ^ >. CO vO U El, XI -H Oir-I -O 13 eu Q O u 3 4-) 3 to 60 CO •O T3 eu r-l o to eu B eu ? eu u B hJ B X r-H u B to -o 4J CO e H CO . to 3 CO 3 eu 3 to 60 CJ eu B CN B to eu B B CU e CX •H x: •rl , H CO B O •r-l eu CU CO > e •a 3 C XI -H XI Vj U eu to M u ai -a to B 3 H

I B I to •O O CO CO - 4-1 >> •rl >^ B 4J 4J B eu E4 eu SC 4-1 -PS to (X IH 4-J 3 U •Z rH (-1 to O -H CO •H 4J B •H O < to o c a ^1 3 rH B •rl r-l XI to U 4J >i a U O m o o eu 3 to tu 60X1 to O B o CO CO u -H to C BXI (X i B a. •rl 4J C CJ^ 0) u E XI B 3 60 to O 4-1 U to B to CO x: u CO O 4-1 r-l to to eu eu eu -rl >>>H J-i 3 XI o >-i x: u eu o ^4 -rl 3 rH < u e UZCdH 4-i

~~~~u •T3 c 0) 03 E 4J w )-< z T3 « o 01 (U 4J 4J O 0) w M U Q O O O ca~~~~

~~~~O. CO P U T3 c u (U 0) c o « O o O (8 s o Z z z 3 O~~~~

~~~~Hcn~~~~

~~~~Eh a u (U (U (U 4-1 4J u a }-l u o CU o o Z (0 4-1 1-3 a U 4) 4J EH O (U~~~~

~~~~c CO «) 0) i-H V4 o •O (U •r-l J2 U V4 CO < O u e o CU f» J3 >» <4-l CJ CO 4J CO u 4-1 CO o o J3 4J o. O CO 0) 0) §° 13 u u o w CO 4J u c o CO o o o M J3 a Z z z~~~~

CO X CO 0 CO (U C 3x1 01 ca •-) u x CO -H a o a. o 0) 4J r-l •r^ X; 4J •H % . u 3^ MUX E CO )H CO CO CO CO C CO M-I CO CO CO O -i-l 4J CO 01 OJ CO e o o •H 6 CO T3 -a u P-4J CO <4-l J2 1-H >. CO c 3 i) (U c c o o CO (U -rH C O Vi X! M -1-4 x: P3 l+H U CO 4-1

CO CO - 4-1 - CO u - - 0) I-l >MU •rH >^ 0) >> o O O r-l 4-1 C rH 4-1 I-l 0 o w c bO - bO 4J •^^ 4J O .H O -r-l i-H 4J 4-1 - 4J 4J .r-l (U 0) 4J 01 a.-ri U O a.-t-l I-l -r-l 01 -H g (U •o o •rl V4 73 •rl -rl CO CO O O S O O > t-H to 1 OJ C •rl CO O T-l n CO o u cs:' )H c x: X T3 q; 4j -a O O CO r-l C X > c 4J CO 4-1 4-1 4J CO CO CO T) CO CO T5 -r-l O r-l X CO 4J O C CO C iU )H 3 01 < OJ M 3 CO Z •r-l U >%^rl X: X CO 3 U O Ut CO IH CO < 2 H < Q M S H < Z H S H M S O Pi M CL, H < Oh di CO H Crt O

~~~~-177- •a •o u(U u I u U I U J z < < z _ o O H 73 T3 n. . w o 0) 0) 4-) a a u u o o o a o. u~~~~

~~~~a: O u b o zo -3r x u~~~~

~~~~zo zo~~~~

~~~~jj 0) •H (U UVl s o TD 4-1 < c 3 T3 O 3~~~~

W ,Q 4-1 0) CO CO c to "V c U-l T3 •,-( OJ o O U c o o o o o O O CO to o tt! 3 a. 4J C T) > to 0) «) CO 1-1 •H C 0] w a. c V4 Q> to u CO o o to to 3 to o o o o CO CO z E to c •a CS CM to o u H a 3 QJ -O C 01 Jt 1-1 £-1 u •H O XI to -r-l ^^^ O o u to oj e o o o o o u o to cu E o o o - - - (-1 to CO •H o •r-l 03 o o o 0) o 1-1 03 0 o o X o m 4J •O 3 O - -o to 01 03 u-1 u-1 1— 1-1 1-1 1-1 01 iri in 1-1 C > o O u oj to to 2X1-1 S X M

~~~~4-1 ^4 1-1 0) 4-1 -1-1 to 3) U > > O - 03 to O d J3 OS XI C £ 4-1 to u 3 to to 4J 1-4 4-1 ^4 3 t*-i r4 O >- 4J (-1 3 to •r4 H < O tJ h-J t~~~~

~~~~-178- a HC3 M Z o w~~~~

~~~~B6 iJ o m~~~~

~~~~o z~~~~

~~~~M s~~~~

~~~~Sri O < Ed S UEh Cd O iJ Z iJ < o o s O M B H~~~~

~~~~c oo o O o~~~~

1-1 (U u o o o o z (0 o o CO (T) o CO m M 4J E-i c H 3 o o o o o o CN IT) o 0) com bO COa C Q o o ID o o o •I u o O O r-( o o o o o o o o o o o O O M o •1-1 0) o o o o o uo - . 0) 4J •a 3 - . - . . (U . O u-1 > 0) o u-i u-i o o Lo > m I— t-4 i-( r-l r-l 1-1 I O S S M O

~~~~U •1-1 M- W O -U x: c XI c n) CO 4-1 o 4J O 3 H <^3~~~~

~~~~-179- •a •o 01 01 (U 4J 4J u 4J U u u I o o I o aj 1-1 o I z o. I a z u o.~~~~

4J O M CO c z )-< o o > b Eh V 73 4J a m O 0) CO U u 4J eg o a 4J 1-3 CO u h u u u a o 4J J H c 60 0) o u CO 01 eg O a c iH a. S u H CO r-l B <<- Q c lU U •O CO CO CO •a v U 0) u w CJ (U 4J 0) u (U > U" u a. 2 O TJ (u e o CU (1) 1-1 Vi 0) a u >v U CO 3 0) O M O O 0) 0} o Z •~' Z<4-l z 5

01 60 c c • 1-t u •o 3 CO M « "d CO T3 o (U o c x> u >v 3 1-1 v 01 0) « .a 3 W 01 CU < cr o CO 01 U "O CU CO C (U <0 no > 01 "O >. M B 1-1 lU u OJ V u > •o h > « u CO u 0) •H O 0) 1 CO 01 v o pa 1-1 o ja H

HI 4J 1 3 o V4 u o 60 (U (U u CO 4J c •o 1-1 CO 1-1 >> 0> •a (U u •O (U 01 ^4 O 1-1 .a CO 0] 60 iH I-l 01 o 01 IH CO u 4J CO o 4J CO CO o CO -i-l I-H <4-< 0] I-l lU u >W c o fS4J -a CO o c 0] CO o U 4-1 CO O 4J Q) 0) 4J CO 01 e 9) CO a, • ?^ u 1 u a) (H U T3 1-1 "O •o 4-1 J3 (U u-1 01 ^ 0) 4J lU (U 60 01 CO 14-1 fO IH C I-l 01 c >^4J 0) C-H cu O" 0 X 01 5-S O i-i 42 •H 01 >^ 0) >. VI O O as U U , U

^ 4-4 6C4-I -H 4-1 4J C C C 01 •O CO 4-) c C CO C C 3 4-1 C 60 CO )H to OJ 3 CO x: 4) CO 3 01 41 CO < 3 < CO Vi CO < CO O -I-l CO < 01 I-l O Oi 4-1 U I < U O S < Q M OS H < hJ Oi CO H CO CJ CO CJ 01 CO u H OS H Z

~~~~-180- U0) I u (U o u a Z 00 u a I iJ z CQ < u M u w z R) z o a O H « •O w o o u u z Q « H B •o CQ~~~~

~~~~CO C CO~~~~

~~~~)-i H 0)~~~~

~~~~o u 4>~~~~

~~~~I 0] Eh M H Q H X Eh a M u a •a U3 z e < o o CQ o u D 3 14-1 n O CQ B >H •a o u a 0) H (U CQ~~~~

~~~~cn <4H a 01 0) C G 0) CO 1-t ft J2 01 CO C USi u - h "O CO u u 0) i-l )-i Ed (U 4J S u 0 CO 3 O O H CO o -w -o B Z c o ^ 0] 0) > o eg CO cfl 1-1 •i-i M )H •M 0) m~~~~

~~~~14-1 73 U 1-1 0--I 0 XI 3 S (U CO 01 -i-l o 5^ O 3 4-) U X <4-l O XI M-l •T-l 01 to D CO c CO M U c 4-( 6~~~~

~~~~01 - x: C •H 01 -H CO 4-1 1-1 4.)~~~~

~~~~u 3 CO -1-1 CO • 1-1 CO 3 <; (L> hJ 5m~~~~

~~~~APPENDIX E~~~~

~~~~ROUTE SPECIFIC MEASURES~~~~

~~~~II. Large Systems (over 400 buses)~~~~

~~~~A. Service Design Measures~~~~

~~~~Service Distribution Bus Stop Spacing Directness of Service Loading Standards Headways Exclusive Bus Lanes Passenger Shelters New Service Design~~~~

~~~~-181- 1~~~~

~~~~u >-\ \ • co m o £u~~~~

~~~~rj o .~~~~

- o o 5 < < -H m > u L": < o o 0 w 0} c c 5 >1 c c c r-l a w o c c s < c: »a w u e >j M o a o c to o CO +> o o >< o a n o iH -H c > +1 c g u u a US o o u U 2 < c c w tn CO 0 o -H c so o > a 01 c 01 c - (8 18 U « u c 03 Q) c c 01 fl e 0) a> o-( u -rt a O >i 0 > (8 03 o 9 3 a 1^ \ o c C 0) +J C a a - a a) -H •H c > o fl 3 o u c U j: 0 II m i-i 0 CJ (3 -w i-l CO ig > 3 n u-i 0) 0 p a •H (Tja 0 TJ o nj I c 0 a W IB .1 g 01 73 O -O 0) c -H C C -H P 0 & O 0 3 01 11 o 0 18 o H Ou 0 -0 u m 9 l-i U > 9 0) 01 c to 9 n P JZ JZ ^ o o 0 0 o iH x: m u CL u » z> •a (8 a 01 C 01 a c a 0 01 c 0_ 10. u ro (8 CT* a Q. 10 ^ -U CO S (D 3 C 0 4J <0 CO o - 10 i-l 01 -H K3 P 01 ro •P -H -H 0 01 4J a CO c £> CO P <0 m la "a c < 3 0) T T3 P 3 U C-H 0 M P C 0 to D) CQ P (8 \ o q: . m 0 ^ a a Tj •a Q >l 3 c a c 01 m > c 13 P •o tl O U -H (8 3 10 10 O J= O >. H rH o £ O 01 <4-l U P a 01 03 M-l P £ P a o » 18 -H 10 -n C O 3 -H o > O -H c O > 3 C£ 01 H tl j: 01 3 O -H c; o -H IP 01 C 10 • o ^ C -D E <0 03 O •H .H p -H tj a t4 U >,T3 03 0) IB O H tl tl > H O 0 P P HI tl P o OOP p tl O 10 ^ £ 10 a-H -o c <8 d c s: 3 ? < Q 0 : 10 01 -H o T3 J s 0 o C Q u 0

~~~~~~o 0 — 3 s c (D -H H 10 t3 > U 10 tl 01 -H -H !r oi j: 0 o >i C 01 £ P O tl 0 £ P 01 u Oi P ' 18 0 C "O C O tl p Q o (0 tl 10 03 -H i-i~~~~~~

> a-o ip 13 W-i 3 > 3 03 -rt 10 H O 13 P tl tl -H «-i o "a 3 73 0 0 o o c c c O O C O P U 3 £ O -H o a 01 U -D (3 03 O 03 c 18 03 03 > s a "O -HOP E -H -W 13 P O a O -H a 0 u > J2 01 tl aiw = £ P > T3 s 01 09 O -. 5J T3 a ti -0 £ C -H tl ffl 18 > 0) -H ^ E o o E C 03 O coo -H -H 3 10 p tl 03 "O C tl a p u Q 03 T! 18 > Q tl c a o c 3 O 1 T 01 a o o O H-l O C P ^ o > •H 3 C O tl O o o x; - \ c o to ja s 0 "C 13 CO T3 P 2 -a aja lo o ca p to 18

0) O (3 « RJ c •a iH -l-i O -H o 01 c O C u c .4J o C P -H -H -I 01 tl O CT> 3 U c c -H O iH C O 3 o < 1*- O 1-1 P -H > o -H J o C -H p 03 (D -H 01 i-H 13 1— c 10 ID • 03 •-I £ o a <0 U u c «J O 10 P -rH J u to CO 3 to S

~~~~~~-182- M >i \O o o V0~~~~~~

~~M 0) 0 . Id > •H +J • > z o Cd o u u >M 0) & nj -a M e o M c o Eh 0) P o> c o «w •M C c o •H O •H -H «W 01 l-l C ») M-l -M C 0) C -H nj o C nj Q4 (0 > B h 0) iH -H CU Q M S c^. &4 a u~~

~~~~~~(U t3~~~~~~

u 01 n> 0 tn 0 o p O • 0^ (B 01 -H cn 0) CO • U -U O 01 ^ 3 0 3 H « H Q a> u < (d X 01 c H X E-> RS p cn U (U CUOXi c D P O V4 0) 0 o w 3 -P 01 as M o m E a CO >4 HO 0) cn n u » (0 O 01 ' (1) C (U u C O

~~c c u o °>, _ 0 M 01 -P ma the M (U >1 (DC™ H >1 >1 1 0 (U p <0 M u 0 P M-l 0) M > 01 o (U C'-i M 05 (0 +j 0) (U >i p (U in 0] lO o u~~ 1 (0 X (0 OS OS o 3 H 10 +) 01 0 o •H l c p 0 0 -a CO M-l M (0 0 -H H VO c >, a 10 -rH S b 10 0 01 M-l 01 O +J Q O e 10 E (0 +J C M-l >, (0 H •rl (0 10 Vl r-i g 73 01 (0 u 01 U M 0) > I O •p o c o o O 01 (U +J -H 1 1 u o C 01 O M O O (0 TJ •* (0 C U 01 01 00 1 Q) -H >1 01 01 0) o u 10 u O -P u -I M o 0) O > (-1 -P 0) a; o u u O4 0) H nJ 01 -n

> 10 O -H 01 0 c •H (0 01 U o 3 M c (U 10 -H O 4-1 (0 O D • o U T) O M-l d TD O 01 P P (0 C -H O (0 01 0) 01 c c (0 iH M C 01 <0 -H o •H O (0 1-1 (0 0 lO P -H S S a u W fa (J Eh U CO S J -1.8 3- w a J 2 ca < < H Eh W 2 < (U 2 O Q c O H c c CU fa 10 c w u o H m o CU a • Oi-H « ij cn 0 01 H 4J (U c £ rJ CO o CO o w E 01 iH C w (0 18 X O 2 l-l an H C -I M CQ 3 fa < C O ft OS H O, E-i M S u l-l o

~~~~~~CO -p 01 d) • 2 3 u cr 0) 0 £-< O 3 fa u M (U c o 0) •H c c -u o c o < a in o a Q D 18 u~~~~~~

~~~~~~CO 3 \Ji (0 V4 V 01 c (U (A Eh < (fl a~~~~~~

~~~~~~01 o >1 0) u > c o 3 E 3 O CO u c o (U •H u TJ 4J (8 •H (0 O (0 Xi 3 I 10 e c o «0 w~~~~~~

"O tn ID ^ rH MH -P (U 3 . •H 0) I (0 OlO (H 0 U 0) u E C X -O rH C rH -o c ui •p m Q) 1) 2 -O 10 u in 10 C Q> rH O M E C O •H M >i o o p • a rH > •r< 0) +J c M M XI l-t •H (8 0) E P X >H Eh X) W C U -H (0 T3 (0 (U lU rH 04 c C -H Q) •H' (u s a •H M 0 (0 C OS c CJ -H ja p MH tfP (8 y u c X rH n "O lO (U u in tn . CO x: o (U 0) 0) (U -a on • P C en Ct] fa u E E (U rH 3 10 •H o 0) T3 x: p in 0) a Q O 3 -H C (U (U iH -U o P rH P o 3 (H 0- U 10 M x: 0 C T) u rH (0 O -H M 0) U) 3 (8 0) (1) CM (0 c E 3 a c M C 0 A! U rH a o Bl C E ^4 CT E (8 0) (0 M C H x: >H •H x: M o o o c <8 IB o fa O Z U O -P S +1 fN rH S 0 MH fa S P -rH Q4 Dl 2

~~~~~~c o * -p Oi Q) D- c rH C a 10 o • P -H p to p x: C (0 in 10 (0 m c c O (0 0) (0 •H (0 CQ S s u~~~~~~

~~~~~~-184- • u 1 A3 C ^ MOM" c (U IT] u (0 a 0 >, 1-1 \ 0) x: o w ji; \ o o 0) o (^i in 0 «-i o o n -H Q) o^ o o « M £ • - o o jc 0 dj a c o O .H «>•~~~~~~

a c (0 o (U CQ +J 3 z (0 •o 3 (I) o 0 3 E-" O w U > w • Ed H l-l 0) 0 (0 iJ •o £ c in i) •H r-t w CO o m o 10 > 3 H o X > l-( -O M-l l-i M M-l u (U (U 0) (U o ce < Q) ^ « 0) I (u CO 4J 0 -a 4J U a x; (0 E 3 e i-i-> > UTS c a I o £ 01 -l >1 c «s >i (0 o u 0 0 to RJ c in Eh O m m 3 H rH r-l CN * C b U 0) (U >i 01 (0 0 C lO -H M O (0 CO •u e -H +) -H P 3 TJ dJ C H 3 M C C C Oi h -P U) 3 4J c o 0 3 o E

~~~~~~r-l I E M 3 10 10 CO M 10 lO H CO (0 0) (U MH 4J N MH C fri c •rl 10 3 3 u U 0 O O (0 rH O E o~~~~~~

o O p rH (U O rH Tl (0 I P CO (0 u 0) (0 73 o CJ (U TJ 10 O MH • 3 o 0) O +J x: a CJ -p rH rH >i-p 0) c 3 dP •P 3 •rl 00 dC U a(> Of dfi OP Hfi •a (u o H O 0) < O O O O o o o o 0) tT>0 CJ u 5 4J O H T (0 CJ -H (0 rH (0 rH M M (u 10 x: JS B6 Oi (0 in CJ +J in in

x: I j: o (U I U O (U -H TJ in u p 4-1 to >i-p > rH CO OJ 0) cIP dp 4J 3 3 M (U (0 CJ -o in *> OP 00 13 o 0 C •H C (U -H (U -H Q O 4J X irH in in (U M o 0 e 10 3 e (0 rH rH T3 rH rH (U 10 u o a. 01 o a I I 1 O M >, C c M rH 0) C rH (0 -rl rH (0 3 (0 0) -rl rH H J< (0 (0 T) C ^ -a c (0 0) > !7> C H 10 0) (0 +J 0) 10 4J TJ (U x: lO 0 C 3 ja E -O 0) 0 -H > (U (0 H OJ Oi Eh E S W 0< Eh S c (0 MH OJ MH M MH 0 0 0 OJ MH M ja H +J fa fa 0 &< o fa

~~~~~~(0 lO ^x c O IH (0 P -rH c H O rH c 0> • 0 lO >i OJ (0 M 01 -P MH > rH O in in o OJ -H p (1) 0 (0 3 0) rH m s u x:o~~~~~~

-185- I o • o >-( c o U M-l 0) Q. O O >1 a \ in m ^^ D O O 0) M x: tn o m o O O -rH 0) \ o rH 1-1 o o O !^ ji; in rH V4 o +J - ITJ 0) i-l (0 0) u -M in rH T3 V r-l > ID • w T O -H 0 O as la -H j:: C -H i-i O II (0 > o M U u 0) (0 <0 0) (0 a (u 0) M C a-p 3 x: 0) U 3 (0 CO -P W Q -orH c ti Q u o ca 'U XT to CO ti O rH Q) H o in • OJ >i M 0) 0) O n3 10 0) <4H (U \ 3 CP w o u > •a 01 o ID J3

~~~~~~-a &> Id c o Id •H CO c - p > . la c c Id tn ^1 Id o 3 Id 3 JJ 0) »3 o 0) o (d (u Id ^J o a. o T3 O~~~~~~

•a •o ItJ o Id I 0 0) I a o (1) <" rH Id 01 ,3 H Eh o rH-U 1 o Id o c rH CO 3 o (U Id 3 (d Sx: -P rH -a 0 c Id Id CQ o w o 0 (0 o O C Q 3 o S H o o 3 P rH 03 -a o CO -a ^ nJ n • Id H 01 Id >i 73 o IH u O (U c c w MH M rHA; 0 Id u (d -P < o u c o (U Id -p 0) Id (U Eh 3 -p u c e (U o x: 0 x: -rl-H (OId (UU; 3 -rt 04 o [L| Q M iH -P a u a cil> dP dP 0 o CO *> * 0) O O n Z MH D o o U O o o n rH rH iH o rl O 73 rH rH rH < > • c H M 1 1 1 01 (0 1 (U 1 3 4J rH u W ^ 01 Id \ l-l 01 >i o 01 O OS < d) Id o i T3 C > 01 •rH Id 01 Eh CQ C Id Id a x: X p 4-> Id r-H 01 E oj (d (0 01 (0 _E (d H 3

~~~~~~01 (u Id rH -H c rH » Id > c 0) c H 0 •p p Id >H Id 01 ft 3 o •rH cn c o » t3 a Id Id 01 O -H < MH H •H o~~~~~~

~~~~~~186- .~~~~~~

~~~~~~U-t 0 .— \ S-l I >i U r3 0 >i W lO 0) -p U U I o o O CJ c M \ MOO -U u ^ o o Q) O O (U (0 C Q- E > o > > > QJ J2 0 m H (N CO O m s c~~~~~~

H a c 0 to •H. c m w nj O z •H > (U o E-i <4-l c & IM c w D (8 c fl T3 01 o -P O c +J (U (fl H CO O +J -H £ (0 -H s •rt > 3 w e > 4J tfl ^^ u u o M ^ C (U w fl fl CO CU 3 >^ 3 CJ _fci_jfl_ Pi I-* ft CO H M a )H fl M o fl l4 I (U H i CO H •U >i 0) CO 0) >1 M U fl \ 0) >i (1) >^ >t fl K 0) fl fl -a Z h: 0) o c 01 0) -o u fl U iJ c c O -H 0) >i •• j«; 3 -a » Eh O H 0 4J r-l g \ w 0) c b4 CJ CJ -H (U u d) U fl M 3 C O (U 1-1 4-> CJ O 3 fl CO fl to o £ CO a o c > 0) (U CJ « W -r-iTT •'^ ,rH c o < fl 0) C fl -H W r-) M 2 Q o

-a -a fl fl 0 fl^! c 4J o , • 4J c i CJ fl fl O) 3 01 < £ c fl (1) o 13 CJ O 3 c rH CJ u i (u-a 0 4J «2 Eh 0) fl to M fl j<; TD fl 1 01 o. fl >iO c JJ iH fl J3 O '0 01 3 T3 »^ to » c c +J -H (U 0) fl 0 • 4J 0) 30 CJ 0 to Qt E > 0) c CJ CO (D C 01 to 01 H -P .. 3 ••H fl c u c to 0 > "O to i-H a. H " a 3 tU 0 )H c i 0 01 c MH 3 o -a M 0 >i fl !h V< 3 MH O u u r-H fl 0) 0 c fl CJ fl fl M "O )-l >4 CJ 0) U o 0 0 ^ M a 0 CJ 01 Eh -O jn ja •r-1 0) fl 0) 4J C 0) cn fl fl (U (1) fl -H J3 C fl 01 O c c S Dj 3 to S CJ -H OU 0 o

d(> OJ *> -P O 1^ o o 0 0 in 00 fl fl C E rH l-i o o 0) tu 01 JJ (H 1 1 -p 4J T3 -H O 3 3 fl CJ "1 C 3 fl fl 04 — * rH 4J cnOoOtOoO dP r- o <-H in a OliH ttrH OjrH CU I V£> o n •H I I -a rH fl x: O g -H I I E U M 01 ri -a -H E fl fl >H 01 )H M MH IP O £ O

~~~~~~- fl c O -H o 0 G - 4J fl 01 U 0) tji OJ fl rl O rH C U -O O MH ^^ O +J -H -P fl C -H 01 P J3 C C C fl rH • 01 fl 01 O fl fl M fl +J -H 0) fl S U CO Cn (J to 2 CO 2~~~~~~

-187- P Ul u > c cr> iu\ in o 73 j~~l ^ 0) o o u o m -H (0 u s: -P > 4J 0 m •H 3 c U (0; 0) C £0) a(U 0) (U U (U ^ O 3 3 H a: 04 O CO M n 3B >i 10 10 CO 0) 0) in 0) >, W r-l iJ \ u 3 3 n •H o o 0~~

~~~~~~(U t4 >. 1-1 JJ O U 0 3 n D C <^ (0 > -H I o S M S .H~~~~~~

~~~~~~I u D] > M~~ ~~i X) I c e n o 0) .»« • c (0 n 3 o O 01 u CO -u JJ r-l o c o M-l u " 3J3 " o CO O CO CO I m CO 0) U V c P 01 +J o~~~~~~

~~~~~~OP ae o o "O in o 00 C o (0 r-l~~~~~~

~~~~~~I I o in~~~~~~

I I 0 C s < CO (U ^ O H 0) 3 3 0) M D5 JJ 3 0 0 rH 3 — -P j: E-1 U £ 10 • (0 O. Eh C •H rH ^ E HI M (0 to V4 q: k E 0 0 > e 0 T) o u £ E 10 IH U-1 cn o 0 3 0 c m CT> OP Ed b i dp tfP HH ^1 -H H C O 1 a o O tj o 1 1 01 >: E X •H O CO in 0 o 01 CO 10 3 Q, (0 T3 M (U rH iH 1 E E _E c U 1 M 1 -H •H C — 10 I 3 0) 3 3 X 0 0 0 0 (0 (0 -H CO J*; U 10 u u -u (0 B E 10 0) 0) -r-l OJ I 0) M jj a u u CO a a 10 oj«: 3 o o E -r-l (0 C K-l •r-l C (0 10 (0 14-1 10 M-l u to a) -H M-l lO -H tu

~~~~~~U Qi 0> o > 0) 4J 10 3 10 O. 10 c -a O T3 •H -O O ro O 10 C 10 M C C C c c O 10 10 10 rH -H 10 Eh O > O =tt s u~~~~~~

~~~~~~-188- o O E « O -H M O CO 4J 0) O rH O O u c U (0~~~~~~

Q c z 0 < •HP z 10 o 3 M tH Eh 10 - O > a u M M > c (U cs (U 10 10 •H h c V O C £ •H tri 4J 3 • (0 o E z 4-1 0) u o x: 4J M -p n b >i o >i Ifl 01 rH -H 2 •HMO) 10 (0 O , J3 a Q Q XI -P

0) >r (0 C 10 O -Has rH g-H -a J3 (0 10 U 0) (0 (U i) 10 H 4J M X! (U rH Q) 3 < 3 P +J o -a Q TI 0) . . . c C r-i x: 0) (U 3 M Q fJ O O z I-:) o 0 £ < O -p u >1-H (0 w o w (U p _ 01 4J 0) -H c 3 MH H M M O t4H • 01 (0 I) 10 "0 o (0 m (u t3 x; "o M •P C -P C -P •a 3 nj 0) (0 10 o -P x: P o 0 « 01 5 01 -H

p a 01 (0 1 o >1 • J3 •a 1 10 H 0) l4 -P (U tfp (»P *> *> 10 X +J a O 10 o (N in o ^ 01 E 0) • C 3 0 01 rH rH rH rH HJ 0) 01 -rl o >i 01 (U ^ <0 3 0) 10 S 'O 1 1 1 1 > +J 4J rH 0) V4 •H (U 3 3 O "O r-( (0 0) X] c 10 C u> (U 0> 3 -O -~ 01 •H z •H dJ C T) C U 1 MH 0) 0) : 0 3 3 3 10 3 3 M l4 0, +J o 3 ^ c 01 •H C C C 6 C C (0 0) (0 (0 a O C C A! -H 01 01 •H -H -H 0) -H -H u 3 (U C -H J3 0) -H R) 01 10 SEE 1 a E E CO >1 a E iO O 0) in rH a 3 o u (U n n vo 01 i3 vo u> -a c 3 E 3 C D^rH

i cn >i a: >i cn -a C rH • U) 10 C > 1 3 (U rH -H iaiao4>ioihrHa)'a u 0) T3 -H r( 0) -a -H -o o 0 U 10 10 I M O ^ -H C rH A! AJ AS +J 01 o 3 s > s > c ns r^ 0} -H 10 e U M (0 0) >iin 0) Cn a w rt (1) (U M V X! 10 10 (U 0) (U MH 10 '"^ (U 0) 0 to as -p CO -p o E u a« & s H 3 10 -H S u b4

~~~~~~lO 10 4J -H c 01 C o • 10 M 01 rH O 0) 01 -p (1) O 10 < CJ3 CO S~~~~~~

~~~~~~-189- \ \ n o o V4 o IT! jC o U~~~~~~

~~~~~~o • (N • 0) ui CM iH M 0) XI~~~~~~

~~~~~~(U z O < •H m > •H~~~~~~

~~~~~~z o >i o M w rH E-1 •H -H c: > C o u > M « 0» a a w w (U r-(~~~~~~

~~~~~~0) 0 •H Li 0 > M •p U +J c <]; c o • -a •H C 0) e VI P O TJ -P (U (U (0 -H (U M > e 3 n ft 0) O 0 3 r+ rH -H O c a ^^ (8 c a a -P > s c 3 6 H a o < < W -H~~~~~~

VI 10 o XI <« I-* £ Id s -p >i la (U u M a; T3 > . > < H a> a o 0) o »• o H ir' c U < (1> m . M M >i -a > (ff (- (0 OS o -a u c w -o c c •a •H Ui (U o 3 u c E • (0 -d w (U 3 M x; O Q U CU (U -P << -a 3 W a +J c W •o m 01 (0 0) r-( rH - 3 O W HI • w >1 < C 1 rH 3 3 0) o 0} '0 w m -p 0) 0) 0 01 01 01 -p -p 4J IH 01 (U (0 in O (0 o o (1) Q H m o )H -1 3 ^ 10 in o O rH ro lO O -P o o (1) Q. •rH cr 3 f-i m 10, > ^ 0) 0' w o w c 1 1 1 > (U M (U Ul 10 w (0 tn M 0 1 1 0) )H VI 0) (0 I I E >. a ^ x; \ c (L X 0} Ou O CU m (0 p 0) p 0) E 01 (U X u >l w •H rH a O 10 H > to <4H w u >i >i <0 CTl (0 5 rH m o m a 0)_ >! >i w >i 01 rH 0 to (0 T3 >i C (U c O (D w 0 lo o (0 (0 0) tn to a T3 73 ^^ (0 -H - a (1) 0) (0 3 > S CU 2 J S H 03 h CU o Eh SSMWH O o < >

~~~~~~03 T3 rH -H c OJ c 10 3 H (0 Dl iH rH tl) 10 O 3 c o rH O (U 14H < +J (0 01 > 0 •H • •H C C 01 U5 rH -H rH O to •P x; O (0 S U W E o o iJ U~~~~~~

~~~~~~-190- E-i COO u~~~~~~

~~~~~~J 2 ^. Q < < c o W 2 < 2 O Q O M u &I Eh t,~~~~~~

~~~~~~COM UE-i 2 b] fJ Eh O Eu U O (U < o < g o~~~~~~

~~~~~~h0) IS~~~~~~

~~~~~~ta 0) o < > (U I (a •a Eh v < 0) s o s o. o o u z CU < c o (0 s m'O C (U •H N •tJ >1 » rH •H (d >i C H «~~~~~~

>1 i3 C c c M •H <0 (U •a iH M M 3 3 x: CO • •H IW u (0 10 >n CO (0 u U V4 M 10 -M 2 3 (U J 0) (U » (U o r-l (U 0, Q, 0) 0) M CJ ja 0 0) M Eh X : 0) h -P & CP j: M (0 CO 0) (U !-> 0 s: a •M D» in fo la 0 u CO -H (U 1 1 X lO M £ If) m Eh

~~~~~~to •H 3 M O 3 J O CO • CO •P -H CO S -191 Eh W O c U 0 c 3c H Q J 2 ca < < C E" o W 2 < 2 O O O H o Om Eh b W U O CO a a K J CO c o•J w O SH c c (0 _ o S fa~~~~~~

~~~~~~Eh Q U CO Eh to U r-H 2 ^ D~~~~~~

0) Eh O M El4 U O 4J O o < 2 a Q c 0 0) Ti I C XJ 10 (0 (U X (0 D 4-) (V Q. XI J3 O W c 0) 0) H C 10 +j . +j ID M • ro to lO U >, o 0) m D -U (0 (1) a, c c Eh 3 .H 10 rH > Q) O «£ fO (0 u u Di-H a > > U 3 4) p in MH Q) 0 (U (U E U Eh O m 4J 10 O -H < w 0) D 0) c c • c K Eh MOM o 0) Q (0 XH to S U lO (0 H U • M •H O -P C M H 1 O iJ 01 C •-H u (1) 3 -p Z -H 0) x; ^ -o -H • (0 < o 1 1 a rH u 01 > a-H -P •rH (0 >H MH c (0 x: to O CO XI •4 p E to u CO 10 m o M C -H < -P 0 O -P -H •H UH -H • to 4J i-H X3 (0 X) OJ (0 > (0 •H to C tJ to 0 •H (0 -H Q) (0 0) tu a •H iH c: 01 01 10 C (0 c -o > o > 0 re E 3 c > 10 (0 to to

1 E to E u tjl to c O 01 (U C 8' u o to u x: u x: M-l •H IH x: UH 4J • -H (0 .. u > o c M > e u XI < (U -1-1 > 3 u x: to 3 •H lOii o t; -H to vo O O C M 3 a to ^ i U to Oi o m u o to O O MH O UH -H 0) C a JJ H M MH -0 -H 0) . 0 0 a (DOE a o o u to Oi-P 0 to c a P X! (1) X3 to c >i to "O 0 >, to 10 •H to to 0)3 o 3 -a C VH - O 10 M o H to O 0) JJ X3 c +J x: to to •H 3 E E (1) -rH ID to o c u U •H to to -H to > to c to S -p •H "D to S u dux: > MH -D 0 C 0) C M 0) 0) (US to 0) IH O > p u O 0 OJ to UH iH to to jj c a 0 to -H to to > -H > C i) E > o5 0 > •p > (T> ro iH > c to » > o ai C 0) 10 Q) -P 4J p u JJ .H •H Sh HJ IH •H T3 M; to to •• <-{ 10 0 0 0 to ID p x: o 3 M oj Q) x: tj u to M U 3 (1) o tu O •H OJ to5 VD 10 X3 O X: rH 0) 01 -P i-i 0)" C CP o> u a M -H to to u o a to to (0 a M -P U C &-H (0 4J 0) 0 to O (U o Oi a to m -a . 10 -H >i O (1) to M o a u > to E E .c E c u •H H (N PO -p ai*-i g » a s oi to to O •H H -H O •H 10 C 0) , H to 0 4J to ^ 0 r^ > to jj --I XSU'CaiM-icriXr^rHTij*; rn 3 0) o H O x: < E CO >H w

~~~~~~O -rH to o c -rH -H to tn u 3 U 0) to -H o O 3 o in .P to J o C -H to c c to rH • to O to M to P -H s u [i- W U to S~~~~~~

~~~~~~-192- 01 ul 0) •H u >~~~~~~

~~~~~~£2 <~~~~~~

~~~~~~in D ffl~~~~~~

~~~~~~O C H C (U c U r-\ •H 0) D c c (U 0) 10 c x: (0 o S W pto Q V) u 3(U O 0) o 0) 2 ^ 0) c (U > u 0- o~~~~~~

Q (U 0) w u >. D x: c •a nj 4-> O a 0) e U 0) (0 O Bl "O o VI 0) (U < 0) rH (0 01 •H 01 (0 a 10 tM < >H 3 10 3 Q ro -a x: 0 c M 01 x; 0 TJ c H o x: •H (U o Eh Q M-l p •H +J x: -P 0) a m lU < 3 nJ p S< r-l S E-t (U in E c 3 o 0) u •H o -a 'r( i3 01 r-l (0 Ol-rH Q) TJ 01 -U H 4) rH (0 ft C X: rH 3 (1) 0) 01 0) Q 10 > e 0) 0) -H 4J -O (U 2 3 c C Q) 0} (U •H 01 > 01 e < o cr 3 01 (0 C 0 >i 01 0) r-H u w o a i 0) O M O w P c O XI W 10 H O -i-l 01 n £ U 01 01 cn CUT3 0) U A (U (U (U o 01 01 10 10 (0 3 3 E o (0 a a. (U C +J trxi cn b O (U 3 a; 01

>1 (1) nj 01 n3 ja r-l T3 01 01 O E o >, n c (0 a (0 (U 0 u 9P 03 0) 0' 10 in w M-i XI E TD 0) O 'O H rH 10 c cn O 3 03 10 0) C "O -H 0) J3 C > w 3 01 P -H j: M u O 0) \ M (0 0) -rH 0) 3 01 oj OJ a x: > 01 • (U 0) 01 -P O 01 73 01 01 10 M "O -P u U U 0 0] C 0) O M-l 0 >i a) •H 10 > 10 3 3 01 a 0) 01 rH J-l 73 01 0 e 01 T) -rH -H (1) 10 -P (U 01 -rl £ (0 f-( u M 0) c (0 C XI U 0 0) M 01 > mux 10 0 •P Gi 0) a •H (1) 01 0) -H 4J MH 3 01 -H H 3 c 3 U U r-l O -P 3 TJ (U 10 c >i M M X 0) (U 0) -H 0) 0) 10 u o OJ -rl 01 01 -P 01 -0 2 0 0) 2 XI 0 2 2 -P -H 10 10 2 U 10

~~~~~~Eh M 10 10 K +J -H c O C D1 0 • 10 M 4-1 01 rH O 01 01 P 0) O lO < , .-I I O O U Q) Q O O O HI C I >,0 O O U >,C OH) - »o O (U 0 > o o > a > w OD>-lrHooO(l)3~~~~~~

~~~~~~a Q a <~~~~~~

~~~~~~H C o V -H u -p K •a (U U iJ M O -H O W 'ri «M U >i >-H c cs < 0) Id~~~~~~

MC/3 ~ ^ Eh Q u > H o (U z >t H in c Eh CL«. (U .H kH u H O P Id U) U'O G v). 0) 0) 2 o cue Q. 3J ^ o -o 0) -H I' Ol g > t o Id •H. O ««-t O > P -P 1-1 WHO Ctt R O Bl-H !-l (U c (U M ^ cu >i (H 3 U ID < Id -a n +J ^ • (0 OJ 01 (U lU "M c -H c C >tO > D. c cu o o » o 0 "w-a k u i o Cu Id -H X) H o 3 3 3'a > W 4J W -H (0 C 4J -o P JJ 0 01 OJ •H -H +> C O •H 0) Id i c m Iff -H o^-p +J Id < N M -H e Eh o c a 3 u -o -H O H Iff •H (0 a; >, .3 Id 0 c - I < +J 3 O c a ti M -a T3 c -a CUrH Id I O "O u u -Met) CO > 3 M 3 o Id >H 0) e 3J5 P c o o X CO Id D 01 ^^ Id cwa o -a £ u) • 0) u > 3 u in o u C 3 cu-H 10 O ,rH C Iff CO z m Mf x: Id M a a-H u a) (U o Id o (U •H 01 +1 < O 6 e m -P 0) E m P > J3 U rH w 3 O 0.0) -H (U Id 3 * 5 -o U (U D C 0 Eh W -P •» i-i A! c 0) a) (U 3 01 >i 0) a -H Id w o u e C -P T3 "O iH 0) o c x: M r-H w H O • Id Id C O x; o 3 1* Ed o >i Iff (U -P Id "O >i E e >, (U, P -rl O 01 C 0) -P . i-H w n C 0) iH 0) M N C P O ID 4-1 -H. 0) Jh Id Id rH > S -a o 01 > na •H (0 O 01 dJ +J C < M C C Id Id £ (d <4-t cn M oj C ^-H H 3 0) 3 (1) 0) M Id i

c Id c w O Vi >, M D» 01 M O M P M 3 OJ Id 4) J3 M 05 > H +J (U &H H > C (U &. Eh 0) -H js -a M M •O Eh (D a. a Id - +J o u U tj> Id -a w u O C • T3 U Eu c 0) •H g Q O Id p (UPS 3 e •rl 01 -P 0) u 3 • 01 01 o O X >1-H u (1> 0] c 01 o Id 3 C -P c E 0) Id -r) l4 "O C 0) i+j Id P Id c c c M Id < -H +J Q,

~~~~~~Id 0) Id H T3 p Id c c O Id~~~~~~

~~~~~~-194- c~~~~~~

~~~~~~z u o HJ a~~~~~~

~~~~~~o (0 c >i o r U -H U -P 3 -M H -H to (0 IQ to p « (0 M (U c = c (U (U u) m b >^ a. 0) V4 3 en o « CO~~~~~~

Q. m o o ( u •a "O -H "O CO 0 a o TJ O u in u V o U (0 (U o 0) c (V u c 01 0) TS (0 10 (U c p c (U 'r( E o 10 o 3 (U U 01 •H E •H c 1) •H P •H p •H P c u +J 10 P • •H. c 3 01 E c V U 01 u -a (U o rH O 3 0) 0 0 u •H p u 01 < -p -rl Eh S 0) 0) a c \ OJ o (0 •H I (U 01 a M -P I 3 e 0 -H 0) C - c rH rH Eh a 0) 01 01 0 C "O ai3 u < > OS -H 3 +J O -H 10 10 a o P IH 01 o (0 -P -a > CQ z 0) (U (U )H • k c 0 (0 < _ Z' 01 u T-l P P 01 E CO o •H 0 01 (U 4J -a c 5 IW &1 0) > u •H s: (0 -H 0 ta O CO O C rH u a "O 01 c t -P H •H 1) H IH 01 lU CO 01- S C CJ -P 0) M > r-^ CM m o C >H JS MH 01 0 0 •H 0) Eh u E. a 01 O -P 3 O (0 a (u C6 h 3 a 1 c u o >i M 01 01 (1) 0 dP •P I CO Cn 0) 'O •H CT> M dj MH 0 c; (U 10 ID 01 3 M O C £ fa 0 C (1) m -H -r-i-iH 10 •r< x; (U O 73 M •rH •H 0) o C S o > U E E •P 01 73 • x; *> 01 0) -rH i CJ C (U MH .C C 73 • 01 (0 x: H U u C c -P 0) 73 x: X 10 O •rl CM 10 E -P H u a -P CO U >1 01 -P 0 C 01 -P 0) £h ~- C X! M 0) O S 0 -D 10 3 e •P -P E 3 c -P T3 (0 0 c c c c (U 0) (0 E c x: > 3 01 +1 0 C P u O o ^ V4 P s: i -O 0 U 3 a o o c 10 0) MH a 0 3 J3 01 i x: u > x: 0 o -H <0 -H 01 +J <0 0) 0) 1 01 O U c C p (U -a P 0) CJ 0) 10 cn-P 01 10 -P JJ 0) O c tj< c c w 01 -a C >i-p 01 iH >i 0) C XI c 10 c -H 10 4J y c c 1 p > (U c o cj -p •rt 4J (1) c e e c 0 0 n >, a -H 3 T) (U M IH 3 OS u 10 01 O 10 <0 10 (U 01 ;h 73 •H -H o O U 0) o •H XI w 0 0) 0) •H 0) 4J V4 E c a > ! 01 rH 10 nJ 0) -P •rl 4J IH 0 S E \ M C ^ M O (U \ 0) C >H 10 (0 rH rH 01 73 01 i -o O g rH 1 rH rH (U (u •H M a a-P 0 H >, 73 C O 01 01 10 c 0 73 0) 0) 01 iv (0 01 4J o J= O c 0) 0 0 3 -P -P c o u ^ o u H 10 (0 > (U -a 0) E a a 10 M> 01 01 •H O O M rH o e 3 > 3 p C_ -P M <0 •H -H O C h 0 0 0 0 X H 0) 0) C -H M o o 10 0) 0) 0 0) (a -rH 10 -P N +J CO a o E a C U £' c c o c

~~~~~~» 10 O -rt D> C lU u o •H O P 10 Q MH C 73 •H O 10 C rH u c 10 10 O 10 tn u EH U o u~~~~~~

~~~~~~!5 < < w zZ~~~~~~

~~~~~~. - El CO U O a a W o CO~~~~~~

~~~~~~1 o .J K < o t2u~~~~~~

~~~~~~cn a(V. u 05 uf- a o < <~~~~~~

~~~~~~e-H~~~~~~

~~~~~~Its m Eh „ c o n < O o -u 4J -H 01 01 -U 4J o CJ 10 o~~~~~~

~~~~~~3 >U -p i~~~~~~

~~~~~~. O 0 C « CJ~~~~~~

~~~~~~c w 4-1 o n o o O~~~~~~

ID TJ 1 3 13 CJ <*> c OP c O c 0) O O O (0 o O •H M W (0 (0 p dp -P tn -u XI C a a in Oi O cfl o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (U 0) i3 tJ •p o -P CJ -P p -P cn 0) [0 C dp 0) o C 01 c C -P c O -H O tH O M •H C •rH . •H -H -H u o a a, 0) E (0 CO (0 c C7>rH 0) o w x: ID U to 0) PC -a o c; • U) O 0) EO H -H O M-l 4J M E c > O -P u M o O -P (1) M - w ^ o 0 o > H a; w (u x: (u O •H VH 10 O 0) c E tu E w (1) EWE 01 c u a u 3 0) x: (U M (U in 10 (1)_ 3 i-i jj ^ (U c E O c c c M a a-o (0 Chx) a 0 a 0) (0 10 •H -rH (0 (U 0) >*-i -H -H C E E £ E E u. (U- M 0) E c s « (0 c aw o HMO H M H (0 OS O u •H O O 10 rH ^

~~~~~~0) o~~~~~~

~~~~~~TJ (U 3 O C 4J (0 C TJ O (0 C U C o O (0 o Eh U APPENDIX E~~~~~~

~~~~~~ROUTE SPECIFIC MEASURES~~~~~~

~~~~~~II. Large System (over 400 buses)~~~~~~

~~~~~~B. Operating Performance Measures Schedule Adherence Travel Speed Accidents Complaints Miles/Trouble Call Lost Runs~~~~~~

~~~~~~-197- —I I s-i 0 10) u u (0 ^ o urn r \ \ o o o tfl o ^ n 01 8 o j: (U >-l -H 00 ^£ (u-H I (U U T o o O rH (N O 00 -H ^ 3i 1-1 cai ^ u'*4-IiH4Jt5 o o is~~~~~~

~~~~~~-198- ^8 o~~~~~~

~~~~~~MOQ m z o o cu § w S-S Htn ..^ CO 4J Q H 10 5 a D U> U Ul o s~~~~~~

~~~~~~M as r> (I) ro~~~~~~

~~~~~~a I a > w H M o a Z i4 in 4J a ij E" O 10 O fa u o o r-< o a •n I C E o < a Q 5~~~~~~

~~~~~~o CO (0 r-( (U to |.S sl~~~~~~

~~~~~~W iH io~~~~~~

~~~~~~9i CO~~~~~~

~~~~~~•rH (0 (3~~~~~~

~~~~~~01 si's rH N~~~~~~

~~~~~~J= u 0)> C 10 3 0) Qai-I 2.S~~~~~~

~~~~~~5^ >, u w m Q (0 13~~~~~~

~~~~~~§ en~~~~~~

~~~~~~. en a: a o u o CO ^ 8 . I M-l Q O fa 0) (3 UJ +J +J to Ul Qi (0 Ul~~~~~~

~~~~~~-p -e 6^~~~~~~

~~~~~~p II w s o~~~~~~

~~~~~~-109- 1~~~~~~

~~~~~~J-i U \ I >i 0 > \ (U u c CO O 1— tj> M •H o O H C a c P • r - ) o 0 QJ (T3 o - 0 I/] 0) (U u dl c • in m rH 3 0) (1) j a e d) jz 0 tn D~~~~~~

~~~~~~< < c o 2 < (U -H O Q o [Q M •H U O M-t U o •J x: iJ o C o w u c K < d) c O 2 m t. < e~~~~~~

~~~~~~<0 u c 0~~~~~~

~~~~~~o e c o~~~~~~

~~~~~~I Hn n c CO 3~~~~~~

~~~~~~•o < 0) (0 < 3 i-i P 3 O < (0 -o s o c IB Q (8 2 e (A < o (1) u i-l >w 3 O -O o 0) u o Dl l-t • 0) CO > o 0) Q -P~~~~~~

a a E E S > 0 o in o iH u a 1 1 0 £ o o p fM ro (U 0) V O M o> 1 i 3 cn M CC e 0 nj ki (0 p ^ c 0) iH tn -a 3 rH -H > 10 >i U 0 (0 •H (0 10 M 1 -P 14 3 c (U 0) c c 4) -H P 0) (0 10 cn (0 0. u u -p E -P iH 0 0 ^ c to i3 0

~~~~~~10 1 cfl cn (0 E Q- in in .i^ CO (0 0) E f-l 0) 0) T3 P 0) (0 E 0 ^ u 0 (U u ID -P 1-P c 0 C 0. o cn < H H H D CO~~~~~~

~~~~~~0) a 10~~~~~~

~~~~~~C (0 c c -p CO~~~~~~

~~~~~~-200- o u~~~~~~

~~~~~~4J to •H 03Z o Id -H c o a <0 iC • O m c B B 4J •H >, (1) 10 01 c -u P S >i a < •H (1) B ^ o 2 <8 'l-l •H 10 b U IQ (0 B B < fri tn S 10 1^~~~~~~

~~~~~~z u >1 r-l o s: J3P c B~~~~~~

~~~~~~o . S Q~~~~~~

~~~~~~I 01 -HP P(0 01 < •O Eh p < 10~~~~~~

~~~~~~«: X u o a 10 z E < o o o M-t O W T3 (Ua 0 iH •~~~~~~

~~~~~~(1) 01 > u (I) -H Q -P~~~~~~

B 0 n] I •H M -H n iH U V M > -P +) « 0) O M "0 O 01 u a B o p Uiu « « B o o • 4) a p u o c •0 0) r-l O •H c Ol -H u o B M -P 0 ID 4) 1) 10 10 iH •H 01 0, 10 lO • U m 4) tt) 6 10 10 n O4 g u 01 »4 a ct<4J o o 9 0) 0 S B 0 ^ V-l O *M 0)

~~~~~~B 0 B » -P lit H fi 0) > O p x: (U tH (0 U) rH * 0) m u o~~~~~~

~~~~~~-201 u \ >, ' \ 0) o u o O JZ o o o - o o o CO CN O • VD ^ » S-i v>- vo >,~~~~~~

in o -H w (0 • c z iw pi O P o u o «-i c 'H C 0) < -H c c cn (0 JJ o 0 c 0 -P O >i 0) H •H •w \ C U U (U CO M D) U U (}) • u a -M 1-1 1^ O 0-H « c e -u C 10 (0 to a 3 > *> -U E -u Q) to CJ\ o a s m 2 13 »H U M (0 4J c ID 0) (U 0) O U to r-i C CO £ a fcl > «-l (U C (0 (8 3 0 c u c 0 3 -H c a 10 c U 10 B (8 a 01 01 Q < w O 2 < M - >t s -a fl) 0) r-l 4J « c CO -o a 0) o 0 u a o 0) ca o 0 o n 01 C J3 o C •H- 05 • 0) -P a C 05 -H 05 (0 -tJ i a 10 01 - c ce 0) 01 I rH O S-l 01 3 I 0. c; (0 u o CJ TJ E c u 0) a> u Ed Eh Q lU M •H j: > « O 2 U O 4J a 10 "D 05 o U e 10 .Q IM a O 1-9 O 0) • O O 03 Z J U u a 01 r-t C < O 3 01 o 01 C a (0 0 05 - CO 01 01 >i a 05 O M Bl c s 01 01 -p (U U U p o 01 £ C c i-i 0) O 01 O O O -p C J3 -^^ JJ Ed U £ -H 10 0) >i i O 0) 0 P 3 C u o j: o G t7 TJ 01 z tp •H E 01 01 0) c \ o o (0 (1) 3 •P uh 00 I-I c Qi 0 Eh ^^ O (0 O rH Oi 4J 0 •H U 01 O. •H > O -P c o HH p 10 0 ^4 0) P C O -P a 10 -H U 0 u (0 -H -rl o • M-l • 01 a . ^1 10 P > 01 T3 u 0) 0) ' o •p CD 4» o > a a-n p -a 10 N M p o e c 01 U 3 >i o 0 u Oi « 0 ^ c u o iH u u o > J= « o o 01 01 -rt <0 C 01 a c T) 01 P 01 (0 10 (0 •H a u 3 0) H c c (0 E E E IH -P to IT) (0 fO 0 E 10 E 0) C tJ< (0 u (0 10 N )-i P 0) 3 C E o o a CJ o G og a o o 01 -H IP O > u IP E uh 0) 01 UH >< 0) 01 o c c O >, C p (0 0) 3 G c rH m u jn El, l-l u ^ 10 S J.! J3 M

c o c - JJ tJi o u >1 (8 01 D> 01 •H G o l4 10 rH G 10 • >i a 0 10 10 -o 0) JJ -H •H -a jj n Uh 18 CTi > o JZ C 18 01 05 -i G 01 -H 10 05 C G 10 O 3 01 10 10 rH £ 01 10 H 10 CQ S ffl z u u u o 03 S

~~~~~~-202- u o J 2 CQ < M Z OS M<^ 01 p u u c • c • o o> n] 0) 01 •H C C £ -P W O U -H 01 0) 01 M U lo n p cn >, C (0 rH O K (u~~~~~~

~~~~~~S 4J c C (U~~~~~~

~~~~~~' e e cn c 01 >, on CO i3 (U XI 3 0 l-i c I 0) 01 -P u 1 \ 3 C rH rH 01 to •H 01 (U -P 0) JS 10 (U p M > 0] c o R) 0) -o (U 0) (U~~~~~~

~~~~~~I o 01 p 10 I i £ -a u E +J 0) cu w 0 o (u x: XI iH • 4J TJ -P rj 0) 01 < 3 01 > o C -H C -H 0) -rH o •HOOT) Q +J Q H W D O~~~~~~

~~~~~~XI M 3 < O O5 H pu H OS \ n a Eh 0) M M •H o o E CO (U o o 3 C > (U M O o o E o O c~~~~~~

~~~~~~c o - +J O Oi C H C 0 • P -H 4-1 Bl -P A 01 0] (0 01 o m 0) 10 CQ s, CO S~~~~~~

~~~~~~-203 —~~~~~~

~~~~~~w o u~~~~~~

~~~~~~c •d l-l c c c (0 m~~~~~~

~~~~~~c • 0 0» aj c •H C K (0 Q) OJ o +J 3 •H 4J (d c (0 (u 2* w E to n c a-.. O >. c C rH C6~~~~~~

( H O I ae 10 *i-M g •P I c £ c I (0 4J O p-l tl (1) 0 Id o O O u C 'O 01 O 01 01 *i m o 01 0) >< ' 3 01 <4-( h r-4 u m c 15 O 0 10 O e 10 -H 10 c 01 -H r-H o M 4J 4J (U 01 0 lO Xt lu ca 0) 01 h 10 -u c 10 01 l-l 01 'o at ^ 0) -a 3 > +j e (0 0 i2 -U »-( M Di 01 u a> 0) S 0) g l-l 0> T3 <-[ 0) (0 o D >i 01 iH m o >ijc: 3 0) 3 (0 -K s Q o i-l ^ O 01 4J 0) u 3 a: u e of o •H p » >taj 01 Ul +1 0) o» ja -p c 01 0 -H +J 3 H U OJ "O >-( M. eS p 10 3 (0 01 (U g p 10 0 U TI - J3 J3 +J 0 (0 01 a 0 U U 3 01 P 73 c c O UJ C 01 O 3 10 < O 0) M 3 -t OJ 01 U E OJ -P 3 Q*(U -H 0) C

,J3 J-> O JS M (0 •O O lO 0) -P U j2 -P 0) o 10 D*0) Jii O a Eh Q n u g a p Jrf 01 IT) >f X-l V< TJ o cn u M 0) -P >i 01 J3 c o 0) -p o 01 rH C OJ OJ 73 s: o> o •H o -o jC 73 g 0) P 0) o (0 M 10 W 0) a 10. u 0) a • 73 -P -H a (0 H o tr. rH • 3 V 10 U 0] 10 H 0>-H (0 g 10 u OJ C 0) 10 0 OJ U lu -u u m > >i«t-t (0 0 a P c

01 3 C £ £10 ui O a 0) s u u P OJ o p p • 73 M O M OJ 10 OJ -P M Bi rH 3 3 C 3 73 O 04 Eh s OJ £ p \ JS O ta in 0 10 O rH O 01 0) P rH 73 0] rH OJ 10 P OJ M-l rH o a c £ 10 * o 10 E p >H C rH o o 0\ OJ

~~~~~~c o >H - p OJ c OJ IJi > rH 0 • C 3 10 -H P 0) P O TJ 01 0} p s: o <0 O 10 Ifl 01 c c CQ S 0) 10 (0 10 CO 3 > u~~~~~~

~~~~~~-204- APPENDIX E~~~~~~

~~~~~~ROUTE SPECIFIC MEASURES~~~~~~

~~~~~~II. Large Systems (over 400 buses)~~~~~~

~~~~~~C. Economic/Productivity Measures~~~~~~

~~~~~~Ridership Trend Passenger/Mile Passenger/Hour Passenger/Trip Revenue/Cost Subsidy/Passenger Average/Fare Revenue/Mile, Cost/Mile Revenue/Hour~~~~~~

~~~~~~-205- OJ o a cr»H ; •H wu v> Xi (a u a ra m o o u w u~~~~~~

-i ns O Q) i O J3 H -H O w 3 -U H • MUX in m m c (Q M (U s 0) (U tfl
Eh O - « Oi
>in3 i-i d) H +J • tfl ns (0 •rl T3 O 0) u o 01
r4 0) .H 4J >, £ -P (0 W iH u wo 10 iH 0) M 01 cn (u 10 +> 0) iH 4J rH 3 c 10 H O O c p 05 O U 10 n3 a
Ti a (0 tn O u x; >i s 0) 0) 10 - c m 0 tfl 0 tri >i-tJ >-) TD >i u 4J C (0 C t-P t3 -P TJ 10 H C 3 J.; 03 O 0) tfl Cu (0 .X1 0) C 3 (U M U tn 0) C r-l (U (0 in 0) r-( o 73 0 i 10 10 a. u c o (0 73 tfl tn M 10 C -H C 0) X u u i (0 10 C 3 3 o 0) +J -P 10 > 10 t/1 C XI C 73 O 10 (U lU o 3 73 s -P > n
(U in J5 10 0) 0) MH U -p in T3 - -H •H - ns 0) e tn > lU •H x; N o lU « u o > -p >, 0) -H 0) C M Mh 3 lU to > -a o (B o ^ u C *> M (0 - 0) 10 T) tn O H •H tn M 0) K x: 3 0) rH 0) ^ Eh i W tn o XI to 10 X5 P o Eh 0. lU •H MH 0) > rH -P IH rH <4H (0 O -H c -a •rH -H •H MH -H O 0) Mas O N 0) -a >1 TS G p tn rH • tfl x; -H (U c •rl (0 in 4-1 0) lU M 3 C -P p a o TJ 10 C -H 3 e o c -H X; -H o rH M (0 iH *J 3 (0
x: tn o 3 P (0 X( • C tn (0 O 10 P C n c P c O 10 •H (U Eh U Pn Ck
-206- *> o • lull O -rH "O 01 3 M M-1 g> o •M-ia) a, ^ M-l(tJ OJ CM M ro rH +J ^ ^ 1(0 (UTJ ^^-H T 2O W3l3r-I H O Ul O -P in4Ji-i>*-iv^(nou ocnCr-icos U-H£'a-P3uja ^ 4JMx: js-i-iooomnjcu'a's'
4J 4J
in c c 1 d) 0) M 0) 01 ij -a cu c J3 «> .-1 c >J 4J -P £ (0 r-l (C )-i o m c U •-< o 0) (U (U CO & Oi CQ V) K fi _. H (0 W r-l u 6^ O c o • m 0) U 3 ^ *^ C IQ > CO Eh i tn ^ >i 3 vo c iTj x: (u 0 0) o >i > O a o O JJ o c CO ig iU=L
a a
ID (0 *i +) G nj 3 T3 0 u -a
o i •a 0 0 (U u +j (Q (U n tn -H 3 (U -H 3 C U 0 +J r; (0 (t) (U CJ iH O Q
I
C to u 0) 3 £ 0) M (0 CP 2 3 c e -p 0 (!) 3 •H lO (0 ID 0) in (H 0 >1 c 731 0 X: rH •H • (C +J u e 00 a 5 dP -H 01 r~ •H (0! in 3 -a I (U rH to (N rH U T3 IN rH to lU O M •H ~ lU Q P 1 1 0 1 2 3 a CP (0 •H 0 a; tn 0) ^ X c > > a) (0 01 tn in M itl (U -O 0) tn (U (U •P rH 1 (U 73 3 a 3 -p J3 -a a tn (1) in tn A 10 -P in 10 ^! 0 -H (0 rmal \ rH tn rH (0 IP M tn rH a (0 MH a Q, 0) (0 M (0 3 0) "J-i C -H a (1) MH o u o E 0 in cpa< o (H (0 lO (0 o o u • -H 0 n > tj u 0 X o +J lO H rH (fl w e
in •H (U 10 P rH -H P Q) C (0 CP U c C (§ i2 o • H •H V in O rH tn in c in -H (0 O (0 0 CQ S o J u
-207- I u O w • o \ U (0 I 0) 3 t-i 01 ^ ui in ^ u D <1) c 01 - 0^ a 0) \ M >,\ (0 )-l -H 3 rHr-(ai<0-3(UWi-( T3 4J o u in £ -H O ^ 3 ^ -P C £ (0 0 W « -H * v>-cn(N
1 < < -p c (U w z (0 U z o a o O tt) c C Q D CO- u o a a u a J w (ji C u jC C -H o wow l-l MUX C D M-l (0 C J>i 0) o a: < C in 01 = 02 (TJ ID (U 3 h < E E w W >1
ail w ,2 c •a ^ 0 73 -0 2 (U -H 0) 0) -a T3 x: *j 0) CO u 0 -p i -P U 0 TJ £ >i (0 nj c 01 0) 01 10 O -a (0 (u 0 CP >i u X) A! -P £ C (0 0) 0) 10 0) U 01 Oi 0) "D -P "O j: T3 c 0) -o •H 01 C •H o u 01 o » a £ 01 ^ 0) u m 3 OJ n 10 u 0) -P 3 < m u jH (0 C o U Ch*i 0) 0) )H (0 IH w 4J 0 E "O r-i 10 •p o > - <0 XH "(H » • C « •H 0 P 01 01 u -u o m Eh >, M 0 • IQ IH 0 -o 0) 10 o w U' >, V P 73 (U 4J S 10 • 3 A! P cn c U V •H TJ a) E 0 0) 3 JJ 3 ecu a u 0) )H OJ O w 0 0) 3 -O P s U >i o e w 10 10 01 >, f- a H J. 0 (0 10 rH t-i 10 3 E > c O 10 -o 0) Eh T3 C -P •iH •H 3 TI (0 -a c > c -H 10 U iH O C TJ 01 c 3 Cb w a Q O (0 s (0 w Q
OJ rH •H TI E 1 0) 01 4J 0) 01 10 Z 0) -H • 0) o > E rH 1 \ 0) U 0) Eh c n 0) c; 10 04 T> s: 0) c > 4-1 XI a: 0) a p 0) ^ u u 0) 01 0) 01 4J w CP 01 0) 01 01 a b TI (0 \ 0) 3 Q O 3 a u rH E 0) ip tp x: 0) 0 c 4J rH 0) •rl -H rH rH ui 01 S E (0 (0 •H 01 (0 (0 E E \ e s u 01 10 01 Ul u u (0 >i a 0) M 0 o rH 0 -P 0) o 3 I4H <4H UH 10 -o >tH 3 CP C c O c c c c 0 C M < < m H a 0)
(0 •H rH » (0 x: c O rH 4J CP 10 a 3 0 u > 0) -TI ro (0 01 3rH a (0 u a< 0) XJ >i rH -o E c c 10 Ul C ro (0 0 c . c P c c c •H rH •H 4J -H P c •H (0 S 0:1 2 •H 0) 2 CJ a
-208- (
"D in I ^ c 0 -U 0 \ 0 • £ • >i 01 c w 01 ' , 4J >. . 1 o to 3 1 3 ^ U 0) o (0 05 01 i-i C 0 tl a) 'o a) 0 o •H U \ \ Q) in 1— . >^ • m -H O U rH 0 !-l CO 0 o 0 tTi C 1 c o 3 -r-l tu 01 01 r-l r4 >u 0) J -H >. 0 x: O 0] vi (u , 0 O 0) o (-1 4J in o a.r-4 - in 0 u 4J P J2 U 3 ax; 01 (ci <« 01 cj o in M-i rr U3 m jj
U Q 0) J 2 u 03 < (0 0) m 2 < »-l i-i I ZOO 0) •H O 4J (U (U O H O M-l C CO IH a. Eh U 0) (U 3 o w o w o a V 0 lU .(J U-l • u a H c O C 01 -a > XI O C 4J >j r u u J: -rl 01 u B ^ c 4J - CO O (0 0) c c 0 01 o a.xi 3 M O 3 u c O -H O 0) c O (0 O 0) O I 01 U o c » c o (U a > (U (U c B <0 01 (0 u 01 01 -H u > O 4-1 3 r-l (1) rH < 01 0) u rH dj cu ^ a. a i4 13 Q Q n o Mw X 4J • •u ^: O >, C U "D OJ 0) r-l OJ 0) rH +) CO 3 (U i C U< (0 o U Si 01 3 (0 01 o > (H CM-I o c (0 T I u > (0 o
I 01 in (u •H +J I C (D i-i rn CU ^( (0 c O +) 0) ^ Q "D O
>1
iH 0) I 01 (0 > +J cn O M rH C (U XI D 3 C 01 01 O D> C a> M c ia c E 0 u 0 -O (0 (0 (U v 01 COX -p a; •rH 01 (U x: (u Vh m < o u 3 0) -H 01 Eh to 10 o 01 4J 0) c u Ql-rH Eh >i -P H r-4 -P 0 0 3 •H (0 O •H 01 O i<5 m 10 0 -P O 01 4-1 o 9 X) P U 01 3 Jh M-( -a >i Qi o -a I 0) la U Xi 3 +J 01 >, O m d c 0) o o -P 0 O TJ k 0) 01 -P (U ^ (U -0 x: £ C (U O tji -P o (U U 01 >-l 0) C c P (0 •H TD rH X: -rH d) 3 nj -p o x: -a o 0) CP - o u i •H x: 5> o c x: > 01 o IP +J CP 0) 0 a (U • M-l » 01 0) • -H 01 •H 3 01 (0 01 Vl 01 rH (U c -P U -P N CT> 0) -P (0 0) (0 0) Eh •H c > c C C - c -P > 3 3 rH +J -rH rH 3 -a 3 10 0) 0 O O (0 0) C
u lO \ \x; o o o T3 n CM (N C (0
1 1 (U >1 p rH 3 IH 0 a) 0 O M rH M H es -o X} rH Eh 0) H (0 0) 0< Eh rH u •H dP -H *> 01 JJ in +j (0 in C P- c > rH CO 0 . (U (0 01 01 CT'O Q U +J (U ceo c a 3 > ft e 0 Vh (U (0 M <0 1 cn u M Di Vh \ u \ 3 3 (0 -H 3 O fn o in C 0) 0 0 s O >H b4 b rH M H o: « -p ^ a 0
a c >i <0 C U 10 rH 0 • (0 XJ (U H-> 01 (0 > 01 01 0 rH c 0) -rH O fl 10 10 rH m s u u o x:o
-209- • I I o v u cn 1 u u u 'O iH 0 o o la 3 -H M-l I3- -H JJ U CO a (U rH 3 c >. >. u art •H i-H tn 3 e \ ^ P •H tH 01 — U 0 • <3 a £ 0 (U «-l m • S-l -u 3 01 X cn c Si m V u o CO o o 1-1 (3 n u 01 n3 a c 4-1 -u -H o a u x: (U la c -u > •H H 0 0 ^ j: u a o "D -u O 4J 0 j: -M c 4J u 3 a >i-H (N 0 •H (3 -H la 3 M c: t: a
z c < fa (0 C —I u o C (0 Q 3 • < a -u iJ cn tJ M O C 0) o 02 \j CO 3 O 0 U -H u •H -H a U X 13 C •H CO > V C > c K < 1- o a a U q z u l C rt ED 3 -H 0 -I u n 3 O (0 M B (0 O "O EC , z 1-3 cwa IB 0) W-l > a iJ \ \ 1-1 > u n ID O o V m a 0) fa 0} U (J > s: m E h 0) O in i) *j 3 O >i i-i c •-t ^ m a 10 (3 c a O M 01 c a 0) j-i C iD S-l -H H tfl c •H O - 0 0 rt CO 01 0) £ (3 >i la 01 <3 < -O 13 u ki a (3 o rt TJ < OJ o> ^ 13 U 1-1 W (3 rH 73 rt Q 13 O U 0 3 o J) 'O rt -H [3 i*-! O *J -U O 0) OJ IS 4J Eh Q 1-1 0 E- (0 3 rt g 0 0) W i 4J T3 4J 0 • » S o 0 0 o C 3 0 > c -H -a"O 0) E 0 >i fa 13 0 (8 u 0 i-i 10 a >j to ts 73 a 0 JJ T3 z J o u a h la 0 (D 0) < o C >i 3 JJ -a >iX! OJ y (3 JJ 3 c u ffl 0) u 0 (3 3 O 0 3 O M 0 t/2 0 U 0) • O, rH o u o Q J2 OJ l-i (3 05 'O H 13 01 CO (3 o C 13 • o 0 1-1 0] U (3 Q C -H U • •H to a ^ OJ ^ U 13 -3 o >, U-l 4J o 0) >i 0 01 -U 4J > > (3 C > c >, 0 (3 (3 « 3 (3 3 H 3 (3 C 1-1 0 0) o c U 0 C C 3 Eh V O CU Ij rt o O n3 s O W
< 5 M 3- O O u 3 3 3 \ 0 O a Eh o O
l4
0) I I I p o •H -w 01 > 01 >i tn u >i ra cn >i 0) 13 t3 >i (3 tn T3 U (3 T3 Id j<: 3 -H 3 4J E 10 01 C rt o 10 (0 E a 3 o s: E o o tn )-i S M = u \ u-l 0 0 0 in o c fa fa
01 0 (0 x: c iH -H 0) c D» 13 01 c 0) -H U > 1-1 ^ 01 (3 3 rt c o 3 C
-210- I M - >-i • w O !-i z
CO T3 a;
0) c i 01 0 01 rH U 3 H a 10 a u H 01 J3 n c 4J -( -p c Ci (0 o 10 3 (0 •H -H H « j3 a
(U (U (U rH rH rH rH •H •H •rt •H £ £ E E X >i (0 -P 0) ^ 01 U (U >H 0) )H 0) -H U 3 u a u a u a Q4 01 10 o 10 0 (0 O lO o c I 3 j: 3 43 3 j: 3 MH (U 01 crv, cr\ cr\ cr\ M
01 T3 0) 01 0) - -a )H 01 (U M 10 (0 -P 10 >1 (0 -a 3 -a to c o c '0
c o - 4J (U w rH G P -H +J £ (0 01 w(U Snj
-211 o u
2 r'. 01 a < < •H 01 2 >. - O H O M iQ CI. H C W U c < a a 0 c 0 ex .J D.-H O o; •H +) o £ 10 h at. u 0) l-l V 0) 0) c cs o a. c H C r-( o 01 Ui «. H Ot 05
o
0) V4 w 3 u 2 o •H W D 3 Eh C 0) g e
o _
•o u IS o
I a o p o 3 •O < c a o 0
01 n: u 0) 01 Q M o 2 C
Eh C 3 (U iri o
c j= D.-H •H 0
(U u c
\ •H 0 c (0 01 0 H M u Oa c P (0 c ns p c 2 < 0) 0 0 3 O H c 01 rH 0) • 0 M ca 0 01 u > 0 H M nj H f-l a, H -a CU ra c a c 0) 0 10 0 w e rH >1 o •H (0 u (0 3 X ^4 rH p •H w £! e (0 10 (U 0 •H w e 6 > 0) (1) Q (U c •H (C 10 M +J M r4 0) H •H 10 s 10 fl< 73 u U)
n3 01 1 M >1 (0 >1 T3 3 (0 (0 CO M 73 o (0 nj 10 T3 M M-l 4-1 0) •H O c S Pu
c o - p 0) tJ> > H C 3 10 P -H O p x: O ifl n3 01 C G 0) 10 >10 U(0
-212- -
-
(1) a -a U U) IS u ^ o
I D I \ JJ H-l \ w e \ u Cu O O D u o w \ 0) 0) m O O C 4J 0 o (0 tn a a O O -H o a c O CT' » - E (1) (D C o in >i >i c «a" rr o (0 <0 3 ixi 0 C 4) C 4-1
oa +J O c u O 3 u
M -4J >1.rH
U I &H Q •-^ +> (U l-i Ed H O la C m H -1 >K -o o H u 0 c 3 M Ed O (S (u (U > -P E O 0) M (1) (0 •H a M E P o u
t ^ c o u o u >, 3 >t •H o ia M <« M 0 Si 10 0) 0) E • o -a (u c M V) 10 -H TD 0 •H 0 -O -H -H E 3 10 M-l 0 01 -P E -O C -H (U (U 4J o •H H !h -P 3 (U -o 0) 10 07 0 1 -p <^ 3 01 01 >i 0 o C +J J2 0 Q ^ t) Ed u (U X M 0 M-t 0) • 4J U V4 OJ &> C -O (U M C (0 Ul -P rH 0 -P 0) H 3 10 >i 0) iH 3 0) 0 C Q) ia 3 c -p -p > H O > 01 3 3 •H •H K >, C > 0 O M >i 01 (U (U 3 O 01 U Q 13 10 01 > u 14
MH 0) rH . > 3 0) 10 01 O C TD -P -P o o lU rH o o o o 0) Q) 10 n in rH o ifi •rH in > • (0 O u > O d) c 0)
01 10 1 >1 O H XI H a: x; 0) o 10 3 -p Eh U iH 04 Eh 01 -H C V] P Q) O +j in -p 10 0) X3 Q. 01 r~ C > U (U 01 0) 10 (U O rH 01 -P O w <4H 0) cn-a MH (U W 4J Cd 0) 0) •H 01 < c c o (U -H 3 o p -p 0) 10 rl Q) +J c -P XJ E 3 3 -p 10, XI a 3 'O 01 x; 01 rH I O O 3 S ^ lU 10 t3 0) O -P p O 4J o: a: 10 >, 0) -a <-H C< o o •H u -P -H +J 01 -P lu a \ c 3 -P o U iH -H +J 3 10 o 3 01 T! (U )H o c O M 10
c >1 0) U 10 10 o • a (0 -o •H -a P 01 10 C lO Ul 01 rH C 0) -H c c O 10 10 (0 rH £1 •H 10 CO S u u u o S 3
-213- 1
c
-"T csj 1-w P OiT! T3
c
SI Ifl M c c l-l (U -H (0 w P TJ c ^ D C o C Oi n O <0 (0 c • » w r-l (0 (0 u c n-i - m ' o £ (0 H O -P O .H C o -p u w P 3 -H (0 O na C > >-l 0) (U c u (a c w c H £ (0 m Oi-H (1) -fl •H O rH woe OS c —Q cn—o< fs
n rH i c •H T5 O >< r4 0) rH p >t O (U iH j: -p (0 to rH cn 0 o u to u (0 rH (0 • , 05 O O 10 nj M c en U XI —cr u £ tu 10 -P (0 >i I 01 01 >,T3 c tu -a -H 10 3 10 \ ft > 10 >i (0 CO •H c p u > -a (0 d) rH tu >i 10 0 CP >i h (0 p M c 0 rH (0 )H rH -O 10 c 10 M ft >i •H -a C (U i3 01 H 01 •P J3 -a c 10 0 rH V) -p tu 01 01 3^ p 0 -D x: c (0 rH I (0 x: C 10 E 3 10 tn c 10 U T) UJ »H 10 ft c 01 10 U (U IH x: MH < e U) U -H O 10 10 c X > 10 e e o x: V4 ft 10 (U CJ - tu 01 (u Eh C G 0 m (0 0 0) (0 0 (U rH 10 •H to O (0 (D (U (U -O 10 >1 IH -p x: 10 +J < ^ rH e rH 3 fa M to -P >H 01 E -O rH U -H M 3 P c 14H ^ O •H (0 MH (0 M -o UH m 0 M o E M Q) -a 3 •H 4H +1 3 tu 01 3 ft 0 p MH £ C rH o > tu -a rH C U *i (0 0 0 M -r4 ft (0 • 10 § 10 tu •H tu 0) -H -a (U (U U rH M x: > >i 10 M o -p 01 10 3 r-< 0 0 a c p <1> ft (U ft tu 01 -H i3 X! p 3 » >i - 01 M e o to •H i 0 >ix: tu 0 lU -1 -P p c CP 10 (0 p ^^ cn 0 10 C 10 ft (U T3 T3 m 10 • M 10 H O -O >4 10 0 (0 0 (0 u s: (0 (U -H 0 (u to tu -H T3 0) 01 Q S 4J 0 -P u •H (1) Eh M £ £ c 10 0 U 01 >4j< to E -a V4 0 JJ r-H to H 01 c c U (U tu C 01 tu >i . 4J (0 X3 tu •H 0 r-i c £ C 0 £ 0 •a 04 -H 0 10 M lO 01 T3 >, ft 01 (u -a -H 10 3 •H -a c (U in -H u C M 01 H 10 O o » IH -P -H (U -P 3 0 0 p H 10 lO 0 > u M (U M (J 04 (fl C71 CP -H e c 10 > C H JJ H U -H -p I > rH CU c u to tu tn -P rH 3 C 4J •rl 3 -a 10 (0 tu 01 p 3 x: 01 Ul ( (U 0 c 0) C > P 3 0) 0 u 10 10 0 0 3 10 >H O c -a c > > 0 (0 0 10 o 3 o 10 ja rH 0 OS O OS T3 a u (0 = (0 (0 (0 CJ o x: >
(U (U (U (0 (0 Di-P 01 E C 3 (U o tu 0 01 U 01 o 01 01 01 (0 >i (0 _c ft C ft 3 (0 M u OS OS (U tu c (U_ . 01 (0 o u ft c a (0 •H w 01 \ \ 3 U fa >itu >i'a (U Q O a in 73 -H -p >5 •H (0 -H > •rl 01 01 (0 I Vh -h u ;X5 tu J -a u 3 > 3 C CO 10 t/1 -H
(fl lU (0 e (0 in o E iH ft E H o lU ^4 0 4-1 0 0 ItH c o fa c lO (3^ 01 -rl •H - rH rH (0 CJi (0 p O 3 p (fl ft <0 o 3 rH c c (0 04 01 .a >, • 0 rH tu (U 01 01 -P 01 o o c • c P c 01 01 C H C -P c P G (0 rH •rl O XI H cn_ H d) m s o o 2\a 04 0<
-214- )
Eh O(A U
a a 1 Z a) 03 < < tji to IH Eh la W Z < c to ZOO n) • O H s; -p CU Eh h \ CO to w u o p >t C r-) < K i4 (A Id 10 M CO O CO CJ 0 M U >4 3 0 -u > -p o OS 1 a r-, r
(0 • 0 10 •H 1' iH 3 to 3 -H 76 4J • (0 0 as *i OM-i i3 to 01 1 C Q SO O O-H DATA 0) -P p
10 in ri " <-^ C Eh 0 O 3 (0 lOrH >+J a ^ (0 c • 10 to Z J •H >i < o a to rH o 0 3 C s° 0 M 10 O CO <<-( -a •H » M -a c > 3 V C (U 0) 0 a (0 a Q O
< O5 H H « igei Eh U ft.M HEh « b: y/passei (0
DESC iteri
"O M •H U to 0 0
to c (U lO X 0 rH -H Eh - p (U C H CP u OS .-1 c C 0 o -P -H < IfJ tn p x: •H Eh (0 to to iH D (U (0 O 10 < CO S J u
-215- X3 •H Hcn r-l
z Q 2 ^ < < Eh c S ei M-l O <0 c 4J i &(0
0) x: 14 p b(0 c \ 0 0) 2 b
0)
10
(U
< Q H Eh O M u u w 3 CQ W COu CO CO < o a u 3CO 0 < c • H (0 B 0] )-( U (U (U M 3 -H O M 0 M OS C 0) Eh a •H H Eh (0 1
+J 73 c (-1 nj e <0 3 n 0 4J >, M-l c < a H
- (B r-l +) 3 O la to (X a; c • c CO S -216 )-l CO Ul
>, w x; 1 a •H \ w 0) \ 10 (-1 0) O d) (U o 0 x; 0 >H tn • O -rH >,in w M-i c tn o ta 0 tn o u 0 • -P (U . i-i H (U 01 - ro -H C T3 W (1) -H u a. a a) Ul rH T3 4-1 Oi M -H 4J 0 e 0 cn IT3 -H •H rrj tl) <0 3
OQ 4J M c w fa z +j o c Ck 3 CO O o o <
IM nj +J
M rH B OJ I Eh H 4J •H• lO (0 E -a o 0) o Ul •H rH a -d cwa r( (D rH JJ z , Ed 4J +J >i x: -P nJ 01 rH rH (0 rH U Eh U (0 "H wo rH M (u la
t T3 +J -P •a Q. C s 01 (0 01 •rl (0 -a x: M H C (U I \T3 \ M o n x: >, rH 4J 0) c o (0 (U f. (U (0 » la CO) 0) 01 10 (0 01 r-H 3 -O (0 II> O 01 >i-P x: (S) C ta wo >i O 3 e j<; -P XJ lO lO Q O 10 „ C c 0) 0) 0 T3 (0 01' 0< 10 '0 > tjv O cu T3 (U CO , (U i (U >t*J IQ -P T3 » < 0) M O 3 o y < a lO • - M Eh Q (U > ax 0 0) o _ -p 01 (U 0) (U -a 6 O 0) rH s o c c M 10 M 10 Ed &l 01 MH 0) 3 "O a o +j p Ed iJ (0 to p C C -rl Q >t o g C Q 10 e w U M >iI j: (0 01 Z J >w c rl 10 01 -px •p (1) 4J (0 o P IH 01 p 6 >iXl 10 < o >H -o o 01 • 01 01 V4 01 » CA u u p C +J 10 o 10 c M IH S 0) 10 (U 3 1) -p 3 rH i o u -a - >, H (0 01 (0 Cd lO rH w.H V3 d) O > >,rH 10 10 XI c u 10 cn M j: w < 01 01 VI 0) lO -H u 10 c C 3 01 Ed 10 10 rl u u 3 01 u -a i C >i O > c w lO 10 lO 10 (U 0) • c u P > p x: (0 •0lO > XI -P 0) 0) 3 E T3 O 13 10 M < -p •H |H T3 -p •rl E G > W c 3 -a c U >i 10 -H (0 M JH 01 >H 3
CQ
D 01 01 (0a \p H 01 < 0 o OS H o >IH Eh a o O4 Eh X) 0) 10 JJ •rH 0) u
a -p 3 -rl X) U ' U 0)
0] •rl > e u 10 3 0 P CP o s c
lO 01 « 10 - •H H rH x: c rH 10 (0 3 O o> O lO 01 u > -H •H •rl lU 3 M 10 c XI >i e 01 01 10 o c •H •P c •H rH P c •r) (U
-217- dJ O
03 M-l 3 M-l tn o X> (0 u o 0) o p ^ • O o M 0) in O in
< < 01 (0 p 6-1 P Oi 0) ' W Z C XI • (0 c 3 >M P -o Q O • O Id M 0 01 P (U M-l w u a « a o V4 01 04 0) o a 3 C ' •H ^ -H >1 0» 01 O J3 J3 O +J (I> (-1 -rl nJ-H O c 01 (U O 3 a 01 0) -P (.1 M £ 0) C 01 >, M 10 nj c 0) O rH 0) (0 iH Eh U (1) c -O r-* > 0) 01 10 o b: B o -H >, O 0) M c >tQ4 0) r-H 3 h « ja o 06 H < XI o b; a<
.0) I 4J c 3 (U •• c O 01 p , • o -a »H M a-p 0) z nj IB 3 -P rH \+j -a >l u (U C a) o IB 0) IB (1) rH Eh IB >i O 3 M «H 0) 3 H N r-t b O \-H C \ 3 4J C 3 >i 10 o H H lO C Eh C C -P 0) 0) IB 3 lU (0 C C O 5 o 01 O W O M-l OS 0> u 0*05 O IB 10 -S. Ti JJ T3 i£ p 0) 01 4J XJ 4-1 01 J3 -P 0) P -H o 01 >, -HMO -o 1) m »rH CJ OS o O u o u IB 01 O (0 0) X} 01 10 -p Eh a c n xna (U 01 TJ 0^ (U u c • < pa 01 IB C 10 c •rH c c ^ (U 0 Eh •H U 01 TJ IB x: 10 10 (U IB Cn-H • O -P u u O4X: o 01 . -t s 0) (1) c U C > 3 CT> lO tJt -H -rH O CO 10 •H O (D c -a -H 3 ^3 X M IB c 4J H 3 c M M C IB 3 13 M (U c 01 OJ M 0 -rl Ox: IB o x; rH 05 o p M s a-P u rH fH (0
610 in 0 IB Di ^4 X3 > C 0) 0 01 -P M ^4 0 3 (u a u 0 01 u s: 4J (U 4J 0) DlrH -H c C XI 3 •rH •H c 4-> 01 tJ 0 01 01 0) H 0 M X a IB IB (U 0) a E 01 »4 e IB MH O o O « 0 M-l o
O 4J (0 c -a o 10 V4 c o 10 Eh U ^218 t
H tnO u
W Q J 2 f^. CD < < M S-i W 2 rti 2 O Q M-l O M M-l CU E-t (0 W U O C -P (0 CO 2 J ^ Di CO O O C M O >H iH -H «3 C
Cj dJ r-l
, 1
rt; fit < a UH
E-I Q < Ed X E^ •H 10 u 'O Q J Z iJ e < O 0 ^rj u a IH X H
1 1
iH to
5°
(0
D e fH c •H 2 < E O H 00 H (X Eh W 1 Cl< E-I M r— H l-l a a 0 M o u £ O CO \ M-( Ed Eu Q) Q O D (U C 3 (U rH
t> (tj CJ > u
• a
•H >H 4J MEh 4J OS C O -H X u o Eh C -H •H £ id* r 1 o -219-
Q.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-281-568/80 f
DOT LIBRARY
00399620
Dtp.
52 cn q ST «< o 2 B n 5" C S a G >5 H 5' M a >-i *o 00 V C 01 cos MO) o •>w 8 s
ohi
c
60 B