National Academies Press: OpenBook

Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds (2014)

Chapter: Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results

« Previous: Appendix B - Survey Questionnaire
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 146
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Summary of Survey Results ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22421.
×
Page 147

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

106 APPENDIX C Summary of Survey Results Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds RESPONDENT INFORMATION 1. Date: 2. Contact Information Name of Respondent: Agency Name: Title of Respondent: Agency Address: Agency Size (note: this was entered after survey responses were received, based on FY 2011 NTD data) Small (<250 peak buses) 37 62.7% Medium (250–1,000 peak buses) 15 25.4% Large (1,000+ peak buses) 7 11.9% Respondent e-mail address: Respondent Telephone Number: EXISTING TRENDS 3. Describe the trend in bus speeds within your agency over the past five years. Bus speeds have increased 10.2% 6 Bus speeds have decreased 39.0% 23 Results are mixed 39.0% 23 No change in bus speeds 11.9% 7 4. How has this trend primarily been identified? Qualitative—anecdotal information 35.8% 19 Quantitative—tracked by performance measures 64.2% 34 5. What is the trend in bus speeds over the past five years? Decreased by 0 to 5% 45.1% 23 Decreased by 5 to 10% 17.6% 9 Decreased by more than 10% 0.0% 0 Increased 13.7% 7 Other (please specify) 23.5% 12 Other includes: (1) Results fluctuated over the years. (2) Not sure. (3) Decreased by 0 to 5% for local; increased on new limited stop/BRT routes. (4) About the same. (5) Decreased by 5–7% in regular system ~ increased where BRT service has been imple- mented. (6) We use on time performance as an indicator. (7) Please note that while we track average system speed, our overall goal is to reduce travel time. This is reflected in our responses that follow. Travel time can be reduced both through operational changes and by more direct routing. (8) Unchanged. (9) Mixed—depends on type of service and area served. This agency operates both in an urban as well as rural driving environment. (10) Some routes up some routes down depending on ridership and traffic patterns. (11) Depends on the route. In general speeds have slightly increased over the past 8 years. We have increased ridership. However, there are some routes where time performance is an issue and we have made schedule and routing adjustments to help improve on-time performance. (12) Addressed in service planning and schedule refinements. ACTIONS TAKEN This section first asks if your agency has taken any actions to affect bus speeds. Actions are grouped in five broad areas. Within each area, we ask if you have measured the impacts of specific changes. If you made a series of changes and did not measure the impacts of individual changes, there is a box to check, and you will be asked later about the overall impacts.

107 6. Has your agency taken any actions to increase or to mitigate decreases in bus speeds? Bus stop spacing, design, length, or placement 64.4% 38 Vehicle size, seating or door configuration, performance, wheelchair boarding, or bicycle storage 62.7% 37 Schedule adjustments (running times, recovery time policy, or headway-based versus time point-based) 86.4% 51 Route adjustments (route streamlining, limited-stop service, BRT) 74.6% 44 Agency policies (off-board fare payment, pricing to encourage shifts to prepaid media, fare-free system or zones, all-door boarding, bus door practices, transfer policy, hold policy at transit centers) 49.2% 29 External policies (bus lanes, signal priority/queue-jump lanes, yield- to-bus laws, signal timing, turn restrictions, parking restrictions) 54.2% 32 Other 18.6% 11 No Action Taken 1.7% 1 Note: Numbers adjusted if agencies answered No but then reported actions in that category ACTIONS TAKEN – STOPS 7. Did your agency take any of the following actions with regard to bus stops? • Increased distance between stops • Level boarding at major stops • Stop design or stop length • Stop location • Other actions related to bus stops Yes 94.7% 36 No 5.3% 2 8. Did your transit agency change stop spacing? Yes 83.3% 30 No 16.7% 6 9. Do your service standards address stop spacing? Yes 72.4% 21 No 27.6% 8 10. Describe the change to stop spacing. Responses summarized in Table 15, p. 45 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. In limited situations (primarily on one route) stop spacing was increased and/or stops on both sides of major intersections were consolidated into just one side, usually far side. We eliminated some stops that were underutilized and we also combine stops that we considered too close together. Eliminating flag stops and replacing with ¼ mile spacing Took out approximately 600 stops that were too close to another stop. Set a guideline to increase spacing under three conditions: urban (< 8 per mile), suburban (<6 per mile), rural (<4 per mile). Set standards for each type of service. Removed stops that were too closely spaced BRT has longer stop spacing ~ stops with distances less than 650 feet were removed whenever possible Following our policy rather than just following up on public input. Policy is ¼ mile distance between stops. Limited effort to remove a bus stop where bus stops are relatively close together. We are working on a “pilot” program on 2 routes to determine if spacing will improve the speed. When applicable, selected routes were chosen to improve bus stop spacing, every 0.25 miles Gradual conversion of urban stop spacing from every 2–3 blocks (500'–700') to every 3–4 blocks (800'–1000') where possible.

108 A density-based bus stop spacing standard was adopted in 2010. High Density, CBD, Shopping (>20 persons/acre) 500–700 ft.; Fully developed residential area (10–20 persons/acre) 700–850 ft.; Low density residential (3–10 persons/acre) 850–1200 ft.; Rural (or Express Bus Service) (0–3 persons/acre) 1200+ ft. Stop spacing was changed from 500–750 feet, to 0.2–0.3 miles between stops. The change generally impacts new stops, rather than the elimination/consolidation of old stops. Combined stops where they had previously been to close due to block length. Reduced number of stops in downtown area; created faster, more limited-stop versions of existing express routes. We evaluated on a case-by-case basis where two bus stops could be consolidated into one. In the past, in the urban environment, we had some stops placed at intervals of 1 block or more. This was done to accommodate ADA passengers that were transitioning to the fixed routed service. We have since been working on increasing our stop spacing to two blocks or more in the urban area, based mainly on traffic speed limits. Culled stops that were close together on a limited number of bus routes Stop consolidation to bring routes into alignment with service standards We have not changed our overall standard for bus stop spacing. We adopted a standard of 8 stops/mile about 10+ years ago and continue to review stops to make sure we meet that standard. The most recent change in the last 3 years has been to go to every-other-block spacing of bus stops through the core of downtown. Went to 6–7/mile from 9+ Reduced number of bus stops along a frequent transit corridor to align with service standards Eliminated a few unnecessary stops on two high volume routes. However, stop spacing was not changed on a systemwide basis. Stop consolidation in limited cases (1–2% of stops) General stop spacing was every two blocks (600 feet) with many stops closer. New standard is 800'–1500' feet with a targeted average of 1200'. Project is about 80% complete and there are 24% fewer stops systemwide than in 2009 New or adjusted routes have more consistent stop spacing. Increased between major stops on a corridor-specific basis 11. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 6.9% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 58.6% 17 No 34.5% 10 12. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 33.3% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 66.7% 2 Other includes: (1) Fewer downtown stops reduced travel time by about 5 minutes; more direct routing to downtown coupled with greater use of freeway HOV lanes reduced total route end-to-end travel time from 100 minutes to 81 minutes; did not track increase in speed. (2) To be fair, this was an increase in bus speed of about 10% on a corridor that was less than a mile long. We went from 5.5 mph to 6.1 mph and saved 1 minute of running time. 13. Did your agency introduce level boarding at transit centers or other major stops? Yes 22.9% 8 No 77.1% 27 14. Describe this change. Built Transit Center bays to be level boarding. At-level boarding on all BRT stations The fleet is now comprised entirely of low-floor transit buses. Many of the bays at our newest transit center and Rapid bus stations along our busiest corridor were built for level boarding. Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel introduced level bus boarding in 2007. Increased the number of low floor buses

109 Built “station level pads” at certain bus stops to minimize the need to lower the ramp for wheelchair access. Just at one location to date, more planned 15. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 12.5% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 37.5% 3 No 50.0% 4 16. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 100% 1 Other includes: (1) We did not measure the impact of level of boarding separately. The combination of level boarding, fewer stops, and TSP allow for a 20%–30% faster operating speed. 17. Did your transit agency change bus stop design or length? Yes 37.1% 13 No 62.9% 22 18. Describe this change. Moved to a far side stop strategy as part of TSP efforts Created a stop classification that bases stop improvements on higher existing ridership and transit supportive land uses. The new classi- fication supports improved design layout including thresholds for bus stop amenities and increasing paved waiting areas. Improvements are identified, but funds to make improvements are needed. Increasing number of bus bulbs and stop lengths to accommodate larger and more vehicles. BRT stations were designed differently Platform length standardized to 15 m to accommodate all vehicle sizes. We adopted standards for both design and spacing. However, we have not yet separately or in cooperation with the regional transit agency removed stops other than by construction projects Extend curb length to improve bus stop capacity Extend curb length to improve bus stop capacity Updated our design standards manual to be fully consistent with ADA requirements. Lengthened the approach to assure the unit is parallel to the curb Stop procedures were changed in Downtown Transit Tunnel to reduce delays from drop-off only buses; these buses can drop off at any station bay rather than having to wait for certain ones to open up. Some bus stops on new routes were redesigned with more customer information. Increased length specifically to accommodate articulated buses 19. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0.0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 50.0% 7 No 50.0% 7 20. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers 21. Did your transit agency change the location of bus stops (e.g., near-side, far-side, mid-block)? Yes 51.4% 18 No 48.6% 17

110 22. Describe this change. In limited locations we consolidated stops into just near-side or far-side, usually far-side. We are practical, we tried to eliminate mid block stops to either near side or far side. This process is still undergoing. We decided to implement route by route rather than do a systemwide change all at once TSP routes and any new fixed stop routes are far side where possible. Mostly bus stops have been consolidated, but some stops have been moved to the far-side or near-side of intersections to improve access and minimize disruption to traffic. Optimizing stop spacing by stop control. Stops have been relocated, on a case-by-case basis, primarily for other reasons (i.e., not to increase bus speeds). For example, several existing stops which are not “accessible” (due to physical constraints) have been relocated to allow them to be designated “accessible.” We have moved a few stops from near-side to far-side in coordination with streetscape improvement projects. Relocate to farside to facilitate transit signal priority or to location where it is safer for riders to cross Made all bus stops at stop signs or farside intersections. Preferred placement to far-side More Mid blocks When possible we are now putting bus stops at far side. We are transitioning mainly to far side stops Although we have not changed our policy on stop location, whenever a bus stop is placed, the location is considered. Speed is one fac- tor in making the decision, although probably a minor one. Customer safety and convenience along with property issues are weighed more heavily. 1] Move to farside where signal phase favors the direction. 2] Move to near side where coincides with stop sign. A limited case by case basis as the stop consolidation project has unfolded in 3 phases (with one to go) Limited change due mainly to safety concerns. Generally we have farside stops. There has been no policy change here. Continually trying to optimize bus stop location. 23. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 5.6% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 27.8% 5 No 66.7% 12 24. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 25. Did your transit agency make other stop-related changes? Yes 14.3% 5 No 85.7% 30 26. Describe this change. Eliminating flag stops We are midway through a multi-year project to review bus stop spacing on all existing lines in an effort to space stops as suggested in our standards. This has required the elimination of some stops. Notices are placed on all stops slated for elimination and an open comment period is advertised. Stops slated for elimination that serve handicapped individuals who comment or sensitive land uses are sometimes retained. Most though, are pulled. During each 4-month service period approximately 400 to 500 stops are reviewed. Eliminated stops Dedicated lanes and eliminated parking Eliminated bike rack usage at key stops downtown to save time. For BRT services, we are building curb extensions (bus bulbs)

111 27. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 20.0% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 60.0% 3 No 20.0% 1 28. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 100% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 ACTIONS TAKEN – VEHICLES 29. Did your agency take any of the following actions with regard to vehicles? • Introduce or increase use of low floor buses • Change size of vehicle • Introduce vehicle with better performance • Change interior seating (e.g., 2*1 seating instead of 2*2) • Change door configuration • Change from lifts to ramps for wheelchair access • Allow bicycle storage inside vehicles • Other actions related to vehicles Yes 88.1% 37 No 11.9% 5 30. Did your transit agency introduce or increase use of low floor buses? Yes 89.2% 33 No 10.8% 4 31. Approximately what percentage of the fleet is comprised of low floor buses? Low-floor buses account for an average of 74 percent of the local bus fleet among responding agencies, with a median figure of 79 percent. 75% 1%. It should be noted that all future bus procurement will be low floor buses 77% 100% Approximately 57% of the fleet is low floor buses. 79% 10% 95% 100% Feb 2008: 58% low floor; 15% lift-equipped, 27% high floor (non-accessible). Current: 87% low floor, 13% lift-equipped Note that the number of lift-equipped buses has remained steady (the percentage has decreased due to increasing total fleet size). 100% (achieved in 2012) 60 % 59% of over 1,400 fleets 89% 86%

112 As of today, 100%. In 2011 last of old style buses were retired. 100% 30% 75% 75% 80% Approx. 65% (183 out of 281) 95% 85% 90% 58% 59.6% 30% 100% conventional service. Piloting a low floor community shuttle right now Almost 100%. 90% 75% About 60% excluding commuter fleet 32. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 3.0% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 27.3% 9 No 69.7% 23 33. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 100% 1 Other includes: (1) Decreased boarding time by 1 second per passenger. 34. Did your transit agency introduce or increase use of different-size vehicles? Yes 59.5% 22 No 40.5% 15 35. Describe this change. Implemented 40 ft buses which will be the chosen method for all future bus procurements Balanced fleet size based on route boardings by block Increased articulated fleet from 10 to 15 buses. Introduced BRT fleet which has 11 additional articulated vehicles We have recently added 12.8m long double-decker buses for use primarily on express routes. Agency’s first 35'ers began service in August, 2007. Agency also has 31'ers and 28' narrow-body buses We have acquired 5 60 foot articulated coaches and 4 30 foot coaches. For our Rapid bus line, we have introduced articulated coaches In 2008 we purchased 30' coaches to use on lines with lower max passenger counts. Purchased 24 19-passenger cutaway buses to be utilized on lower productivity routes. Cost per revenue mile operated charged by service provider was lower for the smaller vehicle Purchased small low floor buses with ramps

113 Introduced Minivans and cutaways Introduce Cut-aways for circulator to feed main routes. Urban 40' Buses Rural 35' Buses Rural 27' Cutaways The percentage of high capacity buses (57 seats) increased We try to place vehicle size relative to demand. This allows for more seating capacity and, in turn, quicker deboarding. In local service, we have been using articulated buses to accommodate larger loads without having to increase frequency. Usually, this has increased running time because of the longer times needed to make passenger stops. This has been mitigated somewhat by primarily using low-floor artics. Replaced 35'ers with 40'ers. Used 29' heavy-duty transits to replace cutaways (which were actually longer, but had less capacity). Changed the mix and deployment of 30', 40' and 60' buses. Double decker vehicles as well as midsized community vehicle Introduced a limited number of articulated buses in all divisions. Significant increase in ridership over the past 8 years. We’ve replaced 35' with 40' coaches. Increasing use of articulated buses 36. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0.0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 42.9% 9 No 57.1% 12 37. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 100% 1 Other includes: (1) Can’t determine—traffic keeps getting worse 38. Did your transit agency introduce vehicles with better performance? Yes 45.9% 17 No 54.1% 20 39. Describe this change. Hybrids replaced old diesels with low power and old CNG’s with low power. We implemented hybrid electric buses Better engine performance EMP and higher capacity AC units 472 of the 1,109 low-floor buses are hybrid vehicles (diesel-electric) Better gas mileage in hybrid-electric buses Replaced cut-a-way Fords with real transit buses Trolley with battery backup In 2010 we took delivery of 6 hybrid diesel/electric coaches. These are being compared to 6 diesel buses delivered at the same time to see if the hybrids are more cost effective in the long run. In 2013 30 CNG buses will be delivered. Hybrid electric Smaller vehicles with better acceleration and maneuverability that also get double the fuel mileage Units were spec for our region (desert) Compressed Natural Gas. Improved Transmission Retarder Performance. Engine Governance to 65 mph Newer generation of articulated buses have better acceleration, hill climbing ability.

114 Deployed better performing inter-city buses on our long-distance, mountain routes. Moving the fleet replacements with hybrid (diesel/electric) coaches Some hybrid buses have been introduced, and others have been retrofitted to improve fuel economy. 40. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 5.9% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 35.3% 6 No 58.8% 10 41. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 42. Did your transit agency change the seating configuration inside the bus (e.g., 2*1 seating instead of 2*2 or any other changes)? Yes 21.6% 8 No 78.4% 29 43. Describe this change. Move to a perimeter seating configuration on most buses to increase capacity, especially on university campus bound routes where full buses is a chronic problem. BRT buses had significant seating configuration changes [Note that, starting with the 2007 bus deliveries, the configuration of the rear seats was changed to improve passenger utilization. Two double seats were replaced with three aisle-facing seats on each side. Although this resulted in two fewer seats, it encouraged more customers to move to the back of the bus.] Another “pilot” program with the removal of a row of seats to accommodate strollers/walkers/etc. We had asked that these devices be folded which slowed down the process. We are now allowing them to be left open which we hope will speed access and egress. One bench removed from curbside behind w/c space on some buses, to provide a larger area for carts and strollers, to ease loading and unloading. We have been experimenting with one bus to see if a seating change will make a difference with interior circulation and congestion by the rear door. We have tried 2-1 seating by the rear door. Subjectively, it appears to make a difference and we will have a portion of our 2013 bus order with this configuration. Configuration has changed, increased in size, to improve access for wheelchairs and reduced a number of seats in a low-floor coach Newest buses (added to fleet 2nd half of 2012) have minor changes in seat configuration. 44. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0.0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 25.0% 2 No 75.0% 6 45. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answer 46. Did your transit agency change the door configuration on the bus? Yes 10.8% 4 No 89.2% 33 47. Describe this change. BRT buses had doors on both sides Three door coaches for bus rapid transit

115 In 2008, all 2-door articulated buses replaced with 3-door articulated buses. Introduced three-door articulated buses in 2010. No changes to standard buses 48. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0.0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 100.0% 4 No 0.0% 0 49. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answer 50. Did your transit agency switch from lifts to ramps for wheelchair access? Yes 78.4% 29 No 21.6% 8 51. What percentage of the fleet was affected? Average: 73.8% Median: 80.0% 65% of fleet has a ramp 77% 100% The percentage is 57%, same as low floor buses. All vehicles purchased after 2000 were delivered with wheelchair ramps. All of the low-floor buses and articulated buses are equipped with wheelchair ramps. 10% Went from approximately 65% of fleet being low-floor to 95% [Prior to 1996, the regular fleet comprised only non-accessible buses. 237 lift-equipped buses were purchased in the 1996–1998 period. All buses purchased since 1998 have been low floor (ramp-equipped) buses. There are currently 1626 low floor buses, comprising 87% of the fleet. The 237 lift-equipped buses comprise the remaining 13% of the fleet.] 100%. The low floor buses are all ramp buses. 60 % of fleet now has ramps instead of lifts. 59% Gradual conversion of high-floor fleet to low-floor fleet. All fixed-route buses now low-floor except for cutaways on shuttle routes and over the road coaches on express routes. Acquiring as we replace our fleet. Approximately 80% have ramps 100% as of 2011 Approx. twenty percent 50% 100% 90% All low-floor buses equipped with ramps (65%). Others have lifts. 95% All low buses have the ramps, so 85% of fleet 90% 58%—ramps come with low floor buses. Small part of the change to low floor buses. 30% See earlier answer re low-floor buses. Almost 100% of the fleet is now low-floor, except for over the road coaches used exclusively in commuter express service. 90%

116 All new buses are low-floor; high-floor buses will gradually be retired as new buses are introduced. All low floor buses have ramps, about 60% of non-commuter bus fleet 52. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 3.4% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 27.6% 8 No 69.0% 20 53. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 54. Did your transit agency allow bicycle storage inside the bus? Yes 18.9% 7 No 81.1% 30 55. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0.0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 12.5% 1 No 87.5% 7 56. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answer 57. Did your transit agency make any other vehicle-related changes intended to improve bus speed or reliability? Yes 8.1% 3 No 91.9% 34 58. Describe this change. See previous comment Units were spec for our region (desert) We’re actually in the process . . . implementing Transit Signal Priority with local jurisdictions on two major corridors in our service district. 59. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 33.3% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 33.3% 1 No 33.3% 1 60. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 100% 1 Other includes: (1) Again, the TSP feature will start to be implemented in 4th quarter 2013. We’ve created base line data with existing service schedules and route performance in order to compare it with TSP once it’s implemented.

117 ACTIONS TAKEN – SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS 61. Did your agency take any of the following actions with regard to bus schedules? • Adjust running time • Change recovery time policy (e.g., as % of running time) • Use headway-based instead of time point-based schedules Yes 94.3% 50 No 5.7% 3 62. Did your transit agency adjust running time, either on specific routes or systemwide? Yes 98.0% 49 No 2.0% 1 63. Approximately what percentage of routes were affected? Average: 44% Median: 30% Running time adjustments done based on the ad hoc requests—operator input predominantly. No follow up completed. 15% In the past we made changes to 14 weekday/Saturday routes. We are in the process of updated all of the routes systemwide 15% 50% 5% Approximately 10 percent of all routes have had recent running time adjustments. All suburban transit routes and most city transit have been adjusted. With each operator sign-up, reviewing and adjusting 10% of routes (~7 of 70 lines). Sign-ups 3x per year. 50% 5–10% 5% 11 of 13 routes We monitor running times on an on-going basis using CAD/AVL data. Over the period of the last 5 years the running times on almost all schedules have been updated. 25% 10–15% 59% All routes are monitored for on-time performance. Run time is added as a last resort as budget allows. 25% We are adjusting travel times every service change on one line or another in order to improve overall on-time performance overall, not just to speed up buses. In the course of a year probably 1/3 or more of all lines are adjusted. 15 50% Numerous routes running times have been adjusted in the past 12 months in effort to improve on-time performance. This is being done in conjunction with transition from manual observations to use of AVL data as the basis for on-time performance. Five percent 10% 100% 100% 30% Approx. 50%

118 We typically make schedule-based adjustments to routes during three service changes per year. The vast majority of our routes have at least been adjusted for better performance in the last five years. 20% Over 50% of the routes were affected over the past 3 to 5 years. 20% 50% 25% 99%. We are constantly adjusting our schedules to make the scheduled running time match the reality on the street. Usually we add time. Over the various pick cycles, will be 100% weekday, lesser on weekends. 80% 100% 75% Running times are adjusted annually as part of annual service change. We constantly monitor and adjust running time for specific routes/trips when there is a chronic on-time performance problem. 20 15% 10% 30 50% 100% in a three-year cycle 64. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 31.3% 15 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 39.6% 19 No 29.2% 14 65. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 11.1% 2 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 44.4% 8 No impact 0.6% 1 Other (please specify) 38.9% 7 Other includes: (1) the adjusted schedules only made the schedules more realistic. It decreased the speeds (2) Except for our rapid bus line (3) Difficult to segregate impact on those adjustments made in last 12 months from broader changes to bus service net- work. There are fewer routes than 5 years ago, and more of the routes serve main arteries, with fewer community based circulator routes. (4) In some cases speeds were improved due to bus stop consolidation, in others the changes in schedules were to provide more time (slower speeds) in response to congestion. (5) Mixed bag. For the majority, it meant a reduction in scheduled speed to match increased traffic (vehicular & passenger). For others, it meant decreasing running time to match actual speeds (operators are not penalized for running ahead . . . system culture. Sigh.) (6) We add and remove running time at most sheet changes (for us sheet change is 4 times per year) In some cases speeds increase or decrease (7) There was no systematic change of bus speeds. WE altered most of our service and it had an impact on on-time performance which is what we measure. 66. Did your transit agency change recovery time policy (e.g., as % of running time)? Yes 16.7% 8 No 83.3% 40 67. Describe the change. Adjusted so that 90% of trips could depart next trip on time To improve scheduling efficiency, layover was reduced by 25% (2010 to 2011) 5 minutes Reduced accidents

119 Allowance for 10 to 15 minute recovery time depending on delays identified. 10% of Headway We have not changed our policy on recovery time. We allow 7 minutes or 15% of the one-way running time, whichever is greater. However we have recognized that on some of our longer routes with high variability in running time, the policy recovery is not enough. On those few routes (about 3) we have “added a bus to the schedule.” The improvement is in the on-time performance of the route— how well the scheduled running time matches the actual running time, rather than reducing running time and increasing speed. The main impact on schedule adherence is to make it more likely that a trip will start on time, one of the main factors of what the on-time performance of the trip will be. We don’t have a policy regarding recovery. We try to maintain 10% but for the most part our system-wide recovery is much higher than that. Some peak blocks may have lower than 10% recovery Have introduced or increased recovery time on 2 selected routes 68. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 22.2% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 78.8% 7 No 0.0% 0 69. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 50.0% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 50.0% 1 No impact 0.0% 0 Other (please specify) 0.0% 0 70. Did your transit agency change to headway-based instead of time point-based schedules? Yes 8.2% 4 No 91.8% 45 71. Describe the change; how many routes were affected? Two city routes were changed from a time point based to a headway based service. We did this only for our rapid bus line 15 Only for BRT and selected limited-stop routes 72. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 22.2% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 78.8% 7 No 0.0% 0 73. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 100.0% 1 Other includes: (1) This was part of the rapid bus line design which included many elements of BRT; no element was measured individually. 74. Did your transit agency make any other scheduling-related changes to improve bus speeds? Yes 22.4% 11 No 77.6% 38

120 75. Describe the change. Constantly reevaluating mix of local, limited and express routes to maximize efficiency On-board GPS system tracks schedule adherence in real time. Moved the relief points to the end of the line for several routes. We moved away from clock based headways, which effectively assumed the same running time throughout the day, to customize run- times by trip or blocks of trips. This allowed us to elongate runtimes in high traffic periods, while reducing runtimes in lighter traffic periods. Increased use of estimated timepoints (if bus arrives at timepoint early, can immediately proceed to next timepoint). We adjusted time points to improve efficiency We monitored interim run time speeds at time points and adjusted the schedule so that buses were not waiting at time points and were not running ahead of schedule Introduced practice to develop layover based on running time volatility. (Did not change policy, as previous question asked, but changed practice) Implementing BRT-light service on four major transit corridors We added recovery in most cases but not by policy. We also adjusted run times to match AVL reported average travel time. Measured timing between time points—route segments—to improve upon service schedule and on-time performance. 76. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 36.4% 4 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 36.4% 4 No 27.3% 3 77. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 25.0% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 75.0% 3 Other includes: (1) Reliefs normally takes 3–5 minutes. Created running time charts before and after. (2) These will go into effect in 2014 and should improve operating speeds by 5–20% (3) Again, our measurement was on OTP, not speed. ACTIONS TAKEN – ROUTE ADJUSTMENTS 78. Did your agency take any of the following actions with regard to route design? • Streamline routes • Implement new limited-stop service • Implement BRT service Yes 76.8% 43 No 23.2% 13 79. Did your transit agency streamline any routes? Yes 90.7% 39 No 9.3% 4 80. Approximately what percentage of routes were streamlined? Average: 19% Median: 15% 5% 5% 10 30% 5%

121 40% of the suburban routes were affected by a route restructuring since 1999. A limited number of city routes were changed over the past 15 years. 10% 30% 15% 20% Very few in the past. We are in the process of streamlining a large number of routes to integrate with three new rail lines. Varies from time to time. In Fall 2010 ~20% of all routes 5% 20% 16% 5 5% 33% Two percent 10% 75% 25% Six of our 25 express bus routes (about 24%) About 5%–10% 30% 8% Less than 25% 3% of local routes (3 routes). Obvious streamlining opportunities are rare. < 5% 75~80% Converted two routes to express routes 10 4% 20% 15 15% Route-specific changes, no overall policy changes 81. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 15.8% 6 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 47.4% 18 No 36.8% 14 82. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 50.0% 3 Increased by 5 to 10% 16.7% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 16.7% 1 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 16.7% 1 Other includes: (1) In the last year, we redesigned several routes to increase efficiency, coverage, and speed. In some cases, route segments were transferred between routes.

122 83. Did your transit agency introduce limited-stop service on any routes? Yes 42.9% 18 No 57.1% 24 84. Describe the change. How many new limited-stop routes were implemented? 6.40% Some express service was introduced on 4 routes 2 Four routes were created as limited-stop routes (three city, one suburban). Expansion of 1 additional line (9L) “Four routes in the past five years: - 41E KEELE (express branch added to existing route), - 60E STEELES WEST (express branch added to existing route) - 145 DOWNTOWN/HUMBER BAY EXPRESS (new express route) - 199 FINCH ROCKET (revised express route)” Just one route—the 45 was implemented as a limited stop route to enable three buses to provide 30 minute frequencies. One limited stop service was implemented two years ago. Another limited stop service is proposed for implementation later this year (2013). One limited stop BRT line In 2012 one new limited stop line was added between downtown and the casino. Runs Friday & Saturday evenings between ~7:00 p and ~3:00 a. 1 4 One route (route to the airport) We have implemented one new limited-stop route and on two other limited-stop routes we have increased service and coordinated them more explicitly with a local route. 1 in last 5 years, but have others. One Created 4 new limited stop routes 1 Approximately 40 limited-stop routes introduced incrementally since 1975. Four or Five routes in the last several years 85. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 22.2% 4 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 38.9% 7 No 38.9% 7 86. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 40.0% 2 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 40.0% 2 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 20.0% 1 Other includes: (1) It wasn’t really a change. This was a new line operating on a street that already had service, so times allotted because of the limited stops was less from day one by approximately 4.4%. 87. Did your transit agency introduce or add BRT service? Yes 26.8% 11 NOTE: 1 not yet implemented; Table 14 on p. 43 reports 10 No 73.2% 30 88. Describe the change. How many new BRT routes were implemented? What elements of BRT were included? BRT will be introduced by October 2013. Two BRT routes will be introduced

123 2—Limited stops. These routes do not operate on a fixed guideway. Another limited BRT route will be added in 2015 Two BRT routes were implemented ~ pretty much all elements of BRT were included Our BRT network has expanded over the years. It now includes 7 routes. “York University Busway (196 YORK UNIVERSITY ROCKET): — Construction of a dedicated busway (in an electrical transmission corridor and on university lands) along part of the route — Conversion of existing HOV lanes to reserved bus lanes along other parts of the route — Construction of a new (more direct) access to the subway station bus terminal — Implementation of TSP at some traffic signals on the route — Limited stops — All-door loading and seamless subway-to-bus and bus-to-bus transfers at Downsview subway station (similar to previous service)” One BRT line. Limited stop, peak service only every 15 minutes, branded, real time information at the stops. Upgraded shelters 4 BRT routes. Real-time signs, off-board fare transaction, transit signal priority, bus lanes, transit signal queue jumps, bus stop spacing, and route streamlining Based on MAP-21, we have been told it does not meet the definition of BRT (<50% exclusive ROW). We do, however, have level boarding, TSP, limited stop, separate brand, and are weighing off-vehicle fare payment. Route 350 was converted to Rapid bus service in June 2011. Low utilization stops were eliminated/consolidated. All but 2 stops were upgraded in terms of passenger amenities. Transit signal priority system was implemented. A short queue jump lane was implemented approaching Escondido Transit Center. Vehicles and stops were branded. Real time schedule displays installed at 8 locations. Two routes covering four corridors. BRT elements include signal priority, premium 60' vehicles, upgraded stops, real-time passenger info, all-door boarding (with pass), limited stops, and dedicated lanes in the downtown area. To be implemented in 2014 2 routes with limited stops, queue jump lanes and signal priority Four routes since 2008. All have bus lanes, low-floor buses and wide stop spacing. Three have articulated buses, three have off-board fare collection, two have TSP, and bus bulbs are being built on two corridors. 89. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 46.2% 6 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 30.8% 4 No 23.1% 3 90. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 14.3% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 57.1% 4 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 28.6% 2 Other includes: (1) Estimates only at this point. 5–20% reduction in travel time anticipated. (2) Varies from 15–23% depending on route, direction and time of day 91. Did your transit agency make any other route changes to improve bus speeds? Yes 26.2% 11 No 73.8% 31 92. Describe the change. We’ve installed emitters on all buses, installed transit signal priority receivers in one corridor and worked with the City to program existing receivers where possible. Realigned routes to stay on major arterials, removed diversions from routes Route optimization in 2011 eliminated duplication along some routes and replaced circuitous routings with more direct service. This increased some walking distances to access service, but decreased on-board travel time along certain routes. Streamlined some routes Rerouted one route to trunk with a 2nd to speed operation of both routes & also to provide additional capacity. As part of its Mobility Plan (COA) changes, the agency has focused on making route deviations to traffic generators only when there is sufficient demand. Previously, routes for the most part operated the same alignment all the time. Opened new HOV direct access ramps and freeway stations, allowing maximum use of freeway HOV system. Changed primary operating corridor and received permission to utilize shoulder lanes on said corridor.

124 Truncated some routes to light rail stations, thus those routes don’t operate in downtown area any more. We transferred some segments to allow sufficient time to extend the length of one shuttle route. Some routes were shortened, and others were consolidated with others (effective September 2012). 93. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 18.2% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 36.4% 4 No 45.5% 5 94. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 33.3% 1 Other (please specify) 66.7% 2 Other includes: (1) Evaluated change in terms of decreased travel time rather than increase in speed. (2) We kept the same head- ways but added to the length of route. We also revised some routes within a larger jurisdiction and made those routes shorter to improve reliability and maintain desired headway along select segments. ACTIONS TAKEN – INTERNAL POLICIES 95. Did your agency change any of the following internal policies? • Allow all-door boarding • Allow off-board fare payment • Change pricing to encourage shift to prepaid fare media • Introduce or discontinue fare-free zones or eliminate fares entirely • Change bus door practices (e.g., introduce passenger-actuated doors, change policies re operators re-opening doors after beginning to pull away from a stop) • Change transfer policies • Change hold policies at transit centers Yes 52.7% 29 No 47.3% 26 96. Did your transit agency change boarding practices to allow all-door boarding? Yes 24.1% 7 No 75.9% 22 97. Describe the change. All routes except for cable car. Started July 1, 2012. Only applied to two super busy college based routes Only on bus rapid transit All-door boarding is used on modern double-decker buses which have conductor on board to monitor back door. Only on the upcoming BRT routes We allow all-door boarding at the downtown stops on pay-leave express routes. This has been in effect for 15+ years, so it is not a recent change. Only on three BRT services 98. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 28.6% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 28.6% 2 No 42.9% 3

125 99. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 33.3% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 66.7% 2 Other includes: (1) This has reduced boarding time to 2 seconds per passenger, a savings of 3–4 seconds per downtown boarding. (2) off-board fare collection increased speeds by 9%. 100. Did your transit agency change fare payment practices to allow or require off-board fare payment? Yes 27.6% 8 No 73.4% 21 101. Describe the change. Does it apply to all routes, or only to selected routes? Implement a higher fare payment when purchased on the vehicle to encourage the purchase of fares at a ticket vending machine or outlets across the valley Off-board fare payment no fare collection (fare inspectors only) on BRT service implemented Prepaid media (smart card) Simplified zone system applicable to all routes. Encourages use of weekly & monthly passes. All routes Demo project conducted using phone based payment system applied to all routes, being considered for full deployment We instituted weekly and monthly passes as a fare option, along with a regional fare payment system on our big bus services. Only for three BRT routes 102. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 11.1% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 55.6% 5 No 33.3% 3 103. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 50.0% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 50.0% 1 Other includes: (1) off-board fare collection and all-door boarding in tandem save 9% of running time. 104. Did your transit agency change pricing to encourage use of prepaid fare media? Yes 75.9% 22 No 24.1% 7 105. Describe the change. Price for the adult ticket and weekly pass have been increased Added Family Pass, Day Pass. Higher fares when purchased on the vehicle Agency has been using pre-paid fare media since the 1990’s. Beginning in 2014, agency will be introducing an open payment fare collection system using pre-paid fare cards, paying with credit/debit cards or cell phones. A discount for tickets and smart cards over cash fares. The price of our unlimited ride monthly pass, in relation to single fares, has been reduced, from a previous multiple of approximately 52 rides per month to approximately 46 rides per month. Also transit passes are eligible for a federal income tax rebate, which has effectively reduced the price of passes for customers with moderate and higher incomes.

126 Discontinued numerous fare media types and changed to cash and prepaid smart card See previous. We sell 24-hour passes off the bus for $4 vs. $5 on board; We have and continue to provide a large discount on pre-paid media to encourage non-cash transactions. 72% of boardings are now non-cash boardings, up from 66% four years ago. Monthly passes have been put on Regional Smart Card Increased the discount by 15% Reduce weekly, monthly pass Smart Card, Magnetic Swipe, with 3, 7, 15, 31 day options. Value added Smart Cash Cards also available. Starting selling Day Passes Require exact fare. Previous to this our bus operators made change for customers. Switching to the electronic fare cards as a stored value card gives a 10% bonus at the time of purchase. Lowered fares for smart trip card holders relative to cash fares. Changed fare structure to strongly encourage the use of a day-pass. Use of daily (on board), weekly, and monthly passes and regional fare payment card MetroCard fare discounts were introduced in 1998 and increased ridership, but this slowed buses down even more. No real changes since 1998 106. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 4.5% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 27.3% 6 No 68.2% 15 107. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100.0% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 108. Did your transit agency introduce or discontinue fare-free zones or eliminate fares entirely? Yes 20.7% 6 No 79.3% 23 109. Describe the change. Increased base and zone fare. Day, monthly, and annual passes, and discontinued discounted media Eliminate ride free area in downtown (Oct 2012) New route introduced in 2011 is fare free. We offer free rides in the downtown zone on two local routes that end downtown. This was done to increase ridership, which it has. The increased ridership has decreased bus speed. Eliminated fare free zone in downtown core and changed to pay as you board standard. Before, outbound paid on exit. Effective September 2012, zones were eliminated. Now two fare types only: 2 hour or all-day. 110. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 50.0% 3 No 50.0% 3 111. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers

127 112. Did your transit agency change bus door practices (e.g., introduce passenger-actuated doors, change policies re operators re-opening doors after beginning to pull away from a stop)? Yes 10.3% 3 No 98.7% 26 113. Describe the change. At some busy downtown stops where buses line up, bus operators are told to stop once and avoid multiple stops, unless it is for a disabled customer. Buses once they pull away from the stop cannot reopen the doors. On three BRT routes bus operators open all door routinely 114. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 66.7% 2 No 33.3% 1 115. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers 116. Did your transit agency change hold policies at transit centers? Yes 24.1% 7 No 75.9% 22 117. Describe the change. Slightly expanded span of time for allowable transfers at major downtown station We operate a timed transfer system in off-peak & weekend periods. In those periods all routes have previously been schedule to meet. Longer suburban routes, had difficulty making the line-ups. System change involves more frequent service on core urban routes & not holding line-ups for the suburban routes. Wait for transfers up to 5 minutes. 5 minutes beyond if coming from connecting intercity route only for last trip of the day. Intersecting routes may communicate passenger desires and hold for those transferring passengers. Commuter Service will hold for arriving trains, or late night special events. Max of 5 minutes Bus operators are not to hold longer than 10% of their headway times. One route that gets seriously behind is not allowed to hold up other routes and get them seriously behind schedule to enable transfers. It inconveniences some riders, but at least fewer than before. The call is made on a case by case basis by a supervisor. 118. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 28.6% 2 No 71.4% 5 119. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100.0% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 Other includes: (1) off-board fare collection and all-door boarding in tandem save 9% of running time. 120. Did your transit agency make any other internal policy changes to improve bus speeds? Yes 10.3% 3 No 89.7% 26

128 121. Describe the change. Per previous comments. Allowed strollers, walkers etc. to remain open when boarding the bus. No radio use to hold up other buses. We have started to offer electronic fare cards. These are very popular with our express riders and we have been able to cut the scheduled boarding time at some park-and-ride lots because of them. We have not achieved as great penetration on our local routes. Exceptions are the local routes that serve the University campus. We have partnered with the U to let students have pass cards for a reduced fee. This has not allowed us to increase bus speeds, but it has allowed us to not reduce them. We can empty and refill a low-floor artic with a standing load in the amount of time it used to take for a high-floor 40' bus. 122. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 33.3% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 0.0% 0 No 66.7% 2 123. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 100.0% 1 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 EXTERNAL POLICY CHANGES 124. Did your agency achieve change in any of the following external policies? • Bus-only lanes on arterial streets • Signal priority/queue-jump lanes • Yield-to-bus laws • Signal timing • Turn restrictions • Parking restrictions • Other external policies affecting bus speeds Yes 59.3% 32 No 40.7% 22 125. Did a municipality served by your transit agency implement bus-only lanes on arterial streets? Yes 38.2% 13 No 61.8% 21 126. What type of bus-only lane was implemented? Curb lane 64.7% 11 Median offset lane 0.0% 0 Fully separated lane 5.9% 1 Other (please specify) 29.4% 5 Other includes: (1) Bus pass by shoulder lanes that were added on the Highway 403 segment (not arterial roadway). HOV Lanes on the Highway 403 exists with the special policy in place when to be used (Max Speed allowed is 60km/h; to be used only when the speed of the existing traffic on the highway is less than 60km/h). (2) Exclusive transit left-turn lane; counterflow transit only lane on one-way street. (3) Coming in 2014 for BRT routes and other routes over time. (4) Exclusive transit lanes in transit mall, plus limited curb shared right-turn-only/bus lanes in other areas. (5) There are 70 miles of bus lane in the city, approximately 10 miles are offset lanes and the remainder are curb lanes. There are about 10 miles of physically-separated lanes on expressways 127. Describe the change. How many routes are affected? One

129 Bus lanes have been in effect for many years on downtown corridors such as Geary Street. Approximately 15 miles of lanes exist covering about half of routes. Two BRT routes Two frequent routes have benefited from reserved bus lanes recently added in the last year. “York University Busway (196 YORK UNIVERSITY ROCKET; 4 other routes also travel all or part of the reserved bus lanes):— Conversion of existing HOV lanes to reserved bus lanes along Allen Road/Dufferin Street [Note that several HOV lanes (and some reserved bus lanes) were implemented several years ago benefitting many bus routes]” Varies, depending on location. Downtown surface streets bus lane benefit more routes than suburban streets Just our rapid service 8 Transit-only left turn lane provided access between arterial and exclusive busway; used by 3 agency routes, 8 partner agency routes. Counterflow lane used by 1 full-time agency route, 5 peak-only partner agency routes. Two routes initially; many routes will use the corridor in the future We have all three types of bus-only lanes, however most of them are curb lanes on freeways with a very few on arterials. Mostly they are for the benefit of express routes. Other benefits for express routes are dynamically priced/carpool lanes on two interstates, a down- town transit mall and a center crossover station on the one freeway. We had to severely curtail service to another freeway bus station to maintain our running time into downtown. To make a long story short on that, it doesn’t work to combine median lanes and shoulder lane stops on the same section of freeway. The advantages for local routes are a contra-flow lane through downtown that currently benefits 4 routes and a bus-only transit mall for 5 local routes. Approximately 50 routes affected by transit mall. Additional 2–5 routes affected. Most routes are on a bus lane somewhere 128. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 7.7% 1 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 53.8% 7 No 38.5% 5 129. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 0% 0 Increased by more than 10% 100.0% 1 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 0% 0 130. Did a municipality served by your transit agency institute signal priority or queue-jump lanes for buses? Yes 66.7% 22 No 33.3% 11 131. Describe the change. How many routes are affected? We have implemented The Spur, a pseudo-BRT. It has TSP, fewer stops (but not really limited stops), NextBus technology, stop- specific signage and articulated buses. However, you still pay fare onboard and it still travels in a regular traffic lane. The queue jump bus lanes are being under construction at the moment Expanded TSP to 200 intersections total affecting 20% of routes. Two BRT routes with numerous signals and a few other routes had singular traffic signals changed A few routes have benefitted from transit queue jumps and TSP in the past year. “In the past five years, TSP has been installed at several isolated intersections where buses make left turns (benefitting buses on 15 routes). Two types of Left Turn TSP have been installed: 1. Buses may call and extend a leading left turn green arrow that is not callable by other traffic (i.e., if there are only autos in the queue, they only receive a green ball, allowing them to only turn ‘permis- sively’, whereas a bus is in the queue will call a leading ‘protected’ phase, and extended as necessary, to a maximum). 2. Buses may extend a leading left turn green arrow phase (which is callable by autos or buses) to a much greater extent (typically 16 seconds) than autos can extend the phase. An existing queue jump lane (westbound Finch at Finch Station) was lengthened, benefitting two routes. [Note that prior to 2008, TSP was installed: — At the majority of intersections along five bus routes (typically green extensions and red truncation) — At several isolated intersections where buses make left turns: Left Turn TSP was installed (typically as described above) benefitting buses on 25 routes]”

130 Only our main route—and two regional routes—are affected by the queue-jump. Works great. However, the impetus was Safety and driver concerns more than speed—the configuration of the intersection is less than optimal. Signal priority and queue-jump at a couple of locations for the BRT line. Also implemented TSP (green light extension) on a large number of intersections Improved reliability Varies, depending on location Just for our rapid route. As part of an MPO-sponsored project, signals were upgraded with signal priority in one city for route 350. We have had signal preemption for a number of years. System is being upgraded this year. Used only when bus is three minutes behind schedule Currently in testing phase. Would affect up to three of our heavily-traveled routes through the City. Corridor with 2nd highest ridership route was outfitted with signal priority. Operator hits button to obtain advantage at signal. He doesn’t control signal, but he gains an advantage if he is running behind and hits button. BRT routes initially, others over time Many freeway on-ramps have queue-jump ramp meters for buses and carpools. Again, something that benefits express routes for the most part. We have traffic signal priority in one corridor, benefiting 3 routes. However, it is set so the bus must be late before it gets priority so it has reduced variability in running time more than it has reduced running time. However, in preparation for the TSP imple- mentation, the city upgraded the signals to ones with more “intelligence”. Specifically they now detect if there is anyone on the side streets that is waiting for a green light rather than having a set signal cycle. This seems to have had a more positive impact on running time than TSP itself. Off Same 2 BRT/limited stop routes We are close to implementing TSP (starting later in 2013). It’s taken 3 years to get to this point and has required cooperation between 5 local entities and 3 emergency service agencies. This will affect 4 routes (3 are trunk routes and 1 is a secondary (neighborhood route). Currently, two 1 Approximately 50 routes affected. Signal priority on approximately 300 signalized intersections within core city. Approximately 10 queue-jump installations throughout service area. 10–15 routes are affected 132. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 39.1% 9 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 26.1% 6 No 34.8% 8 133. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 45.5% 5 Increased by 5 to 10% 18.2% 2 Increased by more than 10% 9.1% 1 Decreased 0% 0 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 27.3% 3 Other includes: (1) The speeds indicated above relate to the immediate vicinity of the intersection. (2) As I mentioned in a previous question, we’ve established current base line data for these routes and will be using that information to track results. (3) TSP in tandem with bus lanes works more effectively. 134. Did a municipality (or other entity) served by your transit agency introduce “yield-to-bus” laws? Yes 38.2% 13 No 61.8% 21 135. Describe the change. The yield to bus policy was implemented in 2004. Operation Section reported faster, smoother merging back to traffic in the adjacent lane. Driver population awareness improved as well.

131 Cars are supposed to yield to buses as they return to traffic lane from serving bus stop. Blinking yield signs installed on all buses Drivers in Ontario must let buses back in traffic when a bus is departing from a bus, so long as it is safe to do so. [Note that Yield-to-bus legislation enacted in Ontario in 2004; replaced local voluntary yield-to-bus program.] State did. We purchased and installed signs several years ago. Yield to Bus was presented to Police Jurisdictions and supported. We have had a state law that buses have the right-of-way leaving a stop since 1993. We have had stickers on the bus informing motorists of this since 2006. So far, we haven’t noticed any improvement. Added yield to bus signs activated by door event and left turn signal. Oregon allows transit districts to use “Yield to Bus” illuminated signs on buses for pulling away from stops. Even though it is a statu- tory law very few, if any, law enforcement agencies actually enforce the law. Yield to bus is required when bus turns on signal to reenter traffic This actually already exists in Washington State. I’ve simply noted it again since it has existed for many years. All buses have red flashing “yield to bus” signs on the left rear of the bus. Installed since at least late 1990s. State law 136. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 15.4% 2 No 84.6% 11 137. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers 138. Did a municipality served by your transit agency introduce signal timing? Yes 41.2% 14 No 58.8% 20 139. Describe the change. Bus timing priority at transit hub during off hours. Progression changes on Geary and O’Farrell to favor transit. Multiple jurisdictions on BRT routes introduced signal timing Signal timing is routinely reviewed if delays to transit are reported. Revised timing plans are implemented when feasible. Synchronized traffic signals, upgraded hardware, and changed signal cycle We have had signal preemption for a number of years Some signals now hold green for up to 30 seconds for approaching bus. Improved on time performance The city has embarked on a city-wide signal retiming effort to improve traffic flow in general. Transit has been identified as a key stakeholder. When we have a signal timing issue, we will bring it to the entity that owns the signal. Sometimes we point out something that has been mis-set and a correction is made very quickly. Sometimes, a resolution takes much longer. The most recent traffic signal retiming was on the express route transit mall. Increased downtown cycle time from 75 to 90 seconds. TSP implemented by various municipalities. We work with 5 jurisdictions regarding signal timing. Much of it is basic tweaks over the years to accommodate bus service on local streets. It doesn’t always occur but we do have a basis for asking for assistance when/where it’s needed. Signal timing was changed to accommodate signal priority (within the City). Other signal timing modifications may have impact on transit speeds. Many arterial streets have signal progression. This is a continuous process of optimization 140. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 50.0% 7 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 43.7% 5 No 14.3% 2

132 141. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 37.5% 3 Increased by 5 to 10% 37.5% 3 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 12.5% 1 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 12.5% 1 Other includes: (1) Speeds are not measured, but rather delays to transit customers at intersections. 142. Did a municipality served by your transit agency introduce turn restrictions for vehicles other than buses? Yes 26.5% 9 No 73.5% 25 143. Describe the change. Left turn restrictions during peak hour throughout city. Changes to improve BRT passage at conflict points When needed and it is feasible, buses are exempted from certain turn/movement restrictions. City recently changed traffic lanes on a major arterial and they restricted through traffic except for transit. All others must turn right. Turns in urban areas that are shorter than normal are controlled by street striping controlling where cars are to stop on a red light allow- ing sufficient space for bus to turn and infringe in opposite lane. Bus counterflow lane included general purpose traffic turn restrictions at intersections. In the downtown core of the City, there are turn restrictions for vehicles between 7 am–7 pm that transit coaches are allowed to make. General purpose traffic is subject to right turn restrictions on the transit mall. At many locations left turns are banned and at some locations right turns are banned 144. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 33.3% 3 No 66.7% 6 145. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers 146. Did a municipality served by your transit agency introduce parking restrictions? Yes 23.5% 8 No 76.5% 26 147. Describe the change. Parking restrictions on busy corridors to accommodate bus lanes, parking restrictions at bus stops. Parking spaces have been removed to facilitate bus turning movements. The County intensively manages curb space and restricts parking by bus stops. On-street parking restricted during the peak period to make room for curb bus lane Installed No Parking on some segments that were narrow and caused buses to wait for on-coming traffic. This enabled the bus to continue without delay. Parking restrictions to enable turning movements by buses and passenger stops are an on-going give and take between the transit agency and the municipalities. However, we have been working with the city to identify places where parking can be restricted during the peaks so that parking lanes can be converted to travel lanes. These would not be exclusive for buses however. Peak period parking restrictions on major bus routes. AM and PM reverse directions On many arterial streets there are peak hour no-standing zones to increase traffic flow and thus bus speed.

133 148. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 0% 0 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 25.0% 2 No 75.0% 6 149. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? No answers 150. Were there any other external policy changes that affected bus speeds? Yes 17.6% 6 No 82.4% 28 151. Describe the change. Geometrics changes to intersections to reduce bus delays. Also, [Note that several years ago, before all buses were equipped with TSP transmitters, we’d made specific requests to add callable leading left turn green arrow phases for selected bus movements operating in mixed traffic, including at locations where the local “warrant” for a leading left turn phase was not met by traffic volumes alone. In these cases, a former “permissive-only” turn was changed to “protected-permissive,” callable via a set-back vehicle detector loop (i.e., three or more cars, or a bus, in the queue would call the left turn green arrow). This resulted in significant decrease in average and maximum left-turn delay at these intersections, which increased speeds in the vicinity of these intersections.] Downturn of the economy has resulted in reduction of service which has slowed bus trips due to increased ridership. This hasn’t occurred yet but several Coastal communities are adding or are considering adding sharrows in traffic lanes. Tolls were introduced on the SR 520 bridge in Dec. 2011. This reduced bus travel time an average of 5 minutes during peak times. The state passed a “don’t block the box” law in the last two years modeled on the one in effect in New York City. So far it has been difficult to get the City police to make it a priority to enforce the law. They would like to do a public information campaign first and so far that has not been funded. There are many locations where the City has introduced pedestrian plazas, pedestrian refuges, curb neck-downs, general traffic calming measures and bike lanes. Obviously these measures slow traffic as that is their purpose. In some cases this has slowed bus service. But it is sometimes helpful to bus service as it makes accessing bus stops easier and safer 152. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 33.3% 2 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 16.7% 1 No 50.0% 3 153. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 33.3% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 33.3% 1 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 33.3% 1 Other includes: (1) as discussed, good for the city as whole but possibly bad for bus speed. 154. Did your transit agency or any municipality served by your agency take any other actions to improve bus speeds? Yes 19.6% 11 No 80.4% 45 155. Describe the change. Communities worked with us to develop land use designs which limit off street movements within developments. Expansion of bus bulbs, use of queue jumps, boarding islands to remove transit from right turn queues, use of real-time GPS tracking to deploy traffic management resources When needed and as opportunities permit, roadways are redesigned to minimize transit delays due to traffic congestion. Proactively implement bus transit priority measures

134 Bus speeds are predominately governed by the congestion of this community. Most routes run at moderately low speeds due to this congestion. Developed ways to monitor individual operators and address behavior issues affecting speed. The state passed a “don’t block the box” law in the last two years modeled on the one in effect in New York City. So far in has been to get the City police to make it a priority to enforce the law. Grade separation pedestrians/traffic at Euclid & Broadway. Table Mesa pedestrian overpass. The City is conducting a downtown mobility study that includes the movement of transit vehicle, pedestrians, and bicyclists in the central business district. Transit Signal Priority (as mentioned previously) is currently getting close to the implementation stage after 3 years of working through the issues/concerns. Preparing to construct infrastructure improvements to increase route efficiency, speed, and pedestrian safety adjacent to two major highway interchanges. Completion planned within year. The agency is deploying a new CAD/AVL system for buses that is expected to provide additional tools for bus dispatchers to manage bus headways and performance. 156. Did your transit agency measure the effect of this change on bus speeds? Yes 25.0% 3 Did not measure this separately; measured the effect of a package of changes 33.3% 4 No 41.7% 5 157. What effect did this change have on bus speeds? Increased by 0 to 5% 0% 0 Increased by 5 to 10% 33.3% 1 Increased by more than 10% 0% 0 Decreased 33.3% 1 No impact 0% 0 Other (please specify) 33.3% 1 Other includes: (1) We will monitor TSP results on a regular basis, which I expect will start up in earnest in 2014. 158. What metrics were used to measure the overall impacts of all changes implemented? Change in average bus speed 34.5% 19 Analysis of components of travel speed (dwell time at stops, time stuck in traffic, etc.) 32.7% 18 Schedule adherence 92.7% 51 Operating cost 30.9% 17 Ridership 52.7% 29 Qualitative measures from passenger surveys 25.5% 14 Other – please specify 16.4% 9 Other includes: (1) The contractor who sold us on TSP tried to collect data to measure the results of TSP implementation, but the results were inconclusive at best and disappointing at worst. Anecdotally, the bus operators think it helps at some intersec- tions and actually hurts at others. The problem is that the transit agency only controls the emitters and not the receivers or the programming of the controllers. City traffic signal engineers are not experts in bus transit and we’re not experts in traffic signal timing. We don’t even have the staff to monitor and make sure the controllers are all still working. We’d need to hire a consultant, an expert in the field but right now we have bigger fish to fry. (2) Internal staff rode routes that were experiencing low schedule adherence. Currently in the metropolitan area, we have many routes that are and or have been affected by long term construction. (3) Person-minutes are used instead vehicle delays to determine the need for road improvements. (4) Travel time on segment corridor (5) Change in travel time. This metric directly affects customer satisfaction and operating costs (service costs based on vehicle hours). (6) Other forms of passenger comments (7) Some modest review & analysis of customer comments (8) Discussions with operators. (9) We measure all this stuff. Also time and delay studies and analysis of AVL data on selected routes. 159. Please describe the overall results of all actions taken. If your agency only took one of the actions described here, note that here; you do not have to repeat your answer. Table 20 on p. 60 summarizes results. Verbatim responses are included here. Bus speeds are generally lower on affected routes.

135 Our on time performance has increased in a number of areas that we serve. Actions have helped prevent significant decreases in bus speeds, but overall, bus speeds are dropping slightly and it seems mostly related to ridership increases including increases in ridership of persons with disabilities using wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Since 1999, several route and schedule adjustments were initiated to reduce expenses, improve a route’s operating ratio, reallocate resources and to generate additional passengers. In terms of schedule adjustments, the agency utilizes CARD-RSA and APC data to determine changes in running times between timepoints. Depending on the on-time performance of a particular route(s) follow up adjustments are made. Bus speed on BRT route is approximately 10–15% faster than comparable regular service When considering person-delay instead of vehicular delay, transit needs are given greater weight. Generally, different actions targeted to specific routes or intersections, with little overlap, so answers not repeated. There was con- siderable overlap of actions for the York University busway, generally reported above: significantly reduced average travel time and variability in travel time; buses could be removed from service while maintaining (or improving) scheduled headway. Schedule Adherence is improving. However, publishing a timetable reflecting reality occasionally has a depressing effect on ridership (wider headways). We have seen a general increase in running times over the past several years. This appears to be due to several factors including new fare boxes, more frequent use of kneelers, operator turnover and an apparent increase in roadway construction. Improving the traffic signals had the greatest impact We have been forced to reduce our service and hence have seen reduced speeds due to increased PPH on most routes. Line up system operating more efficiently. Chronically late bus lines no longer adversely affecting shorter, urban routes. Urban routes @ 20 min. headway frequent enough to shorten wait for late suburban passengers. Prior to rapid bus service, we were looking at using additional buses and a longer cycle time to add bus bunching: 9 buses on a 90- minute cycle. We started with a 7 bus/70-minute cycle with a 3 bus/90-minute cycle for a local service as well. We have trimmed the 7/70 to 6/60 except for the busiest times of the day and are weighing if OVFP will save enough time to go to 6/60 all day. It is extremely difficult to isolate individual components impacting bus speed. We have purchased low floor buses, adopted bus stop spacing standards and stretched distance between stops, adjusted travel times, and streamlined service. But often, when taking these actions, they’re not in isolation—we’re adjusting travel times, changing bus stop spacing, and sometimes removing small deviations all at the same time. Every four months operators can select their work, meaning different operators with different driving styles. When we purchased our first low-floor buses the back doors operated so slowly that operators didn’t want to run those buses—it caused them to be late. Our overall scheduled speed (scheduled miles/scheduled revenue hours) for local lines decreased less than 2% 2007 through 2012, and during the same period ridership on local lines increased 17%. The overall ridership change 2007 to 2012 is an increase of 23.77%. The steps taken have enabled us to maintain our speed through major periods of growth rather than increase our speed. Bus ridership has increased over past 2 years. On-time performance is gradually improving. There has been a slight increase in operat- ing cost and a slight decrease in-service speeds system wide. Bus speeds have decreased but more time is allowed so on-time performance has improved. Improved on-time performance, Reduction in accidents, Greater customer satisfaction, increased ridership. The overall effects encountered are that schedule adherence improved by 35% even with traffic and environmental factors that create delays. Bus speeds were improved to within 5% of posted limits. Bus network was designed from the beginning to be long haul, limited stop express system. We have been careful not to add stops, and have closed low-ridership stops. Over past 5 years, have opened six freeway HOV direct access ramps and/or freeway stations; these facilities had the most significant impact on speed and travel time by making maximum use of freeway HOV system and avoiding congested arterials. While OTP has decreased, mostly due to a large increase in ridership, we continue to make adjustments to improve performance. We still have difficulty keeping routes on schedule, but overall routes are adhering to schedules more. Incremental adjustments are being made to schedule timepoints and less frequently adjustments are being made to dwell time. These adjust have minimal long term affect on schedule adherence. Small adjustments have been made to certain routes and some removal of bus stops and changes in spacing. This transit system is ready to embark on a more rigorous route evaluation which could result in removal of bus stops and service areas and/or adjustments to headways to keep schedules on time. On time performance of fixed route vehicles, measured at all time points, is currently averaging 94% Some changes are fairly recent, such as shoulder lanes on a new operating corridor. So the total impact of such a change will not be fully known for a while. OTP improved to 86% in recent years. The overall result has been positive but some of the changes are still pending. This will be an area of increasing focus over time as congestion continues to impact bus speeds and service quality. One of our primary measures of the quality of our service is our schedule adherence. Since we have been tracking it, it has mostly improved, especially on local service. We were initially surprised to realize that our schedule adherence was much better in the winter than the summer. When we looked closer we realized that during the winter, except during snow storms when nothing runs on time,

136 we did pretty well. During the summer, there are so many events and detours that we never knew when a bus was going to get to where it was supposed to be. Unfortunately, most of the things we have done to improve our on-time performance has actually slowed our service down. See above Schedule adherence improved Modest results. Currently there has been very little change in bus speed (low of 12.57 / high of 12.86). A complete system redesign was conducted in 2009 with a goal of streamlining service to maximize service delivery on a restricted budget. This process started over with a blank slate and built the service from the ground up. Implementation took place over the Labor Day weekend in 2009. On-time performance increased from 705 to currently over 7%. We have not taken actions specifically to increase systemwide average bus speed. Introduction of low-floor and articulated buses was mainly for other reasons. Schedule adjustments are constantly made where there are chronic on-time performance problems. Over time performance measures are used to analyze and, where possible, to improve upon existing service. Our overall intent has been to improve service speed and capacity along the major corridors served in our district. These are typically trunk routes and have the largest passenger loads and passengers per hour within our system. The results on specific routes has seen up to a 65% increase in rider- ship over the past 5 years (add more service frequency and larger buses) and a 25% increase in on-time performance on some routes. On the principal route, on time performance on the primary route improved from one of the worst in the system (83%) to one of the best (92%). Other measures were combined with a service increase to reduce crowding. Efforts on other routes were less comprehensive, and have not produced results that can be attributed to the measures. Due to limited staff, a number of major road reconstruction projects happening concurrent with stop spacing changes and the lack of CAD/AVL data, we have not taken up a system-wide approach to measuring the effect of stop-spacing and route streamlining efforts. However, research elsewhere indicated they were efforts that would positively impact speed and reliability so they were undertaken. The outgrowth of these actions have helped grow ridership which has in turn impact travel times on some routes But anecdotally they are much better of late than if these actions had not been taken. Improved route design, coverage, and ridership CBD bus speeds and schedule adherence increased or improved from before transit mall construction to after. Signal priority imple- mentation appeared to result in reduced travel time variability. By aggressively employing all these actions we were able to mitigate the decrease in speed on some bus routes, reversing the trend. On BRT routes we were able to increase speeds in a noteworthy manner 160. Did your agency contemplate but not implement any actions to improve bus speeds? Yes 56.4% 31 No 43.6% 24 161. Please indicate all actions that were considered but not implemented. Table 21 on p. 62 summarizes results. Increased bus stop spacing 41.4% 12 Level boarding at major stops 17.2% 5 Changes in stop design or length 13.8% 4 Changes in stop location 27.6% 8 Low floor buses 3.4% 1 Changes to vehicle size or performance 17.2% 5 Changes to interior seating configuration 6.9% 2 Changes to door configuration 3.4% 1 Use of ramps instead of lifts for wheelchair boardings 3.4% 1 Bicycle storage inside the vehicle 10.3% 3 Streamlined route design 17.2% 5 Limited-stop service 27.6% 8 BRT service 44.8% 13 Running time adjustments 6.9% 2 Changes to recovery time policy 10.3% 3 Use of headway-based versus time point-based schedules 13.8% 4

137 All-door boarding 20.7% 6 Off-board fare payment 31.0% 9 Pricing to encourage shifts to prepaid media 10.3% 3 Introduce or discontinue fare-free zones 3.4% 1 Eliminate fares entirely 13.8% 4 Change bus door practices (passenger-activated or policies regarding bus operators re-opening doors for late-arriving passengers) 3.4% 1 Hold policies at transit centers 6.9% 2 Bus-only lanes on arterial streets 41.4% 12 Signal priority for buses 44.8% 13 Queue-jump lanes 27.6% 8 Yield-to-bus laws 6.9% 2 Signal timing 20.7% 6 Turn restrictions 6.9% 2 Parking restrictions 13.8% 4 Other 27.6% 8 Other includes: (1) we have a comprehensive approach for implementing a number of these items in the future, we have an aggres- sive BRT program that will allow us to take advantage of a number of the items listed here. We are also using our intelligent bus system data to analyze not only our schedules but our routings. We have low floor buses throughout our fleet with wide doors in front and rear. We will be introducing an account based electronic fare system that will have touch pass capability. (2) “Various actions: The agency developed the Transit City Bus Plan in 2009, which included: Implementing new express branches on many bus routes—Rapid, extensive expansion of the existing TSP program (1,150 new TSP intersections within 5 years)—Installation of queue jump lanes. The Transit City Bus Plan has not been implemented due to the lack of funding to provide additional transit ser- vices. In addition, the local municipality has indicated that it no longer has sufficient human resources to implement even a modest number of new TSP intersections, for which funding is available. Although there is funding available to begin the implementation of queue jump lanes, these lanes have not yet been approved by local municipal staff, due to competing municipal priorities (such as increasing public realm, tree planting, minimizing pedestrian crossing distances).” (3) Exclusive bus only lanes (4) Concern- ing bus stop spacing, need to clarify. We’re looking to rationalize bus stop spacing based on utilization, not necessarily increase average spacing. (5) The transit system is evaluating—long-term—Bus Rapid Transit, Signal priority for buses, and Queue-jump lanes. These are not within the current 5-year CIP. (6) NOTE: Many of the features listed above will be implemented as part of the BRT project currently in construction. (7) Contactless cards remain an elusive technology for us. 162. Please describe why the actions were not implemented. Table 21 on p. 62 summarizes results. Verbatim responses are included here. Cost mostly. And the only problem with increased spacing or limited stops is ADA accessibility. Budget constraints, property constraints Change in agency priorities. Timing, we have been working our way through the list and in conjunction with our sister agencies and our community partners. No reliable technology for off board technology, transit center not designed for this. Needed the revenue from the fares and no replace- ment funding available. Discontinuing bus stops would improve bus speeds; however, local politics and customer surveys do not support increased walking distances to the nearest bus stop. Relocating bus stops from near-side to far-side are not always acceptable to property owners. Agency staff examined acquiring additional articulated buses, but many of our garages do not have the ability to store or maintain vehicles without acquiring additional capital funds to reengineer these facilities. All-door boarding is not being considered under our New Pay- ment Technologies program due to additional capital and maintenance costs. There are limited opportunities for queue-jump lanes, but also not being embraced by local traffic engineers. Establishing parking restrictions in the central city and the various suburban municipalities are difficult. Customer service and convenience are often given more weight than operating speeds. Vehicle size: Articulated buses were in operation many years ago, but were replaced by 40-foot buses when they were retired. Purchas- ing new artics had been considered for several years since then and was ruled out for various reasons until recently. The first new artics will be delivered in 2013. Parking restrictions: requests for parking prohibitions have not been supported by local politicians. Most of the actions checked are still under consideration. All of the actions have budget or customer service implications. These implications are under review.

138 No support from impacted businesses along the corridor All routes have circuitous routing thru CBD to cover as many activity nodes as possible. New Transit Hub facility opening presented opportunity to streamline CBD routing. Decision was ultimately made to leave CBD routing alone due to perceived backlash re addi- tional transfers. Initially, our board hesitated at possible cost associated with fare checkers; this is being evaluated again. We have looked at eliminating fares for the rapid service assuming most would still have to pay for connecting services but the perception of equity likely will keep this from moving forward. We are in the process of implementing our first BRT. The items listed above have not been implemented yet, but will be implemented when our first BRT line opens in 2014. Bus stop rationalization project will start this year. Limited stop service on local 303 route is a concept at this point. Impact on revenue is a challenge. Still under consideration. Community Opposition In a few areas, we considered eliminating some low-use express bus stops but ST provided the only service so this created barriers to accessibility (no local service alternative). Our busiest bus corridors are being replaced by light rail, so it wasn’t cost-effective to implement bus-only lanes or other expensive treatments if the benefits were realized for only a few years. Usually lack of funds. Logistics coordinating this and more importantly funding. Significant changes have not yet been made to number and spacing of bus stops due to customer resistance. The agency has a policy to transition riders from the more expensive door-to-door service to the fixed route. Fewer bus stops and less frequent bus stop spacing make this goal more difficult to achieve. The above considerations are also why streamlined route design and limited stop service have been considered but not implemented. The agency has also considered adding resources (vehicles and operators) to routes to improve schedule adherence. Years of flat and/or declining budgets have not allowed these actions. In a nutshell, lack of political will continuity. BRT is envisioned as something new and wholly apart from the current system; its day will come. We just did start (last week) a select signal priority location (and results do not appear meaningful). For whatever reason, can’t get yield-to-bus past the state legislature. Some were due to a lack of funding to implement. Others are due to a lack of willingness on the part of the local municipality. Some are on schedule to be implemented but are waiting on further planning and development before implementation. Municipality responsible for implementation. Change of policy (written but never implemented), capital cost These actions are being planned, but have not yet been implemented. This question is asked as if our efforts to improve speed and reliability have an end date in the past and any contemplation that was not acted on was an indication of inaction forever. Many of these items are still under consideration but rely on continue development of political trust, partnerships, revenue sources, staff capabilities, etc. These actions are still being considered for future implementation. We are in the process of implementing a policy that will allow us to increase the average spacing between bus stops, and have future projects planned that will involve dedicated bus-only lanes and signal priority. The agency is currently evaluating future BRT and electronic fare payment. Headway-based schedules are possible with the new CAD/ AVL; once it is fully deployed, the agency may consider it. 163. Please characterize the following elements as major constraints, minor constraints, or not a constraint in implementing actions to improve bus speeds. Major constraint Minor constraint Not a constraint Passenger complaints 26% 48% 26% Operator complaints 11% 51% 38% Safety concerns from operations department 32% 37% 32% Lack of support from upper management 19% 25% 57% Lack of cooperation from outside agencies 33% 41% 26% Competing goals viewed as more important 32% 44% 24% Inability to identify a funding source 54% 24% 22% General reluctance to change 13% 42% 45% Other 25% 75% 0% Other includes: (1) ADA accessibility (2) Neighborhood opposition for example stop sign removal which can improve travel speed but neighborhoods feel they slow traffic and improve general street safety. (3) Lack of support from municipal staff—Major Con- straint (4) Our focus is primarily on Safety and secondarily on Accuracy in On-Time Performance. Buses had to drive too fast to try

139 and keep their schedule on some routes. (5) Staffing–major (6) Business/property owner opposition to parking removal, bus-only lanes, high-volume bus stops. (7) Lack of equipment (vehicles) (8) Lethargy and the in-ability to marshal resources, as we fight fires elsewhere. This (improved bus speeds) is deemed laudable but short of the expansive BRT proposals not deemed that high of a priority. (9) Budget limitations have had an impact on the amount of changes that could be implemented. (10) Note that we have to get approval from the State DOT for any changes associated with on ramps and off ramps. They have different goals and as a larger bureaucracy, feedback can be slow or subject to change. (11) Political more concerned with nimby issues than quality service. 164. Please describe the nature of the major constraint affecting the implementation of actions to improve bus speeds. Responses summarized in Table 23, p. 66 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Money is tight, what more need be said. Major constraint is the impediment of bringing progress in a timely manner. Major constraint brings increase the cost of implementation Time, we are doing what we can in the time that we have to do it. We could argue that we don’t have enough staff or money, but that would be a false claim. We are doing what we can with the resources that we have available to us and we have seen significant improve- ment in a number of areas. The thing that we cannot control is the number of vehicles that share the road with us, nor can we control the timing cycles at intersections (although our work with the State and the Counties related to our TSP program is bearing some fruit on those routes—we are seeing signal optimizations that are improving our speeds in a limited way). Still have not been able to overcome the on-street parking in some communities. Some stops were placed back due to passenger complaints. Operator complaints of running too fast and not enough layover. Operations holding buses too long at transit centers for transfers and not managing late buses coming in. Transfers taking priority over releasing buses. City not wanting to invest in signal prioritization due to costs. No funding if fares eliminated. Wanting to reduce costs on demand response by offering free fixed route rides causing more ramp usage and slowing speeds. With all of the major road construction it is impossible at this time to increase speeds. At times routes are even on detour. The valley also has two light rail extension projects that will be taking place for the next 4–5 years. Lack of funding to add signal priority. We cur- rently have a limited stop BRT and a local route servicing the same road and we are not seeing much of a savings in runtime between the two. In order for BRT to work they need to be on a fixed guideway. Funding is the major constraint. It is difficult to remove/consolidate bus stops without improving key bus stops that have better loca- tions to support higher bus speeds. If there is a lack funding to improve bus stops with shelters and other key amenities, then how do you convince riders of the importance of removing other more conveniently located stops? Bus stop consolidation has been strongly opposed in past efforts to increase stop spacing and to improve bus speeds. More controversial proposals such as bus stop removal can be a major constraint. Our Transportation Master Plan has many competing objectives, with little direction on what priorities should be based on mode of travel. Consequently, transit priority projects are sometimes deferred due to other competing objectives, such as maintaining traffic capacity and providing enhanced cycling facilities. Lack of support from municipal staff for improving transit service, due to: (i) lack of municipal staff resources to implement funded actions (e.g., TSP); and (ii) funded actions compete with other municipal priorities (e.g., queue jump lanes versus public realm) Bus Stop Spacing—consolidation has to be addressed. The regional agency and our agency are gearing up in that effort. Public Engage- ment is a key concern. The major concerns with increased stop spacing are customer complaints, especially elderly and disabled passengers, and the uncertain effect on ridership. The major concerns with traffic signal prioritization are funding and acceptance/cooperation from external agen- cies. The major concern with BRT service is funding. Funding, availability of resources (manpower & time) Individual jurisdictions demands to “get what they pay for” regarding transit service. Sales tax in the County has been declining for 5 years. Our agency derives 70% of revenue from sales tax and our incorporation does not allow us to tap any other sources of revenue. Need to have a champion at local jurisdictions to implement bus priority treatments. Need political support in making transit mode a priority. Limited right-of-way with competing interest, bike lane vs. bus lane. An issue previously described, speed was perceived as less important than customer convenience. Streamlining routes thru the CBD would have forced more transfers. In addition, efforts to give bus priority @ traffic signals have continually been stymied in this com- munity by the City Fire Dept., which controls the Option signal system. Significant political pressure will have to be brought to bear to change that. Overall, we have not had any issue other than complaints about stop spacing tied to the rapid service. While we still operate local service in our rapid service corridor, it runs only 30-minute headway compared to the 10-minute rapid service. We would look to offer more limited-stop services if additional funding was available. The Bus Stop Service Improvement Project—changing spacing of bus stops—was always envisioned as a multi-year project. Given staff available a goal was set to review lines that have a total of 400 to 500 bus stops each four-month service period. Passenger activity at each stop is reviewed and then recommendations made to remove, combine, or move stops in an effort to adhere to the new spacing standards. Notices are placed on all affected stops and left up for an open comment period of three to four weeks. After final decisions are made, new notices are placed on all stops that are changing several weeks in advance of the change. This is labor intensive and so cannot be done all at once, but in smaller bits over a several-year period.

140 Currently there is a strong emphasis on the customer experience and service reliability, particularly with transfers between routes. Much of the running time adjustment over the past year has been focused on increasing on-time performance—to an extent this has lowered average local service in-service speeds. Service Planning is somewhat concerned regarding degradation of speeds, as this contradicts one of the Mobility Plan key goals. Service Planning is also concerned about possible impacts to fleet requirements. Other than Transit Signal Priority measures implemented on Route 350, many of the local jurisdictional policies, especially related to bike operation in general lanes, are potentially going to slow service further. Done all we can short of completely restructuring the system. Difficult to get buy in for that much change at this time. Lack of adequate funding may force this change next year. No fare boarding would be the most dramatic way to speed boarding but identifying a way to replace the fare revenue while sustaining existing revenue sources is a major challenge. Funding source is the number once constraint preventing the introduction of new technologies to improve bus speeds. The community values on-time performance, but does not wish bus speeds to be excessive to achieve. Community tolerates 10–15 minute delays from schedule time points. City jurisdictions will not agree to having BRT or designated high occupancy lanes nor do they wish to have limited stop service, with the exception of Commuter service that serves inter-county corridor. Leisure approach to travel from one end of the service area to the other is favored over tight scheduling. Intersecting route connections are preferred over expedience. Actions that achieve the greatest increase in bus speed may have significant construction, economic and operational impacts on the community. We have reached the limit to our annual budget Mostly it is funding, because each route has only one bus on it causing the bus to stop more frequently for passengers at all times of the day. If we could afford to put additional buses on certain routes, at least at peak times, I feel that overall individual buses would not have to stop as frequently. Safety, such as loading and tying down wheel chairs, is a major constraint in the implementation of actions to improve bus speeds. Inability to identify a funding source for expanding operations to add vehicles and operators to routes experiencing problems with schedule adherence is a major constraint. It is increasingly difficult to keep schedule adherence due to increased ridership and increased traffic on roads. The agency is considering seasonal time adjustments as one approach to this problem. This could mean that headways would be increased lowering levels of service, if additional funding is not available. We have been battling with construction projects in our area. All major arterials are under some type of construction State budgets have been tight, and our MPO, who also is the region’s largest operator, has made it more difficult for Opt out/suburban providers to receive funding/support for measures that will increase bus speeds in suburban areas. Safety is a big constraint. I think it is more important to design routes so drivers have time in the schedule without having to drive faster. Funding is the biggest issue. The biggest challenge is convincing municipalities of the need to give transit priority, whether it be through the dedicated ROW or other means. While there are good relations and an understanding of the need, the willingness to take a lane from general traffic or make significant investments in transit priority has been limited. As I said in the last text box, one of our main measures of service quality is schedule adherence. The easiest way to achieve that sched- ule adherence is to add running time. If we try to maintain on-time performance while reducing running time, there are many competing interests that make that difficult. For example, we are currently trying to improve schedule adherence on a small 1-mile downtown corridor without increasing running time. We have identified many factors that contribute to the problem. A few of them we have some control over (operator behavior). Some of them the city has control over (signal timing), But most of the issues are either the behavior of car drivers, and getting the police to allocate more personnel to enforce those traffic laws has not been an easy sell, or the issues are related to the behavior of private businesses along the corridor and getting their cooperation has also not been easy. It seems for almost every measure that is proposed, there is a competing issue that may be as important to a municipality, a business or another department within the organization, which makes it difficult to enact. Operational funding is very limited in the local area. This constraint limits opportunities for any operational innovations that would increase overall operational costs. Budget issues Cooperation and support to move forward. Competing interests and limited funds to do it all. Other service planning considerations given higher priority than simply increasing average systemwide bus speed. Limited local tax funding revenue, which we rely on for our transit system in terms of sustaining existing service. This is especially hard during these past few years due to the downturn of the local (and national) economy. We had been planning major capital facil- ity projects/improvements, which will most likely be delayed or simply not completed. And we cannot meet current service demands without the expansion of our operating base to accommodate a larger fleet. With the new MAP 21 requirements placed on small transit systems we anticipate even harder times ahead. We will however, continue to look for service improvements and cost reductions in order to improve upon the sustainable service that we have developed for the communities we serve. Increasing traffic and ridership make it difficult to improve bus speed. Just holding speed constant is a major challenge. Coordinated transfer route design limits the ability to add a small amount of time to a route to improve on-time performance. If there is not a major new revenue stream (i.e. increase in tax rate by vote of the citizens) then we will be cutting service. We do not have extra revenue to make major capital investments otherwise.

141 There is a lack of understanding among some members of our staff as to the extent to which internal policies such as fare pricing and collection, stop spacing, and inefficient routes with unnecessary turning movements impact bus travel speeds. Implementing other ele- ments such as signal priority and dedicated lanes has proved difficult to get support for and coordinate with multiple local agencies. It has historically also been very difficult from a public relations standpoint to remove bus stops. Recent service reductions have postponed progress on improving travel times, streamlining routes, and re-spacing stops. Agency prior- ity is on restoring service. Too much traffic, too much double-parking, too many vehicles parked in bus stops and extreme difficulty in obtaining data to prove or disprove the value of any actions. 165. How would your agency rate the actions taken to improve bus speeds? Very successful 5.8% 3 Somewhat successful 53.8% 28 Neutral 32.7% 17 Somewhat unsuccessful 7.7% 4 Very unsuccessful 0.0% 0 166. What have been the primary benefits of these actions? Responses summarized in Table 25, p. 71 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Reducing the time spent in traffic congestion. Improve operation. Make Bus service more attractive to population. Reduce cost of offering transit service. Minor improvement (less degrade) in running times for one route with significant stop reduction. Better on-time performance on routes with re-timing, but not better speeds. Improved on time performance and reliability They have offset actions that have slowed bus speed such as increase in mobility impaired riders and bus maintenance issues of trolley routes and new operator learning curves. Changing runtimes have helped with schedule adherence, but not necessarily reducing speeds Maintaining existing frequencies and high ridership without increasing operating costs. Improved reliability and a renewed sense of cooperation between the transit agency and the City to improve transit speeds. Suburban municipalities do not generally understand that improving transit speeds is a benefit to their communities. Improved customer experience and more consistent running times for scheduling Less cycle time for BRT service Improved service reliability is achieved when transit travel speeds are normalized throughout the day. Reducing schedule variability is just as important as improvements to transit speeds along congested arterial corridors. While service continues to be delayed during peak periods due to high passenger demand, the impacts of traffic congestion on the road network can be greatly reduced. Contrary to the general trend of decreasing bus speeds, on selected corridors and at selected intersections, speeds have increased, in some cases significantly. In some cases (e.g., TSP on a corridor, or BRT) operating costs have also been significantly reduced. Either (i) one or more buses have been removed from service while maintaining the headway, or (ii) additional capacity has been provided without additional buses. The main strategies have to be: 1) bus stop consolidation; and 2) recruiting single-occupancy auto drivers to other modes. Primary benefits to date include better on-time performance and less speeding by operators Improved service reliability, improved efficiency Improve travel time reliability More consistent line-ups have led to greater customer satisfaction. Our new Hub, with dedicated platforms for bus lines, has greatly decreased customer confusion & sped loading times. Generally, where we have been able to streamline routes, we have been able to maintain operating speeds. Other routes have required more resources to combat the impact of congestion. As noted above, we’ve been able to pretty much maintain speeds during a period of significant ridership growth. Bus operators who drive major bus lines already evaluated for bus stop spacing indicate it is easier for them to operate the bus smoothly. They indicate they are no longer still accelerating from one stop when beginning to slow down for the next. These comments were made at the end of one of our Service Delivery/Scheduling Committee meetings with absolutely no prompting from the management side. It was very rewarding to hear, even though it doesn’t show in the actual speed numbers. On some routes, we went from a “plain vanilla” route that always operated the same way all the time to tailoring operating route vari- ants when they were warranted. The goal of this strategy was more to save revenue miles rather than to improve running times. The strategy has been effective in that it has offset service increases elsewhere in the system, such that local bus services have just had a modest increase in the past 18 months.

142 Schedule adherence and better customer service Better on-time performance. Improved on-time performance, Reduction in accidents, Greater customer satisfaction, increased ridership. Improved service, satisfied community, acceptable customer service, cost efficiency, high ridership. Transit travel times between major destinations in the region have been reduced significantly. Major corridors have travel times com- petitive with driving alone during peak times. Faster system has resulted in better productivity and cost-effectiveness. Most corridors have service all-day, 7 days a week, which has increased market penetration and resulted in a healthy mix of trip purposes. OTP has not gone down as much as it might have, given the ridership increases. At least the problem is not getting worse, even if it is still there. Bus speeds have remained about the same over the past five years. Prior to that time, streamlining routes was a priority, and most of these changes have been achieved. The system has been improved as much as it can be improved without destroying levels of service (e.g. longer headways and/or reduced service areas). Actual route performance closely mirrors printed schedule book. Better on time performance Improved quality of service. Main benefit is faster travel times for customers. Reduced operating cost is also a major benefit. In the last 5 years, out main focus has been on improving the on-time performance of our express routes and making sure that we have the capacity to grow that aspect of our service. These efforts have been fairly successful. The efforts directed at our local routes have been less focused and therefore less successful. Reliability improvements Modest results. More customer convenience with quicker and more direct trips, fewer incidents due to driving on smaller streets, increased ridership on higher frequency corridor routes. Improved on-time performance and schedule reliability We are keeping up with the congestion, but not getting any better Improved on-time performance. Improved transfer connections at a transit hub. Reduced driver stress as well as customer complaints/ comments. Maintaining speed of service with increasing ridership and traffic A more rational stop spacing; more rationale route design; ridership has increased even as service was cut On the corridor where we were able to implement limited stop service, running times were significantly decreased, and overall reli- ability was improved as a result of having fewer stops along the route. More dependable service, better schedule adherence. Increased ridership and more service possible at same cost 167. What have been the primary drawbacks of these actions? Responses summarized in Table 26, p. 72 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Educating the stakeholder about the change Passenger complaints about stop consolidations. We haven’t really experienced any drawbacks, some customer complaints initially about increased walking distance between stops but that went away Construction To a degree, the comfort and reliability of the service are compromised. Customer complaints when stops are eliminated or consolidated. Community complaints over parking restrictions. Property owners complain when bus stops are relocated from near-side to far-side. Drawbacks vary by improvement type. Stop removal reduces access and is the most controversial for our agency. N/A Capital funding to make infrastructure changes is limited. No response Too great an emphasis on speed results in complaints about unsafe driving. We’d rather avoid the complaints. Also, longer headways. None

143 Reduction of service as a result of achieving on time performance and realistic bus speeds. Suburban route riders sometimes miss connections. Our urban service is frequent, but no one’s ever happy with a 20 minute wait. For riders who have further to walk or longer wait times, there is obviously less satisfaction. For those that benefit from faster trip times, satisfaction has increased. Disgruntled passengers who do not want their stops removed—although this has been held to a minimum given the process we are fol- lowing. Also, low-floor buses have fewer seats, so the seating capacity of buses has decreased, causing more standees on crowded buses. n/a We have adjusted running times in the past 12 months to improve OTP, and are starting to see improvement in overall OTP as measured by the AVL system. The cost has been some reduction in average weekday in service speed. Some stops have been dropped and routes shortened which has affected customers. Service degradation: some areas have longer distance to access certain routes and some routes now have 1-way loops that require out of direction travel. Haven’t seen any yet System is slow, time points are not met 100% of the time, high ridership that overwhelms certain routes. Freeway-based system relies too heavily on park-and-rides; park-and-rides are full, limiting future system access; also, TOD potential is limited with a freeway-based system. OTP is still decreasing. They have been too little. Ridership and traffic is increasing and we will face the same problems again soon Lack of on-time performance and reduced credibility to customers. Some people have to walk a little further to access a bus stop More cost Less frequent stops for some routes. Few drawbacks to date. Some customer concerns about stop consolidation, but relatively limited. None that I can think of. None Customers have to walk further to a bus stop, limited coverage in lower density areas. In some cases it has lengthened headways which has had a negative impact on our customers. Our minor tweaks are seen as some as “good enough”. Had to relocate a number of bus stops. And in doing so had to invest additional funding to improve ADA accessibility at the new stop locations. Not comprehensive enough Some people resent you for a long time. Adding limited stop service increased operational requirements, as we still run local service along the same corridor. Increased walking distance for passengers (when stop spacing is increased), more transfers required (when routes are shortened or altered). Some actions are expensive to implement, such as off-board fare collection. Headway-based schedules are highly unpopular with road supervision, despite obvious increases in speed. We are working against continually decreasing supervisory resources. 168. What was the most successful action taken, and why? Responses summarized in Table 27, p. 74 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Limited Stop Service. It has the immediate response—acceptance/complaint from transit patrons. N/A Creating the designated stops and eliminating the flag stop on most of the routes. But moving to far side stops as part of the designated stop program was really so intrinsic that we think of it as the same action Low floor buses with ramps. Faster boarding and low maintenance. Work with your contractors/operators to gain input on runtimes needed to improve schedules Consolidating and removing bus stops. We could not afford to adequately improve and maintain more bus stops than we already have today. The action which has yielded the most time savings has been headway based schedules during peak hours (City Transit Routes). Even “testing” a route with headway based schedules can uncover running time savings.

144 TSP, speeds vehicles and has minimal impacts Signal priority & timing. No fare collection. At-level boarding. Backward-facing wheelchair without straps on BRT buses. Dedicated BRT guideways Reserved bus lanes and dedicated transit corridors are the most successful in insulating the impacts of traffic congestion on transit service. By providing reserved space for transit on the roadway, transit customers are able to bypass traffic congestion and travel by transit becomes more competitive with automobile travel. Most successful high-cost action: BRT – replaced highly variable and lengthy travel time, predominately in mixed traffic, with a much shorter, and much more consistent travel time (an electrical transmission corridor was available to bypass the most congested portion of the route and two left turn movements with extremely high delays). Most successful moderate-cost action: TSP on a corridor—very good speed improvement, given relatively high level of priority granted to buses. Most cost-effective action: Left Turn TSP—for a rela- tively low investment (i.e., given that selective detection equipment already existing on our buses), lengthy delays (and high variability in delay) at key intersections can be significantly reduced. Making schedules match conditions Improving traffic signals and TSP Making it a larger program under bus rapid transit, it gains more support politically and likely to get better funding than other projects. Positive and consistent support from local jurisdiction on policy and implementation. Occasionally, one department set a policy and the other department doesn’t embrace it. Fare pricing policy has been designed to encourage weekly & monthly passes. Pass use speeds loading. The changes on our major corridor that brought rapid service and local service. It was an overall increase in hours but addressed some long standing issues. The corridor has always been the most productive service but did not receive an equitable amount of resources. Bus bunching and overcrowding were common. The rapid service has almost eliminated bus bunching, larger articulated coaches have made it so that almost all passengers get a seat, the faster operating speed with less stops have made customers happier. The bus stop improvement program. Makes for a smoother ride, and has the most potential to save time, although it’s very difficult to measure. Establishment of one Limited Stop Route. It seems to be working well. The MPO-sponsored conversion of local route 350 to a rapid bus service. The installation of TSP and queue jump lane has resulted in a 0.5 mile/hour increase in weekday average in-service speed—about 6%. Buying smaller equipment with ramps. More flexible, faster acceleration, better fuel mileage, no lift issues because they have ramps. Nothing stands out. Some actions (route restructuring and stop elimination) have helped improve speeds but at some cost to passenger convenience. In some cases, the ridership impact was minimal, so these would be the most successful actions. We are still in the process of adding signal priority treatment at more signalized intersections, so we don’t yet know if that will be more successful. Combined stops where they had previously been to close due to block length. Bus does not have to stop as much. The Commuter Express service inter-county has been very successful in maintaining schedules, reliability, efficiency, cost effectiveness. Fare Recov- ery on this service has been 97%. Development of planned capital program of freeway HOV lanes, HOV direct access ramps, freeway passenger stations and transit centers; commitment to provide the frequent service needed to make the system function as a network (when combined with local partner agency service). N/A The most successful action was the streamlining of routes in 2005 and 2006, and more recently, improving headways from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on four routes between 2005–2008. Ridership increased on these routes and some improvements to schedule adherence were achieved. Monitoring on time performance on all route segments showed where deficiencies occurred. Using on time (AVL) information to adjust the major offender routes Reduced bus speeds. Safer and more reliable schedule adherence. Signal priority, because it benefited the most riders in a high ridership corridor. Signal priority for BRT routes, now under development, should be best action. The project will not only enable signal priority on the two BRT corridors, but make is possible at other locations citywide. The two most successful actions we have taken are the move to electronic fare payment and the dedicated bus lanes that have been implemented. The single factor that improved and smoothed operations the most is one I don’t recall seeing asked/discussed in this survey. The elimination of paper transfers. Transfers are still permitted, but only through smart cards. That has significantly increased the use of smart card trips, both speeding the passenger’s transaction time as well as driver time spent on such transactions. Cumulatively, this is our single biggest factor. Focusing on providing primary service on major corridors. These locations have a higher number of trip destinations. By increasing frequency on these routes customers are able to have more flexibility in their trip purpose and can have more confidence in using the bus for day to day needs.

145 Implementing an AVL system with average travel time reporting between timepoints by trip. This data has allowed us to identify spe- cific areas of concern and to verify customer and operator complaints. Streamlining routes to operate in a more direct routing, thereby reducing turns has also helped. We adjusted many “meandering” routes. Express service. Customers love it. Easy to use and limited stops make service quicker Simply eliminating bus stops on the heaviest routes means the bus stops less often. We changed route patterns that allowed a reduction in trip times. Basically, cut out some redundancy along certain service corridors and created shorter routing between major transfer hubs. Shortening route and increasing recovery time. I believe stop consolidation on some of our busiest routes was very successful. While they are now seeing greater ridership strain that is causing delays, the operation of the route is more consistent and favored by the operators and riders (with exceptions of course). In some of those cases we took out closer to 40–50% of the stops. Limited stop service, for the reasons mentioned above. Transit mall implementation; increased bus speeds in CBD. Phase out of wheelchair lifts and replacement with ramps and low-floor buses also successful; improved schedule adherence. Off-board fare collection and increased stop spacing 169. If you could change one aspect in the process of designing and implementing actions to improve bus speeds, what would you change? Responses summarized in Table 28, p. 75 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. Transit Management—City departments awareness of the importance of actions (mainly listed) planned (implemented or not) on the Transit Bus Speeds Agency has competing goals: minimizing walk distances vs. faster operating speeds. Improving operating speeds is not a current priority. I would love to have a way to incorporate load data and dwell time into the run cutting and scheduling software. The ATP element of Hastus has proven to be very valuable to look at the best running time, what we will be looking at over the next year or so will be the data that we get from our intelligent bus system that shows how loading patterns impact the speed of the service Easier/accurate way to monitor performance of change. When creating express/rapids or limited stops have as few stops as possible from the beginning. Once stops have been in place it is difficult to remove them. Customers do not typically like change The politics. We need to improve our communicative efforts to generally educate the public regarding the benefits of improving speeds to overcome potential opposition. Streamlined public process Somehow convince local jurisdictions to give us dedicated guideways more liberally & help us at major intersections with more bus- centric solutions Establish transportation infrastructure priorities based on transit needs first instead of trying to fix problems after they develop. No response Rather than approaching bus stop consolidation on a route by route basis exclusively, the initial and periodic pitch should be system wide—build public awareness of the issue. In the ideal world, dedicated bus lanes Commitment to keep the programs going. Running reliable transit service is a significant undertaking. Find some way that we could get our 15 jurisdiction members to cooperate on a common plan for transit in the region not just in their jurisdiction. Incorporate the transit priority guidelines in the MUTCD. Often local jurisdiction doesn’t want to implement extra ordinary measures outside MUTCD even though they know it will benefit transit. Need traffic signal priority for buses. To dig deep into the causes for changes in bus speed takes time, and therefore staff. Having more staff available to devote to this cause would be helpful. Use APC data to profile bus stops by route and relocate stops to match demand Elevate the understanding internally within the agency regarding why it’s important not to let bus speeds degrade, in terms of transit’s attractiveness to the user, and why we should be trying to improve bus speeds. Process and reluctance to consider changing routing structure. More curb extensions so that buses can make stops without pulling out of traffic. Have dedicated lanes Dedicated bus lanes throughout the county.

146 Some portions of the express bus network use major arterials. Few improvements are planned for these arterials that will increase transit speed and improve transit reliability. N/A Increased capital and operating and capital funding to add vehicles to keep schedule adherence. In the future, bus lanes, signal priority, off board fare payment. None More distance between stops Would like queue jumpers to be more accepted where we operate Not sure. All door boarding at heavy stops combined with TSP. As long as traffic is moving smoothly—even if heavy—buses will move smoothly, even in mixed traffic. But stops/stop activity can be killers. Reduce the stops, speed up boarding at heavy (not all) stops and facilitate moving in and out of free-flowing, albeit slow, traffic and you’ve not only sped up service, you’ve made it more reliable. Need systematic approach to analysis. Identify a funding source that would allow the successful service segments to be implemented throughout the entire service area. n/a The requirement to always conduct vehicle traffic modeling. Bus stop location and spacing. Plus any technologies such as bus preference on major arterials. We have a pretty good process in place. It can be frustrating at times since operating a public service needs to account for many dif- ferent elements when initially identifying issues, reviewing and considering options, choosing a strategy, seeking and getting approval and then implementing a course of action. But one thing that is always a significant challenge is funding a project. During these hard economic times it seems it’ll be getting worse before it gets better. Not sure. Allow the scheduling and operations staff more decision-making power in the management of bus stops and route structure. Employ systematic stop spacing and consolidation. Better, more accurate, more timely data 170. Please describe any “lessons learned” that would benefit other transit agencies that are considering implementation of similar actions. Responses summarized in Table 29, p. 76 of report. Verbatim responses are provided here. If you are thinking about Transit Signal Priority, it’s much harder to design something that works than you think. You can’t just install it, turn it on and tinker with the programming. It can help at individual intersections that are problematic, but before spending money on a whole corridor, hire yourself an expert traffic engineer to do computer modeling of the entire corridor first. Plan the actions with Project Management process in mind, use the tools and start the actions with the Educating the Stakeholders chapter first. Bus stop consolidation is not easy from a public relations stand-point. Pay attention to left turns, eliminate them when you can, the queuing at intersections takes valuable minutes out of your schedule. Stay out of campuses (shopping centers, corporate campuses, college campuses) really slow you down and expose you to accidents (which really slow you down) Ensure that you are kept in the loop on any construction projects rather than finding out the hard way or when it occurs. Have custom- ers purchase fares before boarding the vehicle and or limit fare types. Add trips if possible. Smaller vehicles are quicker than a larger vehicle. Our experiment to reduce bus stops along a route in a dense residential area with stops every block was unsuccessful due to the number of four-way stop signs at each intersection. Not only did we save little time, but because the bus stopped at every other block without picking up or dropping off passengers we were criticized by the riding public. More outreach at earlier stages of project development is better but doesn’t guarantee success Fully engage & involve all components of your organization in design of BRT system Consider transit speed in relation to traffic speeds to determine if transit is a competitive mode of travel in the corridor. Extremely important to have high level support (within transit agency and local municipality) for actions related to external policies (e.g., TSP and physical transit priority measures) Be prepared to receive complaints about queue-jumps from less-observant car drivers. Make sure you have the resources to implement and operate the actions/systems you put in place. Have the resources to measure and evaluate the impact on continuous basis. Good working relationship and partnership with local jurisdiction.

147 On the bus stop spacing issue, you need to adopt a policy, and then work hard to adhere to it. It takes time to review passenger activity at all bus stops and then make recommendations. It’s important to keep the public involved and consider both public and bus operator feedback. Then taking their points into consideration, revise the changes to bus stops, but only where it makes sense. Often this is not a popular stance with passengers using a particular stop, but overall in the long run it makes for a better ride. The other item to be wary of is the actual physical removal of the bus stops. If there is not proper communication and follow through, stops that should be removed are still standing, or maybe the transit agency bus stop has been removed but the city regulatory signs are still standing. Not having the proper communication and follow through on this front causes much confusion for both operators and passengers. So make sure it’s clearly communicated to the folks doing the work which stops are to be removed—both the transit agency staff, and the respective municipality staff, and then have someone double check their work. Keep communication of goals and plan open to all (union and managements) and invite input. Don’t get so focused on trying to improve the on-time performance metrics that you lose track of trends in bus system speeds. Some issues with ramps and slope, particularly in rural areas. With larger and heavier wheelchairs, ramps sometimes present problems. Check out these issues prior to purchasing. Training to address the higher speeds Know your community and adhere to their desired expectations of the service they wish to have. This will provide a level of support for any improvements, changes, and enhancements planned. Design express bus service to be competitive with driving alone and attract choice riders who are not transit-dependent. Develop HOV or bus-only lanes to increase speed and improve dependability and on-time performance. Plan routes to operate as directly as possible to major destinations. Limit stops—customers will walk farther to access good service. Provide a range of access options at major stops—coordinated local bus connections, sidewalks/bike trails to multi-family areas, in addition to park-and-ride. Lessons learned that incremental timepoint and dwell time adjustments are not long term fixes to the problem of schedule adherence. Attention needs to be paid to passenger origin and destination. Schedule development with proper layover is important. Squeezing cycle time to reduce costs can impact the quality of your service. You have to be careful about it. Having solid data and making a compelling case for why the changes are needed and how they provide broad benefits to customers and the overall mobility for the area are critical. Listen to the public, but also don’t be afraid to make recommendations that did not originate from the public. Often the public will look at just adjusting the existing model rather than thinking “outside the box” for new and innovative ways to deliver service. Design your own report from the AVL system to represent how you schedule vehicles and that match your traffic patterns. Also, increase your speed from the 1st to the 2nd timepoint to allow for faster operators or light traffic days. This prevents operators from hanging back at the end of the line or having to wait at the 2nd timepoint to avoid leaving early. Selling decision makers on “hours saved” can be reinvested back in the service. It takes on-going analysis and attention to detail. A crisis can create similar actions but making changes to routes tends to be incremen- tal. You have to have a clear objective in mind and work toward that goal. Bus operators who initially oppose stop consolidation may become your biggest champions. Riders, too, will begin to push for stop consolidation as they see the benefits to their own commutes. Don’t be thrown off by media attention or the initial complaints. Start with the biggest bang (Phase I of stop consolidation were all the routes with 15-minute frequencies). Decreases in travel speeds need to be recognized as not simply an inevitable consequence of increased traffic and passenger loads, but as something that the agency has the power to affect through their own actions (or inaction). It is critical for staff at all levels of management to understand this concept. Signal priority is more likely to affect travel time variability than to reduce wholesale travel time; that is, it may be unrealistic to expect to save enough travel time to reduce the number of buses deployed on a route with signal priority. Just keep at it. Off-board fare collection in tandem with all-door boarding is highly successful. 171. Would you be willing to participate further as a case study, involving a telephone interview going into further detail on your agency’s experience, if selected by the TCRP panel for this project? Yes 69.2% 36 No 30.8% 16 172. Is there another agency (e.g., City Department of Transportation) that you suggest we contact for this synthesis project? If so, please provide a contact person and an email address. 173. Is there another transit system that you suggest we contact for this synthesis project? If you know of a contact at that system, please list the name also.

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds Get This Book
×
 Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds
Buy Paperback | $68.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 110: Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds explores approaches transit agencies have taken to realize gains in average bus speeds.

The report also identifies metrics pertaining to measures such as changes in travel speed and its components, operating cost, and ridership. It shows the results of each or a combination of approaches implemented.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!