ABSTRACT CONNECTOR BUS SYSTEM. Name: Matthew Denton Crooks, Master of Science, May 2013

Transcription

1 ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: BUS ROUTE EVALUATION AND ROUTE REALINGMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE FAIRFAX CONNECTOR BUS SYSTEM Name: Matthew Denton Crooks, Master of Science, May 2013 Thesis Chair: Dr. Young-Jae Lee, PhD Transportation and Urban Infrastructure Studies Evaluation and improvement methods of bus transit system performance are an ongoing area of study and refinement within the transit industry. Capturing the full scope of system performance through differing metrics gives transit providers a clear picture of where the system is excelling, and where improvement is needed. Current performance metrics in use provide transit planners and managers with data in the areas of ridership, on-time performance, and cost. These measures are used in the industry to make necessary adjustments to bus service, including service levels and routing alignment based on performance data. However, the current performance measures and methods used by transit managers do not always provide the full scope of bus system or route level performance. The research presents a methodology for evaluating route performance through a scoring metric and specific ways to change bus routes, in order to improve performance. Using the defined methodology, two Fairfax Connector bus routes were identified as poor performers requiring route changes. The route changes following the methodology yield positive results for the routes.

2 BUS ROUTE EVALUATION AND ROUTE CHANGE GUIDELINES FOR THE FAIRFAX CONNECTOR BUS SYSTEM by Matthew Denton Crooks A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MAY 2013

3 ii BUS ROUTE EVALUATION AND ROUTE CHANGE GUIDELINES FOR THE FAIRFAX CONNECTOR BUS SYSTEM by Matthew Denton Crooks has been approved April 2013 THESIS COMMITTEE APPROVAL: Dr. Young-Jae Lee, Ph.D., Chair Dr. Anthony Saka, Ph.D. Dr. Celeste Chavis, Ph.D.

4 iii Dedication I would like to dedicate this research to my beautiful wife Julia for putting up with me being hermit for the last three years, as I studied for my masters and for her guidance and support, helping me through the process.

5 iv Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the Fairfax County Department of Transportation for allowing me to change its bus routes. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Young-Jae Lee for guiding me academically for this process. I would like to acknowledge Cathy Grubman for helping improve my grammar and punctuation.

6 v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables.vii List of Figures...ix Chapter 1: Introduction Major Themes Research Objectives and Approach Thesis Outline 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review Current Industry Practice TCRP Synthesis 10: Route Evaluation Standards Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Advanced Analytical Methods Evaluating Bus Routes with Automatically Collected Data Excess Wait Time...30 Chapter 3: Methodology Bus Route Planning Process Data Collection Route Performance Measures Identifying and Selecting Routes for Re-Alignment Bus Route Re-Alignment Re-Aligning Routes by Cutting off Un-Productive Segments Re-Aligning Routes by Extending to New Activity Centers Re-Aligning Bus Routes by Consolidating Routes...48 Chapter 4: Example and Results Data Collection Identifying Worst Performing Connector Routes Routes 333 & Routes 333 & 334 Rider Survey Routes 333 & 334 Re-Alignment Routes 333 & 334 Performance after Re-Alignment Adjusting Route 334 Scheduling to Improve Performance...70 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions...73

7 vi References..76 Appendix A Appendix B...83 Appendix C Appendix D 94

8 vii List of Tables Table 1 MBTA Summary of Service Standards..12 Table 2 MBTA Summary of Bus Schedule Adherence Standards..13 Table 3 Bus Cost-Effectiveness Service Standard...14 Table 4 MBTA Minor & Major Service Changes Table 5 LACMTA Bus Service Performance Indicators..19 Table 6 WMATA Performance Thresholds...21 Table 7 Metrobus Route W-4 Performance...22 Table 8 Performance Measures used by Transit Agencies 26 Table 9 Performance Indicators Table 10 Worst Performing Connector Routes..55 Table 11 Route 333 Performance May Table 12 Route 334 Performance May Table 13 Route 333 AM Origin Destination..60 Table 14 Route 333 PM Origin Destination.. 60 Table 15 Route 334 AM Origin Destination Table 16 Route 334 PM Origin Destination Table 17 Route 333 Performance after Re-alignment...68 Table 18 Route 334 Performance after Re-alignment...68 Table 19 Route 334 Performance with Adjusted Schedules.71

9 viii List of Figures Figure 1 Re-aligning Bus Routes by Cutting off Un-Productive Segments..44 Figure 2 Re-aligning Bus Routes by Extending to New Activity Centers Figure 3 Consolidating Parallel Routes Figure 4 Routes 333 and 334 before Route Re-Alignment...57 Figure 5 Route 334 after Re-alignment Figure 6 Route 333 after Re-alignment

10 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Major Themes The design and evaluation of bus routes and bus networks to provide transit services in an effective and efficient manner is an on-going process for transit agencies and planners. Many transit agencies establish service planning and evaluation guidelines and standards for designing and evaluating bus routes. Often times, these measures are based on collected data by the agency in regard to ridership performance, on-time performance, population density, and revenue generated. Generally, the measures used in service planning are basic and not very advanced. The current measures and methods in most service planning guidelines leave useful information and analytical evaluation out of the picture. When service planning guidelines and standards do not utilize the full potential of the various data, data collection methods, and analytical methods available, planners and management do not have a full understanding of network performance and an ability to fully service users in an effective and efficient manner. Designing a basic planning and evaluation guideline, can provide a robust method for reviewing, evaluating and designing bus routes and service planning. Providing advanced data collection and analytical methods for route evaluation, service planning, and design can create efficiencies for the transit agency and provide better service to transit users. Most transit agencies service planning and evaluation guidelines are built around basic measures that analyze route performance on the basis of passengers served,

11 2 reliability, and service area. Advanced methods for evaluating bus route performance and designing bus route networks have been previously proposed and are discussed in the literature review. The advanced methods proposed for evaluating bus service and planning include the use of automatically collected data. Automatically collected data, provided through the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on transit buses provides data for every trip of the entire system, data which is near impossible to collect without ITS. The use of technologies such as Automated Vehicle Location (AVL), Automatic Fare Collection (AFC), and Automated Passenger Counters (APC), not only provide information on the whole system, but allow for advanced analysis of the data in a short amount of time, which can provide better insight on system performance. The previous work done in those fields and current transit service planning guidelines are further discussed in the literature review with more detail. 1.2 Research Objectives and Approach Currently, the Fairfax County Department of Transportation in Virginia does not incorporate or have any service planning and evaluation guidelines for its public transit system, the Fairfax Connector (Connector). Creating service planning and evaluation guidelines for the Connector based on current industry practices will be the basis of the research for this paper. Determining how and to what degree to incorporate these methods into the service planning evaluation will be the true work. Taking pieces from and making tweaks and minor changes to the evaluation methods presented will allow them to be more easily incorporated into the service planning process. The objective of

12 3 the research is to create a methodology evaluate bus transit routes, determine poor performing routes, and change routes to improve performance. 1.3 Thesis Outline A new service planning and evaluation guidebook will be presented after the research methodology. The guidelines will represent the work of previous transit agencies to plan and evaluate bus route service, while incorporating the advanced evaluation methods to varying degrees. Once the guidelines are presented, they will be tested to insure the goals of providing efficient transit service to Connector passengers and Fairfax County residents. After testing the guidelines for effectiveness, the results of the test will be presented. Finally, an implementation plan for the guidelines to be incorporated into the planning process will be presented.

13 4 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Current Industry Practice TCRP Synthesis 10: Route Evaluation Standards Insight into current industry practice for bus route evaluation standards occurred with the Transit Cooperative Research Project's(TCRP) report, Synthesis of Transit Practice 10: Bus Route Evaluation Standards, published in The synthesis gathered information from transit agencies across the country about bus route evaluation practices. The aim of the report was to find out exactly how many agencies were using specified route evaluation standards. It also exams the types of agencies using specified evaluation standards and to what degree the evaluation standards were being utilized. In order to gather information on the use of bus route evaluation standards, the TCRP sent questionnaires developed to gather data on transit agencies' bus route evaluation standards to every transit agency reporting data to the National Transportation Database (NTD) (TCRP, 1995). This amounted to a total of 297 agencies. Of the agencies asked to complete the survey, 111 (37%) responded with usable surveys (TCRP, 1995). Of those responding, 14.4% were from agencies with fleets of buses, which is the fleet size for Fairfax County. The objective of the review was to not only collect data on current service evaluation practices, but also collect data on performance criteria, office status of service standards, data collected and uses, data collection and review/report cycle, responsible departments, and service performance comparison pre- and postservice change (TCRP, 1995).

14 5 The survey was designed to collect data on the classifications of evaluations standards used and the specific standards used. The survey divided performance evaluation standards into the following classifications: route design standards, schedule design standards, economic and productivity standards, service delivery standards, and passenger comfort and safety standards. Of the route design standards classification, the following evaluation criteria was placed in the questionnaire: population density, represented as the population per square-mile; employment density, represent as the employment rate per square-mile; spacing between other routes; limitations on number of deviations or branches, represents trips leaving the main line; equal coverage throughout the tax base; reduction of route duplications; network connectivity; service equity; route directness. Those evaluation standards are the deciding criteria for where the bus route should go or for identifying bus routes for re-examination. The schedule design standards classification features the following performance criteria: differing levels of service (express, limited stop, etc), differing character of service (local, cross-town, feeder, etc.), maximum number of standees, maximum intervals, peak periods versus off-peak, minimum intervals, and span of service. Schedules for bus routes are built and evaluated around those criteria. The economic and productivity standards classification features the following performance criteria: passengers per hour, cost per passenger, passengers per mile, passengers per trip, passenger miles, revenue per passenger, subsidy per passenger, route level minimum variable cost recovery ratio, and route level minimum costs. The service delivery standards classification is composed of on-time performance and headway adherence.

15 6 Maximum Standees: Maximum allowed number of passengers to stand on the bus. This measure is an indicator if enough buses are scheduled to meet the demands of the route. Missed Trips: Are the number of scheduled trips not operated. Currently, FCDOT defines a missed trip as any route experiencing delays greater than half of the scheduled headway. However, FCDOT is currently as of April 2012 re-working its definition of a missed trip. This is an indicator if there is enough running time built into a schedule for a route to meet its timepoints. The last classification, passenger comfort and safety comprised of: passenger complaints, missed trips, unscheduled extra buses, accidents, and passenger environment condition. Those were the bus route evaluation criteria included in the questionnaire sent out. The report outlines the percentages of transit agencies using the evaluation criteria. The responses sent in by transit agencies represent the extent and use of bus route evaluation performance criteria in the industry. The responses are divided up by use of criteria in each of the performance classifications. The route design performance classification evaluation standards were divided into criteria levels, basic and secondary. The measures consisting of the basic criteria included population density, which 74% of respondents use; employment density, which 66% of respondents use; route coverage, which 66% of respondents use; limitations on number of deviations, which 31% use; and equal coverage throughout the tax base, which 14% use. The secondary criteria included system design considerations (timed transfers, sharing bus terminals), which 18% use; reduction in duplication of service, which 30% use; network connectivity, which 9% use;

16 7 service equity was reported by five systems as being used; route directness (mathematical assessment used to measure a route's deviation from a linear path), which 41% use; service proximate to as many residences, 17% reported using this; and limitation on number of time transfers, 7% reported using this standard. For the schedule design standards, 75% of the responding transit agencies reported using the criterion to evaluate service. Of those reporting the use of schedule design standards: 58% measure differing levels of service; 43% measure differing character of service; 72% implement maximum standee requirements; 53% evaluate maximum intervals; 41% evaluate standards based on peak and off-peak; 85% evaluate based on span of service; and 17% evaluate based on minimum intervals. The economic and productivity standards are the evaluation standards most frequently used when evaluating current fixed routes. Of the economic and productivity standards, the most frequently used are passengers per hour, cost per passenger, passengers per mile, revenue per passenger, route level minimum variable cost recovery ratio, subsidy per passenger, and route level performance relative to other routes in the system. Passengers per Revenue Hour: one of the most widely used performance measures by transit agencies to measure economic productivity. The measure is determined by dividing the total monthly ridership on a route by the amount of revenue hours for the month. This reflects how will the service is utilized based on the service levels. Subsidy per Passenger: measures how much a transit agency is subsidizing the cost of service for the user. The measure is calculated by (Operating Cost

17 8 Revenue)/Passengers. Poor performing routes typically have high subsidies for passengers and identify if the resources (money) dedicated to a route are being efficiently and effectively used Of the service delivery standards, the most frequently used performance criterion is ontime performance. Finally, of the passenger comfort and safety standards, the most frequently used criteria are accidents and missed and unscheduled trips. The TCRP synthesis report reveals information about performance evaluation standards used in bus route evaluation. However, examining a transit agency's specific standards for bus route evaluation and service standard methods is necessary for a true understanding of the practice within an agency Bus Service Standards of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides transportation services, bus, and light rail services in Santa Clara County, California. VTA currently operates more than 80 bus routes, providing more than 100,000 trips per day. VTA has developed bus route evaluation standards to monitor the performance of its local bus routes. VTA operates three types of local bus routes: primary grid, secondary grid, and feeder (VTA, 2007). The primary grid routes have a length of miles and operate on major corridors, providing medium-to-long regional and sub-regional service, linking with major activity centers and regional transit hubs (VTA, 2007). Secondary grid routes have a length of miles and operate on lesser-traveled arterial streets, often connecting with high-density housing or employment hubs (VTA, 2007). The feeder

18 9 service routes are typically less than 10 miles and provide feeder of distribution service to and from major stops, transit centers, activity centers, or rail stations. Examining the evaluation standards used by VTA expands on the information provided in the TCRP synthesis report. The route evaluation standards identify acceptable levels of performance for the fixed route local bus services. Using these measures, VTA can identify routes for modification. All of this is done in the planning and implementation process. The planning and implementation process is used to review the existing bus services and determine if any routing changes are needed. The purpose of the planning and implementation process is the design, implementation, and operation of all Local Bus service through a comprehensive planning process (VTA, 2007). Two processes provide the framework for bus service: the evaluation process and the implementation process. The evaluation process is a two-step process, which gauges the current state of local bus operations. For step 1 of the evaluation process, data on existing local route performance is measured against the established service standards. In step two, an improvement plan is devised and implemented if deemed necessary for the route, by the process of stage 1 (VTA, 2007). The planning and implementation process also outlines the steps necessary for the implementation of new service. Implementation of new service is a process requiring more steps than the evaluation process, seven in total. The steps for implementing new services are: step 1) conduct market research and estimate ridership and revenue potential; step 2) identify and design route alignment; step 3) establish bus stop locations; step 4) design stops, facilities, and street improvements; step 5) develop an operating plan and implementation schedule; step 6) develop a marketing plan and

19 10 brand management strategy; and step 7) monitor service performance (VTA, 2007). VTA outlines the route performance criteria for use in evaluating current and new routes in their service guidelines. In order to identify high and low performing routes, VTA has established criteria and performance minimums for its local bus service to identify the best and worst performing routes. For measuring existing route performance, VTA uses the performance metric of boardings per revenue hour (VTA, 2007). Boardings per revenue hour indicate how well a route is utilized given the amount of service provided. It also indicates the appropriateness of the transit capacity offered. In determining route performance, VTA has established the performance standards of 29 boardings per revenue hour for primary grid routes and 24 boardings per revenue hour for secondary grid routes (VTA, 2007). For bus routes not meeting the existing service criteria standards, those routes are subject to an improvement plan (VTA, 2007). The improvement plan process includes commitments from local communities and certain responsibilities of the VTA to improve the route performance (VTA, 2007). The goal of the improvement plan is to restructure the routes to better serve key trip generators and eliminate unproductive segments. The local commitments included in the improvement plan are to incorporate transit friendlystreets and bus stops in new development plans, improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit facilities, and promote and support transit within the community (VTA, 2007). The requirements of VTA in the improvement plan are to reduce the operating costs, reduce service hours or revenue miles, relocate bus stops to maximize potential riders, and temporarily stop service on particularly unproductive segments (VTA, 2007). If after

20 11 the improvement plan process a route still does not meet the performance standards, then the route will either be considered for community bus service, scaled back to meet the basic needs of the population, or terminated (VTA, 2007). Those are the steps taken by VTA in evaluating bus route performance and steps to improve route performance. VTA also includes steps for implementing new service. In addition to evaluating current bus route performance, the VTA service guidelines outline the steps and requirements for implementing new route service. Before implementing new service, VTA must conduct market research and identify the ridership potential. The goal of the market research is to comprehend the market needs and ridership potential (VTA, 2007). In the market research process the following steps are necessary: identifying major trip generators and origin destination patters within community; types of infrastructure improvements needed; optimal routing and service design characteristics (travel times, route directness, service span, days of operation); and potential locations along the route that generate maximum ridership and revenues (VTA, 2007). Additionally, VTA must conduct ridership and revenue analyses on potential new routes and service segments to assure they meet the performance standards (VTA, 2007). In considering the ridership and revenue analyses, the estimates should be developed through a comprehensive planning process using the Countywide Transportation Model, Transit Service Planning Tool, and other direct demand models (VTA, 2007). Once the market research process is completed and optimal routing and origin-destination pairs identified, the routes must be designed according to the Local Bus Route Design policies. The design policies mandate that routes must connect to at least one major transit hub,

21 12 community core or area of high activity. They also mandate design for optimal operating efficiency by avoiding circuitous configurations and low productivity segments; generally travel on primary and secondary roads; directly serve major activity centers; integrate with the community; and facilitate efficient transfers (VTA, 2007). Once new service is established, the route is given two years to reach the mandated performance standards outlined above (VTA, 2007). However, lines not meeting the performance standards will be discontinued Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority The MBTA Service Delivery Policy outlines the specific performance standards for measuring service and performance standards for proposed bus route alignments. The MBTA offers two forms of fixed route bus service--local bus and key bus routes. Both routes are measured by the same service standards in the Table 1 below: Table 1 MBTA Summary of Service Standards Service Objective Accessibility Reliability Safety & Comfort Cost Effectiveness Service Standard/Guideline Coverage Span of Service Frequency of Service Schedule Adherence Vehicle Load Net Cost/passenger The MBTA outlines the standards for the specific above measures for each type of service. For all bus routes, the coverage standard states that for areas with population density of 5,000 people per square, transit services will be provided in a 1/4 mile walking

22 13 distance. The span of service and frequency of service are determined based on key and local routes. For local routes, the span of service during weekdays is 7:00 AM - 6:30 PM, with Saturday service starting at 8 AM and Sunday service starting at 10:00 AM. The minimum frequency for local bus routes during peak periods is 30 minute headways, and 60 minute headways for off-peak service. The key routes have greater spans of service and frequencies. The span of service for key routes are 6:00 AM - Midnight on weekdays and Saturdays, 7:00 AM- Midnight on Sundays. Frequency of service is 10 minute headways during the peak, 15 minutes during early AM and Mid-day, and 20 minutes for late evening and weekends. The MBTA outlines a comprehensive Schedule Adherence standard set in Table 2 below: Table 2 MBTA Summary of Bus Schedule Adherence Standards Time Point Test Origin Timepoint Mid-Route Time Point(s) Destination Schedule Departure Times Start 0 minutes early Depart 0 minutes early Arrive 3 minutes early (Headways 10 minutes): to 3 minutes late to 7 minutes late to 5 minutes late Walk-up Trips Start within 1.5 times Leave within 1.5 times Running time within (Headways 10 minutes): scheduled headway scheduled headway 20 % of scheduled Running time within For any given bus route to be in compliance with the Schedule Route Test Adherence Standard, 75% of all timepoints must be ontime according to the above definitions over the service period measured.

23 14 The final two measures of service standards are the vehicle load and bus net cost per passenger standards. The bus load standards calls for a 140% load during peak times and 100% during off-peak times. The Bus Net Cost per Passenger standard is outlined in Table 3 below: Table 3 Bus Cost-Effectiveness Service Standard Net Cost/Passenger: Deficient Route: Operating Costs - Service Revenue Boarding Customers 3 times the system average In the service planning process the MBTA evaluates bus routes based on the above mentioned standards. In accordance to the performance standards a route can undergo minor or major changes, depending on route performance. Minor changes in service are those that can be implemented with existing equipment and within the adopted budget. Major changes are those that will have a significant effect on resources and may potentially have a significant effect on riders. Minor changes to bus routes occur in the On-going Bus Service Planning Process, while major changes occur in the Biennial Service Plan. When evaluating the proposed changes, including route alignment changes, the MBTA evaluates and chooses proposals on the criteria of: Net cost per new passenger Net savings per lost passenger Changes in ridership Changes in travel time for existing riders Changes in operating costs Changes in fare revenue Key characteristics and demographics of the market Table 4 below outlines the types of service changes

24 15 Table 4 MBTA Minor & Major Service Changes Magnitude: Type: Resource Implications: Minor Running time adjustments Changes that can be Departure time adjustments implemented with existing Headway changes to match ridership and equipment and within the service levels (provided the frequency and adopted budget loading standards are still met) Changes to bus stop locations Alignment changes Span of service changes within 1 hour or less Route Extensions of 1 mile or less Route variation modifications Major Major service restructuring Changes that will have a Implementation of new routes or services significant affect on Elimination of a route or service resources and may Elimination of part of a route potentially have a Span of service changes greater than 1 hour significant affect on riders The service planning process of the MBTA and service policies presents an excellent framework for building and designing service evaluation and alignment change guidelines for FCDOT. The criteria for evaluating and selecting new services and alignments presents service criteria not found in the other service guidelines in this research. The criteria presented by the MBTA for selecting new service and alignments will be useful in building and selecting new routing alignments for the FCDOT Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority s (LACMTA) 2011 Transit Service Policy outlines transit service guidelines and standards for their

25 16 fixed route bus system. The Service Policy was adopted in order to provide the formal process for evaluating existing services, methodology and process for developing and implementing service adjustments, and design guidelines to ensure the transit system is developed consistent with the policy guidance approved by the Metro Board of Directors (LACMTA, 2011). Included in the Service Policy are evaluation standards and minimum thresholds bus routes must meet. Routes failing to meet the minimum requirements of service standards are subject to service changes or elimination. LACMTA also establishes standards for the design of the transit network in Los Angeles, which is useful in determining routing alignments for the FCDOT that fit best in the capital region. In designing a regional transit network, LACMTA established Key Principles of Network Design. Those principles include: developing a network of services, integrating services, keeping the service simple and intuitive, and ensuring high quality services. Developing a network of services from the view of LACMTA means that transit routes should not serve all the market needs, but be designed to serve a specific purpose within the network (LACMTA, 2011). This should create a network that provides service between all major destinations and densely populated areas. Integrating services in the network includes the minimizing duplicate service and increasing shared bus stops (LACMTA, 2011). Keeping the service simple and intuitive allows for a simple, easy to understand network, requiring coordination of schedules, transfer points, and consolidation of parallel services (LACMTA, 2011). Finally, ensuring high quality services calls for a reliable service that meets passenger capacity needs and is safe (LACMTA, 2011).

26 17 Included as part of the Service Policy, route design standards are established. Though this section of the Service Policy entails numerous factors including service type determination, physical routing guidelines, bus stops, bus lanes, high capacity bus, and bus/rail interface. However, there are two specific measures in the design guidelines which provide a springboard for determining routing alignments: route alignment and route length. The route alignment standards calls for routes that are: Direct for network simplicity and to maximize average speed and minimize travel time. In general there should be no more than 2 branches per trunk-line routes. Route Deviation is when a route is realigned to operate in close proximity of a new activity center such as a rail station or transit center. Route deviation should only be considered if the diversion time in one direction is 5 minutes or less. The route length standards call for routes that: Should be as short as possible to reduce a vehicle s exposure to events that may delay service (e.g. accidents, road construction, or poor weather conditions) and to maintain scheduled travel times to maximize on-time performance. Based on the network design standards of the LACMTA, service evaluation methods were established to best measure how transit routes were meeting these standards, and identifying those requiring service changes. In order to determine transit routes meeting the standards of LACMTA s network guidelines, route service evaluation methods and standards were established to identify the poor performing routes for further evaluation and service change. LACMTA follows a comprehensive evaluation analysis of transit routes using a Route Performance Index

27 18 (RPI) and several service performance indicators, totaling ten performance measures to evaluate service. Additionally, LACMTA analyzes lines by service type, specific time period, and days of operation. The RPI measures effectiveness of services, by evaluating routes on utilization of resources (measured by passenger boardings per revenue service hour), utilization of capacity (passenger miles per seat mile), and fiscal responsibility (subsidy per passenger) (LACMTA, 2011). The RPI is calculated as: Route Performance Index = [(BSH i /BSH)+(PMSM i /PMSM)+(SUB/SUB i )]/3 (1) BSH & BSH i PMSM & PMSM i SUB & SUB i Category average and line specific boardings per service hour Category average and line specific passenger miles per seat mile Category average and line specific subsidy per passenger mile The evaluation of the RPI for LACMTA is a line with a score of 1 or better performs at or above the system average, while a score less than 1; a line performs below the system average. The poor performing routes are those performing below 0.6. In addition to the RPI, bus routes are subject to additional service performance indicators to monitor service. The areas of measure included: availability, quality, quantity, and effectiveness (LACMTA, 2011). Once a bus route is determined to perform poorly, the route is subject to changes either in service level provided, route realignment, or service elimination. In the LACMTA service planning process, an impact analysis for proposed changes is performed to evaluate the effects of the changes (LACMTA, 2011). The analysis defines and evaluates the impact on riders, and develops the appropriate mitigation measures if needed (LACMTA, 2011). The factors measured in the analysis include: service performance, availability of alternatives, and special mitigation strategies (LACMTA,

28 ). From this point the route services are changed following the remainder of the service change process. Table 5 below outlines the performance standards for the bus routes: Table 5 LACMTA Bus Service Performance Indicators Availability Performance Standard Accessibility 99% of Census Tracts should be within 1/4 mile of transit Connectivity direct transfers should be available for Rapid to Rapid and Tier 1 Local to Tier 1 Local connections Quality On-time Performance Routes should be on-time 80% of the time Customer Complaints Poor performing routes those in lowest 15% Quantity Frequency of Service Service should operate at least once an hour Average Load Factor Average no greater than 30% of bus patrons standing Effectiveness Boardings per service hour Poor performing routes those in lowest 15% Cost per passenger mile Poor performing routes those in lowest 15% Passenger miles per seat mile Poor performing routes those in lowest 15% The bus network design and service design guidelines of the LACMTA provide an excellent framework and example of evaluating and choosing alternative routing alignments for poorly performing bus routes. In particular, these guidelines can be used to identify potential streets and route alignments to further evaluate for creating new alignments. The network design guidelines set the tone for how the bus route alignment should fit into the network as a whole. Evaluating proposed routing re-alignments on the basis of integration with the standards of the network design will be critical in ensuring the successful performance of the route and the network. Using the network design guidelines in evaluating bus route re-alignments for the FCDOT will be employed to improve the bus route and the fit to the overall network. Additionally, the service design guidelines for bus routes also prove useful in establishing guidelines and standards for

29 20 evaluating and selecting new bus route alignments. The service design standards speak specifically to route alignment, while the network design guidelines speak to the goals of the routes within the network. The service design standards of route directness and length ensure that the routes are in line with the network goals, as well as provide the framework for selecting routing segments and activity nodes to serve. Incorporating these service design guidelines into the bus realignment evaluation and selection standards for FCDOT allow for the creation of routes serving the greatest amount of people while providing direct service to activity nodes Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) recently established a service evaluation program for measuring bus route performance and making bus route change recommendation. The Service Evaluation Study (SES) looks at certain bus line(s) on a semi-annual bases to study. The SES comprises several steps, which include: performance evaluation, traffic analysis, preliminary recommendations, and public outreach. In this process, WMATA bus planners assess how a route is performing through the performance evaluation, and by distributing surveys to bus riders in the public outreach. With this information, the bus planners gain a snapshot of the performance of the bus route. Route performance is defined by the threshold criteria established in the Summary of Metrobus Service Planning Policies and Service Development Plan. In the Service Development Plan (see Appendix A) the criteria for evaluating performance are: Daily Weekday Passenger Boardings, Cost Recovery,

30 21 Average Subsidy per Passenger, Passengers per Revenue Trip, and Passengers per Revenue Mile. Table 6 below outlines the threshold for performance: Table 6 WMATA Performance Thresholds Performance Measure Daily Weekday Passenger Boardings Cost Recovery Average Subsidy per Passenger Passengers per Revenue Trip Passengers per Revenue Mile Threshold Level 1/8th system average 1/2 system average twice the system avg. 1/3rd system average 1/3rd system average In addition to the above thresholds, WMATA also measures performance of cost per passenger, passengers per revenue hour, load factor, and cost per mile. From the preliminary analysis and measure of bus performance, planning staff further analyze the characteristics of the corridor the route operates in to gather information about traffic and corridor design. The next step in the SES is to outreach to the public, as well as bus operators and supervisors to gauge their sense on the issues facing the route. Based on this information, the planning staff creates preliminary recommendations for the route. The recommendations do not follow any particular criteria or standards since they are done on a route by route case, which each route possessing its own unique qualities. The types of recommendations range on the issue facing the route. For some long routes with reliability issues, the recommendations might be eliminating unproductive segments

31 22 to shorten the route length and improve on-time performance; for routes with low productivity numbers, the recommendations might include have the route serve a new trip generator being built on or nearby the route. The basis for changing routes is done on a case by case basis, taking into consideration not only the performance data, but the information provided by the passengers and drives, as well as, the characteristics of the corridor. Metrobus Route W4 For part 2 of the 2011 Service Evaluation Study, WMATA examined Route W- 4 s performance and determined recommendations to the service. As described by WMATA, the W-4 is an east-west cross-town line running the southeast portion of the District of Columbia between the Anacostia Metrorail Station at the southern end of the line and two weekday terminals the Deanwood Metrorail Station in the District of Columbia and the Capital Plaza shopping center in Maryland (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). The route operates on weekdays and Saturdays and Sundays, with a weekday span of service from 5:00 AM to 2:02 AM. Table 7 below details the performance of the W-4: Table 7 Metrobus Route W-4 Performance Performance Measure Value 2011 Threshold Value Daily Weekday Ridership 5,026 2,522 Boardings Per Revenue Mile Cost Recovery 28.10% 14.85% Subsidy per Passenger $2.17 $6.40 Boardings per Trip Source: Service Evaluation Study 2011-Phase II

32 23 As shown in the table above, the W-4 performed above all the threshold levels outlined in the Service Plan Development. However, the SES did reveal performance issues with the route. The study found issues with passenger crowding and on-time performance (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). Buses are crowded during the mid-day due to infrequent service, while the W-4 falls behind the on-time performance goal of 80% (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). Additionally, the study revealed performance issues with the Maryland portion of W-4 service, specifically low ridership/low productivity. A large portion of the line in Maryland runs on congested roadways, impacting on-time performance, and extended run times in Maryland create scheduling inflexibility in the District of Columbia where overwhelming majority of boardings occur (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). The findings in the report were collected through passenger surveys, and driver and supervisor interviews. Based on the specific issues facing the W-4, WMATA planners developed several recommendations for improving the on-time performance, crowding, and unproductive segment of the route in Maryland. The first recommendation proposed by WMATA was to terminate the W-4 at the Deanwood Metrorail station and replace the Maryland portion of the line with an existing service, most likely Route F-13. The decision to eliminate the Maryland portion of the service was proposed due to this being the most unproductive segment of the line, but the most congested, creating reliability problems for the route. Also, the elimination of the Maryland service would eliminate the scheduling inflexibility of the service, which creates uneven headways in the peak and excessively wide

33 24 headways in the mid-day (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). The proposed elimination of Maryland service would save $293,360, which would be re-allocated to other Maryland services (Service Evaluation Study Phase II, 2011). In addition to the elimination of the Maryland service, WMATA also recommends several adjustments to the schedule to address the overcrowding on the line. Included in those recommendations are: improvements to mid-day headways to increase service to 20 minutes; implementation two trip patterns on the W-4, one between Deanwood and Anacostia, and one between Capitol Heights and Congress Heights, which would provide a connection to a new Wal-Mart store proposed and thus generate new trips (both of these recommendations address mid-day crowding on the route); a third recommendation is to add supplemental peak trips to address overcrowding by school children. The final proposed schedule adjustment is to improve peak period headways to a consistency of 12 minutes. Those are the proposed recommendations to the W-4 based on the data from the Service Evaluation Study. The study of the W-4 line is one example of the process WMATA uses for evaluating and changing service. Changes made to service are considered on a case-bycase basis. Rather than using a rigid formula and criteria standard, each route is changed if necessary based on the data from the SES, surveys and input from riders and bus operators, and the characteristics of the corridor. In speaking with WMATA bus planners, a route being considered for changes, but not yet a SES, is Route 15-M. The 15-M runs in Virginia between George Mason University and the Tyson's Corner area. The route currently has very low ridership numbers, according to WMATA. Bus planners are

34 25 considering serving the nearby Vienna Metrorail Station to increase ridership. The Vienna Metrorail Station is a large trip generator, and WMATA bus planners believe serving the station would increase the ridership of the route. The 15-M case has different recommendations than the W-4 case. This is due to the differing circumstances of the two routes. The SES by WMATA provides an excellent framework for establishing guidelines for evaluating bus routes for changes. The SES provides the outline for taking a detailed, case by case approach for evaluating and changing bus routes. The studies would be incorporated into the service guidelines for FCDOT because they provide a fluid, dynamic process for changing bus routes, rather than a rigid process that cannot be changed. When making changes to bus routes, WMATA planners are able to look at the routes on a case by case basis and make different types of recommendations based on the unique characteristics of each route. Based on performance data collected, input from passengers and bus operators, and the characteristics of the corridor, multiple types of changes to bus routes can be made which include serving new nearby trip generators, eliminating unproductive segments, or changes to the schedule to have service levels match demand. This type of process would work well for the FCDOT due to the dynamic nature of Fairfax County Summary of Agency Route Evaluation Reviewing the synthesis report and route evaluation and standards guidelines provide a snapshot of how transit agencies identify bus route performance. With the snapshot, these tools can be incorporated into a route performance evaluation criteria for

35 26 agencies to implement such a program. Table 8 below indicates the different performance measures identified as being used by the transit agencies, and which agencies use them. Table 8 also indicates how many agencies use each measure, and the commonality in use. TABLE 8 Performance Measures used by Transit Agencies VTA LACMTA MBTA WMATA Passengers per Revenue Hour X X X Subsidy per Passenger X X X Vehicle Load X X X Passengers per Mile Per Seat Mile X Customer Complaints X Cost Per Passenger Mile X Passenger Boardings X Cost Recovery X Passengers per Revenue Trip X Passengers per Revenue Mile X With the above table, it is easy to determine to the more popular measures used by agencies. With this data, an agency can identify the most preferred and popular methods to evaluate bus transit routes. 2.2 Advanced Analytic Methods Beyond the bus service evaluation and planning guidelines identified in the TCRP Report and VTA service guidelines, advanced planning methods have been developed. These methods included using automatically collected data. Research on the subject of bus transit route performance and evaluation focuses on developing methods to

36 27 not only evaluate performance from the perspective of the operating authority, but also from the customers' perspective and society as a whole. Using data from automatically collected sources provides performance data from both agency and customer perspective (Fijalkowski, 2010). In the two respective researches, new models and performance metrics are developed that effectively measure the performance of transit bus routes from customer and societal perspectives. Fijalkowski developed new customer perspective performance metrics through the collection and aggregation of automatically collected data from transit buses (Fijalkowski, 2010). Each of these evaluation methods prove effective and useful in the development of transit route evaluation and service planning recommendations Evaluating Bus Routes with Automatically Collected Data Fijalkowski introduces a straightforward method for evaluating and planning bus routes based on customer perspectives in addition to agency perspectives. Fijalkowski's method for evaluating bus routes and service planning utilize automatically collected data calculates route performance. The data collection and service planning methods of both the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) are examined in the research, with Fijalkowski utilizing his performance metrics to change the service guidelines of both systems. Automated data collection methods allow for agencies to obtain larger amounts of data as opposed to the previously utilized manual collection methods (Fijalkowski, 2010). The data collection technologies Fijalkowski emphasizes in his research are Automatic

37 28 Vehicle Location (AVL), Automatic Passenger Counters (APC), and Automatic Fare Collection (AFC). These data collection methods, when properly used, allow transit agencies to have larger amounts of data on their system and provide new levels of performance metrics (Fijalkowski, 2010). It is those performance metrics which allow transit agencies to measure the performance of their routes from the passenger perspective (Fijalkowski, 2010). Fijalkowski demonstrates that these new metrics can provide better information on route performance than manually collected data. Using this collection methodology, Fijalkowski evaluates the planning process of the two agencies, CTA and MBTA, and then develops new performance metrics from the automatically collected data that better evaluate transit performance from the customer perspective. Fijalkowski examines the service planning and bus route evaluation methods of both the CTA and MBTA. Each has some degree of automated data collection technologies, but is not used to the full potential. The manually collected data falls short of providing performance metrics from the customer perspective (Fijalkowski, 2010). Fijalkwoski presents new performance metrics, which more reliably can calculate performance from the customer perspective and provide better insight to how bus routes perform. One exciting performance measure presented by Fijalkowski is average Excess Wait Time. Excess Wait Time: Excess wait time is a measure which calculates the wait time of passengers at a bus stop beyond their expected wait. This measure is currently in use by some transit agencies, and Fijalkowski includes this as a measure which can be derived from the use of ITS. The measure is an indicator of schedule

38 29 reliability, on-time performance, and if scheduling is meeting the passenger demands. The calculation of excess wait time is: Average Excess Wait Time = [1+ cov 2 (h a )] - [1 + cov 2 (h s )] (2) where is the average actual headway and is the average scheduled headway. Total excess wait time is simply the product of average excess wait time and number of boarding passengers. The above mention metric and other metrics in the research better identify trouble routes and areas for improvement in service planning (Fijalkowski, 2010). Additionally, Fijalkowski identifies how AFC technology can provide a Network-Level Analysis for transit agencies. This analysis allows the creation of origin-destination matrices, to determine the highest trip generators and destinations. Using this data, agencies can alter service to meet passenger demands. After recommending the new performance measurements based on automatically collected data, Fijalkowski recommends updates to the service planning process, which incorporates those data analyses. His recommendations include provisions for automated data collection technologies on bus fleets, using automated data process to aggregate and calculate data, create route and system profiles to represent transit route performance, use automated data to evaluate past service changes, updates to the ongoing and periodic service review processes, and communicating route performance to customers. The recommendations of Fijalkowski provide an updated framework for the service planning process found standard in most transit agencies. Fijalkowski's service planning process

39 30 accounts for the new technologies available in transit and how they can be utilize to improve the planning process and better meet customer demands Excess Wait Time Using automatically collected data also can be used in the route scheduling process. Stratham, Kimpel and Duecker introduced a method, which evaluated the data collected from Tri-Met in Portland s AVL and APC technologies to evaluate running times and layover/recovery times. The analysis of the running and layover times, evaluated a Tri-met route for a period in The data analyzed included the median running time and 95 th percentile running time, which was used to identify if layover/recovery time was sufficient or excessive (Stratham, Kimpel and Duecker, 2001). Their analysis revealed that on most routes, running time needed to be increased, while layover time decreased. Doing so could create extra trips, without increasing resources. Additionally, the analysis revealed whether running time deviations were caused by external factors or by operator factors (Stratham, Kimpel and Duecker, 2001). Which, revealed the types of operators that were likely to run routes slower than others. Using the data to analyze bus operations, is useful in adjusting the service planning process by accounting for new ways to formulate running times, layover times, and operator assignments. Stratham et. al also present an equation for computing the average excess wait time for passengers awaiting bus routes. Stratham s equation: Ex. Wait = ((VHR i /(2*MHR i ))/100)*MOH i (3) VHR i = Vehicle Headway Ratio

40 31 MHR i = Mean Headway Ratio MOH i = Mean Observed Headway The average Excess Wait Time equation, though not utilized in North America, is widely used in Europe, especially the U.K., to measure performance of bus routes and contractors. However, Excess Wait Time is used only on bus routes with higher frequencies, and multiple versions of the equating exist, and are used based on the characteristics of the specific bus route. With this, though Excess Wait Time is an excellent performance measure, it cannot be utilized in evaluating Fairfax Connector bus routes, since those routes do not have frequencies as high as ten minutes. However, the Excess Wait equation of Stratham et al presents a metric that could be utilized in measuring service from the passenger prospective, Mean Headway Ratio. Measuring the ratio of how delayed a bus route is compared to the scheduled headway, provides insight to how long passengers are waiting.

41 32 Chapter 3: Methodology Designing bus route evaluation standards and guidelines will build off the current industry best practices and incorporate the techniques of evaluating transit routes with automatically collected data described in the literature review. Incorporating the performance measures based on automatically collected data into the bus route evaluation standards will provide a more in-depth description of bus route performance and allow for better planning of new routes, and evaluating of current routes. The bus route evaluation standards include the planning process, data collection methods, bus route evaluation performance standards, and bus route design. The standards designed for bus route evaluation will build upon the current industry methods, while incorporating the advanced analytical methods without placing excess work on bus planners. 3.1 Bus Route Planning Process In order to properly use and meet the goals and objectives of the bus route evaluation service standards, a thorough planning and service change process must be included to ensure that the proper planning steps occur. The implementation of bus routes service changes will only occur in conjunction with run picks and follow the bid period cycle; except for in the case of route detours. However, the planning process for bus routes will be a continuing on-going process. The bus service planning process will utilize and build on the guidelines established by the VTA in their Local Bus Service Guidelines and the WMATA Service Evaluation Studies. For the evaluation of current routes the following four step process will occur:

42 33 Step 1: Data Collection Step 2: Route Profile Development Step 3: Identification of Poor Performing Routes Step 4: Devise and Implement an routing changes New Fairfax Connector services are typically implemented based on the recommendations of long range planning documents. When implementing new services the follow process: Step 1: Conduct Market Research to identify ridership Step 2: Evaluate Bus Route alignment recommendations from long range planning documents Step 3: Establish bus stop locations Step 4: Design stops and facilities per requirements Step 5: Develop an operating plan Step 6: Develop a marketing plan Step 7: Monitor service performance The bus route planning process will be an ongoing cycle of identifying the poorest performing routes, designing new alignments or scheduling, and implementing the service changes in conjunction with the bid periods. When routes are identified as poor performers, a further study of the route, similar to the SES will occur. The data collection process will combine elements of the SES, as well as, using automatically collected data.

43 Data Collection Data collection for evaluating bus route performance will depend on the capabilities of the transit agency. If transit agencies have the automatic data collection technologies available as mentioned in Fijalkowski's research, then that will be the method for collecting data. Data from AVL, AFC, and APC sources will be used to evaluate bus routes. The AVL data will be used to evaluate the schedule adherence portion of bus routes including on-time performance. The AFC and APC technologies will be used to calculate the areas of performance including ridership and bus loads. Typically, transit agencies aggregate this data in reports, and also include data such as revenue hours operated, number of buses operated, and cost to operate. This data typically comes from the scheduling software from agencies' which report on revenue hours and number of buses. Costs, will typically come from budgetary sources. For agencies without the full capabilities of automatically collected data, most sources will be manually collected. Ridership data for routes will be manually collected by Traffic Checkers who ride routes and count the number of boardings. That number is then averaged for the day, which in turn weekly, monthly, and annual ridership can be estimated. However, most agencies do employ some form of AFC technology, where the farebox can provide the basic data of ridership. Data collected which would come from the AVL and APC systems, will also come from reports by Traffic Checkers. On-time performance numbers can be calculated from either methods of ride checks or point checks; where Traffic Checkers either ride buses or are strategically placed along routes and record arrival times of routes at designated timepoints. Traffic Checkers also

44 35 count loads on buses from ride checks. The statistics of revenue hours, number of buses, and costs will be collected from the previously mentioned sources. The data collection process for evaluating bus routes will also include rider surveys of routes, to determine travel patterns, and popular stops. As the daily users of the bus routes, passengers are able to identify problems or issues with routes that cannot always be accounted for from the data collection methods listed above. The input of the passengers and bus operators will weigh in to the recommendations for changing the bus routes. Since, bus routes purposes are to serve the needs of the public, their input should be taken into consideration. An analysis of the traffic characteristics of the corridor a route operates on will also be undertaken to gauge and measure the traffic levels throughout the day. This data collection could reveal certain problems with routes that can easily be accounted for without making drastic changes to the service. 3.3 Route Performance Measures The performance measures included in the route profiles measure two areas in which planners are constantly improving in bus route performance: route efficiency/utilization and service delivery. Route efficiency/utilization identifies how well a route is performing. Planners identify the poorest performing routes for service changes. Service delivery measures how the service is provided to the customer, and for the poorest routes, what scheduling changes are needed to better provide the service. The performance measures for identifying route performance in these service standards are a compilation of standards from the TRCP synthesis report, VTA guidelines, LACMTA

45 36 guidelines, and measures attained from automatically collected data. The performance measures for identifying service delivery performance are a mix of identifying performance based on agency concerns and passenger concerns. Transit agencies are most interested in measuring route performance based on utilization and economic efficiency two measures used for the agency perspective are Passengers per Revenue Hour and Subsidy per Passenger. For passengers, the most important aspect of transit service is reliability. To measure the reliability of bus service, the performance measures of On-time Performance and Mean Headway Ratio will be used in addition to Passengers per Revenue Hour and Subsidy per Passenger. The calculation and performance measure standards will be detailed below. In the Local Bus Service Guidelines, VTA established one performance measure, passengers per revenue for evaluating bus route performance. For that measure, a threshold was established to identify routes that were underperforming. However, since the service measures set forth for bus route evaluations include multiple measures identifying different categories of performance, threshold levels will not be set for the measures. Rather, route performance will be measured relative to the performance of the system will be based on a scoring system reflecting the RPI scoring system of the LACMTA. Table 9 below outlines the identification of poor performing routes:

46 37 TABLE 9 Performance Indicators Route Performance Indicators Subsidy Per Passenger Mean Headway Ratio Passengers Per Revenue Hour On-Time Performance RPI Calculation SUB/SUBi MHR/MHRi PRHi/RRH OTPi/OTP Subsidy Per Passenger = (Cost* Revenue)/Ridership (4) *cost is the product of revenue hours and hourly rate for service charged to Fairfax County by the Contractor Mean Headway Ratio = Average Observed Headway/Average Scheduled Headway (5) Passengers per Revenue Hour = Number of Passengers per Route i /Revenue Hours Operated per Route i (6) On-time Performance = (Total Timepoints Unsuccessful Timepoints*)/Total Timepoints (7) o *Unsuccessful Timepoints are measure by Fairfax County as any bus arriving late to a scheduled timepoint greater than five minutes These measures were chosen for two reasons: (1) with the high cost of providing transit services, agencies should ensure that their resources are being fully utilized and not wasted, especially in the tough economic climate. An underutilized, high cost route, would give those in control of the budget reasons to cut needed transit services. By increasing ridership and performance, the need for transit and the efficient use of services

47 38 is evident. The second, most passengers in the service area of the indented agency of implementation are most concerned about reliable, on time service that can get them to their destination or origin in the scheduled time, and not cause any delay their commute. With the performance measures identified and defined for measuring bus routes the scoring of the RPI measure, based on LACMTA, will provide the whole picture on how bus routes are performing. The measures used for scoring bus route performance were identified and selected due to indicating the important factors to agencies, as well as important factors to customers. As identified in Table 8, these are widely used measures for evaluating transit services. Using the widely used performance measures by transit agencies, ensure that routes are scored based on what transit agencies are looking for most in route performance. For transit agencies, utilization and economic measures define well and poor performing bus routes. This breaks down to number of riders, and how much it costs to provide the service. Riders per revenue hour indicate ridership, in terms of service provided. This measure indicates if too much or too little service is provided, and how well the route is utilized in terms of service provided. The subsidy per passenger measure evaluates route performance in economic terms. The measure indicates how much the bus route costs the agency, in terms of passengers served. A low subsidy per passenger indicates a well performing route in terms of economic performance, and a high subsidy per passenger indicates a poor performing route. Transit passengers are typically most concerned about reliable service. Predictable, on-time buses are what passengers want. The other two performance measures indicate how routes perform from that perspective. The on-time performance indicates the percentage of on-

48 39 time buses. A higher on-time performance measure is an indicator of well performing service. The mean headway ratio indicates how late the buses actually are. A high ratio indicates that buses are running much higher headway than scheduled. For passengers, late buses is an inconvenience, but buses that are extremely late is a bigger inconvenience, and an indicator of unreliable service. Incorporating the passenger perspective into route evaluation, provides for a full and true picture of route performance. Typically, agencies look at measures just from the agency perspective, as shown in Table 8, however the passenger perspective is important to count for too. Accounting for the passenger perspective in route performance ensures that transit services provided are of a good quality that passengers will want to keep using the transit service. If the performance from the passenger perspective is poor and unaccounted for, eventually the passenger will find different forms of travel; which will adversely affect the agency perspective measures as well. An aggregate score allows to quickly identify poor performing routes, and also ensures that routes performing poorly in all four of the performance measures will be changed Identifying and Selecting Routes for Re-Alignment In order to identify the poorest performing routes, a scoring criteria will be established which will take into account all the performance measures. A scoring criteria will provide an accurate picture of which routes are doing the worst and which are doing the best. The scoring system will be based on the Route Performance Indicator used by the LACMTA in scoring routes. However, the measures used in the RPI scoring differ

49 40 from the LACMTA. The only scoring measure kept is the Passengers per Revenue hour, which is the same as the Boardings per Service Hour; and the Subsidy per Passenger. The Boardings per Service Mile is not used, as this methodology will be used on in a more suburban area, where routes are typically longer to connect outlying areas. Additionally, two performance measures from the passenger perspective are incorporated. The performance indicator will be calculated as: RPI i =[(SUB/SUB i ) + (MHR/MHR i ) + (PRH i /PRH) + (OTP i /OTP)]/4 (8) o SUB and SUB i are the subsidy per passenger for the system average and the route o MHR and MHR i are the mean headway ratio for the system average and route o PRH i and PRH are the passenger per revenue average for the route and system average o OTP i and OTP are the on-time performance for the route and system average The RPI scoring will match that of the LACMTA, where a score of 1 indicates a route is at the system average, a score above 1 indicates a route is performing above the system average, and a score below 1 indicates a route is performing below the system average. The five worst performing routes will be selected for further evaluation and route alignment. Choosing five routes for evaluation would allow planners ample time to perform data collection, analysis, and alternative proposals within the planning timeline.

50 41 Currently, WMATA examines five routes during the service planning process, and that example will be followed in this bus route service evaluation and route change guideline. 3.4 Bus Route Re-Alignment Changes to routing alignments for bus routes will be based on data collected during the service evaluation portion from rider surveys. Proposed changes to routing alignments will serve the purpose of fixing problems identified in the evaluation and surveys, with the ultimate goal of raising ridership on the routes. Additionally, the schedule reliability issues would inherently be fixed during the scheduling process of the new route design, since planning staff have the opportunity to build schedules reflecting the current running time conditions and factors of the route. Changes to bus route alignment will be based on the analysis of collected data from rider surveys and from passenger feedback in the public outreach process. Data collected from rider surveys can provide planners with passenger origin-destination data, which can aid planners in realigning routes by serving the high production trip pairs. Additionally, end destination data from passenger surveys can reveal if routes warrant extension to new activity centers or trip generators. Finally, rider survey data can potentially provide estimated results for alignment changes. In reviewing the route change guidelines, especially the SES studies performed by WMATA, a trend emerged in how routes are changed. However, those methods for changing routes have not been identified in the review of agencies' guidelines as specific methods for changing routes. In order to change bus routes, these three methods will be

51 42 utilized based on their previous use by agencies. Routes can be changes in many ways, in reviewing previous route changes of WMATA, the methods of (1) Cutting of Unproductive Segments, (2) Extending to new Activity Centers, and (3) Consolidating with Parallel or Nearby Routes emerge as the most commonly used, as well as some combination of the three. Those methods appear as the most popular and effective way to improve bus route performance. Additionally, these methods are simple and easy to understand by planning staff and incorporate to a route change guideline. Other methods used for changing routes include creating smaller branch routes from a long trunk route. However, this method was not identified in the studies of agencies has a method for changing routes to improve performance. The purpose of the methodology is to change routes in order to improve performance, and as previously mentioned, the methods of changing routes by cutting unproductive segments, extending to new activity centers, and consolidating with parallel or nearby routes appear in previous route changes as the most commonly used. Additionally, those methods present the best potential of improving transit route performance since they will either add ridership by extending to activity centers, which have the opportunity to increase ridership. As well as, cutting unproductive segments and consolidating routes allow transit provides the opportunity to essentially serve the same areas, but with lowered costs. Creating branch routes from a trunk route do not provide the opportunities to increase ridership or lower costs, because the same areas are being served with the same number of resources. The only change that occurs is the manner in routing. The only way to improve performance is to increase ridership, reduce costs while minimizing reductions in service, or a combination of the

52 43 two. The three selected methods for changing route alignments, provide the optimal opportunity to achieve those goals. This methodology explicitly and specifically identifies these methods and how to use them in changing bus routes Re-Aligning Bus Routes by Cutting off Un-Productive Segments The first step in determining route re-alignment, will design a new route that cuts off unproductive segments, and serves the highest areas of trip generation or destination. In order to determine unproductive and productive segments and trip generators; rider surveys and ridership analysis must be performed on the route. The purpose of which is to identify where the passengers currently using the routes are going, and if any segments are being underserved or not served at all. After collecting the data, planners should create origin destination matrices, to determine the most productive O-D pairs, and tabulate the nodes with to determine the areas with the highest boardings and alightings. Once this data is analyzed, a new route should be created cutting off unproductive segments or links and focus on serving areas of highest attraction. Eliminating the unproductive segments would mean serving the same riders, but using less recourse. This could ultimately improve the areas of riders per hour, subsidy per rider, and even on-time performance. Figure 1 illustrates how segments deemed unproductive can be cut from the route. The figure shows nodes F and G and the links as being unproductive with the after showing how they were cut from the route. The Metrobus Route W4 is an excellent example of how planners evaluated the route and determined cutting of the northern

53 segment from Deanwood Metrorail Station to Capital Plaza Mall was needed; since this was a highly unproductive area and used a lot of the Route s running time. 44 Before After Figure 1: Re-aligning Bus Routes by Cutting Off Un-Productive Segments Eliminating un-productive segments from bus routes allows the opportunity to improve bus service while not completely changing a route, or using additional resources

54 45 to extend routes to attract new riders. Also, by not making major changes to the bus route, the negative impact to passengers is relatively low. Only passengers travelling to the un-productive segment would be negatively affected. However, since this would be a low usage segment, the elimination of the route would not be unexpected. This would also improve the service for riders of the other segments of the route as they would have more direct service to their destinations, and their travel time could possibly be shorter by no longer serving areas of low ridership. Finally, eliminating un-productive segments of routes allows planning staff the opportunity to enhance service on the route or possible other routes in the system. With the elimination of a route segment or segments, this also means the elimination of cycle time from the route. With the shortened travel time, planners have several options with the saved minutes. Planners can decide to keep the same number of buses on the route, and with the shortened cycle time, this allows for the increase in bus frequency and reduction of the scheduled headway. The other option would be to keep the same headway, which would mean the possible removal of a bus or buses from the route since the shortened cycle time will not need the previous number of buses to maintain the current headway; this also allows the chance for these saved resources to be placed into the system on other higher performing routes. The latter should, and will be followed in this methodology, since the intention of eliminating un-productive segments is to improve the performance of the route, especially utilization, while maintaining relatively the same ridership levels. Choosing the later options will most likely mean an improvement in the areas of Subsidy

55 per Passenger and Passenger per Revenue Hour. With reductions in resources provided, the utilization of routes normalized by resources provided should improve performance Re-aligning Bus Routes by Extending to New Activity Centers If routes cannot be improved by ending service to unproductive segments and nodes, then routes should be re-aligned and extended to serve new trip generators. Adjusting routing alignments will follow the route design guidelines of LACMTA, WMATA, MBTA, and VTA in identifying new trip generators to serve. Trip generators to serve will include activity centers such as transit hubs (rail stations, transit stations, etc.), shopping centers, employment centers, hospitals, schools, and dense residential complexes. Searching for roadways or trip generators outside the 1/8 mile radius can lead to route alignments within the 1/2 mile buffer of other routes, and thus run the risk of duplication. The new route alignments must be designed in a manner that follows the standards of the route planning guidelines mentioned in this research; routes must connector a major activity center, i.e. transit hub, employment, shopping, to residential areas or other regional activity centers. The routes must be designed in a manner to provide the most direct, simplest connection between the two terminals. Figure illustrates extending the route to a new activity center. This new, previously node that wasn t served could produce enough activity to boost performance of the route. Any deviation made from the main line can only occur when the additional gains in ridership outmatch the added time, as is the case in the MBTA, LACMTA, and VTA service guidelines. Additionally, lines must not become too long.

56 47 Before After Figure 2: Re-aligning Bus Routes by Extending to New Activity Centers The extension of bus routes to new activity centers is presented in Figure 2 above. Extending bus routes to new activity centers is a good way to improve route performance if cutting off un-productive route segments does not improve performance. Extending routes to new activity centers or ridership generators allows the opportunity for bus

57 48 routes to increase ridership, while though increasing resources provided, the new activity centers can provide a high enough ridership to improve the performance of bus routes. Also, extending routes to new activity centers can increase the performance of a route without eliminating any portions of the route. Whenever sections or segments of a transit route occur, though warranted, pose a hardship on riders served by the underperforming segments of the route. With increased ridership due to servicing the new activity centers, the route performance is improved without eliminating any segments of the route, and not placing those passengers at a disadvantaged. Essentially, the extension to the new activity center saves the underperforming segments Re-Aligning Bus Routes by Consolidating Routes Finally, if the previous two methods prove unable to improve the RPI score of the route, then the low-scoring route should be consolidated with a better scoring, nearby route. In order to consolidate routes, several criteria should be examined before consolidation. First, routes should only be consolidated with routes that are parallel by ¼- mile, or service a common end terminal. Next, only the most productive nodes or timepoints of the unproductive route should be kept. Also, the consolidation of the routes should create trunk and branch routes, with the trunk representing the common segments of the two routes, and the branches the former segments of the two separate routes. Finally, the new route should be branched off from the trunk only after serving an area of the better productive route that will raise ridership enough, in order save the segments

58 of the former unproductive route that the majority of riders use. Figure 3 illustrates how two routes can be consolidated together to improve performance 49 Before After Figure 3: Consolidating Parallel Routes In Figure 3 above, consolidating two bus routes is illustrated. In the before map, the two routes share the same route segment for a small portion of the route. However, the after figure shows the routes combined into a trunk and branch routing, with the routes consolidated for much of the length. The end branch represents the only remaining part of the unproductive route. Route consolidation is another useful way to keep

59 50 unproductive routes or route segments, without using any addition resources. Consolidating with a somewhat successful performing route can improve the performance of the poor performing route. When consolidating routes identifying the portions of the poor performing route to keep and consolidate into the nearby route is essential to ensure the areas with the most ridership are kept. Doing so will ensure the success of the new consolidated routes. However, when consolidating routes, some passengers will be left without service, if only certain segments of the route are kept. It is imperative when consolidating routes to ensure that the segments of the route that are not kept are within a 1/4-mile from another route, or are somehow incorporated into other routes. The figure above is only illustrative of how to consolidate routes. Depending on the existing conditions, and data collected from rider surveys, many options exist for route consolidation. Consolidating all segments of the poor performing routes into other routes is possible.

60 51 Chapter 4: Example and Results Currently, FCDOT enacts bus service changes in conjunction with bus operator bid periods. Bus operator bid periods or run picks, occur three to four times a calendar year. These are times when the bus operators our allowed to choose their daily or weekly bus runs to perform for the three or four month period. Service changes occur in conjunction with the bid periods, so that route training for new or changed routes, occurs at the same time as route training for operators who have chosen new bus routes; preventing re-training of operators in the middle of a bid period. For calendar year 2012, service changes occurred in January, and will take place in June and September. Many route planning efforts result from the long range planning document the Fairfax County Transit Development Plan (TDP). The TDP is a comprehensive study of the current state of and future transit needs of Fairfax County. 4.1 Data Collection Data collection for the Fairfax Connector is currently a mix of some automatically collected data, but mostly manually collected data. Currently, the Fairfax Connector possesses only the Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) technology identified in Fijalkowski s research necessary for the bus route evaluation metrics. The AFC technology data for the Fairfax Connector provides ridership data for routes, on a daily, weekly, and monthly measurements. Additionally, the reports generated by the AFC identify type of fare media used, and passenger transfer types, i.e. rail to bus, or bus to bus(identifying the service provider). The rest of the data, boardings and alightings at

61 52 stop locations, and on-time performance are manually collected. Typically, the manual collection methods occur by traffic checkers in the field observing bus stop usage and ontime performance. Also, operations supervisors in the field and bus operators are responsible for tabulating and identifying delays and reporting this data to measure ontime performance. Additional data for measuring performance, are attained from monthly reports, that include data such as revenue hours operated, payment made to the operating contractor, and revenue collected for each route. FCDOT is currently in the beginning stages of acquiring the necessary Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies, AVL and APC, identified by Fijalkowski necessary for use in his performance metrics. With the implementation of ITS in the near future, the data collection methods and route metrics in this service standards guideline reflects the use of automatically collected data methods. With the use of ITS on Fairfax Connector buses, data collection methods for use in service planning will include the downloading of data from buses into a database, which can be accessed at any time and data aggregated automatically. With ITS, passenger counts for every bus stop, bus loads, on-time performance, dwell times, route running times, and ridership levels will be utilized in route performance evaluation. The first process to occur in the evaluation of Fairfax Connector bus routes was collecting data on bus route statistics and analyze based on the methodology. Currently, FCDOT compiles and reports on system data on a monthly basis. The monthly reports are divided up by operating division, of which there are three. Within the division reports include information such as total monthly ridership, total revenue hours operated, farebox

62 53 receipts, total payment made to contractor, and that performance data is also reported for each route. The data in these reports come from numerous sources; the ridership and farebox receipts are automatically collected through AFC technologies using GFI Genfare fareboxes and reports. Revenue hours operated are calculated from total number of trips operated, which operating divisions submit to FCDOT. Operating divisions submit daily Flash Reports to FCDOT, which detail any delays in service, mechanical breakdowns, or missed trips. From this report, the total monthly revenue hours operated is calculated. With the data sources of the Fairfax Connector identified, compiling this data into a single file and analyzing occurred as the first step of evaluating route performance. Analyzing data for Fairfax Connector performance required compiling the data from the multiple sources listed above into a single excel workbook. The data compiled to analyze Fairfax Connector bus routes for periods of May 2012 (see Appendix B), November 2012 (see Appendix C), and December 2012 (see Appendix D) include May 2012 Monthly Division Reports, May 2012 GFI R408 Revenue Reports, November 2012 Monthly Division Reports, November 2012 GFI R408 Revenue Reports, December 2012 Monthly Division Reports, and December 2012 GFI R408 Revenue Reports. The data from the May 2012 reports were used to analyze the performance of the Fairfax Connector and identify the worst performing routes in the system for change. The November 2012 and December 2012 reports were used to evaluate the performance of the changed routes. In addition to the above monthly reports, daily Flash Reports from

63 54 each division for the months of May, November, and December were compiled into one report as well to measure route performance. For each month of data collection, an Excel workbook was created to compile and analyze data. Within the workbook contained a summary spreadsheet of the monthly operating statistics for each route. In the workbook data pertaining to total ridership, farebox receipts, revenue hours operated, revenue rate charged by contractor, and total timepoints and successful timepoints were used as raw data inputs. From the raw data inputs, simple formulas were inserted into the cells to calculate various performance metrics necessary to computing the RPI score. Measures calculated from the raw data include: Operating Cost Route i, Late Route i, and Average Delay Route i. The formulas to calculate those performance measures were: Operating Cost Route i = Revenue Hours Operated Route i * Revenue Rate Charged by Operating Contractor (9) Late Route i = Late Trip Route i (10) Though not used in the final RPI scoring, calculating these metrics are essential in calculating the performance measures used in the RPI scoring. From these metrics, the RPI score for each route can be calculated using the previous equation 8: RPI i =[(SUB/SUB i ) + (MHR/MHR i ) + (PRH i /PRH) + (OTP i /OTP)]/4 o SUB and SUB i are the subsidy per passenger for the system average and the route o MHR and MHR i are the mean headway ratio for the system average and route

64 55 o PRH i and PRH are the passenger per revenue average for the route and system average o OTP i and OTP are the on-time performance for the route and system average With RPI scores calculated, the data in the Excel work sheet can be sorted to identify the worst performing routes of the Fairfax Connector. 4.2 Identifying Worst Performing Connector Routes Identifying the worst Fairfax Connector routes using the RPI scoring method is the next step in evaluating the bus system. RPI scoring was calculated based on equation 8 and formulated using Excel workbooks. Table 10 below indicates the worst performing routes in the Fairfax Connector system: Table 10 Worst Performing Fairfax Connector Routes Rank (out of 67) Route Score Based on the RPI scoring criteria, Table 10 identifies the worst performing routes in the Fairfax Connector system. It should be noted that there were three routes with

65 56 scores worse than those indicated in the table; Routes 333, 334, and 335. However, during the process of writing this research, Fairfax County Department of Transportation planning staff has performed service change work on Routes 335.Which, took effect in June for Route 335, October for Routes 333 and 334. Fairfax Connector Routes 333 and 334 were re-aligned based on the methodology was performed by the author with the assistance with Fairfax County DOT staff. 4.3 Routes 333 & 334 Fairfax Connector Routes 333 and 334, prior to October 2012, were circulator routes following the same routing, with Route 333 running the route counter-clockwise, and Route 334 running the route clockwise. These two routes were known as the Newington -- DLA Circulator. The areas serviced by Routes 333 and 334 included a Metrorail Station, multiple office parks, a community college, and secured government facility. The routes are interlined, meaning both routes use the same buses. The blocks for the schedule are built, so when a bus completes Route 333 or 334, that bus's next trip is either Route 334 or 333. The routes are interlined due the cycle times and headways for each route requiring a total number of buses as fractional, which would require more buses than needed. With the routes interlined, a whole number of buses are required, and thus the extra buses are not needed, allowing for efficient scheduling. The figure below provides an illustration of Routes' 333 and 334 routing prior to October 2012:

66 57 Figure 4 Routes 333 and 334 Before Route Re-Alignment Nodes A and F on the map represent the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station, the starting and ending point for the route. Node B represents Boston Boulevard office park, with Node D representing the Gateway 95 Office Park. Node C represents the Defense Logistics Agency, which is part of the Fort Belvoir Complex, and finally Node E represents the Northern Virginia Community College. The routes provide weekday only

67 58 service and provide headways of 30 minutes during the peak rush hour period, and 60 minutes during the non-rush hour peak period. As indicated in the RPI scoring, these two routes are some of the poorest performing in the system. Tables 11 and 12 below detail how the routes perform in each performance measure versus the system average: Table 11 Route 333 Performance May 2012 Performance Measure 333 System Avg. Subsidy per Passenger $17.07 $5.07 Mean Headway Ratio Passengers per Revenue Hour On-time Performance 98.14% 98.99% Table 12 Route 334 Performance May 2012 Performance Measure 334 System Avg. Subsidy per Passenger $17.95 $5.07 Mean Headway Ratio Passengers per Revenue Hour On-time Performance 97.60% 98.99%

68 59 Analyzing the data above, the performance of the route in three out of the four categories is much worse than the system average. Routes 333 and 334 perform the worst in the utilization or agency perspective categories of Subsidy per Passenger and Passengers per Revenue Hour. Route 333 operates at a subsidy per passenger of $17.07, which is $12.00 higher than the system average. Route 334 operates at a subsidy per passenger of $17.95, which is $12.90 higher than the system average. Also, Route 333 is utilized by 4.7 passengers per revenue hour, and Route 334 is utilized by 4.5 passengers per revenue; both routes are well below the system average. The performance measures indicate that both Routes 333 and 334 are costly to operate and are not well utilized compared to the resources provided. Prior to the data collection process, these routes were already under review due to a perceived low performance. The RPI scoring just verifies this. A rider survey was conducted on the routes in March 2012, and is used in re-aligning the routes Routes 333 & 334 Rider Survey In March 2012, the author and his fellow FCDOT staff members performed rider surveys of perceived underperforming routes, including Routes 333 and 334. The purpose of the rider survey was to identify travel patterns of passengers and identify stops with the highest boardings and alightings. The data from the rider surveys were incorporated into the route re-alignment process for Routes 333 and 334. Passenger origin-destination pairs and high boarding and alighting stops were visualized using graphs. Tables 13 through 16 below identify the origin-destination patterns of riders.

69 60 Table 13 Route 333 AM Origin Destination Destination Origin DLA BOS FS NV LD CIN LO SM SC FP DLA CI NV FS *DLA: Defense Logistics Agency *BOS: Boston Blvd *FS: Franconia-Springfield *NV: Northern Virginia Community College (NVCC) *LD: Loisdale *CIN: Cinderbed Rd *LO: Lois Rd *SM: Springfield Mall *SC: Springfield Center *FP: Fairfax County Parkway Table 14 Route 333 PM Origin-Destination Destination Origin DLA FS LOD NV SM BOS FUL BOF SM FPT NEW G CIN NV DLA FS *BOF: Boston/Fullerton *NV: NVCC *SM: Springfield Mall *DLA: Defense Logistics Agency *FPT: Fairfax County Pkwy. *FS: Franconia-Springfield *NEW: Newington Rd *LOD: Loisdale/Lois *G95: Gateway 95 *FUL: Fullerton *CIN: Cinderbed Road

70 61 Table 15 Route 334 AM Origin Destination Destination Origin CIN DLA SM FP BOS NEW NV FS G95 CIN BOS NV DLA SMD BOF SM FS *CIN: Cinderbed Rod *BOS: Boston Blvd. *NV: NVCC *DLA: Defense Logistics Agency *SMD: Spring Mall Drive *BOF: Boston/Fullerton *SM: Springfield Mall *FS: Franconia-Springfield *FP: Fairfax County Parkway *NEW: Newington Rd *NV: NVCC *G95: Gateway 95

71 62 Table 16 Route 334 PM Origin Destination Destination Origin LOD FS NV DLA BOS CIN G95 7LO BOF G DLA NEW NV FS *BOF: Boston/Fullerton *G95: Gateway 95 *DLA: Defense Logistics Agency *NEW: Newington Road *NV: NVCC *FS Franconia-Springfield *7LO: 7711 Loisdale The passenger origin-destination graphs indicate where most passengers are riding to and from. In Figures 5 and 6, the trip origin is represented by the Y-axis, with the trip destination the specified color, and total passengers as the X-axis values. High origindestination pairs include Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station to DLA, NVCC to Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station, and Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station. The lowest origin-destination pairs are mostly nodes other than Franconia-Springfield travelling to Boston Boulevard. These origin-destination pairs were used in re-aligning Routes 333 and Routes 333 & 334 Re-Alignment Based on the data from the rider surveys, the plan for Route 333 and 334 were to split the routes into two completely different routings, breaking the clockwise and

72 63 counter-clockwise circulators. The route-realignment for Routes 333 and 334 were done performing steps 1 and 2 of the bus re-alignment methodology. Route 334 was re-aligned based on step 1 by cutting off unproductive segments and nodes from the route. Figure 4 illustrates the before and after of Route 334. Routes 333 and 334 remained interlined to allow for efficient scheduling of buses. As illustrated in the figure above, the service to Boston Boulevard was removed from Route 334. Though this was a popular destination from the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station, ridership to this segment of the route was low from all other nodes. Additionally, another Fairfax Connector route, Route 371, provided service from the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station to the Boston Boulevard area via Fullerton Road, which is within 1/4 of Boston Boulevard. Eliminating the Boston Boulevard segment from Route 334 provides more direct service to the popular destinations of the route. Additionally, the removal of service from Boston Boulevard resulted in the removal of cycle time from the route. Which means that to provide the same level of service, less resources will be needed to do so.

73 64 Figure 5 Route 334 After Re-alignment With the removal of the circulator routes, and with Route 334 alone serving the areas once served by two routes, the utilization measures should increase as previous 333 riders will have to shift to 334; except for riders to travelling to Boston Boulevard. Adjusting the route to reflect the travel patterns of the passengers, should improve the performance of the 334. An additional benefit to breaking the circulator routes, and utilizing one route,

74 65 is most riders will not have to ride circuitous routing to reach their destination. The route provides better and more direct access to the areas most used by passengers. The new routing of Route 334 travels in a clockwise direction during morning periods, and counter-clockwise direction during afternoon periods, in order to provide a more direct connection between the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA); which is the largest origin-destination pair for the route. The route provides an all day weekday service, with a span of service from 5:25 AM to 11:10 PM. Additionally, frequency of service was improved from a 30 minute headway during rush hour periods to a 24 minute headway; and from a 60 minute headway during offpeak times, to a 48 to 50 minute headway. This was achieved through shortening the route cycle time by re-aligning to a more direct route. The re-alignment of Route 334 improved much of the service for the passengers. While removing an unproductive segment from Route 334 to improve route performance was used to re-align service, Route 333 routing was re-aligned based on the second step of the route re-alignment process. Route 333 was extended to new activity centers to increase the ridership of the route and improve performance. The route was extended to new activity centers that were opening in the vicinity of the Franconia- Springfield Metrorail Station. The route was extended to a new 8,000 employee government complex that approached FCDOT requesting service be added to their site in replacement of complex's popular shuttle service. Additionally, a new Park-and-Ride complex was set to open, as was a new office complex with over a thousand workers, also requesting bus service. Figure 5 below outlines how Route 333 was re-aligned:

75 66 Figure 6 Route 333 after Re-alignment In Figure 6 above the new alignment of Route 333 is illustrated. Though the route still serves the Franconia-Springfield Metrorail Station, Node A, the route serves completely new activity centers and the previous routing is completely eliminated. The new activity centers are: Node B, Government Agency; Node C, Park and Ride Facility; and Node D, a new office complex. These new activity centers all present the opportunity to add new ridership and improve the performance of Route 333. The new routing travels in a counter-clockwise direction at all times. Service is provided all day, with a span of service from 5:30 AM to 10:15 PM. Service frequencies depending on the time of day.