Service Guidelines Task Force Performance Measurement, Geographic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Service Guidelines Task Force Performance Measurement, Geographic Value and Alternative Services April 1, 2015

Performance Measurement at Metro  Overview of performance measurement in Metro’s planning process  How does Metro evaluate performance?  What is Metro’s Alternative Services Demonstration Program?  What do other transit agencies do?  Policy trade ‐ offs and discussion Service Guidelines Task Force 2

Performance measurement ‐ Metro’s planning process Service Guidelines Task Force 3

How does Metro measure performance? Time Periods Service Evaluation Method Off ‐ Types Peak Night Peak Performance Metrics Fixed ‐ Rides per platform hour Route and Passenger miles per platform mile Dial ‐ a ‐ Ride Additional peak ‐ only evaluation Ridership and Travel Time Transit comparison Alternative Under development Performance metrics in development Services Key Seattle Core Non ‐ Seattle Core Service Guidelines Task Force 4

How does Metro distinguish its services?  Seattle core : Routes serving the densest areas in the county from anywhere in King County  Non ‐ Seattle core : Routes serving all other areas of the county  Two measures of route performance to balance diversity of transit needs throughout the county Follow Up Item 1.15, 1.17 Service Guidelines Task Force 5

How does Metro’s service performance compare? 18 16 Passenger Miles / Platform Mile Seattle Core 14 Average 12 System Average: 12.3 10 Non ‐ Seattle 8 Core Average 6 System Average: 36.5 Seattle Core routes 4 Non ‐ Seattle Core routes System averages 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rides / Platform Hour Service Guidelines Task Force 6

Thresholds ‐ Rides Per platform hour Rides per platform hour: Total ridership divided by the total hours from the time the bus leaves its base until it returns. Follow Up Item 1.4, 1.8 Service Guidelines Task Force 7

Thresholds – Passenger miles per platform mile Passenger miles per platform mile: Total miles traveled by all passengers divided by the total miles the bus operates from its base until it returns. Follow Up Item 1.4, 1.8 Service Guidelines Task Force 8

Additional Peak ‐ Only evaluation  Same route performance metrics:  Rides per platform hour  Passenger miles per platform mile  Additional evaluation:  Travel time : 20% faster than local route  Ridership : Carry at least 90% of the local route riders per trip Follow Up Item 1.16 Service Guidelines Task Force 9

Example peak only route evaluation Rt 7EX Peak Route Rt 218 Performance Metrics 35.6 Rides/ platform hour 42.1 . 8.7 Passenger miles/ platform mile 23.4 Mt Baker Additional Peak Evaluation Columbia City No Ridership Yes Yes Travel Time Yes Key Top 25% route Bottom 25% route/ Does not meet peak target Service Guidelines Task Force 10

Questions?

What is Metro’s Alternative Service Demonstration Program? Existing Community Community Flexible Alternative Shuttle Hub Rideshare Services Local transportation Variable ridesharing via A route with flexible Build on these center, access to promotion of mobile service areas provided successful community vans, bikes through a community and web ‐ based app. services. and information partnership. resources.   fixed and flexible responds to unique  VanShare  partner provides commuter needs service area  VanPool   location, may include set community  Rideshare transportation info partner provides pick ‐ up points and  CAT and scheduling resources and driver incentives  DART  regularly scheduled marketing and one ‐ time trips Service Guidelines Task Force 12

Alternative Service Demonstration Projects  Current Projects:  The Valley Shuttle  Route 628: Issaquah Highlands to North Bend  Projects to be implemented in 2015:  Burien – Community shuttle  Mercer Island – Community shuttle  Redmond – Flexible rideshare  Projects in planning:  Duvall  Vashon Island  SE King County Service Guidelines Task Force 13

How do we evaluate performance of alternative services? Existing Community Community Flexible Alternative Shuttle Hub Rideshare Services Service Guidelines Task Force 14

Questions?

Definitions of service types Route Design Route Function Classification of routes based Classification of routes based on service characteristics, on the purpose , such as: such as:  where the routes connect  the numbers of hours a bus  populations served operates  how does it fit within the  how often the bus comes larger network  how far apart the stops are  what streets the bus uses  where the bus travels Follow Up Item 1.8 Service Guidelines Task Force 16

What do other agencies do? Route Design Route Function Service Guidelines Task Force 17

How do Metro’s current service types perform? 18 Peak 16 Passenger Miles / Platform Mile Off ‐ Peak Seattle Core 14 Average 12 System Average: 12.3 10 Night Non ‐ Seattle Off ‐ Peak 8 Core Average Peak 6 Night System Average: 36.5 Seattle Core routes 4 Non ‐ Seattle Core routes System averages 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rides / Platform Hour Service Guidelines Task Force 18

How would Metro’s service types perform if using Denver RTD’s service types? 18 Express/ 16 Regional Passenger Miles / Platform Mile Average CBD Local 14 Average 12 System Average: 12.3 10 Urban Local 8 CBD Local Average 6 Express/Regional System Average: 36.5 Suburban Urban Local 4 Local Average Suburban Local 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rides / Platform Hour Service Guidelines Task Force 19

Policy and trade ‐ offs discussion  Should Metro change how it measures performance? Should Metro change its service types?  What changes would you consider? What are the trade ‐ offs?  Issues to consider: • Impacts to investments/reductions • Percentage of system in each category • Simplicity vs. complexity Service Guidelines Task Force 20

Geographic Value and Alternative Services April 1, 2015

Geographic Value at Metro  Overview of geographic value in Metro’s planning process  How do the service guidelines incorporate geographic value?  How do we add centers, corridors or routes?  How do Park ‐ and ‐ Rides fit in Metro’s analysis?  Policy and trade ‐ offs discussion Service Guidelines Task Force 22

Geographic Value ‐ Metro’s planning process Service Guidelines Task Force 23

How do the service guidelines incorporate geographic value?  Evaluating distinct services to the Seattle Core and the Non ‐ Seattle Core separately  Identifying 85 centers and connecting these centers with transit service on 112 corridors  Seeking extensive input on all service changes to impacted areas and adjusting proposals  Preserving connections to urbanized areas of east and south King County adjacent to or surrounded by rural land Service Guidelines Task Force 24

Evaluating distinct types of service separately  Seattle core : Routes serving the densest areas in the county from anywhere in King County  Non ‐ Seattle core : Routes serving all other areas of the county  Two measures of route performance to balance diversity of transit needs throughout the county Service Guidelines Task Force 25

Corridors and centers provide connections throughout the transit network  85 centers geographically distributed throughout King County  Analyze 112 corridors that connect all 85 centers  Target service levels determined: frequency a corridor should have based on:  Productivity  Social Equity  Geographic Value Service Guidelines Task Force 26

Connections are valued in the data analysis Productivity Social Equity Geographic Value Households Riders in low ‐ Connections to regional centers income areas Jobs and Students Connections to Riders in transit activity Ridership minority areas centers 50% 25% 25% Service Guidelines Task Force 27

Planning and Community Engagement Process  All planning processes include outreach to impacted geographic areas  Outreach informs the development of concepts, alternatives, and proposals  Service restructures focus on preserving service in impacted areas  Accommodate expected loads  Plan for growth  Maintain local connections Service Guidelines Task Force 28

Concept that changed – Route 21  2012 C Line Restructure changed the way service was delivered in West Seattle  The Arbor Heights tail of Route 21 was slated for deletion  Peak period service provided by Route 21 Express  Community outreach raised concerns  Route 22 was restructured to provide all ‐ day service between Arbor Heights and Alaska Junction  Serves Arbor Heights, Westwood Village, Chief Sealth High School, Alaska Junction Service Guidelines Task Force 29

Preserving coverage to urban areas Duvall  Connections to urbanized areas of east and south Carnation King County adjacent to or Sammamish Vashon surrounded by rural land Island Issaquah Highlands Snoqualmie are maintained to Issaquah preserve coverage North Bend regardless of productivity Maple Valley Covington Black Diamond Enumclaw Service Guidelines Task Force 30

Questions?