fixed route quality of service

Transit Capacity & Quality of Service Manual, 3rd Edition

Fixed Route

Quality of Service


Presentation Overview

Learning objectivesPerformance points of viewQuality of service factorsQuality of service frameworkQuality of service measuresApplications


Learning Objectives

Gain an understanding of the different stakeholder perspectives that can be taken with respect to transit performanceUnderstand the key components of passengers’ perceptions of transit service qualityBe able to define quality of service (QOS)Become familiar with the TCQSM’s approach to fixed-route QOS: Framework Service measures focused toward transit agencies Multimodal level of service measure focused toward planning and engineering

applicationsBecome familiar with potential applications of the manual’s QOS measures to real-world transportation planning and transit activities


Changes from the 2nd Edition

Reorganized transit quality of service framework Clearer guidance on performance measures that can be applied to stop,

route/street segment, and system levels of analysisRemoved level of service (LOS) letters from QOS tables Responding to transit agency concerns about being “graded” Allows more or fewer service levels, as appropriate for a given measure

Added a new “multimodal transit LOS measure” Responding to planning agency needs for multimodal LOS evalution Can be used in conjunction with corresponding measures for the auto,

pedestrian, and bicycle modes Spreadsheet tool provided to help calculate the measure

New section on potential applications of QOS to real-world transit and transportation planning activities


Performance

Points of View


Transit Performance Viewpoints

What aspects of transit performance might each of these groups be most interested in? The transit agency The community as a whole The public works department Transit passengers


Examples of Measuring Different Stakeholder Viewpoints


The Ultimate Transit Service

As a passenger, what would your ideal transit service be like?


The Ultimate Transit Service

Since we can’t have the ultimate transit service, what trade-offs do we make?


Transit Performance Viewpoints

Quality of service focuses on the passenger point of viewOther points of view are also valid and need to be considered May have conflicting objectives (e.g., passenger comfort vs. agency resources) Best-quality passenger service may not be feasible or desirable


Quality of

Service

Factors


What Matters to Customers?

Customer satisfaction surveys provide insights TCRP Project B-11 (customer satisfaction surveying methods) Florida transit agency on-board surveys NCHRP Project 3-92 (multimodal urban street level of service)

Typical factors: Frequency, wait time, service span Reliability Service close to home, destination Crowding Fares, driver friendliness, safety/security


What Matters to Customers?

Factors can be divided into two main areas: Service availability

Is transit an option? Comfort and convenience

If it is an option, would you want to use it?


Spatial Availability(Origin)

TemporalAvailability

InformationAvailability

Spatial Availability(Destination)

Service Availability

Is transit an option for a particular trip?All five of these factors must be satisfied

CapacityAvailability







Is there a transit stop within walking distance?OR is demand responsive orprivate shuttle service available?OR is a car AND a convenientpark-and-ride available?OR is a bicycle AND bicycle storage available?OR is a bicycle available AND can it be brought onboard?








Is there a transit stop within walking distance?OR is demand responsive orprivate shuttle service available?OR is a bicycle available AND can it be brought onboard?OR is a bike-sharing station with bicycles available?








Is service offered at or near the times required?








Are the schedule and routing known?OR is telephone, text, or Internet information offered, the service available when customers use it, and the information accurately provided?








Is space available to board the transit vehicle when it arrives?When applicable: Is space available in the park-and

ride lot? Is there an open spot on the

bicycle rack OR is secure bicycle parking available at the stop?

Is there an available wheelchair position inside the vehicle?



Typical Comfort and Convenience Factors

In-vehicle crowding Can I get a seat, will I have to stand & for how long, how crowded is it?

Reliability Can I expect to get to my destination at the scheduled time, or do I need to

allow extra time?Travel time How long will my door-to-door trip take? How long would the same trip take

using other modes? Will I have to transfer, and how easy is it?Pedestrian and bicycle environment Can I get to and from transit stops safely and directly?

Cost How much will my trip cost? How easy is it to pay my fare? How much do

would other travel options cost?Safety and securityAmenities, appearance, maintenance, driver friendliness


Quality of

Service

Framework


Developing the QOS Framework

User outreach efforts during the development of the 3rd Edition found two main user groups for the QOS framework Transit agencies

Like being able to evaluate many different aspects of QOS Don’t like level of service (LOS) letters A-F: look too much like grades

Planning agencies Comfortable with the LOS concept, apply it to other modes Prefer a single LOS measure that can be compared to other modes

Both groups agreed that the 2nd Edition framework was measuring the right QOS factors3rd Edition QOS methods designed to meet the needs of both groups


QOS Framework Changes

The 3rd Edition retains the basic QOS framework for transit agencies Three aspects of availability, three aspects of comfort & convenience Specific performance measure used for a given aspect may vary depending on

scale of analysis (stop/route/system), vehicle type, or service type Service level tables have been retained

LOS numbers and letters have been removed Number of service levels allowed to vary from 6 as appropriate Comments on the operator point-of-view for a given service level have been added

to the existing comments on the passenger point-of-view Designed to support service standards development and aid in interpreting

evaluations of existing and future conditions

Availability Comfort and Convenience Frequency Service Span Access

Passenger Load Reliability Travel Time


LOS Approach: 1st and 2nd Editions

LOS % TSA Covered Comments A 90.0-100.0% Virtually all major origins & destinations served B 80.0-89.9% Most major origins & destinations served C 70.0-79.9% About ¾ of higher-density areas served D 60.0-69.9% About two-thirds of higher-density areas served E 50.0-59.9% At least ½ of the higher-density areas served F <50.0% Less than ½ of higher-density areas served

TSA = transit supportive area (≥3 households/gross acre or ≥4 jobs/gross acre)

Service coverage example


QOS Approach: 3rd Edition

Service Level Passenger Perspective Operator Perspective>90% ofservice area population served

Transit serves nearly all destinations within a community

On-board travel time may be long, as routes wind and loop through neighborhoods to meet a service coverage standard

Transit operator has made a policy decision to emphasize coverage over cost-efficiency

Portions of routes covering low-density areas likely to be unproductive

>90% of transit-supportive area served

Transit serves nearly all higher-density areas within the community

Destinations located in lower-density areas may not be accessible

May be inefficient to serve isolated portions of the transit-supportive area due to poor street connectivity or geographic barriers

Likely inefficient to serve small pockets of higher density surrounded by large areas of low density

75–90% of transit-supportive area served

Most destinations within higher-density areas are served, but not all

Balances coverage and cost-efficiency objectives

50–74% of transit-supportive area served

A majority of destinations within higher-density areas are served

Walking and bicycling access to transit likely to be longer, as service is provided farther away from many origins and/or destinations

Potential opportunity to add service, as many areas that could support service have no service

<50% of transit-supportive area served

Service is typically provided only in the community’s highest-density corridors

What service is provided is likely to be relatively direct, resulting in relatively short travel times

Transit operator has made a policy decision to emphasize cost-efficiency over coverage


Multimodal Transit LOS Measure

The 3rd Edition adds a “multimodal transit LOS measure” for planning agencies Measure developed by the NCHRP 3-92 project and subsequently incorporated

into the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 Provides A-F letters indicating the level of service Incorporates most of the same factors in the QOS framework, but provides a

single LOS measure Access to transit: pedestrian environment Waiting for transit: frequency, reliability, shelter/bench presence On-board experience: passenger loads, transit speed

Index values and associated LOS letters can be directly compared to those from companion measures for the auto, bicycle, and pedestrian modes

Can be used to evaluate trade-offs in traveler satisfaction when allocating street right-of-way between modes

Spreadsheet included on the CD-ROM to help perform the calculations


Quality of

Service

Measures


Frequency

Transit service can only be used at discrete times If service is only offered hourly, there is a very small window of time during the

hour when a transit trip can be started immediatelyMore-frequent service provides more opportunities for immediate travel Transit service more closely resembles competing modes (auto, bicycle,

pedestrian) in terms of departure time convenienceFrequency is attractive to passengers Ridership increases as frequency increases, although a diminishing returns

principle appliesFrequency is a key driver of operating costs Improvements to speed and reliability can allow better frequency at the same

costWhen transfers are involved, frequency is only as good as the weakest link in the trip


Frequency QOS

Seven levels ≤5 minutes >5 to 10 minutes 11 to 15 minutes 16 to 30 minutes 31 to 59 minutes 60 minutes >60 minutes

QOS table listing the passenger and operator perspectives fills most of 2 pages, so only an example is shown here

>5–10 min Frequent service, no need for passengers to consult schedules

Bus bunching possible, which can result in longer-than-planned waits for a bus and more variable loads

Feasible on high-density corridors with bus or rail service, and where routes converge to serve a major activity center

Short headways needed for circulator routes to be able to compete with walking and bicycling (2)

Exclusive right-of-way desirable to reduce external impacts on transit operations and to keep operating speeds high (minimizing operating costs)

Traffic congestion, dwell time variability, and differences in bus operator driving styles may result in bus bunching

Increasing frequency to add capacity usually feasible (budget permitting) when exclusive right-of-way provided in congested areas


Service Span

Service span determines the potential markets that transit serves Starting and ending times of activities

Work School Medical appointments Shopping

Longer service spans serve a greater number of potential passengers Non-traditional work hours Night classes Friday & Saturday night activities

Longer service spans than needed to serve a particular market give passengers flexibility Ability to stay late Insurance against being stranded


Service Span QOS

Based on number of hours when service offered at least hourly

Six levels >18 hours 15 to 18 hours 12 to 14 hours 7 to 11 hours 4 to 6 hours <4 hours

Hours of Service Passenger Perspective Operator Perspective >18 h A full range of trip purposes can be

served Allows bus travel to replace potentially

riskier travel (e.g., crime, drunk driving, poor visibility) by other modes late at night

Often branded as “night” or “owl” service May require added driver pay for late-

night work May require increased security measures

on transit vehicles and in transit facilities May only be offered certain days (e.g.,

Friday and Saturday nights) May be operated on a different set of

routes than operate the rest of the day (e.g., emphasizing coverage over travel time)


Service Coverage

Mode used to access transit depends on distance to travel and facilities provided along the way and at the transit stopWalking is the most common access mode for urban transit service 50-80% of persons walk ¼ mile or less to a local bus stop 50% of persons walk ½ mile or less to rail and BRT service Terrain, street connectivity, street-crossing difficulty, demography are factors

Bicycling can extend a stop’s market area A person can cover 4 times the distance in the same time,

compared to walkingAutos used in lower-density areas to access commuter/express bus and rail transit service when park-and-ride facilities are provided Market area depends on area topography and access road network Typical: 50% of demand comes from within 2.5 miles of lot, 35% of demand

comes from upstream up to 10 miles away from lot


Transit-supportive Densities

Ridership increases with density More people (potential customers) located within a given area Greater propensity for a given person to use transit

TCQSM provides guidance on densities capable of supporting particular service and modes Values dependent on how much one subsidizes transit service TCQSM values assume 33% farebox recovery (2010 US average was 27%)

Household Density Multiplicative Change Relative to Base Condition (HH/acre) (HH/ha) Households Likelihood of Using Transit Overall Transit Demand

2.35 5.8 1.0 1.0 1 4.7 11.6 2.0 2.0 4

10.9 26.9 4.7 5.9 28 26.6 65.7 11.7 15.9 186 46.9 115.9 20.0 24.0 480


Service Coverage QOS

Five levels >90% of population served >90% of transit-supportive area served 75 to 90% of transit-supportive area served 50 to 74% of transit-supportive area served <50% of transit-supportive area served

Transit-supportive area defined as an area capable of supporting hourly weekday transit service At least 3 households per gross acre or 4 jobs per gross acre Assumes 33% farebox recovery

QOS planned for depends very much on transit agency’s policy emphasis: coverage vs. cost-efficiency or frequencyQOS table shown on a previous slide


Passenger Loads

Passengers perceive travel in crowded conditions as being more onerous than travel in less-crowded conditions, even when they have a seat Value of time begins to increase when 80% of seats are occupied Standing passengers’ perceived value of time considerably higher than seated

passengers’Cost-effectiveness improves as passenger loads increasePassenger throughput generally improves as passenger loads increasePassenger boarding & alighting times increase as the number of standing passengers on-board increases


Passenger Load QOS:

Vehicles Designed for Most Passengers Seated

Nearly all buses, all commuter rail, all ferry, some other rail vehicles with narrow aisles and transverse seatingSix levels Up to 50% seated load Up to 80% seated load Up to 100% seated load Up to 125% seated load Up to 150% seated load >150% seated load

Up to 125% seated load

Up to 20% of passengers must stand Standees may need to shift position

within the vehicle at each stop as other passengers board or alight

Perceived travel time up to 1.25x actual travel time for seated passengers and up to 2.1x actual travel time for standees

Very productive service Often used as a service standard for off-

peak bus service Time to serve boarding and alighting

passengers goes up when standees are present, resulting in longer dwell times and potentially slower travel speeds than at lower loading levels


Passenger Load QOS:

Vehicles Designed for Most Passengers Standing

Special-purpose buses, most light and heavy railSix levels >1.0 m2 (10.8 ft2) per passenger 0.5 to 1.0 m2 per passenger 0.4 to 0.49 m2 per passenger 0.3 to 0.39 m2 per passenger 0.2 to 0.29 m2 per passenger <0.2 m2 (2.2 ft2) per passenger

<2.2 ft2/p <0.20 m2/p

Crush loading conditions Moving to and from doorways extremely difficult, increasing dwell time (13)

Passengers waiting to board may try to shift to a door in a less-crowded section of the vehicle, increasing dwell time

Passengers waiting to board may choose to wait for the next vehicle, increasing platform crowding


Reliability

The more unreliable the service, the more extra time passengers have to allow for their trip Arriving at stops earlier than necessary Taking an earlier trip than necessary

The more unreliable the service, the more recovery time that agencies need to insert into the schedule to compensate Time could be better used in service (operating the route more frequently,

operating a longer route)Reliability issues depend in part on the scheduled headway Short headways: bus bunching and train stopping/starting Long headways: on-time performance, early departures


Reliability QOS:

Headway-based Service

Applicable to service that operates at 10-min headways or better,or to service without fixed departure timesBased on headway variability (standard deviation of headways divided by the scheduled headway) Described in terms of the probability that a passenger arriving at a stop will

experience a vehicle more than ½ headway off the scheduled headwaySix service levels

cvh P (abs[hi-h] > 0.5 h) Passenger and Operator Perspective 0.00-0.21 ≤2% Service provided like clockwork 0.22-0.30 ≤10% Vehicles slightly off headway 0.31-0.39 ≤20% Vehicles often off headway 0.40-0.52 ≤33% Irregular headways, with some bunching 0.53-0.74 ≤50% Frequent bunching

≥0.75 >50% Most vehicles bunched


Reliability QOS:

Schedule-based Service

Applicable to service that operates to a fixed scheduleBased on on-time performance Defined as a departure no more than 1 minute early and up to 5 minutes late

Five service levels 95-100% 90-94% 80-89% 70-79% <70%

80–89% Passenger making one round trip per weekday with no transfers experiences up to two not-on-time vehicles every week

Typical range for commuter rail that shares track with freight rail

Typical range for light rail with some street running

Achievable by bus services in small to mid-sized cities


Travel Time

Travel time is an important consideration in mode choiceTravel time impacts operating costs: the slower the route, the more vehicles that are required to be in service to provide a given headway


Based on the ratio of in-vehicle transit time to in-vehicle auto timeSix service levels

Transit–Auto Travel Time Ratio Passenger Perspective Operator Perspective ≤1 Faster trip by transit than by auto Feasible when transit operates in a

separate right-of-way and the roadway network is congested

>1–1.25 Comparable in-vehicle travel times by transit and auto

For a 40-min commute, transit takes up to 10 min longer

Feasible with express service Feasible with limited-stop service in an

exclusive lane or right-of-way

>1.25–1.5 Tolerable for choice riders For a 40-min commute, transit takes up to

20 min longer

>1.5–1.75 Round trip up to 1 h longer by transit for a 40-min one-way trip

>1.75–2 A trip takes up to twice as long by transit than by auto

May be best possible result for mixed traffic operations in congested downtown areas

>2 Tedious for all riders May be best possible result for small city service that emphasizes coverage over direct connections

Travel Time QOS


Multimodal Transit LOS

Measure draws from research into ridership response to QOS changes and passenger values of timeThree main elements: Frequency (average % increase in ridership as frequency improves) Travel time (average % increase in ridership as travel time decreases) Pedestrian environment (adjusts LOS up or down based on particularly good or

bad pedestrian access to a stop)Travel times are based on perceived travel times, expressed as a travel time rate (minutes per mile) Bus stop amenities (value of time of shelter, bench) Reliability (excess wait time) Passenger load (perceived travel time rate) Travel speed (actual travel time rate)


Multimodal Transit LOS

Transit wait-ride score represents ridership for the route being evaluated, relative to a route with hourly headways and a baseline speed (typically 15 mph, 10 mph in major city downtown areas) Score of 2.0 indicates a route would be expected to attract twice the ridership

of the same route operating hourly with a 15 mph average speedTransit LOS score incorporates the wait-ride score and the pedestrian LOS score and adjusts the result to use the same scale as the other modal LOS scores:

LOS LOS Score A ≤2.00 B >2.00–2.75 C >2.75–3.50 D >3.50–4.25 E >4.25–5.00 F >5.00


Demand Responsive QOS

There is a corresponding QOS framework and measures for demand responsive transit Covered in the DRT presentation


Applications


Potential Applications

Comprehensive planningLong-range transportation planningStatewide transportation planningService standards developmentComprehensive operational analysisTransit development plansService planningCorridor planning


Comprehensive Planning

Multimodal comprehensive plans provide goals, policies, and objectives for the transit service provided, or desired to be provided, within a city or county Service goals may be aspirational (city/county is not the service provider) Service goals may become the basis for service standards (city/county is the

service provider)QOS measures relating to availability can be used in setting objectives For example, minimum span of service for trunk and local routes

Information in QOS chapters can be used to demonstrate the impact of different land use densities, street connectivity, and sidewalk provision policies on transit access Impact on ridership Impact on number of households/persons with transit access Impact on transit operating costs (e.g., number of route miles required to meet

a service coverage goal)


Long-range Transportation Planning

LRTPs identify city- or region-wide transportation needs over a longer period of time (e.g., 20 years) If plan preparer is not the service provider, LRTPs often focus on the actions

that can be taken to support transit (e.g., sidewalk improvements) If plan preparer is the service provider, the transit element may be more

specific and contain many of the elements of a transit development planA common application of the TCQSM 1st and 2nd Editions was to evaluate existing transit service qualityMuch more valuable to also use it to evaluate service quality provided by various future alternatives, to aid decision-makingPossible types of analysis: Activity center analysis (origin–destination trips) Corridor analysis (transit streets, priority/frequent bus network) Service coverage analysis (areawide, corridor)


Statewide Transportation Planning

QOS measures derivable from National Transit Database data can be used to track trends in fixed-route transit provision across the state Statewide, or broken out into population ranges

Example measures Average system peak-period headway Average system speed (revenue miles/revenue hours) System service span

Measures require no special data collection


Service Standards Development

Service standards are used to state the QOS the transit agency intends to deliver and to compare actual performance to promised/targeted performanceThe redesign of the QOS framework for the 3rd Edition was done with service standards development in mindSet service standards based on desired passenger QOS to be delivered and available agency resourcesThe comments on the passenger and operator perspectives for each service level in the QOS tables can be used to match agency goals to a corresponding service level


Comprehensive Operational Analysis

COAs provide a detailed, route-by-route evaluation of existing service and an evaluation of systemwide operations May be conducted in conjunction with, or immediately prior to, a transit

development plan updateQOS measures can be incorporated into a COA to: Describe evaluation results in terms of passenger experiences Compare results to established service standards Compare changes in results from the previous analysis

When archived AVL and APC data are not available to an agency, COAs provide a rare opportunity to evaluate in detail the comfort and convenience aspects of transit service Passenger loads, reliability, travel time/speed

Availability measures can be used as part of an environmental justice analysis, comparing relative service quality between areas


Transit Development Plans

TDPs set out a transit agency’s near-term service strategyExample applications: Mapping current and/or planned conditions (route-by-route, street-by-street)

Frequency, hours of service, loading, reliability, coverage Service levels help to group routes on the basis of similar service quality

Prioritizing improvments Loading, reliability, transit–auto travel time

Service equity & environmental justice comparisons Comparing relative service quality between communities

Peer reviews Relatively few QOS measures derivable from National Transit Database data

(see statewide transportation planning slide for examples) May be possible to directly contact peers to obtain additional QOS-related

information Exhibit 5-42 gives examples of potential measures and data sources


Service Planning

Service monitoring Regularly compare existing service to adopted service standards, and make

adjustments as needed when service falls outside the standards Loading, reliability are commonly monitored QOS tables can be used to set realistic expectations

Service development Identify service requirements for new/future developments when fully built

out Identify and prioritize origin–destination patterns that may require quicker

transit connections Prioritize locations/corridors for transit prefererential treatments and/or

operations measures to improve speed and reliability


Corridor Planning

Corridor master plans, preliminary design/project development studies, and premium transit studies address improvements over an extended section of roadway Transit may the focus of the study, or one of multiple modes addressed

Example applications: Scoping transit improvements (guideways, spot improvements) Identifying access improvements to transit stops Determining required service frequency to meet a given ridership demand at a

given passenger load service standard


More Information

TCRP Report 165: TCQSM Chapter 4, Quality of Service Concepts Chapter 5, Quality of Service Methods

The TCQSM is available as: Free individual printed copies and PDF downloads through the TCRP

Dissemination Programhttp://www.tcrponline.org

Free PDF downloads directly from TCRPhttp://www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx (Publications section)or simply do an Internet search for the report number (e.g., TCRP Report 165)

Individual or multiple copy purchases from the TRB Bookstorehttp://books.trbbookstore.org/

http://www.tcrponline.org/

http://www.trb.org/TCRP/Public/TCRP.aspx

http://books.trbbookstore.org/


Acknowledgments and Permissions

Presentation author Paul Ryus (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.)

Photo credits All photos: Paul Ryus

This presentation was developed through TCRP Project A-15C Research team: Kittelson & Associates; Parsons Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglass;

KFH Group; Texas A&M Transportation Institute; and Arup This presentation and its contents may be freely distributed and used, with

appropriate credit to the presentation authors and photographers, and the Transit Cooperative Research Program

fixed route quality of service

Documents