Bus On-time performance statistics at Metro

Every month, Metro’s customer service committee looks at a presentation on operating statistics, which includes a chart showing the latest bus “on-time performance” percentage.  Usually, the number is around 73-75% and reflects the number of buses that arrive within a certain time before or after the published schedule.

This number is not helpful as a management tool.  If the on-time percentage improves or degrades, without looking any further would Metro be able to say why?  If the percentage degrades drastically, could the Board do anything other than ask Management to do a better job?

The number does not identify problems with bus bunching, especially on frequent routes.  Second, the number does not improve understanding and correction of bus system problems.  Management needs to be able to identify trends, detect problems with individual routes or trips, and focus their attention on the areas that might need more resources or oversight.

The reported on-time percentage doesn’t promote accountability to the public.  Wouldn’t it be nice if you knew how poorly your bus line performed, and knew why Metro was devoting a lot of time to improving that other bus route before yours?

London has a great bus on-time performance measurement program.  Because the bus lines in London are operated by private contractors, it’s very important for the local transit authorities to accurately measure on-time performance because there are real financial incentives or penalties involved.

Here's the difference in how Metro measures on-time performance compared to London, as an example:  Imagine a bus line that is supposed to have service every ten minutes,  but experiences bunching.  Take five buses in a row starting at 8am (see top line in the figure), bunch the middle three together and spread the other two out (see bottom line in the figure).  This is a worst case, but under Metro’s on-time percentage rules, all of these buses are considered “on-time”, because each bus is within two minutes ahead of or seven minutes behind schedule (the green bar shows the range of times the 8:20 bus could arrive and still be considered on-time).  A passenger arriving for the 8am bus will have just missed it (it left two minutes early), and will have to wait until 8:17 for the next bus, a wait of just over seventeen minutes for a bus that’s supposed to come every ten!

London looks at bus on-time measuring differently.  They measure how often buses pass by certain points on the network and track the “excess waiting time”.  All that time you have to wait for a bus that’s running late or is bunched with others is added up and averaged over the route, and the excess waiting is compared to how much you’d normally have to wait assuming you come to the bus stop randomly.  In our example above, the average scheduled wait time is five minutes, and there are two buses you’d have to wait on average eight minutes, so the excess waiting is six minutes total, about 1.5 minutes per bus, or about 30% extra (note that buses don’t get credit for making you wait less than average).

This makes it easy to see when high-frequency buses are not meeting the required headways, and London applies this calculation to all buses that are supposed to come every 12 minutes or better.  They even post the information on the web quarterly.

For frequent buses, Metro should change the way they measure on-time performance.  The current measurement does not work for frequent buses.  The London model is customer-oriented, compares various bus routes’ performance, and gives a sense of the magnitude of the problem.

In addition to this change for high-frequency bus routes, Metro should start regularly reporting on-time performance figures for all bus routes, as part of the monthly ridership report.  They should also highlight the worst performing lines for each jursidiction.  If the problem is somehow Metro’s fault, the route can receive the appropriate management attention.  More likely, traffic congestion or other factors are at fault, and Metro Board members would then have data in hand to make their case with state and local transportation officials, to make transit operation a higher priority on corridors that are experiencing poor performance.

By identifying and improving poor performing bus lines, we can get people moving to their destinations more quickly, and reduce operating costs.  Faster travel speeds and more regular schedules would drive up ridership, improving Metro’s bottom line and allowing more service with the same local subsidy.  Metro has to improve the way they present performance metrics to make it possible.

All 50 States

Based on Google Analytics, I’ve now had a visit from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  Thanks, everyone!

Who’s using GTFS data – UniBus review

After Metro released schedule and route information in GTFS format, I’ve been looking for a good schedule and route finding app for the iPhone/iPod Touch.  There are two applications I found that fit the bill, iTransitBuddy (reviewed earlier) and UniBus.  If you know of a great iPhone/iPod app that uses GTFS data and meets my needs, please let me know in the comments and I’ll take a look at it. 

The bottom line:  UniBus is much more feature-rich than iTransitBuddy, but suffers from some similar data quality issues with the WMATA GTFS feed.  I give Unibus about 4 out of 5.

The features include being able to search for stop or route names, or using the location service to find stop or stations near your current location.  You can designate stop/line/destination sets as “favorites”.

Once you’ve found a stop, you can see the lines that service that stop, and, if you’re connected, display the stop on the map.  If more than one bus line services the same stop, this is really convenient because you can scroll through the list to see which one is departing earliest.  Unfortunately, the favorites feature doesn’t work for stops, only stop/line/destination combinations (e.g., the combination “Orange Line to Vienna from Ballston” is what you are designating as a favorite).  I’ll be suggesting that feature to the author since that’s how many of the lines on my “12-minute” bus map work, where you take one of a number of lines in order to get where you’re going.

You can also search for routes.  In this case, many Metrobus (and some Metrorail) routes operate as short turn or tripper bus service, where the bus either ends the route early and turns around, or starts the route mid-way.  This design and the way the GTFS data is coded makes the “find route” feature much less usable.  For example, searching for “Metrorail Orange Line” gives “Vienna” and “New Carrollton” as possible destinations, as expected.  But it’s strange that both “Stadium” and “Stadium Armory” show up (because of turn back service ending there).  Even stranger is the fact that “Largo Town Cwnter [sic]” shows up as a destination for the Orange Line (possibly for the few times per year WMATA operates special service?).

It’s great to be able to select stops that are near your current location.  The only problem with this feature is that the stops are presented to you as a list, with very similar names.  There’s no feature to show these stops on a map until you’ve selected one.  There’s also no feature to select a point on a map and then show transit stops near that point.  It would be an improvement to list the lines that are near your current location, so if you know your line or destination you could pick that instead and it would show or tell you where the stop is for that line.

When you pick a route, direction and day (today, tomorrow or the next day), all departure times are displayed, even ones that have already departed.  For a frequent route like the X2, you may have to scroll through a lot of entries to get to “now”.  However, going to your favorites will automatically display the next two vehicles for each favorite, if there’s any service that day. 

There are some nice features like a “back” button.  On the other hand, UniBus also occasionally crashes, exiting out to the application selection screen without any error message.

Overall, I would say that UniBus is much more useful than iTransitBuddy, but some characteristics of WMATA’s service as well as GTFS data quality issues occasionally create annoying problems.  Setting up a good list of favorites helps a lot.  Data for other transit agencies that have GTFS feeds is available from within UniBus.  UniBus is available through the apps store for $1.99.

Disclosure: the developer of UniBus provided me with a free copy of the application for review purposes, and partially as a “thank you” for GGW’s effort in getting WMATA to release GTFS data (I pointed out to him when the data was made available).

Who’s using GTFS data? – iTransitBuddy review

After Metro released its schedule data in Google Transit Feed Specification format, I wanted an iPod/iPhone app that would let me find out quickly how long it would be until the next bus or train. There are a lot of transit apps out there, but not many have bus data or offline caching mode. I downloaded two apps, iTransitBuddy and UniBus (subject of a future review this week).

The bottom line: iTransitBuddy downloads, searches and displays Metrorail and Metrobus schedules. The app has some interface issues, and Metro’s data contains some problems. On the other hand, the “favorites” feature might make this 99¢ purchase worth it. I’d give it 2.5 out of a 5-point scale, with one lost point being Metro’s fault for issues with the schedule data.

For iTransitBuddy, you start by selecting a line, origin and destination.

The stops are listed in alphabetical order by the name that Metro assigned, rather than in order along the line. I found this to be confusing because it’s not always clear what Metro decided to name each stop. Is it “8th Street at Pennsylvania”? No, it’s “Se 8Th St Se D St”. It seems unnecessary to choose your destination, because most of the time you don’t need to know how long the bus will take to get where you’re going, just when the next bus is. Because of the size of the database, searches for the stops on a line take a long time, a step that is required twice because you need to pick origin and destination. The app should be allowed to just show you the next scheduled arrivals at your stop in both directions.

The app only allows you to search for one route at a time, so if there are two or three different possible routes to your destination (like the 90s, Pike Ride, the 30s or even the Metrorail Blue/Orange lines) you must search individually for them to figure out which one is coming first. iTransitBuddy lets you store “Favorites”, which allow you to quickly access an line/origin/destination search. On my iPod Touch (2nd Gen), a search for Metrorail trips from East Falls Church to Eastern Market takes about 11 seconds, and a search for Ballston to East Falls Church takes about the same amount of time. A search for a short bus ride along the 90s line takes about 8 seconds. I don’t know whether the iPod first generation or the iPhone have faster or slower access times. The newly announced iPhone 3rd Generation should be a little faster.

The app displays an unreasonable amount of data, showing arrivals that happen up to 24 hours in the future. This might be so that you can look for trips that happen much later in the day, but I think the interface could be improved to allow later searches, while allowing a “next bus” lookup that happens a lot faster.

Metro’s data appears to be out of date and has some quality issues. The N22 line is still listed, even though the line stopped service in March. The new Woodley Park/McPherson Sq and Union Station/Navy Yard Circulator routes are not listed, and the three older Circulator routes are jumbled together in one big collection that lists every stop. The Mall, 7th Street and K Street lines are all listed under “DC Circulator” in the same list. There seems to be some sort of issue where every trip shows up twice (sometimes with an offset of a couple minutes) in the list of trips for some Metrorail lines.

These issues are unfortunate considering one of the reasons Metro didn’t participate in Google Transit was a concern about Google guaranteeing the information would be accurate and up-to-date. I think that it’s more likely that Metro was unable to produce GTFS data of sufficient quality for Google’s needs, and Metro was forced to punt, publishing the data with a broad disclaimer. I’m going to speculate that the schedule data in Metro’s databases works well enough for Metro, but when they try to use automated processes to extract the data, there must be problems with the export.

iTransitBuddy makes Metro’s scheduling data available, and with the “favorites” feature you can have your favorite bus stop and line data at your fingertips, though you will have to wait a long time to get a too many results. The interface could use some improvements.

With a few tweaks, like listing bus stops geographically, having a “settings” feature to limit search results to at most a couple hours in the future, and being able to combine bus routes or find all bus routes for a stop, iTransitBuddy could be what you’re looking for in a GTFS-searching iPhone or iPod app. There are some interface and data quality problems. On the other hand, it’s a bargain at only $0.99 (for a limited time).

Metrorail budget has been flat over the past 10 years

Ever waited 20 minutes for an on-time Metrorail train?  If you regularly ride after 9pm, you have.  But it doesn't have to be that way.  If the Metrorail subsidy had increased with the rate of inflation over the past 10 years, there would be enough money to just about eliminate all 20-minute headways before midnight.

As Metrorail continues to rack up ridership gains, especially during off-peak periods, WMATA has continued to operate off-peak headways more appropriate for a sleepy, commuter-only city.  Increases in passenger demand since 1999 have been managed by running longer trains, which is less expensive than running more frequent trains. 

The Metro budget is divided into three operating modes.  As I discussed in an earlier article,  changes in fare policy have been very different between Metrorail, Metrobus and Metroaccess.  The fare increases, which have been primarily aimed at rush-hour rail commuters and parking, have kept the subsidy needed to support rail from increasing, staying flat in nominal dollars over a 10-year period, which is actually a decline when you take into account inflation. 

But what if the regions' support of rail had been kept at least even with inflation?  According to my calculations, there would be an extra $20M per year available, which is enough to run trains more frequently in the late evening (every 15 minutes instead of every 20).

Of course, that’s not the only thing WMATA could do to improve service.  Instead, they could reverse some of the budget gimmicks used to balance this year’s budget, and perform capital maintenance under the capital budget.  There’s about $10M of that.  That would free up some of the capital budget to purchase more farecard machines, more faregates, or even make some station improvements.

This would mean that the local jurisdictions would be asked to chip in more, but I think it’s a reasonable request that our successful Metrorail system not suffer from a long-term decline in spending.  A lot of people made the choice to live near metrorail, and many jurisdictions are building new housing near stations so that people can live car-free.  Why not reward these decisions by improving Metrorail service during off-peak?

Longer headways off-peak is a big reason not to ride Metrorail for a lot of people, especially when the headways get really long.  A 20-minute wait added to another 20-minute wait, combined with relatively low traffic congestion at night and on weekends, and the trip gets very long compared to driving.  As I argued earlier, once people make the decision that they need or want a car for at least some of their trips, it becomes easier for them to decide they want a car for all of their trips, because once you own a car, additional trips are relatively cheap.

So longer headways contribute at the margin to increased car ownership, which contributes to peak hour congestion.  WMATA should use some of the increased fare revenues from the past 10 years to eliminate the 20 minute headway from the Metrorail vocabulary.

Arlington Democrats to select candidate for 47th District - Vote June 9th

After serving since 2004, Delegate Al Eisenberg is retiring.  Thanks to Mr. Eisenberg for representing my district these past five years in Richmond.  His staff was responsive to my questions and concerns during legislative sessions, and for the most part I agreed with his votes and proposed legislation.

Five Democrats are competing in a primary for his seat.  No Republicans have filed to run against the winner of the Democratic Primary, so this primary looks like it will determine the winner of the seat.  These elections are typically very low turnout (around 2000-5000 votes compared to 10,000 to 25,000 for a general election), so your vote could be very important in this race.

If you’re a Virginia Democrat, please remember to go vote on June 9th.  There’s also a three-way nomination contest for Governor, between Creigh Deeds, Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe.

The 47th District (map below) stretches from the East Falls Church metro station, where I live, all the way down to Columbia Pike, over to Ballston and Virginia Square metro stations.

View Virginia House of Delegates District 47 in a larger map

I sent questionnaires about transit to all of the delegate candidates for the 47th District, Miles Grant and Alan Howze responded (links to their responses on scribd).  I’m still waiting for Patrick Hope, Adam Parkhomenko, and Andres Tobar.

Miles' experience comes from his blog "The Green Miles" and groups like Arlingtonians for a Clean Environment; his strong suit is definitely the environment.  He's got Greater Greater Washington in his blogroll, and he appears to be running his largely self-financed campaign on a shoestring.  Miles has pledged to keep his campaign carbon neutral, and states publicly how he is minimizing his impact through using recycled materials and reusing things as much as possible.  He updates regularly on twitter (@milesgrant), and responds to questions fairly quickly.  He seems the candidate most comfortable personally with Web 2.0 technology.

 

Alan comes to the campaign an experienced political director for Governor Warner, and liason to the House and Senate Delegations.  He’s worked closely with the Democratic leadership in Richmond.  His environmental credentials are no less sterling than Miles’.  He started his university’s first comprehensive recycling program, and is a member of the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.  He worked directly with the Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and is starting a home energy audit business.  He lives with his wife and two children in the Westover area.  He is a regular bicycle commuter.

 

Both Grant and Howze are supportive of the Columbia Pike streetcar project, and both acknowledge that the local residents are apprehensive about the changes the project will bring.  Grant states that the issues can be managed, while Howze more specifically states that the County Board should address some of those issues.  While Grant expressed support for other transportation improvements like Lee Highway and a Beltway metro (in the very long term), Howze did not mention any additional transit lines in his response.

Both candidates stated that BRT was a valuable option, but only Grant specifically mentioned the development advantage with rail transit:  “Would a business set up shop on the Pike because there’s a rapid bus as opposed to a regular bus”?  Howze mentioned that there was no one right answer and the mode decision would have to be made on a case basis.

Howze had a much stronger response to a question about how to raise more money for transit, being able to cite his experience working for Governor Warner, and passing legislation through the General Assembly.  Grant is basically only able to say that he’ll make the case that blocking transit funding is blocking economic growth.  It may be true, but it might not be enough to convince the house GOP, which has until now blocked any new general taxes for transit.

Both candidates gave similar responses to a question about how we make sure transportation funding goes where it’s most effective, essentially committing to striving to get Northern Virginia its fair share, but other than that neither candidate’s answer really stood out.  Grant cited the need for a “radically different set of policies”, and Howze cited his experience working at a statewide level.

Both candidates oppose widening 66, citing that increasing highway capacity will just encourage more use.  They both support increasing transit capabilities as a tool for reducing highway congestion.  Grant more directly mentioned affordable housing as a method of reducing congestion, mentioning that he’d prefer making it easier for a teacher to live in Arlington as opposed to commuting from Warrenton.

Both candidates were for allowing localities to require building standards similar to LEED, and for allowing localities broader powers to address their local concerns.  I think both candidates pointed out difficulties with LEED but were supportive of LEED’s intent.  As part of his training to be an energy auditor, Howze has studied for the LEED certification.

Both candidates support an increase in the gas tax.  Grant supports if the money is carefully appropriated, with a concern that the tax revenue could be sent to other parts of the state.  When asked whether fixed-cost fees like licensing and titling were preferable, Grant said that he preferred mileage-based fees because they affect the occasional driver less than the daily long-haul commuter.  I think Howze brought up a great point that any fees or taxes need to be stable so that the Commonwealth can raise bonds against them. 

I’m split between the two of them.  Both candidates have been responsive to questions, understand Northern Virginia’s transportation issues, and understand the link between good transit and land use.  It’s unfortunate that you’re only allowed to pick one, I’d prefer a ranked choice voting system or some system that allowed me to vote for more than one. 

If other candidates respond to my questions I’ll try to pass that information along. 

I’m specifically not making an endorsement other than to say that either Grant or Howze are clearly bright individuals with the experience they need for the office.  As Northern Virginia Democrats, they have similar views on transportation, taxes, public finance and social issues.  Mr. Howze appears to bring more directly applicable experience to the office, having worked for Virginia public officials, while Mr. Grant appears to have a better feel for the many interlinked topics when it comes to planning, land use, transportation and the environment.  At this point, I’m going to vote for one of the two, I’m just not sure which one.

Multispace Meters make performance parking easier

According to a recent press release, DDOT has installed new multispace parking meters all over downtown, including Connecticut Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue, and the Chinatown area. These meters replace older single-head meters which have been unreliable.

The new meters have some capabilities that will help the District more easily implement performance parking. One of the difficulties with implementing a good performance parking plan is the trouble with collecting good data about parking occupancy, and with having meter prices that make sense at different times of day and days of the week.

With old meters, you might only get the number of quarters collected, if it’s logged. The transactions won’t be tied to times of day or days of the week. To get the kind of occupancy data you need for performance parking, you have to do manual counts and surveys. This isn’t a very efficient use of manpower, which may be one reason why performance parking hasn’t taken off yet in many cities.

Additionally, since old meters only allow for one hourly rate, it’s difficult or impossible to implement rates that vary by time of day or day of week. It’s an all-or-nothing prospect, which is why meters typically run all day and then offer free parking at all other hours, including Saturday and evenings. But there is sometimes too much demand to let the parking go free, but not enough demand to charge daytime rates.

The new meters are capable of collecting and transmitting transaction-level data, down to the amount of parking purchased, time of day, and date of sale. By analyzing this data, DDOT can get a very accurate picture of how crowded various parking meters are and when. For example, I obtained a day’s worth of data from a parking meter on 8th Street SE (near M Street SE). The data show a dual peak of demand at lunchtime and at 3pm. This data combined with targeted occupancy surveys would allow DDOT to adjust meter rates to more closely match the demand for parking with the price.

Number of cars purchasing time in 30-minute blocks from 7am to 7pm.

As the performance parking pilot around the ballpark demonstrates, the new meters allow for variable pricing by time of day, for the first hour, or even something as complex as special event pricing.

This combination of data collection and flexible rates allows DDOT to more easily implement performance parking downtown. DDOT should work with the Council and local groups to roll out performance parking slowly and steadily, starting with the most crowded blocks and based on the data reported by the District's investment in multispace meters. DDOT should implement a plan of regular data collection and analysis, with surveys to confirm the calculations. Then, rates and time limits should be adjusted to implement a target occupancy, in order to make parking more convenient and available.

Photo by Michael Perkins, parking meter data from DDOT.