1. Assessing Michigan’s Transit Condition
Projects
Assessing Michigan’s Transit Condition
Customer Satisfaction and Trip Purpose
Eva Kassens-Noor,
Zeenat Kotval-K.
Michigan State University
School of Planning, Design and Construction
Annual Conference
August 25th, 2017

2. Projects & Team
Role:
Mediator between MDOT and transit agencies (anonymity of reporting)
Support MDOT in fulfilling federal reporting obligations (aggregated results)
Introduction
TEAM:
Dr. Eva Kassens-Noor
Dr. Zeenat Kotval-K
Our Research Assistants
Specialty
Transportation Planning
Urban & Transport Geography
Surveys
Qualifications
Associate Professor 
Assistant Professor
BS and MS in URP
Projects:
Condition of Michigan‘s Transit System (Report ‘17)
Customer Satisfaction and Trip purpose (update)

3. Michigan’s Transit System Condition
Survey Results by AIMs
Measuring and Reporting
Michigan’s Transit System Condition
- Presentation of Results -
Results by AIMs
For responses by Service type, we have the results in 2 categories: Fixed Route Service and Demand and Response Service
For responses by Survey type, we have results in 2 categories (there were 3 types of surveys to fill - Fixed Route, Demand and Response, and Both) but 2 agencies filled out the Fixed Survey so we combined them with the Both survey respondents

4. Survey Results by AIMs 2 Agencies filled out the Fixed Route Survey
58 Agencies filled out the Demand - Response Survey
18 Agencies filled out the Both Survey (Fixed Route and Demand - Response)
Response Rate: 100% (78 agencies out of 78)
Results presented as follows:
Some questions asked for responses by service-type:
Results for these are presented by Service offered (regardless of survey filled out)
Some questions asked for responses on an agency-wide basis:
Results for these are presented by Survey type filled out (regardless of service offered)
Results by AIMs
For responses by Service type, we have the results in 2 categories: Fixed Route Service and Demand and Response Service
For responses by Survey type, we have results in 2 categories (there were 3 types of surveys to fill - Fixed Route, Demand and Response, and Both) but only 2 agencies filled out the Fixed Survey so we combined them with the Both survey respondents

5. Michigan’s Transit Agencies saw an increase in
AIM 1: Preserve existing level of local transit
Michigan’s Transit Agencies saw an increase in
passengers by about 0.5%
miles by about 1.9% and
hours by about 4%.
Source: data from PTMS
Results by AIMs
Passengers
Miles
Hours
Change from last year
0.5%
(417,619)
1.9%
(1,725,456)
4.0%
(241,009)
Change from previous 2-yr average
-0.1%
(-116,760)
3.4%
(3,036,139)
1.2%
(77,718)
The increase in hours and miles resulted in a slight increase in ridership.

6. AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
Over time, rural agencies report an increasing percentage of their fleet being past useful life (PTMS).
Rural and Specialized Fleets Past Useful Life
Year 2015
33%
Year 2016
35%
Year 2017
50%
Results by AIMs

7. AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
43% of Urban Transit Agencies reported that they were meeting their standards completely (own assessment).
Source: data from PTMS
Urban Agencies meeting standards completely
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
Agencies
35% (6)
50% (10)
43% (16)
Average % of Fleet
29%
19%
23%
Results by AIMs
Urban Agencies needing to replace few vehicles
Agencies
41% (7)
30% (6)
35% (13)
Average % of Fleet
33%
29%
31%
Urban Agencies needing to replace many vehicles
Agencies
24% (4)
20% (4)
22% (8)
Average % of Fleet
53%
72%
63%

8. AIM 3: Utilize asset management
Transit Agencies in Michigan primarily use asset management for decision making, e.g. investment decisions.
Fixed Route Service
Demand - Response
ALL
2017
Agencies using AM for all decisions
11% (2) 0%
2% (2)
Agencies using AM to prioritize investments
58% (11)
45% (34)
48% (45)
Agencies using AM to know the condition
21% (4)
24% (18)
23% (22)
Agencies using PTMS as their AM
31% (23)
27% (25)
Results by AIMs
Demand and Response had the “prioritize” category as their highest category as their benchmark
There has been a big change/increase into the green category from last year. Possibly due to question clarification/change in wording
By 2018, all agencies must use asset management for decision making, e.g. investment decisions (FTA).

9. AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
Transit Agencies in Michigan have extremely low collision rates: Under 10 per million passenger miles.
Experienced Zero or Decreased Collisions Rates
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2016
2015
Agencies that maintained zero or decreased (last yr) fatalities
Injuries
PDO<25k
PDO>25k
100%
95%
86%
98%
80%
85%
99% (-4)
91% (-36)
86% (-81)
97% (-10)
96%
87%
74%
Results by AIMs
Numbers in parentheses denote total collisions
Saw no changes in >0 Collisions Rates
Agencies with no change (last yr)
fatalities
Injuries
PDO<25k
PDO>25k 0% 4% 2%
10%
0% (0)
3% (0)
4% (0) 1%

10. AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
Increased Collisions Rates
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2016
2015
Agencies that increased (last yr)
fatalities
Injuries
PDO<25k
PDO>25k 0% 2%
13% 5%
20%
1% (1)
7% (27)
11% (24)
3% (2) 4%
12%
22%
Results by AIMs
Numbers in parentheses denote total collisions
Year
Fatalities
Injuries
PDO < 25k
PDO > 25k
2016 1
132
642 3
2015 4
142
703 12
2014
138
745 5

11. AIM 5: Participation in driver training activities
Michigan Transit Agencies have 74% of their drivers that have attended “any type of training”, and 81% have attended “PASS* training”.
Agencies with drivers that have undergone “PASS* training”**
Demand – Resp.
Both Service Types
ALL
(2017)
% Agencies with 100% drivers trained
55% (32)
60% (12)
56% (44)
% Agencies with <100% drivers trained
41% (24)
30% (6)
39% (30)
Results by AIMs
74% is the average percent of drivers undergone Pass, Internal and Other training (i.e. this is the average number reported by agencies answering all three questions). 81% is the average percent of drivers that have undergone PASS (or equiv.) training only (i.e. this is the average number reported by all agencies answering the PASS training question).
* Or PASS equivalent
** Totals do not add up to 100% as some agencies did not respond
Agencies with drivers that have undergone “Other training” DR
Both
All (’17)
All (‘16)
Average % of drivers
58%
66%
60%
63%
Agencies with drivers in “Ongoing training”
Average % of drivers
95%
80%
92%
93%

12. AIM 5: Participation in driver training activities
PASS equivalent training examples:
TAPTCO – Transit and Par-Transit Training
In-house training by PASS certified trainers
Modified RTAP Driver refresher course
ADA Sensitivity and Accessibility Training
Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) Training
Passenger Assistance and Service Training
Results by AIMs
Some reasons for not having all drivers trained:
Limited resources
Cannot send drivers to multi-day training (time off work)
New hires between training scheduled days
Informal, in-house training given
Training requested, but not yet provided
All drivers must have undergone PASS or PASS equivalent training before they start driving (FTA C ).
“Each public or private entity which operates a fixed route or demand responsive system shall ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate to their duties, so that they operate vehicles and equipment safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities.”

13. AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
65% of the Michigan Transit Agencies have implemented an ITS project recently.
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
Agencies that have assessed their ITS needs
64%
(37)
90%
(17)
70%
(54)
Agencies that have not assessed their ITS needs
36%
(21)
11%
(2)
30%
(23)
Results by AIMs
Agencies that have implemented a new ITS-Technology project in the last 1-3 years
68%
(25)
59%
(10)
65%
(35)
Agencies that will be pursuing a project in the next 1-3 years
32%
(12)
41%
(7)
35%
(19)

14. AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
30% of Michigan’s Transit Agencies have not assessed their ITS needs recently.
Reasons why Agencies have not assessed their ITS needs
Demand Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
We don't believe ITS is a critical need for our agency at this time
45%
(9)
50%
(1)
(10)
We wouldn't know where to begin - we don't know what ITS options are available or appropriate for our agency
35%
(7)
36%
(8)
We don't believe there is any funding available for ITS
20%
(4)
23%
(5)
Other
10%
(2)
14%
(3)
Results by AIMs
Agencies could choose more than one option so percentages do not total to 100

15. AIM 7: Service Assessment
54% of Michigan Transit Agencies have conducted a Service Assessment and implemented some changes in the last 3 years.
Agencies that have…
Fixed Route Service
Demand - Response
ALL
2017
2016
….conducted a SA last yr
(3 yrs for DR)
& implemented all changes
10% (2)
24% (18)
21% (20)
15% (14)
& implemented some changes
45% (9)
45% (34)
45% (43)
35% (34)
….conducted a SA in the last 3 yrs
& implemented changes
25% (5)
n/a
5% (5)
4% (4)
….not conducted a SA in the last 3 yrs
20% (4)
32% (24)
29% (28)
46% (44)
Results by AIMs

16. AIM 8a: Encourage customer contact
100% of Michigan Transit Agencies have a documented process to address customer input.
Addressing Customer Input
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
2016
Agencies that have a documented process to address customer input
100%
(58)
(20)
100% (78)
92% (71)
Agencies that do not have a documented way of addressing customer input 0%
(0)
24%
(18)
Results by AIMs

17. For agencies with a documented process to address customer input…
AIM 8a: Encourage customer contact
For agencies with a documented process to address customer input…
Agencies’ current external practice for addressing customer input
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
Publishing a phone number or address on website OR through signs on buses
66%
(38)
80%
(16)
69% (54)
Customers use regular phone number or address to provide comments
35%
(20)
20%
(4)
31% (24)
Results by AIMs
Agencies’ current internal practice for addressing customer input
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
Agencies that have a written policy on how comments are handled
38%
(22)
80%
(16)
49% (38)
Agencies that have a practice to review all comments but no written policy
62%
(36)
20%
(4)
51% (40)

18. For agencies with a documented process to address customer input…
AIM 8a: Encourage customer contact
For agencies with a documented process to address customer input…
Agencies’ management’s practice for handling customer input
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
All comments reviewed by the general manager
53%
(31)
40%
(8)
50% (39)
Comments reviewed by the appropriate individual
47%
(27)
60%
(12)
Results by AIMs

19. AIM 8b: Assess customer satisfaction
65% of Michigan’s Transit Agencies have conducted a customer satisfaction survey in the last 3 years.
Conducting a Customer Satisfaction Survey
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
2016
Agencies that have conducted a survey in the last 3 years
64%
(37)
70%
(14)
65%
(51)
47% (36)
Agencies that have not conducted a survey in last 3 years
36%
(21)
30%
(6)
35%
(27)
53% (40)
Results by AIMs

20. AIM 9: Increased coordination
97% of Michigan Transit Agencies have participated in meetings with providers to discuss coordination.
Agencies that participated in…
Fixed Route Service
Demand - Response
ALL
2017
2016
….quarterly meetings with multiple providers in the last yr
58%
(11)
49%
(37)
51% (48)
51% (49)
….2 meetings with multiple providers in the last yr
26%
(5)
25%
(19)
26% (24)
21% (20)
….1 meeting with providers (multiple providers for Fixed Route) in the last yr
11%
(2)
23%
(17)
20% (19)
18% (17)
….1 meeting with another provider in the last yr 0%
(0)
n/a
0% (0)
6% (6)
….no meetings last year 5%
(1) 3%
3% (3)
4% (4)
Results by AIMs

21. 80% of Michigan Transit Agencies have defined performance measures
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
80% of Michigan Transit Agencies have defined performance measures
Fixed Route Service
Demand - Response
ALL
2017
Agencies that have defined PMs
90%
(18)
78%
(59)
80% (77)
Agencies that do not have any defined PMs
10%
(2)
22%
(17)
20% (19)
Results by AIMs

22. AIM 10: Performance Assessment
64% of Michigan Transit Agencies that have defined performance measures, either publish them for complete transparency or report them to the Board.
Agencies that have Performance Measures…
Fixed Route Service
Demand - Response
ALL
2017
…published for complete transparency
28%
(5)
12%
(7)
15%
(12)
….that are reported to the Board
33%
(6)
53%
(32)
49%
(38)
….that are discussed with staff only
32%
(19)
(25)
….but nothing is done with them 6%
(1) 3%
(2) 4%
(3)
Results by AIMs

23. AIM 11: Encourage private investments
Over half of Michigan Transit Agencies do not have any private investments.
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
2016
Agencies that have increased private investments
12%
(7)
30%
(6)
17%
(13)
(9)
Agencies that have sustained current levels of private investments
31%
(18)
55%
(11)
37% (29)
31% (24)
Agencies that do not have any private investments
(32)
15%
(3)
45% (35)
54% (42)
Agencies that have decreased private investments 2%
(1) 0%
(0) 1% 4%
Results by AIMs

24. Infrastructure support
AIM 11 (contd.): Types of private investments
Top 3 choices
Demand - Response
Both Service Types
ALL
2017
Choice #1
Advertising
Choice #2
Local stores offer free services for the customers, while your agency is compensated for offering this service
Commuting Discounts
Choice #3
Infrastructure support
Results by AIMs

25. Summary Assessment
2017
2016
2015
AIM1: Preserve existing level of local transit
AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
AIM 3: Utilize asset management
AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
AIM 5: PASS* training certified (goal 100%)
AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
AIM 7: Service Assessment
AIM 8: Assess customer satisfaction
AIM 9: Increased coordination
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
AIM 11: Encourage private investments
AIM 1
AIM 2
AIM 3
AIM 4
AIM 5
AIM 6
AIM 7
AIM 8
AIM 9
AIM 10
AIM 11
AIM1
AIM 2
AIM 3
AIM 4
AIM 5
AIM 6
AIM 7
AIM 8
AIM 9
AIM 10
AIM 11
Results by AIMs
* Or PASS equivalent

26. Creating an Index for Transport in MI
This is a proposal on how to condense the Condition of Michigan Transport System into a single number/measure.
Prioritizing, weighing and scaling the AIMs
Prioritizing the AIMs (3 tiers)
Weighing the AIMS
Scaling the AIMS based on survey results
Condensation to a single number/measure
Index

27. Proposal: Prioritizing the AIMs
Priority
AIM 1: Preserve existing level of local transit
AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
AIM 5: Participation in PASS training
AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
AIM 7: Service Assessment
AIM 8: Assess customer satisfaction
AIM 9: Increased coordination
AIM 3: Utilize asset management
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
AIM 11: Encourage private investments
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Index

28. Proposal: Weighing the AIMs
Weight
AIM1: Preserve existing level of local transit
AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
AIM 3: Utilize asset management
AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
AIM 5: Participation in PASS training
AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
AIM 7: Service Assessment
AIM 8: Assess customer satisfaction
AIM 9: Increased coordination
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
AIM 11: Encourage private investments
3 (Tier 1)
1 (Tier 3)
2 (Tier 2)
Index

29. Proposal: Scaling the AIMs
Results of 2017
Scale assignment
AIM1: Preserve existing level of local transit
AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
AIM 3: Utilize asset management
AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
AIM 5: PASS* training certified (goal 100%)
AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
AIM 7: Service Assessment
AIM 8: Assess customer satisfaction
AIM 9: Increased coordination
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
AIM 11: Encourage private investments 3 1 2
Index

30. Proposal: Condensation to single digit
Results of 2017
Scale
Weight
AIM1: Preserve existing level of local transit
AIM 2: Maintain condition of fleet
AIM 3: Utilize asset management
AIM 4: Minimize collision rates
AIM 5: PASS* training certified (goal 100%)
AIM 6: Implement ITS/Technology projects
AIM 7: Service Assessment
AIM 8: Assess customer satisfaction
AIM 9: Increased coordination
AIM 10: Performance Assessment
AIM 11: Encourage private investments 3 1 2
3 (Tier 1)
1 (Tier 3)
2 (Tier 2)
Index
Possible score (if all AIMs were green): (12+8+3)*3 = 69.
Actual score (multiply the score of the AIM with its categorization): = 51
Divide the actual by the possible score: 51/69= 74%
(2016: 78% 2015: 72%)

31. Customer Satisfaction and Trip purpose
- Presentation of preliminary results -
For responses by Service type, we have the results in 2 categories: Fixed Route Service and Demand and Response Service
For responses by Survey type, we have results in 2 categories (there were 3 types of surveys to fill - Fixed Route, Demand and Response, and Both) but only 1 agency filled out the Fixed Survey so we combined it with the Both survey respondents
Update CSTP

32. Customer satisfaction & Trip purpose
We ask transit riders nineteen questions within the following seven categories:
timeliness,
comfort,
cleanliness,
information availability and ease of use,
customer service,
safety/security, and
cost/value.
We ask transit riders three questions regarding the
origin of their trip,
destination of their trip, and
what they would do if public transportation was unavailable
Update CSTP

33. General observations As of July 2017,
we collected 2,228 surveys (across 35 agencies)
The demographics of those surveyed varies widely
The satisfaction levels among transit agencies is generally high
Towards the end of the month, there is a visible drop in ridership across Michigan’s agencies
A high percentage of riders are older adults and riders that need special accommodation
Update CSTP

34. Timeliness
How satisfied are you with the arrival time of this vehicle, the timeliness (on-time arrival) of the transit vehicles in general, and the time taken to reach your destination, given the distance traveled.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

35. Comfort
How satisfied are you with the temperature of the vehicle, and the seats on this vehicle.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

36. Cleanliness
How satisfied are you with the cleanliness of this vehicle.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

37. Information availability and ease of use
How satisfied are you with the ease of getting information about this vehicle/route and the information on the transit agency in general.
Six questions within this category asked about their satisfaction level with:
the information that was provided to them when they made the reservation regarding when the vehicle would arrive,
the information that was provided to them when they made the reservation regarding how long the trip would take,
the ease of booking trips,
the ease of changing trips,
the ease of cancelling trips, and
the ease of finding information on the transit agency in general.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

38. Customer service How satisfied are you with the helpfulness,
the professionalism and driving skills of the driver,
the helpfulness of the staff, overall service received from this transit agency.
Five questions within this category asked about their satisfaction level with:
the helpfulness of the driver,
the professionalism of the driver,
the driver’s driving skill,
the helpfulness of the staff taking reservations,
and the overall service received from this transit agency.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

39. Safety and Security
How satisfied are you with the safety of being on this vehicle.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

40. Cost/Value
How satisfied are you with the costs of riding this vehicle.
Update CSTP
The majority of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with this aspect of the transit service.

41. Origin and Destination of Trip
We asked transit riders about the origin and destinations of their trip.
Five questions within this category asked about their satisfaction level with:
the helpfulness of the driver,
the professionalism of the driver,
the driver’s driving skill,
the helpfulness of the staff taking reservations,
and the overall service received from this transit agency.
Update CSTP
The majority of trips started or ended at the respondents’ home.

42. Origin and Destination of Trip
We asked transit riders what they would do if public transportation was not available.
34% said they would not make this trip
18% said they would look for alternative destinations
35% said they would use alternative transportation options including walking, biking, ride from relative, own car, or taxi
The remaining 13% said they would choose some “other” option of fulfilling their travel needs.
Five questions within this category asked about their satisfaction level with:
the helpfulness of the driver,
the professionalism of the driver,
the driver’s driving skill,
the helpfulness of the staff taking reservations,
and the overall service received from this transit agency.
Update CSTP

43. Next steps
We can travel once a week during the academic year, likely Friday. During the summer we travel almost every day.
Here is how you can make it easier for our students:
It helps them when your vehicle driver introduces them to your customers.
It helps them when they work on buses on which they will get the most responses. They can not survey children under the age of 14 and people with severe mental disabilities.
They should go on different buses if there is more than one bus at the time.
Please let them know the general schedule of the day – including lunch and bathroom breaks.
While they can read the survey aloud, rephrase questions in a simpler manner, or address any questions or concerns people may have
Update CSTP

44. For follow-up questions, please email:
Thank you!
For follow-up questions, please
Or call