King County Metro Transit 2012

King County Metro Transit
2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report

March 2013
This page intentionally left blank.
King County Metro Transit 2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report

March 2013
Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division King Street Center, KSC-TR-0415 201 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 206-553-3000 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov/metro
Alternative Formats Available 206-263-5277 TTY Relay: 711

13020/comm
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 5 GOAL 1: SAFETY................................................................................. 6 GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL............................................................. 9 GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT................ 12 GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ...................................... 15 GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE . ......................................................... 18 GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP.................................................... 21 GOAL 7: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY....................... 25 GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE ......................................................... 28 ATTACHMENT: Peer Comparison Report ............................................... A-1
2012 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of Metro Transits 2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report is to enable the public and county leaders to see how well Metro is performing and moving toward our strategic goals for public transportation. The adoption of the strategic plan and guidelines is key to Metros efforts over the past three years to improve our use of strategic planning and systematic, effective data analysis to inform and drive our decisions. We assessed our progress using 46 performance measures, each associated with one of Metros eight strategic goals. For each measure the report presents both the results data and a general progress indicator. This is the first report and will serve as a baseline for future years. What did we learn? In general, we found positive trends on the majority of measures: Ridership is on the rise. In 2012 we reached our second highest ridership level ever115 million passenger trips. Passenger use of ORCA cards has increased steadily since the fare card was introduced in 2009. By the end of 2012, nearly two-thirds of Metros weekday boardings were paid for with ORCA. Metro service is accessiblewithin easy walking distance or a short drive to a park-and-ride for most county residents (87%). The percentage is even higher in areas with many low-income residents (95%) or minority populations (93%). We are making strides in reducing energy use. As our ridership goes up, our energy use per boarding goes down. Conservation efforts are also improving energy efficiency at our facilities. Customer communications are continually improving. Visits to Metros website increased by 38%, and we doubled the number of Transit Alerts sent to riders. Weve expanded our use of social media and adopted other innovative communication techniques to engage the public as we plan service changes. Measures of safety and security are holding steady after marked improvement since 2008, and weve enhanced our emergency response. Weve used our strategic plan and service guidelines to make our system more productive. Our farebox recovery rate exceeded the target. Our costs, while growing faster than inflation, were lower than projected in the 2012 budget. Overall, we are progressing toward more efficient and productive services. However, the data show that some of our efficiency improvements had impacts on our riders. For example, we have made bus schedules more efficient, resulting in operational savings but contributing to less-reliable services and a small decline in customer satisfaction. Weve responded by making investments to improve reliability. We also made major changes to our systemreinvesting 100,000 service hours as part of major service restructures, integrating new RapidRide lines, and eliminating the Ride Free Area in downtown Seattle. While improving productivity and service quality overall, such major changes can be stressful for ridersas reflected in customer satisfaction data for the last months of 2012. We must continually balance the tradeoffs of efficiency and customer satisfaction and be sensitive to how much change our system and riders can handle at once. Well be watching customer satisfaction trends closely. We also need to continue working toward our objective to establish a sustainable funding structure to support shortand long-term needs. Metro faces an ongoing annual revenue shortfall of $75 million. Metro and the King County Council have taken numerous actions since 2008 to manage this shortfall and preserve as much service as possible, but use of reserve funds and revenue from the temporary congestion reduction charge will no longer be available after mid-2014. Metro is working with regional partners to identify additional, sustainable funding sources and is pursuing options in the current legislative session. Without new revenue, budget projections assume that Metro will need to cut approximately 17% of our transit system starting in fall 2014.
KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT
SYMBOL KEY
These symbols are intended to give a general indication of how well were meeting our goals.
+
l
Meeting or approaching goal Stable Opportunity to improve
MEASURES GOAL 1: SAFETY

1 2 3 4 Preventable accidents per million miles Operator and passenger incidents and assaults Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security Effectiveness of emergency responses
TREND
l l
+ +
GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Population within a quarter-mile of a transit stop or within a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride Low-income population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a parkand-ride Minority population within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride Accessible bus stops Access boardings/number of trips provided by the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program Access applicants who undertake fixed-route travel training Access registrants Requested Access trips compared with those provided
l l l l
+
l l
GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 Transit rides per capita All public transportation ridership in King County Ridership in population/business centers Employees at CTR sites sharing non-drive-alone transportation modes during peak commute hours Employee-sponsored passes and usage HOV lane passenger miles
+ +
+
+ +
l
GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

1 2 3 4 5 Average miles per gallon of Metros bus eet Vehicle energy (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by miles Vehicle fuel (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by boardings Total facility energy use Energy use at metro facilities/KWh and natural gas used in facilities normalized by area and temperature
l l
+
l
GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE

1 2 3 4 5 Customer satisfaction On-time performance by time of day Crowding Customer complaints per boarding Use of Metros web tools and alerts
+ +
GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Boardings per vehicle hour Passenger miles per vehicle mile ORCA use Farebox recovery Cost per hour Cost per vehicle mile Cost per boarding Cost per vanpool boarding Cost per Access boarding Asset condition assessment
+ + + + +
GOAL 7:PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

1 2 3 4 Public participation Customer satisfaction regarding Metros communications and reporting Social media indicators Conformance with King County policy on communications accessibility and translation to other languages
l l
+
l
GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE

1 2 3 4 Demographics of Metro employees Employee job satisfaction Promotion rates Probationary pass rate
l l
+ +
2012 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT INTRODUCTION
The King County Council adopted Metros Strategic Plan for Public Transportation 2011-2021 in July 2011. The plan lays out a vision for the regions public transportation system; sets goals, objectives, strategies, and quantitative performance measures; and lays out new service guidelines. It builds on King Countys strategic plan and reflects the recommendations of the 2010 Regional Transit Task Force. When the Council adopted Metros strategic plan, it required Metro to report every two years on how we have met the strategic plans goals and objectives. This is the first such report, and will serve as a baseline for future reports. It is intended to monitor Metros progress toward broad, system-level outcomes. The measures in this report focus on many aspects of Metros public transportation system, including how well we deliver on the key values of productivity, social equity, and geographic value. Included are existing measures that we use for other reporting purposes as well as new measures specific to the strategic plan. The outcomes on measures provide an indication of our overall progress toward achieving our vision. This report covers three years whenever comparable data are available for that period of time. Because this is a baseline report, it does not identify performance targets for most measures, although we have targets for some measures from our service guidelines or other programs. We are working to establish targets for the remaining measures based on our previous performance, industry standards, and information from peer agencies. As part of our performance monitoring, Metro compares our measures with those of the 30 largest motor and trolley bus agencies in the United States. Our current Peer Comparison Report is attached at the end of this report, and is also available on Metros website at http://metro. kingcounty.gov/am/accountability/peer-comparison.html. Note that our peer comparison data is from 2011 due to the reporting lag at the Federal Transit Administrations National Transit Database.
Metro at a Glance (2012)

Service area Population Employment Fixed-route ridership Vanpool ridership: Access ridership:
* preliminary estimates
2,134 square miles 1.96 million 1.2 million 115.4 million* 3.4 million* 1.1 million*
Annual service hours Active fleet Bus stops Park-and-rides
3.5 million 1,369 buses over 8,000 131
SYMBOL KEY
These symbols are intended to give a general indication of how well were meeting our goals.
Key to trend symbols

+
l
Meeting or approaching goal Stable Opportunity to improve
GOAL 1: SAFETY Support safe communities

Objective 1.1: Keep people safe and secure.
Intended outcome: Metros services and facilities are safe and secure.
Metro protects the safety and security of customers, employees, and facilities in a variety of ways, including planning, policing, facility design, operational practices, safety training, and collaboration with local jurisdictions and other agencies on safety-related matters. Specific strategies include promoting safety and security in public transportation operations and facilities, and planning for and executing regional emergency-response and homeland-security efforts. Our safety program for bus drivers emphasizes steps to raise safety awareness. We also began a new Operator Assault Reduction Project, which includes a number of strategies and programs to increase the safety of both bus drivers and passengers.
HOW WERE DOING: GOAL 1 OVERVIEW

Overall, we maintained or improved our safety and security performance in 2012. While we had about the same number of preventable accidents in 2012 as in 2011, accident rates had decreased over the previous several years. The same is true with the total number of incidents and assaultsit remained about the same in 2012 as in 2011, after a decreasing trend over previous years. Customer satisfaction with personal safety while riding the bus at night showed a slight increase. We also improved our performance on a Department of Homeland Security assessment of our security program.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 Preventable accidents per million miles Operator and passenger incidents and assaults Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security Effectiveness of emergency responses
TREND
l l
+ +
GOAL 1: SAFETY
1) Preventable accidents per million miles

The preliminary estimate of preventable accidents per million miles was the same in 2012 as in 2011. While this number is higher than that for 2010, it is lower than the average for the five prior years.
1) Preventable accidents per million miles

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9.5 8.6 9.5
2) Operator and passenger incidents and assaults

Preliminary 2012 figures show about the same number of reported incidents and assaults as in 2011 (down significantly from prior years). There were more assaults on passengers and operators in 2012, and fewer passenger physical disturbances (fights between passengers). Passenger assault is defined as an assault with a clear or identified victim. An altercation among riders with no identified victim is considered a disturbance. Even with an increase in 2012, assaults on drivers are notably down since 2008. This general decline reflects the success of Metros Operator Assault Reduction Project, which focuses on close coordination between Transit Operations and Metro Transit Police to ensure timely assault response and follow-up. The project also includes a training program that helps operators learn how to de-escalate potential conflicts and communicate effectively with challenging passengers.
2010
2011
2012 Est.
2) Operator and Passenger Incidents and Assaults

Passenger Physical Disturbances Assaults on Passengers Assaults on Operators 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 63 85 39 84 107 52 222 243 203
3) Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security

Every year, Metros Rider/Non-Rider survey asks riders about their satisfaction with many attributes of Metro service. Satisfaction with the safe operation of buses always gets very high scores, with about 70% of respondents saying they are very satisfied and about another 25% saying they are somewhat satisfied. Satisfaction with personal safety while riding the bus at night increased slightly in 2012, with 84% saying they are very or somewhat satisfied, compared to 76% and 77% for the previous two years.
4) Effectiveness of emergency responses

The Department of Homeland Securitys Transportation Security Administration administers the Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement (BASE) program, which is designed to establish a security standard for transit system security programs and to assess progress. This voluntary, comprehensive review focuses on categories identified by the transit community as fundamentals for a sound transit security program, including an agencys security plans, security training, drills/exercise programs, public outreach efforts, and background check programs. Metros score on this test increased from 91% in 2009 to 95% in 2012, with improvements in our infrastructure protection protocols, security and emergency preparedness training and exercise program, and inclusion of security upgrades in our mid and long-term planning.
3) Rider Satisfaction with Safe Operation of the Bus

Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 * Preliminary results 201 1 2012* 71% 71% 73% 24% 25% 23%
GOAL 1: SAFETY
Protecting bus drivers

The King County Sheriffs Office Metro Transit Police have several initiatives to reduce assaults on bus drivers. Priority field response. Respond to all reported assaults on bus drivers. If not the first law enforcement agency to arrive, offer assistance and follow up on the incident, since other agencies may not perceive as much urgency as we do. Priority investigative response/zero tolerance. Once a suspect in a driver assault is identified and/or arrested, work with the prosecutors office to support the highest possible charges. Instant dual dispatch. Updated dispatch policy requires instant dual-agency response to all assaults on drivers, for faster response by whatever agency is the closest. Security Incident Report follow-up. Ensure that bus drivers who are having consistent problems with passengers get personal, on-site attention from deputies as early as possible. Patrol emphasis strategy. Put police where they are most needed through focused emphasis patrols, based on Metro Transit Police incident reports and some crime data from other police agencies. Dont touch the driver campaign. Signs posted in every Metro bus warn passengers that any act of violence against a bus driver is a felony.
GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL Provide equitable opportunities for people from all areas of King County to access the public transportation system.
Objective 2.1 Provide public transportation products and services that add value throughout King County and that facilitate access to jobs, education, and other destinations. Intended outcome: More people throughout King County have access to public transportation products and services.
Metro strives to provide transportation choices that make it easy for people to travel throughout King County and the region. We provide a range of public transportation products and services appropriate to different markets and mobility needs, and work to integrate our services with others. Our fully accessible fixed-route system is complemented by a range of additional services such as ridesharing, dial-a-ride transit (DART) and other specialized products. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, we provide complementary Access paratransit services to eligible people with disabilities. Through the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program, we provide vans and support to community
groups and others that provide travel options for passengers who are disabled and/or elderly. Our travel training program helps people with disabilities ride regular bus service. We also provide programs such as Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), a federal program intended to connect low-income populations with employment opportunities through public transportation.

About 87% of the housing units in King County are within a quarter-mile walk of a bus stop, a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride, or an area served by DART (dial-a-ride transit) service. That percentage is higher in areas with high populations of low-income or minority residents. Our proportion of bus stops that are wheelchair accessible remains 77%, although the total number of bus stops in Metros system has decreased due to stop-spacing projects. Access ridership decreased slightly in 2012, leading to cost savings even though the number of Access registrants increased slightly. At the same time, CAT ridership increased and travel training efforts continued to give riders more transportation choices. More than 500 Access applicants took this training in each of the past two years. Metro delivered 100% of the Access trips requested, per federal requirements.
MEASURES
1 Population within a quarter-mile of a transit stop or within a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride Low-income population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride Minority population within a quartermile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride Accessible bus stops Access boardings/number of trips provided by the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program Access applicants who undertake fixedroute travel training Access registrants Requested Access trips compared with those provided
TREND
l
3 4 5 6 7 8
l l

1) Population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride
In both fall 2011 and spring 2012, 87% of King County housing units were in one of the following three categories:
87%
Within a quarter-mile walk of a bus stop. Within a two-mile radius of a permanent park-and-ride, a Sounder commuter train or Link light rail station, or a transit center with parking. In an area served by a DART bus route.
2) Low-income population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride
The 2010 census found that 10% of King County residents are below the poverty level. To measure their access to transit, we define a census block group as low-income if more than 10% of its population is below the poverty level. We found that 95% of housing units in these census block groups are within accessible distances to transita higher percentage than for housing units overall in King County.
95%
3) Minority population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride
We define a census block group as minority if more than 35% of its population (the minority proportion for King County as a whole) belongs to a minority group. In these block groups, 93% of housing units are within accessible distances to transita higher percentage than for housing units overall in King County.
93%
4) Accessible bus stops

The proportion of bus stops that are wheelchair accessible has been steady at 77% the past three years. Service realignments between 2010 and 2012 and an update of Metros bus stop inventory allowed us to improve stop spacing and reduce our total bus stops by 453 (5%) over the past three years. 2010 6,798 8,866 77% 2011 6,714 8,744 77% 2012 6,499 8,413 77%
5) Access boardings/number of trips provided by the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program, in 000s
Taxi Boardings CAT Boardings Access Boardings 1,800 1,600 1,512 1,557 1,513
Accessible stops All stops Percent accessible
5) Access boardings/number of trips provided by the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program
Access ridership decreased slightly in 2012 as ridership in the CAT program increased. Travel training efforts to help people with disabilities ride regular bus service (as described in Measure 6 below) also contributed to a decrease in Access ridership.
1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 Est.
10
6) Access applicants who undertake xed-route travel training

Travel training to help people with disabilities ride regular bus service provides those customers with more flexibility in their transportation choices. It also contributes to Metros costcontrol efforts by diverting riders to less expensive modes of transportation. More than 500 Access applicants received this training in each of the past two years.
6) Access applicants who undertake xed-route travel training

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 201 1 2012 499 548
526
7) Access registrants
The number of customers registered to use Access service grew by 4% in 2012, even though the number of Access trips declined. The number of registrants is cumulative, including all who have been found eligible to book a ride. Many are not currently active users, but the registration system would allow them to schedule rides if they wished.
8) Requested Access trips compared with those provided

Per federal requirements, Metros Access program provides a trip for every request by a qualified applicantmeeting the target of 100% delivery ratio.
7) Access registrants
35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2010 201 1 2012 30,052 30,663 31,890
11
GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT Encourage vibrant, economically thriving and sustainable communities.
Objective 3.1 Support a strong, diverse, sustainable economy. Intended outcome: Public transportation products and services are available throughout King County and are well-utilized in centers and areas of concentrated economic activity. Objective 3.2: Address the growing need for transportation services and facilities throughout the county. Intended outcome: More people have access to and regularly use public transportation products and services in King County. Objective 3.3: Support compact, healthy communities. Intended outcome: More people regularly use public transportation products and services along corridors with compact development. Objective 3.4: Support economic development by using existing transportation infrastructure efciently and effectively. Intended outcome: Regional investments in major highway capacity projects and parking requirements are complemented by high transit service levels in congested corridors and centers.
The Puget Sound Regional Councils regional growth strategy emphasizes the need for an integrated, multimodal transportation system that links major cities and centers. Consistent with this strategy, Metro offers travel options that connect people to areas of concentrated activity and provide affordable access to jobs, education, and important social and retail services. We work with other transit agencies to create an integrated and efficient regional transportation system to accommodate the regions growing population and serve new transit markets. We encourage the development of transitsupportive communities with improved bicycle and pedestrian connections.

Metros ridership has been on the rise since 2010 following a two-year decline during the economic slump. We saw our second highest ridership year ever in 2012. A stronger economy, rising gas prices, and service improvements have all contributed to ridership growth. Metro also continues to partner with major institutions, cities, employers, human services agencies, and other organizations to encourage alternatives to driving alone for work and personal travel. ORCA use jumped in 2012 as the University of Washington migrated its U-Pass program to ORCA and as Metro continued to expand its ORCA business accounts.
MEASURES
1 2 3 Transit rides per capita All public transportation ridership in King County Ridership in population/business centers Employees at CTR sites sharing nondrive-alone transportation modes during peak commute hours Employee-sponsored passes and usage HOV lane passenger miles
TREND +
+
+
5 6
+
l
12

1) Metro transit rides per capita
1) Transit rides per capita

Metros ridership grew 2.3% in 2012, to a total of 115.4 million boardings (preliminary count). This growth outpaced population growth, so our boardings per capita increased. Much of this gain was driven by employment growth, as well as service improvements on the Eastside and the introduction of RapidRide lines.
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Est. 56.7 58 58.9
2) All public transportation ridership in King County (rail, bus, paratransit, rideshare)
Preliminary figures indicate that there were 143.3 million boardings on transit in King County during 2012 a 3.3% increase over 2011. This ridership was on buses, rail, paratransit service, vanpools, and passenger-only ferries. Metro bus ridership was 115 million, accounting for 80% of the total. Ridership on the other services grew at nearly 8%, most notably on Sound Transits ST Express service operated by Metro (which saw growth associated with tolling on SR-520) and on Link light rail service.
2) Transit boardings in King County

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 201 2010 King County Ferries South Lake Union Streetcar Accessible Service Community Transit Express Sounder 2011 2012 Vanpool/Vanshare Metro-Operated Sound Transit Express Link Metro Bus 134.1 138.7 143.3
3) Ridership in growth and business centers

In spring 2012, Metro provided 10,712 bus trips each weekday to, from, through, or between regional growth centers or manufacturing/industrial centers (as designated in the regions growth plan). This made up 96% of Metros directly-operated, non-custom, scheduled trips so virtually all of the transit trips we provide serve one of these centers.
MI L L I O N S
4) Peak non-drive-alone mode share at Commute Trip Reduction sites

The share of employee commute trips that serve Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) sites in King County has grown steadily over the past three biennial surveys. (CTR sites are those with at least 100 employees who arrive at work between 6 and 9 a.m.) More than one-third of these commuters use buses, trains, carpools, or vanpools to get to work. The improvements in this rate are likely the result of rising gas prices, the Alaskan Way Viaduct construction project, tolling on SR-520, major mitigation efforts to support the latter two, and recent improvements to transit service such as the start of RapidRide lines and Link light rail.
4) Peak mode share at King County commute trip reduction sites

Train 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2007 / 2008 2009 / 2010 201 1 / 2012 33.3% Car/Vanpool 34.7% Bus 35.2%
13
5) Employer-sponsored passes and usage

The payment of fares with business account ORCA cards has increased dramatically as ORCA has matured. (ORCA is an electronic fare card adopted in 2009 by seven transit agencies in the region. The acronym stands for One Regional Card for All.) There were 53.7 million regional boardings with business ORCA cards in 2012, 26% more than in 2011. The migration of the University of Washingtons U-Pass to ORCA-format Husky Cards was the big driver of this increase, but other business account ridership also grew by 9%. Business accounts paid for more than half of all regional ORCA boardings in 2012.
5) Regional boardings paid with business account ORCAs (in millions)

Husky Card 60 53.7 50 42.7 40 30 20 10 0 2010 201 1 2012 27.6 Passport/Choice/Epurse
6) HOV lane passenger miles

HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes are considered fixed guideways as defined by the Federal Transit Administration. Transit-only lanes and trolley wire are also included in this category. Metro buses provided 120.5 million passenger miles of service on fixed guideways in 2011, a slight decrease from 2010 that may be due to minor fluctuations in ridership and adjustments to service routing.
6) Metro passenger miles on xed guideways (in millions)

140 122.1 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2010
*Data not yet available
120.5
201 1
2012*
14
GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Safeguard and enhance King Countys natural resources and environment.
Objective 4.1: Help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the region.
Intended outcome: People drive single-occupant vehicles less.
Objective 4.2: Minimize Metros environmental footprint

Intended outcome: Metros environmental footprint is reduced (normalized against service growth).
King County has a long-term goal of reducing countywide greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, as established in the King County Strategic Climate Action Plan and the King County Energy Plan. Metro plays a key role in progressing toward this goal by providing travel options that help increase the proportion of travel in King County by public transportation, and by increasing the efficiency of our services and facilities. Every action Metro takes to make transit a more accessible, competitive, and attractive transportation option helps to counter climate change and improve air quality. We are also in the process of developing an agency-wide Sustainability Program to coordinate sustainability initiatives as part of
planning, capital projects, operations, and maintenance. We are also committed to green operating and maintenance practices. We incorporate cost-effective green building and sustainable development practices in all capital projects and continue to seek opportunities to improve energy efficiency and decrease energy use in our facilities and fleet.

The average fuel efficiency (miles per gallon) of our fleet and vehicle energy use per mile have remained steady, but our fuel use by passenger capacity has decreased by more than 15%. Factors contributing to this include our recent replacement of older diesel buses with more fuel-efficient diesel-electric hybrids and our replacement of 40-foot buses with 60-foot buses, which use more fuel but carry more passengers. Were also taking steps to reduce energy use at our facilities. Overall facility energy use has increased since 2007, largely due to the fact that we have more facilities in operation today, but we have become more energy efficient. When assessed by area, our facility energy usage has decreased by almost 10% since 2007, largely due to conservation efforts. This baseline reports tracks five measures. Additional measures identified in the Sustainability Plan are likely to be added in future reports as we expand our data collection and tracking.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 5 Average miles per gallon of Metros bus eet Vehicle energy (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by miles Vehicle fuel (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by boardings Total facility energy use Energy use at metro facilities/KWh and natural gas used in facilities normalized by area and temperature
TREND
l l
+
l
15

1) Average vehicle miles per gallon of the metro bus eet
4 3.9 3.9 3.9
1) Average miles per gallon for Metros bus eet

The miles per gallon of Metros diesel bus fleet has remained steadyat about 3.9for the past three years. But this does not tell the whole story, because buses vary significantly in their passenger capacity and occupancy. In recent years, the main factors affecting our average fleet miles per gallon were: The replacement of older diesel buses with new diesel-electric hybrids that consume less fuel, and The replacement of 40-foot, high-floor buses with new 60-foot, low-floor articulated buses that use more fuel because they are larger and carry more passengers. Our 60-foot buses carry one-third more passengers than our older 40-foot buses, greatly increasing the overall ridership capacity needed to achieve Metros ridership growth targets. When based on passenger capacity rather than vehicle miles, fleet fuel efficiency improved by more than 15%.
0 2010 201 1 2012
2) Vehicle energy (diesel, kWh) normalized by miles

In addition to diesel and hybrid motor buses, Metro operates trolley buses that are powered by electricity. When we convert diesel fuel and kilowatt hours to the energy measure BTUs, we see that our energy use per vehicle mile has remained relatively unchanged for the past three years. This is not surprising, given the fact that more than 90% of our vehicle miles are on motor buses, and the fuel use of our motor buses has remained steady.
3) Vehicle fuel use (diesel, kWh) normalized by boardings (BTUs per boarding)
14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2010 201 1 2012 Est. 12,801 12,669 12,442
3) Vehicle energy (diesel, kWh) normalized by boardings

Passenger boardings on buses increased each of the past two years, causing a decline in vehicle energy use per boarding. The decline was about 1% in 2011 and 2% in 2012.
4) Energy use at Metro facilities

The King County Energy Plan established 2007 as a baseline year against which to measure future progress in reducing energy demand. Total energy use at all Metro facilitieswhich does not include the energy used to power buseshas increased by about 6% since then. This change reflects the addition of new facilities as well as energy reductions gained through conservation. The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel is the largest facility that was not in use during most of 2007 but is now in full service, accounting for the largest portion of increased energy use during this reporting period.
4) Total energy use at Metro facilities (in million BTUs)

200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2007 2012 Est. 195,208 184,048
16
5) Electricity and natural gas used in facilities, normalized by area

To normalize for changes in the number and size of facilities over time, Metro identified a set of baseline facilities in 2007 against which to compare future energy use. Total energy use at these facilities declined almost 10% between 2007 and 2012, largely reflecting the results of conservation measures.
5) Baseline facility energy use (in million BTUs)

180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2007 2012 Est. 171,190 154,683
The King County 2012 Strategic Climate Action Plan builds upon and reflects policies in the King County Comprehensive Plan, the 2007 Climate Plan, the 2012 Climate Motion, and the 2010 Energy Plan. Its targets for greenhouse gas reduction from government operations (compared to a 2007 baseline) are 15% by 2015, 25% by 2020, and 50% by 2030, consistent with the countys long-term goal of reducing countwide emissions by at least 80% by 2050. The plan also sets a goal of doubling transit ridership by 2040, consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Councils Transportation 2040 regional transportation plan. The King County 2010 Energy Plan has a detailed roadmap for implementing the energy-related portions of King Countys Strategic Plan through the adoption of innovative energy alternatives and continuous improvement in energy efficiency.
17
GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE Establish a culture of customer service and deliver services that are responsive to community needs.
Objective 5.1: Improve satisfaction with Metros products and services and the way they are delivered.
Intended outcome: People are more satised with Metro products and services.
Objective 5.2: Improve public awareness of Metro products and services.

Intended outcome: People understand how to use Metros products and services and use them more often.
Metro is committed to giving its customers a positive experience at every stage of transit use, from trip planning to arrival at a destination. We strive to provide service that is reliable, convenient, easy to understand, and easy to use. We emphasize customer service in both transit operations and workforce training. Our marketing and customer information efforts help customers understand what service is available and how to use it, and also raise awareness of the benefits of transit.

Customer satisfaction is generally high, but decreased slightly in 2012 compared to 2011. Crowding has also increased due to a combination of ridership growth and a system shift toward buses with fewer seats. Customer complaints went up in 2012 as the Ride Free Area closed and we made major changes to service. Service investments to improve reliability helped improve on-time performance in 2012 after a decline in 2011 that was largely due to changes that improved efficiency but left less recovery time for late buses to get back on schedule. Customer use of our Metro Online website rose by one-third from 2011 to 2012.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 5 Customer satisfaction On-time performance by time of day Crowding Customer complaints per boarding Use of Metros web tools and alerts
TREND
+ +
18
1) Customer satisfaction
Over many years of our annual Rider/Non-Rider survey, the vast majority of customers have reported being satisfied with Metro service overall, but their satisfaction decreased slightly in 2012. Usually, more than 90% of respondents say they are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. In 2012, that number decreased to 88%, with the number choosing very satisfied dropping from 50% in 2011 to 46% in 2012. We did the survey after the 2012 fall service changewhich was one of Metros most extensive changes ever and included elimination of the Ride Free Areaand the launch of the new RapidRide C and D lines, which saw significant overcrowding during the first weeks of service. Customer satisfaction with specific transit service elements has remained high, but overall satisfaction is a bottom-line indicator that we will watch closely in the coming year.
1) Overall rider satisfaction

Somewhat Satisfied 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010
* Preliminary results
Very Satisfied
45%
41%
42%
49%
50%
46%
2011
2012*
2) On-time performance by time of day

The weekday on-time performance of our motor and trolley bus service decreased by 2.4% in 2011 to 75.7%, falling below our target of 80%. This decrease resulted largely from our efforts to gain scheduling efficiencies to reduce our operating costs. On-time performance increased slightly to 76.3% in 2012 as we re-allocated hours from less productive service to routes where increased service was needed to improve reliability, per our Service Guidelines. Weekday afternoon peak hours are the times with the most delays. Metros strategic plan and service guidelines will guide future service investments to improve the reliability of those routes that have the lowest on-time performance.
2) On-time performance by time of day

2010 Before 6 a.m. 6 9 a.m. 9 a.m. 3:15 p.m. 3:15 6:15 p.m. 6:15 9:30 p.m. After 9:30 p.m. Weekday average Saturday Sunday Total system average 88.9% 83.4% 77.2% 71.7% 76.0% 82.8% 78.1% 77.1% 79.5% 78.1% 2011 88.1% 81.3% 74.9% 69.0% 73.0% 80.7% 75.7% 75.7% 78.6% 76.0% 2012 89.5% 81.9% 75.8% 68.5% 73.8% 81.5% 76.3% 75.7% 77.9% 76.4%
3) Crowding
The percentage of trips with more riders than seats increased in 2012 to one in 11 (9.1%). Close to half of these (4%) had 20% more riders than seats.
A bus is considered to be on time if it is between 1 minute early and 5 minutes late.
3) Bus trips with more riders than seats

20% more riders than seats 1-19% more riders than seats 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 2010 2011 2012 6.2% 5.5% 9.1%
Our ridership increased system-wide in 2012. And Metro, like transit systems across the country, has been moving to low-floor buses with fewer seats and more standing room than older buses have. Wheel wells, heaters, and fuel storage used to be tucked under seats on high-floor buses, but on low-floor buses they protrude into the bus interiors and reduce the number of available seats. Reduced seating also improves passenger flow on buses and reduces operating costs. Metro will continue to phase out the older buses until our fleet contains only low-floor buses currently scheduled to happen in 2015.
19
4) Customer complaints per boarding

The number of complaints received per million boardings increased by 15% in 2011 and 8% in 2012. The 2011 increase was related to our new automated announcement system, which had some technical difficulties for us to work out, and changes in bus types that resulted in more passengers standing. In 2012, complaints spiked in October after the large fall service change. The elimination of the Ride Free Area, overcrowding on the new Rapid Ride C and D lines, and changes to many routes in the network all contributed to customer concerns.
4) Complaints per million boardings

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 131.9 152.3 165.2
5) Use of Metros electronic media tools and alerts

Metro has three major electronic media tools to help customers with their travel needs: our website (Metro Online), our online Trip Planner, and Transit Alerts that are sent to subscribers via email and/or text messaging. The use of the two online tools grew by one-third from 2011 to 2012, with visits to Metro Online increasing 38%. The number of Transit Alerts sent out more than doubled over the past year. Transit Alerts have proven to be an effective way to communicate real-time service information such as service disruptions and adverse weather issues. We have seen strong growth over the past three years in both the number of subscribers and the number of messages we send. In 2012, our Transit Alerts communicated important information to our subscribers a total of 8.7 million times.
40 20 0 2010 201 1 2012
5) Visits to Metro Online and Trip Planner (in millions)

Metro Online Visits Online Trip Planner Visits 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 11.9 10.5 15.2
20
GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP Exercise sound financial management and build Metros long term sustainability.
Objective 6.1: Emphasize planning and delivery of productive service.
Intended outcome: Service productivity improves.
Objective 6.2: Control costs.

Intended outcome: Metro costs grow at or below the rate of ination.
Objective 6.3: Seek to establish a sustainable funding structure to support short- and long-term public transportation needs.
Intended outcome: Adequate funding to support King Countys short- and long-term public transportation needs.
Metro strives to create a public transportation system that emphasizes productivity while promoting social equity and providing geographic value by serving centers throughout the county. Our focus on productivity supports regional and local growth and economic development and contributes to the financial sustainability of the transit system. A critical strategy for achieving financial sustainability is to control our costs. We continuously seek efficiencies in our administration and operation, including restructuring service according to our service guidelines to meet local needs more efficiently. In 2012, we started a pilot program to replace underused bus service in the Snoqualmie Valley with less-expensive alternatives. Another vital step toward financial sustainability is to seek new, sustainable funding sources. Setting fare structures and fare levels that enable us to meet our revenue targets is another key strategy.

Metro has seen an increase in ridership and related productivity measures over the past two years. Our farebox recovery rate has also increased. The use of ORCA has increased dramatically since its introduction in 2009. From 2010 to 2011, both our cost per vehicle hour and our cost per vehicle mile increased at a rate below that of inflation. From 2011 to 2012, our cost increases exceeded the rate of inflation due to rising costs for factors such as bus maintenance, insurance, and security. Its important to note that our 2012 costs were less than we projected in the budget. Our cost per boarding decreased for vanpools and increased for Access Transportation service.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Boardings per vehicle hour Passenger miles per vehicle mile ORCA use Farebox recovery Cost per hour Cost per vehicle mile Cost per boarding Cost per vanpool boarding Cost per Access boarding Asset condition assessment
TREND
+ + + + +
21
1) Boardings per vehicle hour

Metro uses boardings per vehicle hour (called boardings per platform hour in our strategic plan) to measure the productivity of transit service. Metro steadily improved on this measure from 2010 to 2012 as a result of increasing ridership and improved scheduling efficiency.
1) Boardings per vehicle hour

35 30.9 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Est. 31.8 32.1
2) Passenger miles per vehicle mile

Another measure of transit service productivity is passenger miles per vehicle mile. This ratio grew in each of the past two years as passenger boardings, and thus passenger miles, grew faster than vehicle miles.
3) ORCA use
The use of ORCA smart cards for fare payment has grown dramatically since their introduction in 2009. ORCA is used by seven Puget Sound agencies and provides a seamless fare medium for transferring among the systems. Virtually all passes are now on ORCA, and use of the ORCA E-purse has grown as well. ORCA use on Metro buses has grown by 64% in just two years. In late 2012, nearly two-thirds of Metros weekday boardings were paid for with ORCA.
2) Passenger miles per vehicle mile

12 10.4 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Est. 10.7 11.0
3) ORCA taps on Metro Transit (in millions)

E-Purse Pass
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 38.5 52.6
63.3
2012
22
4) Farebox recovery
Metros fund management policies, adopted in November 2011, establish a target of 25% for farebox recoveryan industry standard that differs slightly from our historically reported ratio of operations revenue to operations expense. From 2010 through 2012, farebox recovery in each year has exceeded our target, reaching 27.9% in 2012 (based on preliminary estimates). This reflects the effects of successive fare increases in 2010 and 2011 as well as increases in ridership in 2011 and 2012.
4) Transit fare revenue/operating expense

30% 26.0% 25% 20% Target: 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2010 2011 2012 Est. 27.1% 27.9%
5) Cost per hour

Between 2010 and 2011, our cost per transit hour increased 2.7%, slightly less than the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers. In 2012, our preliminary cost per hour increased by 4.9% as a result of increases in bus maintenance costs, insurance, security, and other central services. This is more than the 2.1% increase in the Consumer Price Index. Our cost figures for 2011 reflected an unprecedented wage freeze for King County Metro employees. Cost-containment efforts continue, as evidenced by the fact that Metros actual expenditures for 2012 were less than projected in the budget.
5) Cost per hour

$140 $127.00 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2010 2011 2012 Est. $130.42 $136.76
6) Cost per vehicle mile

Between 2010 and 2011, our cost per transit mile increased just 1.5%, well below the 3.2% increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, which serves as our target. In 2012, our preliminary cost per mile grew 6.1% as a result of cost increases from 2011 to 2012 (see the cost per hour discussion above). Our cost per vehicle mile increased at a higher rate than our cost per hour because our costs increased while the number of vehicle miles we operated remained essentially the same in 2012 as in 2011. The lack of increased miles relative to the increase in hours was largely due to our focus on reliability improvements.
6) Cost per vehicle mile

$12 $10.18 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 2010 2011 2012 Est. $10.33 $10.96
23
7) Cost per boarding

Our cost per boarding grew more slowly than our costs per hour and miles over the past two years, as passenger boardings increased faster than vehicle hours and miles.
7) Cost per boarding

$5 $4.11 $4 $4.10 $4.27
8) Cost per vanpool boarding

Our vanpool cost per boarding decreased about three percent between 2011 and 2012. Gasoline prices moderated (after a sharp increase in 2011), and ridership growth has increased the number of passengers per van. Our vanpool program met its guideline for cost recovery in each of the past three years. The King County Code requires commuter-van fares to be reasonably estimated to recover the operating and capital costs of, and at least 25 percent of the cost of administering, the vanpool program.
$3
$2
$1
$0 2010 2011 2012 Est.
9) Cost per Access boarding

The cost per Access trip increased by 9.4% from 2011 to 2012, compared to a 1.4% increase from 2010 to 2011. We attribute the 2012 cost increase to increased contractor costsincluding a move from Lake City to Shoreline and a yearly increase in Augustand lower productivity. Many road construction projects throughout the year affected productivity.
8) Cost per vanpool boarding

$3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $0.00 2010 2011 2012 Est. $3.20 $3.19
$3.09
10) Asset condition assessment

Metro was one of a select number of transit agencies that participated with the Federal Transit Administration in development of a State of Good Repair Index (SGR Index) for bus and trolley transit fleets. This index measures the condition of a fleet at the beginning of each two-year period on a scale of one to 100, with 100 being the highest score. The average Metromanaged fleet condition declined from 90.5 in 2007 to 82.4 in 2011. The average age of Metros buses increased from 6.8 years to 9.3 years during this time, resulting in higher maintenance and repair costs and difficulty obtaining replacement parts. As we buy new buses, we expect this score to rise. State of Good Repair Index 2007 90.5 2009 88.7 2011 82.4
9) Cost per Access boarding

$45 $40.42 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 2010 201 1 2012 Est. $36.45 $36.95
24
GOAL 7: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY Promote robust public engagement that informs, involves, and empowers people and communities.
Objective 7.1: Empower people to play an active role in shaping Metros products and services.
Intended outcome: The public plays a role and is engaged in the development of public transportation.
Objective 7.2: Increase customer and public access to understandable, accurate, and transparent information
Intended outcome: Metro provides information that people use to access and comment on the planning process and reports.
Metro is committed to being responsive and accountable to the public. We uphold this commitment by involving the community in our planning process and making public engagement a part of every major service change or new service initiative. We also work to make our information and decision-making processes clear and transparent. We reach out to customers and the public through a variety of forums and media channels, and make information available in multiple languages.

Surveys are an important part of our public outreach efforts. During 2011 and 2012, we received more than 10,000 completed surveys. We continue to expand our use of social media such as Facebook to reach more people. Our public outreach Facebook page quadrupled its number of followers in 2011. We also continued to implement and improve outreach strategies for reaching diverse populations. Customers reported generally high satisfaction with the accessibility of information about our routes and schedules.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 Public participation Customer satisfaction regarding Metros communications and reporting Social media indicators Conformance with King County policy on communications accessibility and translation to other languages
TREND
l l
+
l
25
GOAL 7: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
1) Public participation
Our public engagement efforts include surveys of our riders and the general public. During 2011 and 2012, we collected 10,315 survey responses. Most (76%) respondents said they were notified in time to provide meaningful feedback. In the two-phase outreach for the September 2012 service change, a survey question during the second phase asked whether the proposed changes reflected feedback the respondent had provided to Metro during the first phase of outreach. Thirty percent said yes, 48% said no, and 22% said they didnt know.
2) Customer satisfaction with Metros communications and reporting

A question in each years Rider/Non-Rider survey asks riders how satisfied they are with their ability to get information about Metros routes and schedules. About 60% report being very satisfied and another 30% say they are somewhat satisfied.
3) Social media indicators

Metro continues to find innovative ways to reach out to our customers using social media. These efforts complement our other electronic tools and alerts (see Goal 5, Measure 5). Below are some facts about three of our social media channels:
Metro Matters Blog

(http://metrofutureblog.wordpress.com/)
More than 31,000 people viewed this blog, and more than 475 comments were posted, in 2012. Our top referral sources in 2012 were (in order, starting with the most clicks) Metros website, Facebook, the Seattle Transit Blog, Metros emailed alerts, and Twitter. Top story themes include C Line updates, Mercer corridor reroutes, and the September service changes. Have a Say Facebook page
(http://www.facebook.com/haveasayatkcmetro)
Has 339 followers, up from 182 in 2011. Has a total reach potential (via friends of fans) of more than 100,000. Top posts include information about September Service Change, southeast Seattle outreach, and Ride Free Area updates.
26
GOAL 7: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY
King County Metro Transit Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/kcmetro) Has 963 followers, up from 240 in 2011. Has a total reach potential (via friends of fans) of more than 295,000. Top posts include information about the September 2012 service change, the RapidRide C Line, and feature/ marketing pieces (photo of the day, fun posts about buses beating the traffic on SR-520, etc.)
4) Conformance with King County policy on communications accessibility and translation to other languages
To ensure that all voices are included in Metros decision-making process, we research the demographics of those who will be affected by each change under consideration. Then we design outreach strategies to reach people who are unlikely to learn about our process via mainstream channels such as news media, email, and websites. We comply with the countys translation policy, which mandates translation and/or accommodation where more than 5% of an affected population speaks a language other than English. One way we target under-represented populations is by partnering with organizations that serve them and making information available in a variety of forms and languages. We also host information tables at locations that serve underrepresented populations, go door-to-door or board buses to reach people directly, work with ethnic media outlets and small community publications, make our materials and surveys available in large print, provide six dedicated language lines, and arrange for interpreters (including those for persons who are deaf or deaf/ blind) on request. We document our research, approach, and results for each project in the public engagement reports we prepare for decision makers and elected officials. In 2012 we reported on the success of and recommendations forour ORCA marketing and outreach to persons who are disadvantaged and/or speak limited English in Southeast Seattle in our report, Southeast Seattle Outreach.
vicio as sobre el ser escuchar sus ide Metro quiere qualmie el Valle de Sno en e ort nsp tra
lp King County Metro Tra Snoqua lmie Va nsit desig lley. n transpo rtation Our goal service is s for the use of ou to get more pe ople wh r resource ere the s. y want to go by In addit ion to op making better erating transpo bus servi rtation service and rid s such as ce, Metro pro esha vides alt commun commun ring options. ernative ity vans Alternati ity need , dial-a ve servi Tell s, so the service -rid e ces can us more transit, y can be and cost be tai about yo more eff less. transpo ur ective tha lored to t rtation Bus rou n xed-ro needs us online su tes that ing our ute bus rvey by serve the geograp No www.su Snoqua hic area rveymon v. 4: lmie Va and do used for lle key.com Snoqua not ca y cove thi /s/ lmieVall could pro s bus service ma rry many riders r a large, mo ey ASD stly vide mo . Some y be be Learn of the res rural tter inv re direc more ested in t service ources Before alternati to at a comm and provide fee we make ves tha ar mejores more people. dback a dise unity me Transitan t poty Metro y ten ch eti Coun an tia ie. King ng ge ualm l future de Snoq : Ayude a s, we wa Wedne riders in nt to he porte para el Valle sday, No the Snoq ar from servicios de trans v. 7 Metro wi uae con Aporte su voz 5-7 p.m. current ll ms and nas a desplazars lmie Valley. keperso recom ar a ma Cherr y and ayud es sos. ch me meta recur Va tra an ros nd Nues lle ges wo mejor nuest ations idades de y Elementa uld be 26 al aprovechar ry made ne to the County acerca de sus neces 701 Cherr mayor eciencia cilCuntenos Coun Valley Ro School, xt June. sta en lnea ayms this wi ad, Duva Metro ofrece otras en nuestra encue porte nter, trans ios de autobs, Tuesda ll en minivan mbre: y, Nov. Aparte de sus servic como el servicio tardar el 4 de novie 13 5transporte tales nes / 7 p.m. opcio y com/s -ride, alternativas de nkey. ito dial-a www.surveymo Fall City servicio de trns s se pueden comunitaria, el eyASD Elementa servicios alternativo SnoqualmieVall Espaartido ry Scho 33314 er obten ol . Los para ol de viaje comp SE 42 en una de de la comunidad sus comentarios nd Street, Fall las necesidades a orm aporte Inf rutas jas de adaptar City Cocomu Infrmese y ac a un r costo que las nitarias: immeno ones mmen nciain portante ecie t by: mayorso licita las siguientes reuni Ph sobre el r esta one (20 servicio s. o autob enve un informacin en re 6-684-1162 de autob emb una Em es de novi sirven mensaje ail 7 ie ) or pa us ualm coles (ha o es Snoq Mir de veasay@ l, sr vase kingcou de su zo Valle de corre s en el autob na. Palas kingcou llamaos 7 PM n much oyele y.gov las porta a 5 Las rutas de nt trans r ctr ra no al De . nty.gov) nico a 206-263 ntary School su mayora rural, comm ados -99Cherr 88 y Valley Eleme amplia zona, en unity.re actualmente dedic lations@ Road, Duvall os de los recursos tir mejor en pasajeros. Algun 26701 Cherr y Valley s se podran inver io de autobs quiz al ios ms directos. Toservic embre reques ofrecieran servic es, 13 de novi stque Mart th alternativa is docu 7 PM 206-68 ment in las De las 5 a las 4-1154 ramos conocer School cambios, quisi an alterna el Valle de Fall City Elementary Fall City en e Antes de hacer (TTY Relay les y futuros tiv format, Street, : 71 pasajeros actua 1) 33314 SE 42nd please opiniones de los call sus Snoqualmie. artir comp e del Usted pued s ante el Concejo 12105_ por: s DO recomendacione comentario en vigor el T/COM/IN o Metro presentar cambio entrara 162) FO no, y cualquier .gov) Telfono (206-684-1 ounty OCTO Condado en invier asay@kingc BER 201 (have 2 Correo electrnico prximo junio.
Metro w in Sno ants your id eas ab qualm ie Vall out tra ey nspo He
rtation
service
de
12105_DOT/COM/I
NFO
OCTOBER 2012
27
GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE Develop and empower Metros most valuable asset, its employees.
Objective 8.1: Attract and recruit quality employees.

Intended outcome: Metro is satised with the quality of its workforce.
Objective 8.2: Empower and retain efcient, effective, and productive employees.
Intended outcome: Metro employees are satised with their jobs and feel their work contributes to an improved quality of life in King County.
Metros products and services are a reflection of the employees who deliver them. Metro strives to recruit quality, committed employees and create a positive work environment. We value a diverse and skilled workforce and strive to support our employees, empower them to excel, recognize their achievements, and help them develop professionally. To help us achieve our objectives, we recently implemented a new Workforce Development Program that will focus on the development and ongoing support of employees. The programs priorities include the following: Build a robust talent pipeline that attracts high quality talent early in their academic or professional careers to consider employment at Metro. Ensure that Metro leaders can effectively engage, develop, and support staff members in being
successful, productive, and committed to continuous improvement. Provide leaders with tools and processes to effectively manage performance. Facilitate staff and leader career development opportunities (both lateral and vertical). Implement meaningful selection and development processes to grow highly skilled talent that is capable of leading Metro into the future. Align all talent/workforce development activities with Metros strategic priorities.

The diversity of Metros workforce has remained relatively constant over the past three years. An employee survey found that 74% of Metro employees were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs. We plan to survey employees again in 2014 to provide trend information. Job promotions increased between 2011 and 2012, while the turnover rate among new employees declined.
MEASURES
1 2 3 4 Demographics of Metro employees Employee job satisfaction Promotion rates Probationary pass rate
TREND
l l
+ +
28
1) Demographics of Metro employees

Metro strives to maintain a diverse workforce. The table at right shows the race and gender makeup of our workforce in December 2012. Compared with the county population as a whole, our workforce is more male, less Asian, less Hispanic, and slightly less white. Metro follows an established outreach plan for advertising job opportunities to a diverse applicant pool. These efforts include advertising in a variety of community publications, attending career fairs, working with community-based organizations, establishing relationships with apprenticeship and trade schools, and maintaining an internet presence that promotes Metro job openings.
1) Demographic of Metro employees

White Black Asian Hispanic American Indian Pacic Islander Multiple Not Specied Total Percentage Male Female 2,186 623 659 259 430 68 126 39 44 24 22 4 14 9 19 1 3,500 1,027 77% 23% Total 2,809 62% 918 20% 498 11% 165 4% 68 2% 26 1% 23 1% 20 0% 4,527
2) Employee job satisfaction

About a third (34%) of the 1,014 Metro respondents to the 2012 employee satisfaction survey reported being very satisfied with their jobs overall, and another 40% said they were satisfied. These responses are virtually identical to those from all King County employee respondents. (There was an employee satisfaction survey in 2009, but the sample frame and question wording were different from those used in 2012. A new survey, scheduled for 2014, will provide trend information.)
2) 2012 Transit employee satisfaction with job
4% 34% 40% 11% 11%
Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Neither Dissatisfied Nor Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied
29
3) Promotion rates
Promotions within Metro more than doubled between 2011 and 2012, and the percentage of promotions among positions filled grew from 14% to 18%. As a result of retirements in 2012, we replaced several leadership and senior-level employees. We filled many of these positions with internal candidates, resulting in a higher promotion rate for 2012.
3) Promotions and hires

New Hires/Rehires Promotions 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2011 2012 258 441
4) Probationary pass rate

Of the 50 non-operations employees hired in 2011, just five left employment within six months. This rate is slightly lower than in 2010. Overall, Metro has a fairly low rate of employees leaving during their probationary periods, and our new workforce development program will help us ensure that new employees acquire the knowledge and skills they need to become effective members of Metros team.
4) Turnover rate of new hires

Not Terminated Terminated 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012*
*Final data not yet available
30
ATTACHMENT
ComparisonofPerformanceMeasuresforthe 30LargestMotorbus/TrolleybusTransit AgenciesintheUnitedStates 2011

The Peer Comparison Report compares bus-only information obtained from the Federal Transit Administrations (FTA) National Transit Database. Metro includes the following services in this analysis: Metro-operated motor bus and trolley bus, purchased motorbus (DART), RapidRide, and commuter bus (for peer agencies).
Source: 2011 and 2007 National Transit Database of the Federal Transit Administration. (The 2012 database is not yet available.)
ATTACHMENT: PEER COMPARISON REPORT
A-1
2011 Boardings in Millions

Motorbus and Trolley Bus
MTA New York City Transit Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia San Francisco New Jersey Washington DC MTA New York Bus Boston King County Metro Baltimore Denver Miami Honolulu Minneapolis Houston Atlanta Portland Oakland Las Vegas Pittsburgh Orange San Diego San Antonio Milwaukee Cleveland Dallas Phoenix Detroit Austin
0
800.1 357.3 310.4 189.7 155.7 155.7 130.7 118.3 112.4 112.0 76.6 76.0 75.7 73.8 69.8 66.4 63.1 58.2 57.3 55.5 54.1 51.3 49.5 44.2 44.0 37.2 37.0 36.7 35.6 33.5
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
A-2
Average Annual Percent Change in Boardings

Motorbus and Trolley Bus, 2007 to 2011
Philadelphia Boston San Antonio MTA New York Bus San Diego Minneapolis Honolulu Denver King County Metro Austin Detroit Chicago -0.3% -0.6% -0.8% -1.1% -1.5% -1.7% -1.8% -2.0% -2.3% -2.3% -2.6% -2.9% -3.4% -3.6% -5.6% -6.1% -6.4% -6.7% -7.6%
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%
2.8% 2.6% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% San Francisco Washington DC Milwaukee Baltimore Average New Jersey MTA New York City Transit Portland Atlanta Miami Pittsburgh Las Vegas Los Angeles Oakland Houston Cleveland Orange Phoenix Dallas
2% 4%
A-3
Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour

Motorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011
MTA New York City Transit San Francisco Oakland Baltimore Pittsburgh Boston Detroit Philadelphia King County Metro MTA New York Bus Portland Washington DC New Jersey Los Angeles Chicago Average Cleveland Miami Honolulu Dallas Minneapolis Milwaukee Atlanta Houston Orange Austin Denver Phoenix Las Vegas San Diego San Antonio $0
A-4
$163.92 $158.80 $155.55 $146.34 $146.04 $135.38 $130.69 $130.60 $129.51 $126.81 $126.19 $123.93 $123.93 $122.11 $120.32 $118.61 $117.29 $114.31 $114.13 $112.07 $109.09 $106.16 $105.84 $104.18 $103.44 $96.99 $95.02 $91.01 $89.68 $79.83 $79.03 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180
Average Annual Percent Change in Operating Cost Per Vehicle Hour, 2007 to 2011
Pittsburgh Las Vegas Cleveland Baltimore Boston San Francisco MTA New York City Transit Portland Atlanta Honolulu Philadelphia San Diego Houston Los Angeles Dallas Miami Oakland Average San Antonio Phoenix King County Metro Denver New Jersey Milwaukee Minneapolis Austin Orange Washington DC Detroit -0.2% -0.7%
-2%
8.9% 6.8% 6.0% 5.8% 5.3% 5.2% 5.1% 5.1% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5% 4.4% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% 1.6% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% MTA New York Bus Chicago
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
A-5
Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile

MTA New York City Transit San Francisco MTA New York Bus Boston Oakland Philadelphia Chicago Washington DC King County Metro Baltimore Average Pittsburgh Portland Los Angeles Cleveland Detroit Miami Minneapolis Atlanta Milwaukee Honolulu Dallas New Jersey Orange Las Vegas Austin San Diego Houston Phoenix Denver San Antonio
$0 $5
$21.28 $20.40 $15.03 $13.00 $12.66 $12.65 $12.54 $10.86 $10.24 $10.06 $9.94 $9.78 $9.74 $9.73 $9.49 $9.17 $8.90 $8.45 $8.17 $8.14 $8.02 $8.00 $7.92 $7.55 $7.16 $7.09 $6.67 $6.67 $6.61 $6.41 $5.69
$10 $15 $20 $25
A-6
Average Annual Percent Change in Operating Cost Per Vehicle Mile, 2007 to 2011
Pittsburgh Cleveland San Francisco Boston Baltimore Portland Dallas MTA New York City Transit Philadelphia Los Angeles Atlanta Las Vegas Honolulu Oakland MTA New York Bus Miami San Diego Average Houston Phoenix Milwaukee San Antonio Denver New Jersey Minneapolis Washington DC Orange Austin King County Metro Detroit Chicago
0%
8.6% 7.8% 7.6% 6.6% 5.9% 5.7% 5.5% 5.5% 5.4% 5.1% 4.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.3% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.2% 2.7% 2.6% 2.0% 1.2% 1.1% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
A-7
Boardings Per Vehicle Hour

San Francisco MTA New York City Transit Chicago Honolulu Los Angeles Philadelphia Boston Las Vegas Baltimore Milwaukee Average Portland King County Metro Atlanta Minneapolis Oakland Detroit San Diego Cleveland Orange Washington DC Austin MTA New York Bus Miami Pittsburgh San Antonio Denver Phoenix New Jersey Houston Dallas
0
A-8
63.3 54.5 51.0 49.2 45.6 42.5 42.1 39.4 35.4 34.4 34.1 33.0 31.7 31.4 31.3 31.3 31.2 31.0 30.9 30.1 29.8 28.4 28.4 28.4 27.5 27.4 25.1 24.8 24.7 21.0 17.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Average Annual Percentage Change in Boardings Per Vehicle Hour, 2007 to 2011
San Diego Boston Chicago Cleveland Detroit Pittsburgh Miami Denver Philadelphia Milwaukee Portland Honolulu Minneapolis Austin King County Metro San Antonio -0.1% -0.1% -0.3% -0.7% -1.3% -1.4% -1.8% -1.8% -2.0% -2.0% -2.1% -2.3% -5.7% -6.5% -7.1%
-8% -6% -4% -2% 0%
4.9% 4.3% 4.1% 3.5% 3.3% 2.4% 2.2% 1.7% 1.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% Average Las Vegas San Francisco MTA New York City Transit Atlanta New Jersey Los Angeles Oakland Orange Baltimore New York Bus Washington DC Phoenix Houston Dallas
2% 4%
A-9
6%
Passenger Mile Per Vehicle Mile

Honolulu MTA New York City Transit San Francisco Los Angeles Chicago Philadelphia Miami Las Vegas New Jersey Baltimore King County Metro Boston Average Minneapolis MTA New York Bus Portland Cleveland San Diego Atlanta Orange Detroit Denver Houston Austin San Antonio Oakland Milwaukee Washington DC Pittsburgh Phoenix Dallas
0
A-10
18.9 15.8 15.7 15.2 12.2 12.1 11.9 11.2 11.0 10.8 10.7 10.5 10.2 9.8 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.9 7.8 6.6 6.6 5.4
5 10 15 20
Average Annual Percentage Change in Passenger Mile Per Vehicle Mile, 2007 to 2011
Boston Honolulu Cleveland Atlanta Miami MTA New York Bus San Diego Philadelphia Milwaukee Chicago Portland New Jersey San Antonio San Francisco Los Angeles Austin Average MTA New York City Transit Denver Oakland -0.4% -1.4% -1.5% -1.7% -2.0% -2.4% -3.9% -4.5% -4.5% -5.5% -7.0%
-10% -5% 0%
11.5% 6.4% 6.3% 4.6% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.9% 3.3% 3.2% 3.2% 2.8% 2.6% 2.2% 2.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.6% Orange Baltimore Las Vegas King County Metro Minneapolis Washington DC Detroit Houston Pittsburgh Phoenix Dallas
5% 10% 15%
A-11
Operating Cost Per Boarding

Dallas Pittsburgh New Jersey Oakland Houston MTA New York Bus Detroit Washington DC Baltimore King County Metro Miami Portland Cleveland Denver Average Phoenix Minneapolis Orange Austin Atlanta Boston Milwaukee Philadelphia MTA New York City Transit San Antonio Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Chicago Honolulu Las Vegas
$0
A-12
$6.40 $5.31 $5.01 $4.97 $4.95 $4.47 $4.19 $4.16 $4.13 $4.08 $4.03 $3.83 $3.79 $3.79 $3.68 $3.66 $3.48 $3.44 $3.42 $3.37 $3.22 $3.09 $3.07 $3.01 $2.88 $2.68 $2.58 $2.51 $2.36 $2.32 $2.28
$1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7
Average Annual Percent Change in Operating Cost Per Boarding, 2007 to 2011
Dallas Houston Phoenix Baltimore Las Vegas Atlanta MTA New York City Transit Los Angeles Oakland Pittsburgh San Francisco New Jersey Portland Honolulu Average Washington DC San Antonio Orange Philadelphia Minneapolis Cleveland MTA New York Bus Milwaukee Miami Austin Denver Boston King County Metro -0.4% -2.2% -4.1%
-10% -5%
15.2% 13.9% 11.6% 8.5% 7.0% 6.3% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.9% 5.6% 4.5% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 2.7% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9% 0.5% San Diego Detroit Chicago
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
A-13
Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile

MTA New York Bus Oakland Dallas Pittsburgh Washington DC MTA New York City Transit San Francisco Boston Philadelphia Detroit Milwaukee Chicago Portland Cleveland Phoenix Average King County Metro Baltimore Atlanta Minneapolis Orange Austin Houston Miami Denver New Jersey San Diego San Antonio Los Angeles Las Vegas Honolulu
$0.00
A-14
$1.54 $1.52 $1.49 $1.47 $1.40 $1.35 $1.30 $1.24 $1.04 $1.04 $1.03 $1.03 $1.01 $1.01 $1.00 $1.00 $0.95 $0.93 $0.90 $0.86 $0.85 $0.85 $0.77 $0.75 $0.73 $0.72 $0.71 $0.68 $0.64 $0.64 $0.43
$0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75
Average Annual Percent Change in Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile, 2007 to 2011
Dallas Pittsburgh Phoenix Houston Baltimore Las Vegas Detroit Minneapolis Washington DC San Francisco MTA New York City Transit Oakland Average Los Angeles King County Metro Portland Denver Orange Philadelphia Cleveland San Antonio MTA New York Bus San Diego Atlanta Milwaukee Miami -0.1% -0.1% -1.4% -2.6% -3.4%
-5%
17.3% 16.1% 11.6% 9.9% 7.7% 6.5% 5.2% 5.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.2% 3.9% 3.5% 2.7% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.6% 1.3% 1.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% New Jersey Austin Honolulu Chicago Boston
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
A-15
A-16

King County Metro Transit 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

King County Metro Transit 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

King County Metro Transit

2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report

This page intentionally left blank.

King County Metro Transit 2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report

Alternative Formats Available 206-263-5277 TTY Relay: 711

2012 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Meeting or approaching goal Stable Opportunity to improve

MEASURES GOAL 1: SAFETY

GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL

GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE

GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP

GOAL 7:PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

This page intentionally left blank.

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Metro at a Glance (2012)

Annual service hours Active fleet Bus stops Park-and-rides

3.5 million 1,369 buses over 8,000 131

Key to trend symbols

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 1: SAFETY Support safe communities

HOW WERE DOING: GOAL 1 OVERVIEW

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

1) Preventable accidents per million miles

1) Preventable accidents per million miles

2) Operator and passenger incidents and assaults

2) Operator and Passenger Incidents and Assaults

3) Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security

4) Effectiveness of emergency responses

3) Rider Satisfaction with Safe Operation of the Bus

Protecting bus drivers

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

HOW WERE DOING: GOAL 2 OVERVIEW

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL

4) Accessible bus stops

Accessible stops All stops Percent accessible

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL

6) Access applicants who undertake xed-route travel training

6) Access applicants who undertake xed-route travel training

8) Requested Access trips compared with those provided

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

HOW WERE DOING: GOAL 3 OVERVIEW

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1) Transit rides per capita

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Est. 56.7 58 58.9

2) Transit boardings in King County

3) Ridership in growth and business centers

4) Peak non-drive-alone mode share at Commute Trip Reduction sites

4) Peak mode share at King County commute trip reduction sites

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

5) Employer-sponsored passes and usage

5) Regional boardings paid with business account ORCAs (in millions)

6) HOV lane passenger miles

6) Metro passenger miles on xed guideways (in millions)

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT