King County Metro Transit 2012

7/28/2019 King County Metro Transit 2012

1/50

King CountyMetro Transit

2012 Strategic

Plan ProgressReport

March 2013


2/50

This page intentionally left blank.


3/50

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

King County Metro Transit2012 Strategic Plan Progress Report

March 2013


4/50

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


5/50

KING COUNTY METRO TRANSITSTRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT 1

The purpose of Metro Transits 2012 Strategic Plan ProgressReport is to enable the public and county leaders to seehow well Metro is performing and moving toward ourstrategic goals for public transportation. The adoption ofthe strategic plan and guidelines is key to Metros effortsover the past three years to improve our use of strategicplanning and systematic, effective data analysis to informand 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 dataand 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 ofmeasures: 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 steadilysince the fare card was introduced in 2009. By theend 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 mostcounty residents (87%). The percentage is even higherin areas with many low-income residents (95%) orminority populations (93%).

We are making strides in reducing energy use. As ourridership goes up, our energy use per boarding goesdown. 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 engagethe public as we plan service changes.

Measures of safety and security are holding steady after

marked improvement since 2008, and weve enhancedour emergency response.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2012 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Weve used our strategic plan and service guidelines tomake 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 andproductive services. However, the data show that some

of our efficiency improvements had impacts on ourriders. For example, we have made bus schedules more

efficient, resulting in operational savings but contributingto less-reliable services and a small decline in customersatisfaction. Weve responded by making investments toimprove reliability.

We also made major changes to our systemreinvesting100,000 service hours as part of major servicerestructures, integrating new RapidRide lines, andeliminating the Ride Free Area in downtown Seattle. Whileimproving 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 efficiencyand customer satisfaction and be sensitive to how muchchange our system and riders can handle at once. Well bewatching customer satisfaction trends closely.

We also need to continue working toward our objective toestablish a sustainable funding structure to support short-and long-term needs. Metro faces an ongoing annual

revenue shortfall of $75 million. Metro and the KingCounty Council have taken numerous actions since 2008to manage this shortfall and preserve as much service aspossible, but use of reserve funds and revenue from thetemporary congestion reduction charge will no longer beavailable after mid-2014. Metro is working with regionalpartners to identify additional, sustainable funding sourcesand is pursuing options in the current legislative session.Without new revenue, budget projections assume that

Metro will need to cut approximately 17% of our transitsystem starting in fall 2014.


6/50

2 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSITSTRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

MEASURES TREND

GOAL 1: SAFETY1 Preventable accidents per million miles l

2 Operator and passenger incidents and assaults l

3 Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security +

4 Effectiveness of emergency responses +

GOAL 2: HUMAN POTENTIAL

1 Population within a quarter-mile of a transit stop or within a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride l

2

Low-income population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-

and-ridel

3 Minority population within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride l

4 Accessible bus stops l

5 Access boardings/number of trips provided by the Community Access Transportation (CAT) program +

6 Access applicants who undertake fixed-route travel training l

7 Access registrants l

8 Requested Access trips compared with those provided +

GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT1 Transit rides per capita +

2 All public transportation ridership in King County +

3 Ridership in population/business centers +

4 Employees at CTR sites sharing non-drive-alone transportation modes during peak commute hours +

5 Employee-sponsored passes and usage +

6 HOV lane passenger miles l

GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY1 Average miles per gallon of Metros bus fleet l

2 Vehicle energy (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by miles l

3 Vehicle fuel (diesel, gasoline, kWh) normalized by boardings +

4 Total facility energy use l

5 Energy use at metro facilities/KWh and natural gas used in facilities normalized by area and temperature +

Meeting or approaching goal

Stable

Opportunity to improve

+

l

These symbols are intended to give ageneral indication of how well weremeeting our goals.

SYMBOL KEY


7/50


GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE

1 Customer satisfaction

2 On-time performance by time of day +

3 Crowding

4 Customer complaints per boarding

5 Use of Metros web tools and alerts +

GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP

1 Boardings per vehicle hour +

2 Passenger miles per vehicle mile +

3 ORCA use +

4 Farebox recovery +

5 Cost per hour

6 Cost per vehicle mile

7 Cost per boarding

8 Cost per vanpool boarding +

9 Cost per Access boarding

10 Asset condition assessment

GOAL 7:PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

1 Public participation l

2 Customer satisfaction regarding Metros communications and reporting l

3 Social media indicators +

4Conformance with King County policy on communications accessibility and translation to otherlanguages

l

GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE

1 Demographics of Metro employees l

2 Employee job satisfaction l

3 Promotion rates +

4 Probationary pass rate +


8/50




9/50


The King County Council adopted Metros Strategic Planfor Public Transportation 2011-2021 in July 2011. Theplan lays out a vision for the regions public transportationsystem; sets goals, objectives, strategies, and quantitativeperformance measures; and lays out new service

guidelines. It builds on King Countys strategic plan andreflects the recommendations of the 2010 Regional TransitTask Force.

When the Council adopted Metros strategic plan, itrequired Metro to report every two years on how we havemet the strategic plans goals and objectives. This is thefirst such report, and will serve as a baseline for future

reports. It is intended to monitor Metros progress towardbroad, system-level outcomes.

The measures in this report focus on many aspects ofMetros public transportation system, including how wellwe deliver on the key values of productivity, social equity,and geographic value. Included are existing measuresthat we use for other reporting purposes as well as newmeasures specific to the strategic plan. The outcomes onmeasures provide an indication of our overall progresstoward 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 identifyperformance targets for most measures, although we havetargets for some measures from our service guidelinesor other programs. We are working to establish targetsfor the remaining measures based on our previousperformance, industry standards, and information frompeer agencies.

As part of our performance monitoring, Metro comparesour measures with those of the 30 largest motor and

trolley bus agencies in the United States. Our current PeerComparison 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 tothe reporting lag at the Federal Transit AdministrationsNational Transit Database.

INTRODUCTION

2012 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

Metro at a Glance (2012)

Service area 2,134 square milesPopulation 1.96 millionEmployment 1.2 million

Fixed-route ridership 115.4 million*

Vanpool ridership: 3.4 million*

Access ridership: 1.1 million** preliminary estimates

Annual service hours 3.5 millionActive fleet 1,369 buses

Bus stops over 8,000Park-and-rides 131

Key to trend symbols

Meeting or approaching goal

Stable

Opportunity to improve

+

l

These symbols are intended to give a generalindication of how well were meeting our goals.

SYMBOL KEY


10/50


Objective 1.1: Keep people safe andsecure.

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, includingplanning, policing, facility design, operational practices,safety training, and collaboration with local jurisdictionsand other agencies on safety-related matters.

Specific strategies include promoting safety and securityin public transportation operations and facilities, andplanning 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 OperatorAssault Reduction Project, which includes a number ofstrategies and programs to increase the safety of bothbus drivers and passengers.

1GOAL 1: SAFETY

Support safe communities

HOW WERE DOING: GOAL 1 OVERVIEW

Overall, we maintained or improved our safetyand security performance in 2012. While we hadabout the same number of preventable accidentsin 2012 as in 2011, accident rates had decreasedover the previous several years. The same is true

with the total number of incidents and assaultsitremained about the same in 2012 as in 2011, aftera decreasing trend over previous years.

Customer satisfaction with personal safety whileriding the bus at night showed a slight increase. Wealso improved our performance on a Department

of Homeland Security assessment of our securityprogram.

MEASURES TREND

1 Preventable accidents per million miles l

2Operator and passenger incidents andassaults

l

3Customer satisfaction regarding safetyand security

+

4 Effectiveness of emergency responses +


11/50


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 thefive prior years.

2) Operator and passenger incidents and assaults

Preliminary 2012 figures show about the same number ofreported incidents and assaults as in 2011 (down significantlyfrom prior years). There were more assaults on passengers andoperators in 2012, and fewer passenger physical disturbances(fights between passengers). Passenger assault is defined asan assault with a clear or identified victim. An altercation amongriders 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 ofMetros Operator Assault Reduction Project, which focuses onclose coordination between Transit Operations and Metro TransitPolice to ensure timely assault response and follow-up. Theproject also includes a training program that helps operators learnhow to de-escalate potential conflicts and communicate effectivelywith challenging passengers.

3) Customer satisfaction regarding safety and security

Every year, Metros Rider/Non-Rider survey asks riders about theirsatisfaction with many attributes of Metro service. Satisfactionwith the safe operation of buses always gets very high scores,with about 70% of respondents saying they are very satisfiedand 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 orsomewhat satisfied, compared to 76% and 77% for the previoustwo years.

4) Effectiveness of emergency responses

The Department of Homeland Securitys Transportation SecurityAdministration administers the Baseline Assessment for SecurityEnhancement (BASE) program, which is designed to establisha security standard for transit system security programs and to

assess progress. This voluntary, comprehensive review focuses oncategories identified by the transit community as fundamentals fora sound transit security program, including an agencys securityplans, 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 protectionprotocols, security and emergency preparedness training andexercise program, and inclusion of security upgrades in our mid

and long-term planning.

GOAL 1: SAFETY

2) Operator and Passenger Incidentsand Assaults

85 84107

6339

52

222243

203

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2011 2012

Passenger Physical DisturbancesAssaults on PassengersAssaults on Operators

1) Preventable accidents per million miles

71% 71% 73%

24% 25% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012*

Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied

*Preliminary results

3) Rider Satisfaction with SafeOperation of the Bus

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

2010 2011 2012 Est.

8.69.59.5


12/50


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 onbus 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 asuspect in a driver assault is identified and/or arrested, workwith 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, forfaster response by whatever agency is the closest.

Security Incident Report follow-up. Ensure that bus drivers who are having consistent problems withpassengers 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, basedon 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 ofviolence against a bus driver is a felony.


13/50



Provide equitable opportunities for people from all areas of King County

to access the public transportation system.

Objective 2.1 Provide public transportationproducts and services that add value

throughout King County and that facilitateaccess to jobs, education, and otherdestinations.

Intended outcome: More people throughout King

County have access to public transportation products

and services.

Metro strives to provide transportation choices that makeit easy for people to travel throughout King County andthe region. We provide a range of public transportationproducts and services appropriate to different marketsand mobility needs, and work to integrate our serviceswith others. Our fully accessible fixed-route system iscomplemented by a range of additional services suchas ridesharing, dial-a-ride transit (DART) and other

specialized products. In compliance with the Americanswith Disabilities Act, we provide complementary Accessparatransit services to eligible people with disabilities.

Through the Community Access Transportation (CAT)program, we provide vans and support to community

2

groups and others that provide travel options forpassengers who are disabled and/or elderly. Our traveltraining program helps people with disabilities rideregular bus service. We also provide programs such as

Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), a federalprogram intended to connect low-income populationswith employment opportunities through publictransportation.


About 87% of the housing units in King County arewithin a quarter-mile walk of a bus stop, a two-miledrive to a park-and-ride, or an area served by DART(dial-a-ride transit) service. That percentage is higherin areas with high populations of low-income orminority residents.

Our proportion of bus stops that are wheelchairaccessible remains 77%, although the total number

of bus stops in Metros system has decreased due

to stop-spacing projects. Access ridership decreasedslightly in 2012, leading to cost savings eventhough the number of Access registrants increasedslightly. At the same time, CAT ridership increasedand travel training efforts continued to give ridersmore transportation choices. More than 500 Accessapplicants took this training in each of the past two

years.

Metro delivered 100% of the Access trips requested,

per federal requirements.

MEASURES TREND

1Population within a quarter-mile of atransit stop or within a two-mile driveto a park-and-ride

l

2Low-income population living within aquarter-mile walk of a transit stop or atwo-mile drive to a park-and-ride

l

3Minority population within a quarter-mile walk of a transit stop or a two-miledrive to a park-and-ride

l

4 Accessible bus stops l

5

Access boardings/number of trips

provided by the Community AccessTransportation (CAT) program

+

6Access applicants who undertake fixed-route travel training

l

7 Access registrants l

8Requested Access trips compared withthose provided

+


14/50


1) Population living within a quarter-mile walk of a transitstop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride

In both fall 2011 and spring 2012, 87% of King County housingunits were in one of the following three categories:

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 atransit center with parking. In an area served by a DART bus route.

2) Low-income population living within a quarter-mile walkof a transit stop or a two-mile drive to a park-and-ride

The 2010 census found that 10% of King County residents arebelow the poverty level. To measure their access to transit, wedefine a census block group as low-income if more than 10% ofits population is below the poverty level. We found that 95% ofhousing units in these census block groups are within accessibledistances to transita higher percentage than for housing unitsoverall in King County.

3) Minority population living within a quarter-mile walk ofa 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 awhole) belongs to a minority group. In these block groups, 93% ofhousing units are within accessible distances to transita higherpercentage than for housing units overall in King County.

4) Accessible bus stopsThe proportion of bus stops that are wheelchair accessible hasbeen steady at 77% the past three years. Service realignmentsbetween 2010 and 2012 and an update of Metros bus stopinventory allowed us to improve stop spacing and reduce our

total bus stops by 453 (5%) over the past three years.

2010 2011 2012

Accessible stops 6,798 6,714 6,499

All stops 8,866 8,744 8,413

Percent accessible 77% 77% 77%

5) Access boardings/number of trips provided by theCommunity Access Transportation (CAT) program

Access ridership decreased slightly in 2012 as ridership in theCAT program increased. Travel training efforts to help people withdisabilities ride regular bus service (as described in Measure 6below) also contributed to a decrease in Access ridership.


87%

95%

93%

5) Access boardings/number of tripsprovided by the Community AccessTransportation (CAT) program, in 000s

Taxi BoardingsCAT BoardingsAccess Boardings

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2010 2011 2012 Est.

1,512 1,557 1,513


15/50


6) Access applicants who undertake fixed-route traveltraining

Travel training to help people with disabilities ride regular

bus service provides those customers with more flexibility intheir transportation choices. It also contributes to Metros cost-control efforts by diverting riders to less expensive modes of

transportation. More than 500 Access applicants received thistraining in each of the past two years.

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 havebeen found eligible to book a ride. Many are not currently activeusers, but the registration system would allow them to schedulerides if they wished.

8) Requested Access trips compared with those provided

Per federal requirements, Metros Access program provides a tripfor every request by a qualified applicantmeeting the target of100% delivery ratio.


499548 526

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012

6) Access applicants who undertakefixed-route travel training

30,052 30,66331,890

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2010 2011 2012

7) Access registrants


16/50


3GOAL 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 needfor transportation services and facilitiesthroughout 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, healthycommunities.

Intended outcome: More people regularly use public

transportation products and services along corridors

with compact development.

Objective 3.4: Support economic developmentby using existing transportation infrastructureefficiently and effectively.

Intended outcome: Regional investments in major

highway capacity projects and parking requirementsare complemented by high transit service levels in

congested corridors and centers.


Metros ridership has been on the rise since 2010following a two-year decline during the economicslump. We saw our second highest ridership yearever in 2012. A stronger economy, rising gas prices,

and service improvements have all contributed toridership growth. Metro also continues to partnerwith major institutions, cities, employers, humanservices agencies, and other organizations toencourage alternatives to driving alone for work andpersonal travel. ORCA use jumped in 2012 as theUniversity of Washington migrated its U-Pass programto ORCA and as Metro continued to expand its ORCA

business accounts.

MEASURES TREND

1 Transit rides per capita +

2All public transportation ridership inKing County

+

3 Ridership in population/businesscenters +

4Employees at CTR sites sharing non-drive-alone transportation modesduring peak commute hours

+

5Employee-sponsored passes andusage

+

6 HOV lane passenger miles l

The Puget Sound Regional Councils regional growthstrategy emphasizes the need for an integrated,multimodal transportation system that links major cities

and centers. Consistent with this strategy, Metro offerstravel options that connect people to areas of concentratedactivity and provide affordable access to jobs, education,and important social and retail services. We work withother transit agencies to create an integrated andefficient regional transportation system to accommodatethe regions growing population and serve new transitmarkets. We encourage the development of transit-

supportive communities with improved bicycle andpedestrian connections.


17/50


GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1) Transit rides per capita

Metros ridership grew 2.3% in 2012, to a total of 115.4 millionboardings (preliminary count). This growth outpaced population

growth, so our boardings per capita increased. Much of thisgain was driven by employment growth, as well as serviceimprovements on the Eastside and the introduction of RapidRidelines.

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 2012a 3.3%increase over 2011. This ridership was on buses, rail, paratransitservice, vanpools, and passenger-only ferries. Metro bus ridershipwas 115 million, accounting for 80% of the total. Ridership onthe other services grew at nearly 8%, most notably on Sound

Transits ST Express service operated by Metro (which saw growthassociated with tolling on SR-520) and on Link light rail service.

3) Ridership in growth and business centers

In spring 2012, Metro provided 10,712 bus trips each weekdayto, from, through, or between regional growth centers ormanufacturing/industrial centers (as designated in the regionsgrowth 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.

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

Reduction sitesThe share of employee commute trips that serve Commute TripReduction (CTR) sites in King County has grown steadily overthe past three biennial surveys. (CTR sites are those with at least

100 employees who arrive at work between 6 and 9 a.m.) Morethan one-third of these commuters use buses, trains, carpools,or vanpools to get to work. The improvements in this rate arelikely the result of rising gas prices, the Alaskan Way Viaductconstruction project, tolling on SR-520, major mitigation efforts tosupport the latter two, and recent improvements to transit servicesuch as the start of RapidRide lines and Link light rail.

1) Metro transit rides per capita

56.7 58 58.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012 Est.

2) Transit boardings in King County

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

134.1138.7

143.3

2010 2011 2012

King County Ferries

South Lake UnionStreetcar

Accessible Service

Community TransitExpress

Sounder

Vanpool/Vanshare

Metro-Operated SoundTransit Express

Link

Metro Bus

Train Car/Vanpool Bus

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2007 / 2008 2009 / 2010 2011 / 2012

33.3%34.7% 35.2%

4) Peak mode share at King Countycommute trip reduction sites

MILLIONS


18/50


GOAL 3: ECONOMIC GROWTH AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

5) Employer-sponsored passes and usage

The payment of fares with business account ORCA cards hasincreased dramatically as ORCA has matured. (ORCA is an

electronic fare card adopted in 2009 by seven transit agencies inthe region. The acronym stands for One Regional Card for All.)There were 53.7 million regional boardings with business ORCAcards in 2012, 26% more than in 2011. The migration of theUniversity of Washingtons U-Pass to ORCA-format Husky Cardswas the big driver of this increase, but other business accountridership also grew by 9%. Business accounts paid for more thanhalf of all regional ORCA boardings in 2012.

6) HOV lane passenger miles

HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes are considered fixedguideways 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 milesof service on fixed guideways in 2011, a slight decrease from2010 that may be due to minor fluctuations in ridership andadjustments to service routing.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010 2011 2012

Passport/Choice/Epurse

27.6

42.7

53.7

Husky Card

122.1 120.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2010 2011 2012*

*Data not yet available

5) Regional boardings paid withbusiness account ORCAs(in millions)

6) Metro passenger miles onfixed guideways(in millions)


19/50


GOAL 4: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Safeguard and enhance King Countys natural resources and environment.

Objective 4.1: Help reduce greenhouse-gasemissions in the region.

Intended outcome: People drive single-occupant

vehicles less.

Objective 4.2: Minimize Metrosenvironmental footprint

Intended outcome: Metros environmental footprint is

reduced (normalized against service growth).

King County has a long-term goal of reducing countywidegreenhouse-gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, asestablished in the King County Strategic Climate Action Planand the King County Energy Plan. Metro plays a key rolein progressing toward this goal by providing travel optionsthat help increase the proportion of travel in King Countyby public transportation, and by increasing the efficiency ofour services and facilities.

Every action Metro takes to make transit a more accessible,

competitive, and attractive transportation option helps tocounter climate change and improve air quality. We are alsoin the process of developing an agency-wide SustainabilityProgram to coordinate sustainability initiatives as part of

4

planning, capital projects, operations, and maintenance.We are also committed to green operating andmaintenance practices. We incorporate cost-effectivegreen building and sustainable development practices inall capital projects and continue to seek opportunities toimprove energy efficiency and decrease energy use in ourfacilities and fleet.


The average fuel efficiency (miles per gallon) of ourfleet and vehicle energy use per mile have remainedsteady, but our fuel use by passenger capacity hasdecreased by more than 15%. Factors contributingto this include our recent replacement of older

diesel buses with more fuel-efficient diesel-electrichybrids and our replacement of 40-foot buses with60-foot buses, which use more fuel but carry morepassengers.

Were also taking steps to reduce energy use at ourfacilities. Overall facility energy use has increasedsince 2007, largely due to the fact that we have more

facilities in operation today, but we have becomemore energy efficient. When assessed by area, ourfacility energy usage has decreased by almost 10%since 2007, largely due to conservation efforts.

This baseline reports tracks five measures. Additionalmeasures identified in the Sustainability Plan are likelyto be added in future reports as we expand our data

collection and tracking.

MEASURES TREND

1Average miles per gallon of Metrosbus fleet

l

2Vehicle energy (diesel, gasoline, kWh)normalized by miles

l

3Vehicle fuel (diesel, gasoline, kWh)normalized by boardings

+

4 Total facility energy use l

5Energy use at metro facilities/KWhand natural gas used in facilities

normalized by area and temperature

+


20/50


1) Average miles per gallon for Metros bus fleet

The miles per gallon of Metros diesel bus fleet has remainedsteadyat about 3.9for the past three years. But this does

not tell the whole story, because buses vary significantly in theirpassenger capacity and occupancy. In recent years, the main factorsaffecting our average fleet miles per gallon were:

The replacement of older diesel buses with new diesel-electrichybrids 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 capacityneeded to achieve Metros ridership growth targets. When based

on passenger capacity rather than vehicle miles, fleet fuel efficiencyimproved by more than 15%.

2) Vehicle energy (diesel, kWh) normalized by miles

In addition to diesel and hybrid motor buses, Metro operates trolleybuses that are powered by electricity. When we convert diesel fueland kilowatt hours to the energy measure BTUs, we see that ourenergy use per vehicle mile has remained relatively unchanged forthe past three years. This is not surprising, given the fact that morethan 90% of our vehicle miles are on motor buses, and the fuel useof our motor buses has remained steady.

3) Vehicle energy (diesel, kWh) normalized by boardings

Passenger boardings on buses increased each of the past twoyears, causing a decline in vehicle energy use per boarding. Thedecline 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 yearagainst which to measure future progress in reducing energydemand. Total energy use at all Metro facilitieswhich does notinclude the energy used to power buseshas increased by about

6% since then. This change reflects the addition of new facilitiesas well as energy reductions gained through conservation. TheDowntown Seattle Transit Tunnel is the largest facility that was not

in use during most of 2007 but is now in full service, accountingfor the largest portion of increased energy use during this reportingperiod.


3.9 3.9 3.9

0

1

2

3

4

2010 2011 2012

1) Average vehicle miles per gallonof the metro bus fleet

12,801 12,669 12,442

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2010 2011 2012 Est.

3) Vehicle fuel use (diesel, kWh)normalized by boardings(BTUs per boarding)

4) Total energy use at Metro facilities(in million BTUs)

184,048195,208

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

2007 2012 Est.


21/50



5) Electricity and natural gas used in facilities, normalizedby area

To normalize for changes in the number and size of facilities overtime, Metro identified a set of baseline facilities in 2007 againstwhich to compare future energy use. Total energy use at thesefacilities declined almost 10% between 2007 and 2012, largelyreflecting the results of conservation measures.

5) Baseline facility energy use(in million BTUs)

171,190154,683

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000180,000

2007 2012 Est.

The King County 2012 Strategic Climate Action Planbuilds 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 road-

map for implementing the energy-related portions of King

Countys Strategic Plan through the adoption of innovative

energy alternatives and continuous improvement in energy

efficiency.


22/50


Objective 5.1: Improve satisfaction withMetros products and services and the way

they are delivered.

Intended outcome: People are more satisfied with

Metro products and services.

Objective 5.2: Improve public awarenessof 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 positiveexperience at every stage of transit use, from trip planningto arrival at a destination. We strive to provide servicethat is reliable, convenient, easy to understand, and easyto use. We emphasize customer service in both transitoperations and workforce training. Our marketing andcustomer information efforts help customers understandwhat service is available and how to use it, and also raise

awareness of the benefits of transit.

5GOAL 5: SERVICE EXCELLENCE

Establish a culture of customer service and deliver services that are responsive

to community needs.


Customer satisfaction is generally high, but decreasedslightly in 2012 compared to 2011. Crowding has alsoincreased due to a combination of ridership growth anda system shift toward buses with fewer seats. Customercomplaints went up in 2012 as the Ride Free Areaclosed and we made major changes to service.

Service investments to improve reliability helpedimprove on-time performance in 2012 after a decline

in 2011 that was largely due to changes that improvedefficiency but left less recovery time for late buses toget back on schedule.

Customer use of our Metro Online website rose byone-third from 2011 to 2012.

MEASURES TREND

1 Customer satisfaction

2 On-time performance by time of day +

3 Crowding

4 Customer complaints per boarding

5 Use of Metros web tools and alerts +


23/50



1) Customer satisfaction

Over many years of our annual Rider/Non-Rider survey, the vastmajority 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 eithervery satisfied or somewhat satisfied. In 2012, that numberdecreased to 88%, with the number choosing very satisfieddropping from 50% in 2011 to 46% in 2012.

We did the survey after the 2012 fall service changewhichwas one of Metros most extensive changes ever and included

elimination of the Ride Free Areaand the launch of the newRapidRide C and D lines, which saw significant overcrowdingduring the first weeks of service. Customer satisfaction withspecific transit service elements has remained high, but overallsatisfaction is a bottom-line indicator that we will watch closely in

the coming year.

2) On-time performance by time of day

The weekday on-time performance of our motor andtrolley bus service decreased by 2.4% in 2011 to75.7%, falling below our target of 80%. This decreaseresulted largely from our efforts to gain schedulingefficiencies to reduce our operating costs. On-timeperformance increased slightly to 76.3% in 2012 as

we re-allocated hours from less productive serviceto routes where increased service was needed toimprove reliability, per our Service Guidelines. Weekday

afternoon peak hours are the times with the mostdelays. Metros strategic plan and service guidelineswill guide future service investments to improve thereliability of those routes that have the lowest on-timeperformance.

3) Crowding

The percentage of trips with more riders than seats increasedin 2012 to one in 11 (9.1%). Close to half of these (4%) had20% more riders than seats.

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 buseshave. Wheel wells, heaters, and fuel storage used to be tuckedunder seats on high-floor buses, but on low-floor buses theyprotrude into the bus interiors and reduce the number of availableseats. Reduced seating also improves passenger flow on busesand reduces operating costs. Metro will continue to phase outthe older buses until our fleet contains only low-floor buses

currently scheduled to happen in 2015.

3) Bus trips with more riders than seats

49% 50% 46%

45% 41%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012*

*Preliminary results

Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied

1) Overall rider satisfaction

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%9%

10%

6.2%5.5%

9.1%

2010 2011 2012

20% more riders than seats

1-19% more riders than seats

2010 2011 2012

Before 6 a.m. 88.9% 88.1% 89.5%

6 9 a.m. 83.4% 81.3% 81.9%

9 a.m. 3:15 p.m. 77.2% 74.9% 75.8%

3:15 6:15 p.m. 71.7% 69.0% 68.5%

6:15 9:30 p.m. 76.0% 73.0% 73.8%

After 9:30 p.m. 82.8% 80.7% 81.5%

Weekday average 78.1% 75.7% 76.3%

Saturday 77.1% 75.7% 75.7%

Sunday 79.5% 78.6% 77.9%

Total system average 78.1% 76.0% 76.4%

2) On-time performance by time of day

A bus is considered to be on time if it is between 1 minute earlyand 5 minutes late.


24/50



4) Customer complaints per boarding

The number of complaints received per million boardingsincreased by 15% in 2011 and 8% in 2012. The 2011 increase

was related to our new automated announcement system, whichhad some technical difficulties for us to work out, and changesin 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 newRapid Ride C and D lines, and changes to many routes in thenetwork all contributed to customer concerns.

5) Use of Metros electronic media tools and alerts

Metro has three major electronic media tools to help customerswith their travel needs: our website (Metro Online), our onlineTrip 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 Onlineincreasing 38%. The number of Transit Alerts sent out more thandoubled over the past year. Transit Alerts have proven to be aneffective way to communicate real-time service information suchas service disruptions and adverse weather issues. We haveseen strong growth over the past three years in both the numberof subscribers and the number of messages we send. In 2012,

our Transit Alerts communicated important information to oursubscribers a total of 8.7 million times.

131.9

152.3

165.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2010 2011 2012

4) Complaints per million boardings

0

2

4

68

10

12

14

16

2010 2011 2012

10.5

11.9

15.2

Metro Online Visits

Online Trip Planner Visits

5) Visits to Metro Online and TripPlanner (in millions)


25/50


6GOAL 6: FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP

Exercise sound financial management and build Metros long term sustainability.

Objective 6.1: Emphasize planning anddelivery of productive service.

Intended outcome: Service productivity improves.

Objective 6.2: Control costs.

Intended outcome: Metro costs grow at or below the

rate of inflation.

Objective 6.3: Seek to establish asustainable funding structure to supportshort- and long-term public transportationneeds.

Intended outcome: Adequate funding to support King

Countys short- and long-term public transportationneeds.

Metro strives to create a public transportation systemthat emphasizes productivity while promoting socialequity and providing geographic value by serving centersthroughout the county. Our focus on productivity supportsregional and local growth and economic developmentand contributes to the financial sustainability of the transitsystem.

A critical strategy for achieving financial sustainability isto control our costs. We continuously seek efficiencies in


Metro has seen an increase in ridership and relatedproductivity measures over the past two years. Ourfarebox recovery rate has also increased. The use ofORCA has increased dramatically since its introductionin 2009.

From 2010 to 2011, both our cost per vehicle hourand our cost per vehicle mile increased at a ratebelow that of inflation. From 2011 to 2012, our cost

increases exceeded the rate of inflation due to risingcosts for factors such as bus maintenance, insurance,and security. Its important to note that our 2012 costswere less than we projected in the budget. Our costper boarding decreased for vanpools and increased forAccess Transportation service.

MEASURES TREND

1 Boardings per vehicle hour +

2 Passenger miles per vehicle mile +

3 ORCA use +

4 Farebox recovery +

5 Cost per hour

6 Cost per vehicle mile

7 Cost per boarding

8 Cost per vanpool boarding +

9 Cost per Access boarding

10 Asset condition assessment

our administration and operation, including restructuringservice according to our service guidelines to meetlocal needs more efficiently. In 2012, we started apilot program to replace underused bus service in theSnoqualmie Valley with less-expensive alternatives.

Another vital step toward financial sustainability is toseek new, sustainable funding sources. Setting farestructures and fare levels that enable us to meet ourrevenue targets is another key strategy.


26/50



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 from2010 to 2012 as a result of increasing ridership and improvedscheduling efficiency.

2) Passenger miles per vehicle mile

Another measure of transit service productivity is passenger milesper vehicle mile. This ratio grew in each of the past two years aspassenger boardings, and thus passenger miles, grew faster thanvehicle miles.

3) ORCA use

The use of ORCA smart cards for fare payment has growndramatically since their introduction in 2009. ORCA is used

by seven Puget Sound agencies and provides a seamless faremedium for transferring among the systems. Virtually all passesare now on ORCA, and use of the ORCA E-purse has grownas well. ORCA use on Metro buses has grown by 64% in justtwo years. In late 2012, nearly two-thirds of Metros weekday

boardings were paid for with ORCA.

1) Boardings per vehicle hour

30.9 31.832.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2011 2012 Est.

2) Passenger miles per vehicle mile

10.4 10.711.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2010 2011 2012 Est.

3) ORCA taps on Metro Transit(in millions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

E-Purse Pass

38.5

52.6

63.3

2010 2011 2012


27/50



4) Transit fare revenue/operatingexpense

26.0%27.1% 27.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2010 2011

Target:25%

2012 Est.

4) Farebox recovery

Metros fund management policies, adopted in November 2011,establish a target of 25% for farebox recoveryan industrystandard that differs slightly from our historically reported ratioof operations revenue to operations expense. From 2010 through2012, farebox recovery in each year has exceeded our target,

reaching 27.9% in 2012 (based on preliminary estimates). Thisreflects the effects of successive fare increases in 2010 and 2011as well as increases in ridership in 2011 and 2012.

5) Cost per hour

Between 2010 and 2011, our cost per transit hour increased2.7%, slightly less than the Consumer Price Index for all urbanconsumers. In 2012, our preliminary cost per hour increased by4.9% 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 2011reflected an unprecedented wage freeze for King County Metroemployees. Cost-containment efforts continue, as evidenced by

the fact that Metros actual expenditures for 2012 were less thanprojected in the budget.

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 Indexfor all urban consumers, which serves as our target. In 2012, ourpreliminary cost per mile grew 6.1% as a result of cost increasesfrom 2011 to 2012 (see the cost per hour discussion above). Our

cost per vehicle mile increased at a higher rate than our cost perhour because our costs increased while the number of vehiclemiles we operated remained essentially the same in 2012 as in2011. The lack of increased miles relative to the increase in hours

was largely due to our focus on reliability improvements.

5) Cost per hour

6) Cost per vehicle mile

$10.18 $10.33$10.96

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

2010 2011 2012 Est.

$127.00 $130.42$136.76

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

2010 2011 2012 Est.


28/50



7) Cost per boarding

$4.11 $4.10$4.27

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

2010 2011 2012 Est.

7) Cost per boarding

Our cost per boarding grew more slowly than our costs perhour and miles over the past two years, as passenger boardingsincreased faster than vehicle hours and miles.

8) Cost per vanpool boarding

Our vanpool cost per boarding decreased about three percentbetween 2011 and 2012. Gasoline prices moderated (after a sharpincrease in 2011), and ridership growth has increased the numberof passengers per van. Our vanpool program met its guideline

for cost recovery in each of the past three years. The King CountyCode requires commuter-van fares to be reasonably estimated torecover the operating and capital costs of, and at least 25 percentof the cost of administering, the vanpool program.

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 attributethe 2012 cost increase to increased contractor costsincludinga move from Lake City to Shoreline and a yearly increase inAugustand lower productivity. Many road construction projectsthroughout the year affected productivity.

10) Asset condition assessment

Metro was one of a select number of transit agencies thatparticipated with the Federal Transit Administration indevelopment of a State of Good Repair Index (SGR Index) for busand trolley transit fleets. This index measures the condition of a

fleet at the beginning of each two-year period on a scale of oneto 100, with 100 being the highest score. The average Metro-managed fleet condition declined from 90.5 in 2007 to 82.4 in2011.

The average age of Metros buses increased from 6.8 years to 9.3years during this time, resulting in higher maintenance and repaircosts and difficulty obtaining replacement parts. As we buy newbuses, we expect this score to rise.

State of Good Repair Index2007 2009 2011

90.5 88.7 82.4

8) Cost per vanpool boarding

$3.20 $3.19 $3.09

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

2010 2011 2012 Est.

9) Cost per Access boarding

$36.45 $36.95

$40.42

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

2010 2011 2012 Est.


29/50


Objective 7.1: Empower people to play anactive role in shaping Metros productsand services.

Intended outcome: The public plays a role and is

engaged in the development of public transportation.

Objective 7.2: Increase customer andpublic 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 accountableto the public. We uphold this commitment by involvingthe community in our planning process and making publicengagement a part of every major service change or newservice initiative. We also work to make our informationand decision-making processes clear and transparent.

We reach out to customers and the public througha variety of forums and media channels, and makeinformation available in multiple languages.

GOAL 7: PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

Promote robust public engagement that informs, involves, and empowers

people and communities.

7


Surveys are an important part of our public outreach

efforts. During 2011 and 2012, we received more than10,000 completed surveys. We continue to expand ouruse of social media such as Facebook to reach morepeople. Our public outreach Facebook page quadrupledits number of followers in 2011. We also continued toimplement and improve outreach strategies for reachingdiverse populations.

Customers reported generally high satisfaction withthe accessibility of information about our routes and

schedules.

MEASURES TREND

1 Public participation l

2Customer satisfaction regardingMetros communications and reporting

l

3 Social media indicators +

4Conformance with King County policyon communications accessibility andtranslation to other languages

l


30/50


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 toprovide meaningful feedback.

In the two-phase outreach for the September 2012 servicechange, a survey question during the second phase askedwhether the proposed changes reflected feedback the respondenthad provided to Metro during the first phase of outreach. Thirtypercent said yes, 48% said no, and 22% said they didntknow.

2) Customer satisfaction with Metros communications andreporting

A question in each years Rider/Non-Rider survey asks ridershow satisfied they are with their ability to get information aboutMetros routes and schedules. About 60% report being verysatisfied and another 30% say they are somewhat satisfied.

3) Social media indicators

Metro continues to find innovative ways to reach out to ourcustomers using social media. These efforts complement our otherelectronic 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 than475 comments were posted, in 2012.

Our top referral sources in 2012 were (in order, startingwith the most clicks) Metros website, Facebook, the SeattleTransit Blog, Metros emailed alerts, and Twitter. Top story themes include C Line updates, Mercer corridorreroutes, 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 morethan 100,000. Top posts include information about September ServiceChange, southeast Seattle outreach, and Ride Free Areaupdates.


31/50


32/50


Objective 8.1: Attract and recruit quality

employees.Intended outcome: Metro is satisfied with the quality

of its workforce.

Objective 8.2: Empower and retainefficient, effective, and productiveemployees.

Intended outcome: Metro employees are satisfied

with their jobs and feel their work contributes to an

improved quality of li fe in King County.

Metros products and services are a reflection of theemployees who deliver them. Metro strives to recruitquality, committed employees and create a positive workenvironment. We value a diverse and skilled workforceand strive to support our employees, empower themto excel, recognize their achievements, and help them

develop professionally.

To help us achieve our objectives, we recentlyimplemented a new Workforce Development Program thatwill focus on the development and ongoing support ofemployees. The programs priorities include the following:

Build a robust talent pipeline that attracts high qualitytalent early in their academic or professional careers toconsider employment at Metro.

Ensure that Metro leaders can effectively engage,develop, and support staff members in being

8GOAL 8: QUALITY WORKFORCE

Develop and empower Metros most valuable asset, its employees.

successful, productive, and committed to continuousimprovement.

Provide leaders with tools and processes to effectivelymanage performance.

Facilitate staff and leader career developmentopportunities (both lateral and vertical).

Implement meaningful selection and developmentprocesses to grow highly skilled talent that is capableof leading Metro into the future.

Align all talent/workforce development activities withMetros strategic priorities.


The diversity of Metros workforce has remainedrelatively constant over the past three years. An

employee survey found that 74% of Metro employeeswere satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs. Weplan to survey employees again in 2014 to providetrend information. Job promotions increased between2011 and 2012, while the turnover rate among newemployees declined.

MEASURES TREND

1 Demographics of Metro employees l

2 Employee job satisfaction l

3 Promotion rates +

4 Probationary pass rate +


33/50



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 populationas a whole, our workforce is more male, less Asian,less Hispanic, and slightly less white. Metro follows anestablished outreach plan for advertising job opportunities toa diverse applicant pool. These efforts include advertising ina variety of community publications, attending career fairs,working with community-based organizations, establishingrelationships with apprenticeship and trade schools, and

maintaining an internet presence that promotes Metro jobopenings.

2) Employee job satisfaction

About a third (34%) of the 1,014 Metro respondents to

the 2012 employee satisfaction survey reported being verysatisfied with their jobs overall, and another 40% said theywere satisfied. These responses are virtually identical tothose from all King County employee respondents. (Therewas an employee satisfaction survey in 2009, but the sampleframe and question wording were different from those usedin 2012. A new survey, scheduled for 2014, will providetrend information.)

40% 11%

11%34%

4%

Male Female Total

White 2,186 623 2,809 62%

Black 659 259 918 20%

Asian 430 68 498 11%

Hispanic 126 39 165 4%

American Indian 44 24 68 2%

Pacific Islander 22 4 26 1%

Multiple 14 9 23 1%

Not Specified 19 1 20 0%

Total 3,500 1,027 4,527

Percentage 77% 23%

1) Demographic of Metro employees

2) 2012 Transit employee satisfactionwith job

Very Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Neither DissatisfiedNor Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Very Satisfied


34/50



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, wereplaced several leadership and senior-level employees. We filledmany of these positions with internal candidates, resulting in ahigher promotion rate for 2012.

4) Probationary pass rate

Of the 50 non-operations employees hired in 2011, just fiveleft employment within six months. This rate is slightly lowerthan in 2010. Overall, Metro has a fairly low rate of employeesleaving during their probationary periods, and our new workforcedevelopment program will help us ensure that new employeesacquire the knowledge and skills they need to become effectivemembers of Metros team.

New Hires/Rehires

Promotions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2011 2012

258

441

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2010 2011 2012*

*Final data not yet available

Not TerminatedTerminated

3) Promotions and hires

4) Turnover rate of new hires


35/50

ATTACHMENT: PEER COMPARISON REPORT A-1

ComparisonofPerformanceMeasuresforthe30LargestMotorbus/TrolleybusTransit

AgenciesintheUnitedStates

2011

ATTACHMENT

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.)


36/50

A-2 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSITSTRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT

33.5

35.6

36.7

37.0

37.2

44.0

44.2

49.5

51.3

54.1

55.5

57.358.2

63.1

66.4

69.8

73.8

75.7

76.0

76.6

112.0

112.4

118.3

130.7

155.7

155.7

189.7

310.4

357.3

800.1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Austin

Detroit

Phoenix

Dallas

Cleveland

Milwaukee

San Antonio

San Diego

Orange

Pittsburgh

Las Vegas

OaklandPortland

Atlanta

Houston

Minneapolis

Honolulu

Miami

Denver

Baltimore

King County Metro

Boston

MTA New York Bus

Washington DC

New Jersey

San Francisco

Philadelphia

Chicago

Los Angeles

MTA New York City Transit

2011 Boardings in MillionsMotorbus and Trolley Bus


37/50


-7.6%

-6.7%

-6.4%

-6.1%

-5.6%-3.6%

-3.4%

-2.9%

-2.6%

-2.3%

-2.3%

-1.8%

-1.7%

-1.5%

-1.1%

-0.8%

-0.6%

-0.3%

0.1%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.7%

0.7%

1.5%

1.8%

2.2%

2.6%

2.8%

0.7%

-2.0%

-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4%

Chicago

Detroit

Austin

King County Metro

Denver

Honolulu

Minneapolis

San Diego

MTA New York Bus

San Antonio

Boston

Philadelphia

Dallas

Washington DC

Milwaukee

Baltimore

New Jersey


Portland

Atlanta

Miami

Pittsburgh

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

OaklandHouston

Cleveland

Orange

Phoenix

Average

San Francisco

Average Annual Percent Change in BoardingsMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2007 to 2011


38/50


$79.03

$79.83

$89.68

$91.01

$95.02

$96.99

$103.44

$104.18

$105.84

$106.16

$109.09

$112.07

$114.13

$114.31

$117.29

$118.61

$120.32

$122.11

$123.93

$123.93

$126.19

$126.81

$129.51

$130.60

$130.69

$135.38

$146.04

$146.34

$155.55

$158.80

$163.92

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180

San Antonio

San Diego

Las Vegas

Phoenix

Denver

Austin

Orange

Houston

Atlanta

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Dallas

Honolulu

Miami

Cleveland

Average

Chicago

Los Angeles

New Jersey

Washington DC

Portland

MTA New York Bus

King County Metro

Philadelphia

Detroit

Boston

Pittsburgh

Baltimore

Oakland

San Francisco


Operating Cost Per Vehicle HourMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


39/50


-0.7%

-0.2%

0.7%

0.9%

1.1%

1.6%

2.5%

2.6%

2.8%

3.1%

3.2%

3.2%

3.4%

3.6%

3.6%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.8%

4.4%

4.5%

4.6%

4.7%

5.1%

5.1%

5.2%

5.3%

5.8%

6.0%

6.8%

8.9%

-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Detroit

Washington DC

Orange

Austin

Minneapolis

Milwaukee

New Jersey

Denver

King County Metro

Phoenix

San Antonio

Average

Oakland

Miami

Dallas

Los Angeles

Houston

San Diego

Philadelphia

Honolulu

Atlanta

Portland


San Francisco

Boston

Baltimore

Cleveland

Las Vegas

Pittsburgh

Chicago

MTA New York Bus

Average Annual Percent Change in Operating

Cost Per Vehicle Hour, 2007 to 2011


40/50


$5.69

$6.41

$6.61

$6.67

$6.67

$7.09

$7.16

$7.55

$7.92

$8.00

$8.02

$8.14

$8.17

$8.45

$8.90

$9.17

$9.49

$9.73

$9.74

$9.78

$9.94

$10.06

$10.24

$10.86

$12.54

$12.65

$12.66

$13.00

$15.03

$20.40

$21.28

$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25

San Antonio

Denver

Phoenix

Houston

San Diego

Austin

Las Vegas

Orange

New Jersey

Dallas

Honolulu

Milwaukee

Atlanta

Minneapolis

Miami

Detroit

Cleveland

Los Angeles

Portland

Pittsburgh

Average

Baltimore

King County Metro

Washington DC

Chicago

Philadelphia

Oakland

Boston

MTA New York Bus

San Francisco


Operating Cost Per Vehicle MileMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


41/50


0.3%

0.5%

0.6%

1.1%1.2%

2.0%

2.6%

2.7%

3.2%

3.4%

3.5%

3.5%

3.6%

4.1%

4.2%

4.3%

4.3%

4.6%

4.6%

4.6%

4.8%

5.1%

5.4%

5.5%

5.5%

5.7%

5.9%

6.6%

7.6%

7.8%

8.6%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

Chicago

Detroit

King County Metro

AustinOrange

Washington DC

Minneapolis

New Jersey

Denver

San Antonio

Milwaukee

Phoenix

Houston

Average

San Diego

Miami

MTA New York Bus

Oakland

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Atlanta

Los Angeles

Philadelphia


Dallas

Portland

Baltimore

Boston

San Francisco

Cleveland

Pittsburgh


Cost Per Vehicle Mile, 2007 to 2011


42/50


17.5

21.0

24.7

24.8

25.127.4

27.5

28.4

28.4

28.4

29.8

30.1

30.9

31.0

31.2

31.3

31.3

31.4

31.7

33.0

34.1

34.4

35.4

39.4

42.1

42.5

45.6

49.2

51.0

54.5

63.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Dallas

Houston

New Jersey

Phoenix

DenverSan Antonio

Pittsburgh

Miami

MTA New York Bus

Austin

Washington DC

Orange

Cleveland

San Diego

Detroit

Oakland

Minneapolis

Atlanta

King County Metro

Portland

Average

Milwaukee

Baltimore

Las Vegas

Boston

Philadelphia

Los Angeles

Honolulu

Chicago


San Francisco

Boardings Per Vehicle HourMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


43/50


-7.1%

-6.5%

-5.7%

-2.3%

-2.1%

-2.0%

-2.0%

-1.8%

-1.8%

-1.4%

-1.3%

-0.7%

-0.3%

-0.1%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.4%

0.7%

1.0%

1.6%

1.7%

2.2%

2.4%

3.3%

3.5%

4.1%

4.3%

4.9%

-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

San Antonio

King County Metro

Austin

Minneapolis

Honolulu

Portland

Milwaukee

Philadelphia

Denver

Miami

Pittsburgh

Detroit

Cleveland

Chicago

Boston

San Diego

Los Angeles

Houston

Washington DC

Oakland

Baltimore

Dallas

Phoenix

San Francisco


New York Bus

New Jersey

Atlanta

Las Vegas

Average Annual Percentage Change in

Boardings Per Vehicle Hour, 2007 to 2011

Average

Orange


44/50


5.4

6.6

6.6

7.8

7.9

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.6

8.8

8.8

8.9

9.1

9.3

9.4

9.6

9.8

9.8

10.2

10.5

10.7

10.8

11.0

11.2

11.9

12.1

12.2

15.2

15.7

15.8

18.9

0 5 10 15 20

Dallas

Phoenix

Pittsburgh

Washington DC

Milwaukee

Oakland

San Antonio

Austin

Houston

Denver

Detroit

Orange

Atlanta

San Diego

Cleveland

Portland

MTA New York Bus

Minneapolis

Average

Boston

King County Metro

Baltimore

New Jersey

Las Vegas

Miami

Philadelphia

Chicago

Los Angeles

San Francisco


Honolulu

Passenger Mile Per Vehicle MileMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


45/50


-7.0%

-5.5%

-4.5%

-4.5%

-3.9%

-2.4%

-2.0%

-1.7%

-1.5%

-1.4%

-0.4%

0.6%

1.0%

1.1%

1.1%

1.2%

2.1%

2.2%

2.6%

2.8%

3.2%

3.2%

3.3%

3.9%

4.0%

4.1%

4.2%

4.6%

6.3%

6.4%

11.5%

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

Oakland

Denver


Average

Austin

Los Angeles

San Francisco

San Antonio

New Jersey

Portland

Chicago

Milwaukee

Philadelphia

San Diego

MTA New York Bus

Miami

Atlanta

Cleveland

Honolulu

Boston

Average Annual Percentage Change in

Passenger Mile Per Vehicle Mile, 2007 to 2011

Dallas

Pittsburgh

Houston

Detroit

Washington DC

Minneapolis

King County Metro

Las Vegas

Baltimore

Orange

Phoenix


46/50


$2.28

$2.32

$2.36

$2.51

$2.58

$2.68

$2.88

$3.01

$3.07

$3.09

$3.22

$3.37

$3.42

$3.44

$3.48

$3.66

$3.68

$3.79

$3.79

$3.83

$4.03

$4.08

$4.13

$4.16

$4.19

$4.47

$4.95

$4.97

$5.01

$5.31

$6.40

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7

Las Vegas

Honolulu

Chicago

San Francisco

San Diego

Los Angeles

San Antonio


Philadelphia

Milwaukee

Boston

Atlanta

Austin

Orange

Minneapolis

Phoenix

Average

Denver

Cleveland

Portland

Miami

King County Metro

Baltimore

Washington DC

Detroit

MTA New York Bus

Houston

Oakland

New Jersey

Pittsburgh

Dallas

Operating Cost Per BoardingMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


47/50


-4.1%

-2.2%

-0.4%

0.5%

0.9%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.6%

2.1%

2.1%

2.2%

2.7%

3.3%

3.4%

3.6%

4.2%

4.2%

4.2%

4.5%

5.6%

5.9%

5.9%

6.0%

6.0%

6.3%

7.0%

8.5%

11.6%

13.9%

15.2%

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

King County Metro

Boston

Denver

Austin

Miami

Milwaukee

MTA New York Bus

Cleveland

Minneapolis

Philadelphia

Orange

San Antonio

Washington DC

Average

Honolulu

Portland

New Jersey

San Francisco

Pittsburgh

Oakland

Los Angeles


Atlanta

Las Vegas

Baltimore

Phoenix

Houston

Dallas

Chicago

Average Annual Percent Change in

Operating Cost Per Boarding, 2007 to 2011

Detroit

San Diego


48/50


$0.43

$0.64

$0.64

$0.68

$0.71

$0.72

$0.73

$0.75

$0.77

$0.85

$0.85

$0.86

$0.90

$0.93

$0.95

$1.00

$1.00

$1.01

$1.01

$1.03

$1.03

$1.04

$1.04

$1.24

$1.30

$1.35

$1.40

$1.47

$1.49

$1.52

$1.54

$0.00 $0.25 $0.50 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

San Antonio

San Diego

New Jersey

Denver

Miami

Houston

Austin

Orange

Minneapolis

Atlanta

Baltimore

King County Metro

Average

Phoenix

Cleveland

Portland

Chicago

Milwaukee

Detroit

Philadelphia

Boston

San Francisco


Washington DC

Pittsburgh

Dallas

Oakland

MTA New York Bus

Operating Cost Per Passenger MileMotorbus and Trolley Bus, 2011


49/50


-3.4%

-2.6%

-1.4%

-0.1%

-0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.7%

1.2%

1.3%1.6%

2.1%

2.3%

2.5%

2.7%

3.5%

3.9%

4.2%4.9%

4.9%

5.0%

5.2%

6.5%

7.7%

9.9%

11.6%16.1%

17.3%

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Miami

Milwaukee

Atlanta

San Diego

MTA New York Bus

San Antonio

Cleveland

PhiladelphiaOrange

Denver

Portland

King County Metro

Los Angeles

Average

Oakland

MTA New York City TransitSan Francisco

Washington DC

Minneapolis

Detroit

Las Vegas

Baltimore

Houston

PhoenixPittsburgh

Dallas

Boston

Honolulu

New Jersey

Austin

Chicago


Cost Per Passenger Mile, 2007 to 2011


50/50


Documents

King County Metro Transit 2012