logging in or signing up BRT LA Metro Heather Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 237 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (1) Dislike it (0) Added: October 29, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: 123ppra123 (39 month(s) ago) Dear sir I stay in city of Pune,India we are in a process of starting BRT bus system ,would you be kind enough to send me this presentation so as to use formats used by you as a guidline in making our project preparations. My email ID is prasanna@prasannatours.com Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Community-Based Transit Improvement Project : Community-Based Transit Improvement Project Prepared for: California Department of Transportation Prepared by: TDA, Inc. and Ryan Snyder Associates June 2004 Los Angeles Metro Rapid Market Assessment - Final Report - Metro Rapid Market Assessment: Metro Rapid Market AssessmentPurpose & Approach: Purpose & Approach Identify & Evaluate Options to Attract New Riders Focus on Los Angeles’ Metro Rapid Bus, an innovative new service Identify characteristics of Metro Rapid’s riders What is Metro Rapid?: What is Metro Rapid? A version of Bus Rapid Transit: Distinctive vehicle appearance Exclusive stops Fewer stops (average 1 stop per 0.8 miles) Signal Priority High Frequency ( 3–10 minutes peak, 10-20 minutes off-peak) Operates in general traffic laneMetro Rapid Bus Routes (as of Jan. 1, 2003): Metro Rapid Bus Routes (as of Jan. 1, 2003) Began 2001 Began Dec. 2002 Source: MTAPlanned Metro Rapid System Expansion: Planned Metro Rapid System Expansion Implementation of two additional routes every six months Network of 24 routes to be deployed until 2007What has Metro Rapid Achieved?: What has Metro Rapid Achieved? Increased ridership between 9% and 42% per corridor Attracted new riders – from 9% to 39% of the increase are new transit riders Reduced trip times for all riders by up to 24 minutes on averageSlide8: Route Selection Approach Selected corridors for study based on demographic compatibility with other California metropolitan areas Conducted on-board surveys of riders to provide before and after comparisons of Metro Rapid service Evaluated riders’ characteristics to identify differences between previous and new riders Corridors for Demographic Comparison: Corridors for Demographic Comparison Van Nuys Ventura Santa Monica Wilshire/Whittier Soto Florence Broadway Vermont Crenshaw/Rossmore PicoHousing Density and Population Density (Mean Values): Housing Density and Population Density (Mean Values) Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.Mean of Median Household Income: Mean of Median Household Income Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.% Persons in Poverty & % Households with No Vehicle: % Persons in Poverty & % Households with No Vehicle Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.Corridors for Demographic Comparison (Summary): Corridors for Demographic Comparison (Summary)Slide14: Los Angeles County: Selected Demographic Criteria Source: 2000 U.S. Census Selection Criteria Households with No Vehicle >10% Population Density >10,000 persons/sq. mi. Median Annual Household Income <$30,000 Persons in Poverty > 10% Transit ridership to work > 10%Other California Metropolitan Counties for Comparison: Other California Metropolitan Counties for Comparison Northern Alameda Contra Costa Santa Clara San Mateo San Francisco Central Valley Sacramento Stanislaus San Joaquin Southern Orange San Diego RiversideOther Counties matching combined LA criteria: Other Counties matching combined LA criteria >10,000 persons/sq.mi. <$30,000 median household income >10% households with no vehicle >20% persons in poverty >10% transit commute San Francisco County Alameda CountyNorthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Northern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Francisco County Alameda CountyNorthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Northern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. Santa Clara County San Mateo County Contra Costa CountyCentral Valley Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Central Valley Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Sacramento CountySouthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Southern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Diego County Orange County Riverside CountyCA Counties Meeting Criteria: CA Counties Meeting CriteriaSummary of County Compatibility: Summary of County Compatibility Partial but important comparability exists: 5 out of 11 counties meet density, poverty and no vehicle criteria 5 out of 11 meet income criteria 8 out of 11 meet density criteria Thus, Los Angeles corridors can provide information on market characteristics relevant for other areas in California!Metro Rapid Corridors Selected for Market Analysis: Metro Rapid Corridors Selected for Market Analysis On-Board Surveys on Three Selected Routes: On-Board Surveys on Three Selected Routes Goal of 200 completed interviews per route Initial round:On-Board Surveys: On-Board Surveys Follow-up round, 90 days after start of Metro Rapid service: *Delayed pending installation of signal priority, then cancelled **Cancelled due to late start-up following MTA strike & marketing policy limitationsKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders have somewhat higher incomesHousehold Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Wilshire/Whittier Corridor: Household Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Wilshire/Whittier CorridorHousehold Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Florence Corridor: Household Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Florence CorridorKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders had greater access to cars for their tripKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders were slightly younger and predominantly maleRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders made somewhat more discretionary tripsRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders were attracted from a variety of previous modes, especially cars Some trips were also induced by Metro RapidRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: Trip distances on Metro Rapid are similar for both new and previous transit ridersRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders made substantially fewer transfersRiders’ Travel Patterns: Riders’ Travel Patterns New riders transferred did so to local buses and to rail at higher ratesRiders’ Travel Patterns: Riders’ Travel Patterns Fewer transfers yielded shorter trip times for new riders All riders reported significant time savings by using Metro RapidSummary of New Rider Characteristics: Summary of New Rider Characteristics Higher incomes than previous riders Over twice as many have access to cars for their trip Predominantly male Greater discretion in choosing their mode of travel for particular trips Simpler trip patterns with fewer transfers to minimize trip time. Gains in Daily Ridership: Gains in Daily Ridership Significant restructuring of Local/Limited routes with Metro Rapid: Net gain of 20% in total revenue hours in Florence & Wilshire/Whittier corridors helps boost ridership 80% gain in revenue hours in Ventura corridor (with new locals plus Metro Rapid) also boosts ridershipEstimated Gains in Annual Ridership: Estimated Gains in Annual Ridership These corridors have experienced ridership gains from 9.6% to 42% with Metro Rapid: * Estimated based on 255 weekdays; 52 Saturdays at 70% of weekday ridership; 58 Sundays and holidays at 55% of weekdayCosts: Costs Capital costs include: New low floor vehicles – $307,000 each New stops – approx. $100,000 each Signal priority equipment and installation – approx. $15,000 - $20,000 per intersectionCosts: Costs Operating costs are based on: Additions of Metro Rapid routes less Reductions in local routes Net Operating Cost in CorridorEstimated Capital Cost per New Rider: Estimated Capital Cost per New Rider *For Florence, stations not yet installed and signal priority only partially installed; costs per MTA’s budget.Estimated Operating Cost per New Rider: Estimated Operating Cost per New Rider *Final cost not available; estimated per MTA budget.Total Annual Costs per New Rider: Total Annual Costs per New Rider *Final cost not available; estimated per MTA budget.Conclusions: Conclusions More frequent, faster service attracts new riders New riders have higher incomes, and greater mode choice, but make fewer transfers Most new riders live within ¼ mile of the stop and will walk to the bus Costs per new rider are very reasonable compared to other investments in other modes You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
BRT LA Metro Heather Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 237 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (1) Dislike it (0) Added: October 29, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: 123ppra123 (39 month(s) ago) Dear sir I stay in city of Pune,India we are in a process of starting BRT bus system ,would you be kind enough to send me this presentation so as to use formats used by you as a guidline in making our project preparations. My email ID is prasanna@prasannatours.com Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Community-Based Transit Improvement Project : Community-Based Transit Improvement Project Prepared for: California Department of Transportation Prepared by: TDA, Inc. and Ryan Snyder Associates June 2004 Los Angeles Metro Rapid Market Assessment - Final Report - Metro Rapid Market Assessment: Metro Rapid Market AssessmentPurpose & Approach: Purpose & Approach Identify & Evaluate Options to Attract New Riders Focus on Los Angeles’ Metro Rapid Bus, an innovative new service Identify characteristics of Metro Rapid’s riders What is Metro Rapid?: What is Metro Rapid? A version of Bus Rapid Transit: Distinctive vehicle appearance Exclusive stops Fewer stops (average 1 stop per 0.8 miles) Signal Priority High Frequency ( 3–10 minutes peak, 10-20 minutes off-peak) Operates in general traffic laneMetro Rapid Bus Routes (as of Jan. 1, 2003): Metro Rapid Bus Routes (as of Jan. 1, 2003) Began 2001 Began Dec. 2002 Source: MTAPlanned Metro Rapid System Expansion: Planned Metro Rapid System Expansion Implementation of two additional routes every six months Network of 24 routes to be deployed until 2007What has Metro Rapid Achieved?: What has Metro Rapid Achieved? Increased ridership between 9% and 42% per corridor Attracted new riders – from 9% to 39% of the increase are new transit riders Reduced trip times for all riders by up to 24 minutes on averageSlide8: Route Selection Approach Selected corridors for study based on demographic compatibility with other California metropolitan areas Conducted on-board surveys of riders to provide before and after comparisons of Metro Rapid service Evaluated riders’ characteristics to identify differences between previous and new riders Corridors for Demographic Comparison: Corridors for Demographic Comparison Van Nuys Ventura Santa Monica Wilshire/Whittier Soto Florence Broadway Vermont Crenshaw/Rossmore PicoHousing Density and Population Density (Mean Values): Housing Density and Population Density (Mean Values) Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.Mean of Median Household Income: Mean of Median Household Income Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.% Persons in Poverty & % Households with No Vehicle: % Persons in Poverty & % Households with No Vehicle Source: Census 2000; TDA Inc.Corridors for Demographic Comparison (Summary): Corridors for Demographic Comparison (Summary)Slide14: Los Angeles County: Selected Demographic Criteria Source: 2000 U.S. Census Selection Criteria Households with No Vehicle >10% Population Density >10,000 persons/sq. mi. Median Annual Household Income <$30,000 Persons in Poverty > 10% Transit ridership to work > 10%Other California Metropolitan Counties for Comparison: Other California Metropolitan Counties for Comparison Northern Alameda Contra Costa Santa Clara San Mateo San Francisco Central Valley Sacramento Stanislaus San Joaquin Southern Orange San Diego RiversideOther Counties matching combined LA criteria: Other Counties matching combined LA criteria >10,000 persons/sq.mi. <$30,000 median household income >10% households with no vehicle >20% persons in poverty >10% transit commute San Francisco County Alameda CountyNorthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Northern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Francisco County Alameda CountyNorthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Northern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. Santa Clara County San Mateo County Contra Costa CountyCentral Valley Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Central Valley Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Joaquin County Stanislaus County Sacramento CountySouthern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.: Southern Counties matching selected LA criteria Block Groups >10,000 persons/Sq. Mi. San Diego County Orange County Riverside CountyCA Counties Meeting Criteria: CA Counties Meeting CriteriaSummary of County Compatibility: Summary of County Compatibility Partial but important comparability exists: 5 out of 11 counties meet density, poverty and no vehicle criteria 5 out of 11 meet income criteria 8 out of 11 meet density criteria Thus, Los Angeles corridors can provide information on market characteristics relevant for other areas in California!Metro Rapid Corridors Selected for Market Analysis: Metro Rapid Corridors Selected for Market Analysis On-Board Surveys on Three Selected Routes: On-Board Surveys on Three Selected Routes Goal of 200 completed interviews per route Initial round:On-Board Surveys: On-Board Surveys Follow-up round, 90 days after start of Metro Rapid service: *Delayed pending installation of signal priority, then cancelled **Cancelled due to late start-up following MTA strike & marketing policy limitationsKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders have somewhat higher incomesHousehold Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Wilshire/Whittier Corridor: Household Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Wilshire/Whittier CorridorHousehold Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Florence Corridor: Household Income Compared: Previous and New Riders in Florence CorridorKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders had greater access to cars for their tripKey Rider Characteristics:: Key Rider Characteristics: New riders were slightly younger and predominantly maleRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders made somewhat more discretionary tripsRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders were attracted from a variety of previous modes, especially cars Some trips were also induced by Metro RapidRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: Trip distances on Metro Rapid are similar for both new and previous transit ridersRiders’ Travel Patterns:: Riders’ Travel Patterns: New riders made substantially fewer transfersRiders’ Travel Patterns: Riders’ Travel Patterns New riders transferred did so to local buses and to rail at higher ratesRiders’ Travel Patterns: Riders’ Travel Patterns Fewer transfers yielded shorter trip times for new riders All riders reported significant time savings by using Metro RapidSummary of New Rider Characteristics: Summary of New Rider Characteristics Higher incomes than previous riders Over twice as many have access to cars for their trip Predominantly male Greater discretion in choosing their mode of travel for particular trips Simpler trip patterns with fewer transfers to minimize trip time. Gains in Daily Ridership: Gains in Daily Ridership Significant restructuring of Local/Limited routes with Metro Rapid: Net gain of 20% in total revenue hours in Florence & Wilshire/Whittier corridors helps boost ridership 80% gain in revenue hours in Ventura corridor (with new locals plus Metro Rapid) also boosts ridershipEstimated Gains in Annual Ridership: Estimated Gains in Annual Ridership These corridors have experienced ridership gains from 9.6% to 42% with Metro Rapid: * Estimated based on 255 weekdays; 52 Saturdays at 70% of weekday ridership; 58 Sundays and holidays at 55% of weekdayCosts: Costs Capital costs include: New low floor vehicles – $307,000 each New stops – approx. $100,000 each Signal priority equipment and installation – approx. $15,000 - $20,000 per intersectionCosts: Costs Operating costs are based on: Additions of Metro Rapid routes less Reductions in local routes Net Operating Cost in CorridorEstimated Capital Cost per New Rider: Estimated Capital Cost per New Rider *For Florence, stations not yet installed and signal priority only partially installed; costs per MTA’s budget.Estimated Operating Cost per New Rider: Estimated Operating Cost per New Rider *Final cost not available; estimated per MTA budget.Total Annual Costs per New Rider: Total Annual Costs per New Rider *Final cost not available; estimated per MTA budget.Conclusions: Conclusions More frequent, faster service attracts new riders New riders have higher incomes, and greater mode choice, but make fewer transfers Most new riders live within ¼ mile of the stop and will walk to the bus Costs per new rider are very reasonable compared to other investments in other modes