TORRANCE BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
A Project
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master
In
Urban and Regional Planning
By
Jose M. Perez
2019
i
SIGNATURE PAGE
PROJECT: TORRANCE BUS SERVICE RELIABILITY AND IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
AUTHOR: Jose M. Perez
DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Dr. Alvaro M. Huerta Project Committee Chair Professor of Urban Planning
Richard Zimmer Committee Member Lecturer of Urban Planning
David Mach Senior Transportation Planner Torrance Transit
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the Torrance Transit Employees for the data they furnished and their participation in the client project, especially Senior Transportation Planner
David Mach. The author would also like to thank the City of Torrance for providing information on future development and specific goals of their circulation plan.
Special thanks to Dr. Alvaro M. Huerta and Professor Richard Zimmer for their help and guidance in completing the client project.
i
ABSTRACT
A city’s transportation infrastructure directly affects the mobility of the people, goods, and services, of all who live within its’ limits. Bus transit lines are a key element of a balanced transportation system that can improve or detract from the quality of life of its’ populous. Transit networks that are poorly implemented eventually become impractical and difficult to maintain; and thus, a burden upon the city it’s meant to help. In addition the service reliability of a transit line is critical to both the transit agency and its users in order to maintain a healthy transportation system.
In the City of Torrance, the Torrance Transit Agency is part of the system that primarily serves the South Bay of Los Angeles County. Their transit network consists of fixed routes located through the South Bay corridors. The scope of work for this research will include examining the eleven existing transit lines that are operated by Torrance Transit to help determine the level of transit reliability for each route and provide recommendations to address both current and future needs. Analyzing time-related indicators and revenue data for each bus line that is struggling will provide a better understanding of its present condition. Although it is challenging to develop an agreement on the idea of transit reliability, there are still distinct service attributes that can be identified in most dependable transits.
i
Executive Summary
Torrance Transit Agency serves the South Bay of Los Angeles County with their transit network runs through the region’s major corridors of the City. It is important that the Agency runs an efficient transit system that provides a reliable service. Passengers are discouraged from using public transportation when poor service is provided. The level of reliability will be determined for the bus system so that the appropriate alternatives that will assist in improving the bus network can be explored. In 2016 there was a significant decline in boarding’s which consisted of 231,696 fewer boardings than in 2013. Bus lines that have low levels of reliability will be defined by poor on-time performance, inefficient schedule, low average daily ridership, and unproductive spacing of bus stops.
This project will quantitative data to demonstrate that the Torrance Transit bus lines provide poor levels of reliability. Torrance Transit buses are all furnished with the AVL system, which provides the real-time geographical location of the buses. The AVL data that is gathered from the buses provides; stop identification tags, dates, bus terminal arrival time, idle time, bus terminal departure time, and passenger counter for each bus route. Data from a travel survey that was conducted in September of 2018 will be used to provide feedback and comprehend ridership patterns. Riders were asked various questions that would provide an overview of ridership daily patterns, transit accessibility, and satisfaction.
After an analysis of all the data was gather it was determined that an overall lack of on-time performance by the transit network has caused riders to lose confidence that the bus will arrive on time. The survey confirmed there is an overall
i low satisfaction rate with the inconsistent arrival time amongst riders. Most riders come from low-income backgrounds with minimal to no access to a private vehicle.
Riders that contain such a profile rely heavily on public transportation to complete their daily activities. This is also an indicator that other socioeconomic classes have minimal incentive to utilize public transportation either due to reliability issues or a negative perception of public transportation. Rapid 3 bus line has the ideal characteristics for a full BRT to be implemented. Although a full BRT would not necessarily help the overall reliability of the transit system, it is still a valuable opportunity that should be explored by Torrance Transit. Impractical schedule efficiency exists for bus line 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Riders who were surveyed indicated that they would like to see greater investment from the agency on bus frequency. Increasing the frequency of buses in the line will improve bus schedule efficiency and rider satisfaction.
Implementation of a Transit Signal Priority (TSP) should be explored by
Torrance Transit Agency to help improve transit reliability. It is a tool that offers transit vehicles priority when a bus approaches a traffic signal. It’s a traffic system that can be used by transit agencies and emergency responders. The idea of TSP is to reduce travel time which theoretically should improve on-time performance while having minor effects on opposing traffic. An annual assessment of all bus lines should occur as a tool for monitoring improvements. Developing the structure within the agency will be challenging but necessary so that a high-quality service remains constant. Bus designated lanes would assist to improve on-time
ii performance for that specific line. Infrastructure improvements will be necessary to create designated lanes that will provide fast and cost-effective mobility.
Three recommendations were suggested to improve transit reliability, passenger experience, and quality control: annual assessment of bus lines, integrate a traffic signal preferred program, and implement the infrastructure for a full BRT. Grants and public-private partnership are possible financing options that can be explored. Incremental implementation of the recommendations would allow for a solution over an extended period. All three recommendations are closely associated and if possible, a package of all three solutions should be rolled out concurrently so that the agency can continue achieving its goals in improving transit reliability for its riders.
iii
Table of Contents
Signature Page……….....………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgments.……….……………………………………………….………. iii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. iv
Executive Summary……..……………………………………………….……….. v
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………. viii
List of Tables……………………………………………………...………………. x
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………… xi
Chapter 1.0 Introduction.....………………………………………………………. 1
Chapter 2.0 Agency Background……...…………………….……..……...... 2
Chapter 2.1 Overview of Torrance Transit……….…………………………….. 3
Chapter 2.2 Demographics.……………………………………………………… 4
Chapter 2.3 Research Intentions………………………………………………... 5
Chapter 2.4 Transit Trends………………………………………...... 6
Chapter 2.5 Research Goals and Objectives………………………….………. 8
Chapter 2.6 Current Bus Line Attributes……………………………….………. 10
Chapter 3.0 Literature Review…………………………………………………… 15
Chapter 4.0 Research Methodology….……………………………..………….. 20
Chapter 4.1 Quantitative Analysis………………………………...... 22
Chapter 4.2 Rider Survey Analysis………………………………….………….. 28
Chapter 4.3 Case Studies…………….…………………...…………………….. 31
Chapter 4.4 Research Findings…………………………………………………. 34
Chapter 5.0 Recommendation…………………………………...……………… 35
i Chapter 5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………….. 38
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. 39
Appendix…………………………………………………………………………… 43
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Annual Transit Rider…………………………………………………… 6
Table 2: Average Fare per Passenger Mile Traveled in 2015 Dollars……… 7
Table 3: Weekday On-Time Performance 2017……………………………… 25
Table 4: Saturday On-Time Performance 2017………………………………. 26
Table 5: Sunday On-Time Performance 2017………………………………… 26
Table 6: Schedule Efficiency October 2017…………………………………… 27
Table 7: Bus Stop Distance…………………………………………………….. 28
Table 8: Average Daily Ridership by Route October 2017…………………... 29
Table 9: Survey Participants……………………………………………………. 30
Table 10: EmX Key System Performance…………………………………….. 34
i
List of Figures
Figure 1: Current Torrance Transit Bus Line Map…………………….……… 15
Figure 2: Method of Fare Payment………………………………………….…. 31
i 1.0 Introduction
Cities that can integrate a reliable multi-modal transit network can help create an urban environment that is sustainable and efficient. A multi-modal system includes various transportation choices such as private vehicles, public transportation, walking, and cycling. The importance of a good transit network are evident on both the local and regional scale. As cities become further developed and their populations grow, it is essential to create a strategic plan such as a long- range transportation master plan that will address current and future needs for all socioeconomic levels. A city’s transportation infrastructure directly affects the mobility of people, goods and services, of all who live within its limits. Bus transit lines are a key elements that can improve or detract from the quality of life of its populous. Developing a bus transit system is only part of the challenge; the second part is assuring that it provides a high-quality service through reliability. Service reliability is critical to both the transit agency and its user. Access to reliable public transportation is pivotal to low income families and the elderly. It allows them the opportunity to access jobs, schools, health/child care, and other daily activities. It also promotes self-sufficient individuals who can accomplish common day to day tasks without the need of a private vehicle.
Torrance Transit Agency primarily serves the South Bay of Los Angeles
County with their transit network embedded throughout the major corridors of the
City. It is important that the transit networks are successfully operable, so they can efficiently run. A key characteristic of a successful agency is one that operates a reliable transit network that allows riders to arrive at their destinations in a timely
1 and efficient manner. Riders who experience unpredictable bus schedules are discouraged and forced to find alternate forms of transportation. In 2012, Torrance transit set out with the goal of achieving an increase in ridership through routes that effectively covered a wider area and improved on-time performance. Although the number of riderships were consistently maintained over the next four years, in
2016 they experienced a 6% decrease from the time the routes were restructured.
The framework of this project will consist of using quantitative and survey data to demonstrate that in general the Torrance Transit bus lines provide poor levels of reliability. Once the general level of reliability is determined for the bus system, alternatives for improving the bus network can be explored. There are several research reports that have studied the relation between rider satisfaction and transit reliability and solutions to help improve them. It is important to assure that measures used for this analysis take into consideration both the supply (i.e. transit agencies) and demand side (i.e. riders). Key findings from the research will help determine appropriate alternative recommendations that can be implemented to help improve the current level of reliability and thus increase ridership.
2 2.0 Agency Background
This section provides a synopsis on Torrance Transit and their operating transit network.
2.1 Overview of Torrance Transit
Mission Statement
The mission is to provide a safe, reliable, inexpensive and courteous transportation option –for the people who live, work and do business in the City of Torrance and the region.
History of Agency
Torrance Transit does not only focus on providing bus services to the City of Torrance, but also to the South Bay region of Los Angeles. They were established in 1940 where they first began providing service from the City of
Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles. Since then the city’s population has grown to over 147,000 and the agencies fleet now consists of 63 buses. Their network is currently comprised of fixed routes and runs through major corridors in the South
Bay such as the Del Amo Fashion Center, LAX Transit Center, and Union Station.
In 2012 the agency underwent a major restructuring to improve their transit connections and scheduling operations. The restructuring of the lines would
“improve service to its riders through the increased span of service, simplification of its network, improved on-time performance, and improved connections at major regional hubs” (SRTP, 2015).
As of 2015, they have been participating in the Transit Access Pass (TAP) program which has led them to achieve one of their goals of providing an easy
1 payment program to their passengers. A TAP card is a transit pass with a chip reader that allows passengers to load it with money, so it may later be used as a method of payment. When a passenger decides to ride a bus they tap the card on the bus farebox to board. With the restructuring of their transit lines and incorporation of the TAP program, Torrance Transit has logged an estimated four million unlinked passenger trips since 2015. The level of reliable service is important to research for Torrance Transit due to the significant impact they have had on residents.
Agency Stated Goals
As a way of improving their efficiency and effectiveness of operation, they have focused on achieving specific goals in their operating model. Their Short-
Range Transit Plan lists the following as some of their main goals;
• A 5% reduction to operating costs per vehicle service hour;
• A 2% increase to overall farebox revenue, local subsidies, and auxiliary
revenue as a proportion of operating cost;
• A 2% reduction to MTA subsidies per passenger;
• A 2% increase to passengers per vehicle service hour; and
• A 2% increase to the Farebox recovery ratio as well as Farebox revenue
per passenger.
2.2 Demographics
The 2017 Census Bureau estimates the population in the County of Los
Angeles County at 10,105,722 with a median income of $64,300. As of September
2018, an on-board survey of riders estimated that 40% of riders considered
2 themselves Hispanic/Latino, 18% Asian, 17% Black/African American, 17%
White/Caucasian, 1% American Indian, and 6% Multi-racial. Of all transit riders that were surveyed, 72% made less than $34,999 annually, 11% made $35,000 to
$49,999, 6% made $50,000 to $74,999, and 11% made $75,000 or more.
According to the Los Angeles Housing Authority to be considered low income your household income is less than 80% of the median income. Extremely low-income limits are set at 50% less than the median income. When the low income limits are applied towards Torrance transit riders an estimated 83% of surveyed riders are considered low income.
2.3 Research Intention
According to data from Torrance Transit, annual boarding from 2012 to 2016 has decreased. A decline in transit ridership has been a trend for Torrance Transit and for many transit agencies in Southern California. Analyzing the number of boarding’s that Torrance Transit experienced from 2013 to 2015 were maintained relatively consistent even though there was a decrease in time for which a bus is in service in 2014. Despite the decline, the number of boarding’s remained constant. In 2016 there was a significant decline in boarding’s which consisted of
231,696 fewer boardings than in 2013. An analysis of the network in its entirety will confirm the current low levels of transit reliability. Bus lines that have unacceptable performance will be defined by poor on-time performance, low average daily ridership, unproductive spacing of bus stops, and inefficient schedule.
Unacceptable performance measures directly influence the decision of riders whether to use public transportation or private vehicles. If low levels of reliability
3 are determined, modification to the bus network will be required so the issues can be addressed. Recommendations that are focused on the infrastructure, current transit technology, and monitoring programs will be explored at the end of this paper.
Table 1. Annual Transit Ridership
% Change 2013 2014 2015 2016 Category I I I I I 2013 to 2016 Boardings 4,022 ,823 4,000,421 4,030,160 3,791 ,127 -6% Revenue Hours 164,622 127,411 127,552 128,683 -22% Boardings per Revenue Hour 24 31 32 29 +21 % Farebox Recovery 144% 138% 142% 11 8% -18%
Source: Torrance Transit: Existing and Future Condition Report
2.4 Transit Trends
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has studied the decreasing transit use over the last decade. In the SCAG report, Falling Transit
Ridership: California and Southern California, examines possible explanations for the reduction in ridership. “Public transportation is unlikely to fare well when
Southern California is flooded with additional vehicles, especially when those vehicles are owned disproportionately by transit’s traditional riders” (SCAG, 2018).
As transit agencies increase fares to maintain cost due to inflation, table 2 shows that the adjustment in fares has had a minor influence on the decline of ridership.
4 Table 2 - Average Fare per Passenger Mile Traveled in 2015 Dollars
$0.30
$0.25
$0.20
$0.15
$0.10
$0.05
$0.00
- us CA - scAG
Dat a source: National Transit Database (2000-2016)
Source: SCAG, 2018
Although there are minimal studies that research the effect of ride-hailing services (i.e. Uber and Lyft) on public transportation, SCAG believes it to have minimal effect on public transportation. The profile of a ride-hailing passenger is drastically different from that of a bus passenger. In a recent rider survey conducted by Torrance Transit, bus passengers were asked if they had used a ride-hailing service over the past 30 days; 43% of riders had used uber or lyft while the remaining 57% confirmed they had not.
The environment that Southern California cities have created has forced residents to rely heavily on their vehicles. Ideally, the perfect city would allow pedestrians to move around comfortably while incorporating different modes of transportation. Living in an auto-centric environment has created a precedent for residents to acquire private vehicles which have resulted in fewer people riding public transit. “The future of public transit in the SCAG region, then, will be shaped
1 less by the mobility needs of people who do not own vehicles, and more by policy decisions that encourage vehicle-owning households to drive less and use transit more” (SCAG, 2018)
Transit agencies in the SCAG region have been tasked with implementing an effective transportation plan which is necessary to help address issues with congestion, air pollution, and future growth. Recent undesirable transportation trends have caused significant challenges for transit agencies throughout the country. These challenges are due to the decreasing transit service use due to eroding transit service quality, dwindling fuel prices, and convenience of owning a private vehicle (ITS, 2018).
2.5 Research Goals and Objectives
The goal of this study is to gather data based on performance measures that will help analyze the level of reliability of Torrance Transit bus network. Previous surveys that were conducted will also be analyzed to get a better understanding of rider needs and satisfaction. Various literature has been written about transit service reliability and the correlation between rider satisfaction and transit reliability. Findings from such research are a key reason why it is essential to ensure that transit reliability measures take into consideration both the supply (i.e. transit agencies) and demand side (i.e. riders). The end goal after all the data has been organized and a proper assessment of service reliability has occurred, is to recommend strategies that will help improve the current transit route to increase its efficiency.
2 Goal 1: Address the basis of reliability problems in the Torrance Transit network.
Provide a summary of the factors influencing the level of reliability.
Objective: Determine if Torrance Transit provides acceptable; on-time performance, application of bus stops, and schedule efficiency.
• Strategy: Identify service reliability indicators and their correlation with
transit reliability.
• Strategy: Evaluate on-time performance, schedule efficiency, spacing
of stops, and bus line ridership.
Goal 2: Address issues regarding bus reliability and the mobility needs of the local residents.
Objective: Increase access to major destinations utilized by transit riders.
• Strategy: What are the common factors amongst Torrance transit riders
– i.e. demographics, location of work, home, and school?
• Strategy: Identify possible future needs
Goal 3: Define strategies or policies that will increase the level of reliability experienced by riders.
Objective: Provide precedents for applying improvement strategies.
• Strategy: Determine agency transit goals to assist in the selection of
improvement strategies.
• Strategy: Provide case studies demonstrating how other agencies have
implemented such policies.
1 2.6 Current Bus Line Attributes
Bus Line 1: Torrance – Harbor Freeway Station
Bus Line 1 is one of three Torrance bus lines that operates seven days a week. There are four vehicles running to serve this line during the weekdays and two vehicles are operating during the weekend. Its average daily boarding during the weekdays is 1,175 and 501 during the weekend. The route for line 1 runs north and south parallel to the 110 freeway before running east and west along Torrance
Boulevard. Some of the major destinations on Line 1 include; Del Amo Fashion center, Torrance Civic Center, Torrance Courthouse, and Harbor-UCLA Medical
Center. There are five transit hubs it connects which consist of Carson/Hawthorne
Hub, Harbor Freeway / Carson Station, Harbor Gateway Transit Center,
Rosecrans Station, and Harbor Freeway Station Street Level. This line can also be used to connect to other transit agency lines such as LA Metro, G-Trans,
LADOT, OCTA, and Carson Circuit.
Bus Line 2: Del Amo Fashion Center – Harbor Freeway Station
Bus Line 2 is available for riders six days out of the week except on
Sundays. There are two vehicles that are in operations while the route is active. Its average daily boarding during the weekday is 554 and 341 on Saturdays. The major corridors it travels through is Figueroa Street, El Segundo Boulevard,
Crenshaw Boulevard, and Artesia Boulevard. This line can be used to access major destination such as El Camino College, Little Company of Mary Hospital,
Torrance Civic Center, and Del Amo Fashion Center. The Harbor Freeway Station and the South Bay Galleria Transit Center are two transit hubs that can be access through this line.
1 Bus Line 3: Redondo Beach – Long Beach
Bus line 3 is scheduled to run seven days out of the week. It travels east to west along the major corridors of Torrance Boulevard, Hawthorne Boulevard,
Wilmington Boulevard, Pacific Coast Highway, and Downtown Long Beach. There are eight vehicles that are in operations for this line during the weekday and seven on the weekend. As one of the most active lines its average daily boarding is 4,755 during the weekday and 3,122 during the weekend. Its major destinations consist of Downtown Long Beach, Carson Civic Center, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Del
Amo Fashion Center, and Redondo Beach Pier. Transit hubs in this line include
Redondo Beach Pier, Carson/Hawthorne, Harbor Freeway/Carson Station, PCH
Station, Anaheim Station, Pacific Avenue Station, and Downtown Long Beach
Statins. The various transit hubs can be used to access the Metro Blue line, multiple Beach Cities Transit, and Commuter Express Routes.
Rapid 3: Redondo Beach – Long Beach
Rapid 3 Bus line contains fewer stops and doesn’t cover the full distance that Bus Line 3 covers. It is only operational during the weekday during peak hours.
It has seven vehicles dedicated to this route with an average daily boarding of about 944 passengers. The Rapid 3 route runs east to west from Downtown Long
Beach to South Bay Galleria.
Bus Line 4X: Torrance -Downtown Los Angeles / Union Station
Bus line 4x is an express route that is operational Monday through Saturday with six vehicles running during the weekday and three vehicles running on
Saturday. The line runs north and south from Torrance to Downtown Los Angeles.
2 It has an average daily boarding of 420 passengers during the weekdays and 198 passengers on Saturday. The major transit hubs connected to this line include;
Carson / Hawthorne Hub, Harbor Gateway Transit Center, Rosecrans Station,
Harbor Freeway Station, Manchester Station, Slauson Station, USC Station, 23rd
St Station, Pico Station. Major destinations that can be accessed through this line include; Torrance Civic Center, Exposition Park, USC, L.A. Trade Tech College,
L.A. Convention Center, Staples Center, L.A. Live, and Grand Park.
Bus Line 5: Torrance – Crenshaw Station
Bus line 5 is available during the weekdays and on Saturday and runs through Torrance Airport and Crenshaw station. Its average daily boarding is 405 passengers during the weekdays and 207 on Saturdays. There are two vehicles that are running while the line is in operations. Its major destination points consist of Torrance Airport, Lomita City Hall, Southern California Regional Occupational
Center, Downtown Torrance, El Camino College, and Crenshaw Station. This line can be used to access L.A. Metro, G-Trans, and LADOT.
Bus Line 6: Del Amo Fashion Center – Artesia Station
Bus Line 6 runs Monday through Friday from the Del Amo Fashion Center to the Artesia Stations. There are three vehicles that are running during the weekday. There is an average daily boarding of 570 passengers. It runs through the major corridor of Figueroa Street, 190th Street, Victoria Street, Central Avenue, and Walnut Street. The transit hubs that can be accessed through this line are
Carson / Hawthorne Hub, Harbor Gateway Transit Center, and Artesia Station.
The major destinations that this line access is are Del Amo Fashion Center,
3 Torrance Civic Center, Torrance Courthouse, Home Depot Center, and Cal State
Dominguez Hills. Compton Renaissance Transit, Long Beach Transit, Carson
Circuit, G-Trans, and L.A. Metro are additional lines that can be accessed from here.
Bus Line 7: Redondo Beach Pier – Carson
Bus Line 7 runs during the weekdays and on Saturday from Redondo Beach to Carson. It travels east to west along the major corridors of Torrance Boulevard,
Sepulveda Boulevard, and Carson Street. Three vehicles are always in operation while this line is running. Its average daily boarding during the weekday is 413 and
302 on Saturday. This route is used to access major destination such as Charles
H. Wilson Park, Southern California Regional Occupational Center, Madrona
Marsh Preserve, and Redondo Beach Pier.
Bus Line 8: Torrance – LAX City Bus Center
Bus Line 8 is in operation every day of the week with three vehicles running during the weekday, three on Saturday, and two on Sunday. The line travels north and south along the major corridors of Pacific Coast Highway, Hawthorne
Boulevard, Redondo Beach Boulevard, Imperial highway, and Sepulveda. This line can be utilized to access Torrance Airport, Del Amo Fashion Center and Los
Angeles International Airport. It is one of the most utilized lines with an average daily boarding of 1,678 passengers during the weekday, 790 passengers on
Saturday, and 473 on Sunday.
4 Bus Line 9: Torrance – Wilmington
Bus Line 9 runs from east to west and is operational Monday through
Saturday with three busses in rotation. Its average daily boarding is 291 passengers during the weekdays and 180 on Saturdays. This main corridors this bus line runs through are Carson Street, Anza Avenue, Lomita Boulevard, and
Avalon Boulevard. The major destinations along this route are Del Amo Fashion
Center, Torrance Memorial Medical Center, and Lomita City Hall.
Bus Line 10: Torrance – Crenshaw Station
Bus Line 10 runs north to south along Crenshaw Boulevard Monday through
Saturday. During the weekday the line has four buses in rotation and two on
Saturdays. The average daily boarding during the weekday is 1,178 and 377 on
Saturdays. The major destinations that can be accessed through this line are
Rolling Hills Plaza, Southern California Regional Occupational Center, Charles H.
Wilson Park, and El Camino College.
1 ® DOWNTOWN LA INGLEWOOD LOSANG:LES 0 LAX
HAWTHORNE
CD MANHATTAN BEACH
COMPTON ® HERMOSA BEACH
CARSON
I ·-·- ·- · -.-·- · - . - ., SIGNAL Hil l PALOS VERDES ·, ., ESTATES LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES COUNTY LOS ANGELES JURISDICTIONS
0 UNINCORPOR Al ED LAND 0 2Mies OATA SOURCES. LA COUHTY
Figure 1: Current Torrance Transit Bus Line Map
Source: Torrance Transit Website
1 3.0 Literature Review/Problem
The concept of transit reliability is subjective and strongly dependent on the stakeholders. This is a key reason why it is difficult to develop a standard method that can help evaluate transit reliability. “It is clear there is no common concept of what aspects of service performance are specially related to service reliability and no agreement on which aspects should be included to effectively characterize bus service reliability performance” (Mesbah, 2013). Although it is difficult to develop an agreement on the idea of transit reliability, there are still distinct service attributes that can be identified in most dependable transits. Avishai Cedar (2007) discusses six time-related service indicators which are helpful in bus reliability studies: on-time performance, headway regularity, travel time, waiting time, transfer time, and buffer time. Utilizing the guidelines that were created by the
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 88, will help create a framework that will determine performance metrics to improve transit agencies effectiveness towards its customers. TCRP 88 is a report that was conducted by the
Transportation Research Board to assist transit agencies in developing progressive solutions for transit issues. The following are the necessary steps that
TCRP 88 believes must be taken into consideration to help develop the appropriate transit performance assessment:
1. Stakeholder Acceptance;
2. An association between goals and end results;
3. The clearness on the program;
4. Reliability of the performance measure;
1 5. Variation in the results of the measures;
6. The number of measures;
7. Clearly define the measures;
8. Flexibility for growth;
9. Realistic goal setting.
To assure that not only the perspective of the transit agency is taken into consideration when evaluating transit reliability, it is important to determine the stakeholders (i.e. customer, community, agency and the driver/vehicle) utilize performance measure indicators that reflect all stakeholders view. This is pertinent to Torrance Transit because it is critical for the agency to evaluate community needs and city growth while taking into consideration their current fleet and staff.
Torrance Transit has set high goals that mainly focus on the reduction in operating costs, increasing revenue, and increasing ridership. Assessment of these goals is critical in determining the agency’s level of performance with the underlying purpose of the research to determine the level of transit service reliability. This reliability is expected to help the agency in achieving its goals, thus the six time- related service indicators are well-suited for this study.
On-time performance is a critical attribute in evaluating bus routes that are low in frequency. The route schedule and the number of trips that are planned are the major factors that determine on-time performance. Riders are extremely dependent on-time adherence with bus lines that contain a large gap between frequencies. Bus routes that contain infrequent bus trips force riders to heavily rely on the schedule adherence due to the limited trips for that route. Mesbah, Ma, and
2 Ferreira (2013) define on-time performance as the percentage of trips that depart within the delayed time frame of minutes, m, and premature time frame of minutes, n, from its set schedule. It is typically used as a constant to help with measuring an acceptable arrival and departure time frame. An example of this schedule adherence measure was presented by the US Transportation Research Board where they created a threshold of zero minutes as the earliest measure and five minutes was the latest threshold. This would be an ideal indicator to evaluate
Torrance Transit Line 3 Rapid, which is a rapid line that contains limited stops. The limited stops make its arrival and departure time critical to its riders.
Areas that can help improve a bus route can be identified by properly evaluating its on-time performance. Transportation agencies understand the value of on-time performance. They directly relate to an agencies capital and efficiency which are two key pieces for a successful transit agency. Routes that contain high- frequency services can better be evaluated by studying the headway regularity.
Routes that contain more frequent stops create the possibility for riders wait time to increase during the frequent stops. Bus lines that have frequent stops can avoid increasing a rider’s wait time by evenly spacing the service stops. Transit bunching can be identified by a headway regularity index. An irregular headway can help classify transit routes that have a fluctuation of time between transit arrival times.
It is important to note that both on-time performance and headway regularity are useful in analyzing bus routes punctuality but would not be much help in identifying a rider’s demand or quality of service. This is due to on-time performance and headway focusing on the supply side versus the demand side.
3 Appropriate travel time can be described by physical performance indicators. Physical performance indicators can be categorized under statistical range, tardy trip, or skew width. Statistical range indicators would be considered the rough estimate range of the bus trip experience by the bus rider. Tardy trip indicators can be defined as travel time that is longer than what is average. “Skew and width of travel time distribution measures are based on the percentiles. Askew of travel time distribution is defined as the ratio of the difference between the 90th and 50th percentile and the difference between the 50 and 10th percentile”
(Mesbah, 2013). It is important to note that traffic conditions are also major factors in determining travel time. Traffic lights, pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, and construction zones are a few of the factors that one must be aware of.
Waiting time is commonly determined by the perception of the passenger and is typically a key focus in transit reliability studies. Riders associate transit wait time as a negative aspect and it is a major determining factor whether a rider will use public transportation. Perception of waiting time can be further emphasized due to a lack of bus stop amenities (Fan, 2015). To properly analyze passenger’s perspective of transit reliability; wait time, excess wait time, average wait time, and scheduled wait time will provide insight on the perspective of the demand side.
Transfer time is the fifth indicator that is derived from transit scheduled stop.
Using the coefficient of variation from the delays due to transfer can provide the transfer time reliability. Transfer time will also be an indicator on the level of connectivity amongst the various lines. Further investigation will be needed to help
4 analyze if it’s due to discrepancy in scheduling, transfer walking distance, or level of pedestrian/traffic flow.
Buffer time is the final indicator which allows a passenger additional time to arrive at their destination. Mesbah, Ma, and Ferreira (2013) explain that the buffer index can be found by gathering the designated buffer time divided by the daily travel time. Buffer index is a critical indicator when passengers are deciding how to schedule their trips. There are various ways in which buffer time can be defined; buffer time can be identified as the allocated time that a rider believes is needed to catch a bus; it can also be identified as the extra time that a rider believes is appropriate to assure he doesn’t miss a transit connection; or additional time necessary to arrive on time. Buffer time is a clear indicator that is dependent on a passenger’s perception of necessary time.
Gathering information from these six indicators is critical to improving service reliability. By using these indicators, it assures that the demand side and the supply side equally factor into the framework and is not favoring one side more than the other. These indicators also help to evaluate the physical and perceived performance. It is essential to improve service reliability in order to provide customer satisfaction; which will lead to an increase in transit use. By carefully selecting and applying the appropriate indicators tailored to a transit system the appropriate analysis can occur. “A Framework for the Development of Bus Service
Reliability Measures” is a study that favored buffer time as one of the key indicators that should be used in transit reliability research. Mesbah, Ma, and Ferreira (2013) found that a framework based off buffer time indicators can “disaggregate service
5 performance in a high-level resolution and consider travel time distribution rather than only time point’s e.g. planning time, median time”.
6 4.0 Research Methodology
The scope of work for this research will consist of analyzing the transit system that is operated by Torrance Transit to help determine the level of transit reliability for the network as a whole. Analyzing time-related indicators and revenue data for the bus system will provide a better understanding of the network. An investigation of transit reliability measures is covered in the literature review.
Indicators that are appropriate to utilize in an on-time performance analysis will be recommended to the Torrance Transit Agency in anticipation they can provide the appropriate AVL data. The purpose of this study is to provide Torrance Transit a report that analyzes the transit network to help determine the level of reliability that they provide. Determining the strengths and deficiencies of a transit bus system will allow for alteration to the service which will provide an opportunity for improving their efficiency and reliability.
Both quantitative data and secondary survey data that was provided by
Torrance Transit from their 2018 Existing & Future Conditions Report and their
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system will be utilized to perform an accurate investigation of current bus system conditions. Torrance Transit buses are all furnished with the AVL system, which provides real-time geographical location of the buses. The AVL data that is archived from each bus provides; stop identification tags, dates, bus terminal arrival time, idle time, bus terminal departure time, and passenger counter for each bus route. The data for each section is collected in a spreadsheet which allows data from each bus and information for each stop to easily be extruded. Torrance Transit has agreed to provide AVL data
1 from a recent six-month period that will offer dependable information that allows a proper service reliability analysis for all transit lines during different peak times. All buses are also equipped with a passenger counter which counts the number of passengers that come on and off the bus. Data from the passenger counter will be used to analyze the number of passengers boarding and leaving each bus terminal which will help determine the passenger busload for each route. Analyzing the passenger busload will allow the research to identify which lines are most utilized, which bus stops passengers prefer, and how many seats are available/remaining on high-occupied buses. Case studies conducted by similar transit agencies will also be reviewed to provide a better understanding of the practical solution.
4.1 Quantitative Analysis
Torrance Transit is currently in the process of creating a 10-year plan that will help the agency further expand bus services while maintaining efficiency and reliability. While the goal is to provide service that extends to the future Green Line
Extension which is projected to be completed in 2028, data from existing bus lines must be collected to help analyze their efficiency. The quantitative indicators that will be utilized to determine reliability measures for Torrance Transit will be made up of on-time performance, efficiency of schedule, the distance between bus stops, the number of stops per line, and the average daily ridership. The following explains how each indicator will be used to analyze an aspect of transit reliability:
On-Time Performance – Will be analyzed by determining an acceptable time frame in which a bus can arrive and depart. A comparative analysis of the
2 percentage of buses that adhere to the scheduled within the time frame will be analyzed.
Schedule Efficiency – Determining the efficiency of the scheduled running time by the cycle time.
Bus Stop Spacing and the Number of Stops – The distance between each transit stop while considering the purpose of the bus line (i.e. rapid, local) and the number of stops that are located for each fixed route
Average Daily Ridership – The total number of passengers traveling in each line during operating hours.
On-Time Performance
On-time performance is a key indicator to help determine on-time reliability.
It’s an appropriate measure from a rider’s perspective that helps determine the adherence of a bus to its schedule. It compares each vehicle scheduled time to the actual arrival time. Transportation agencies consider an on-time performance of 85% as an acceptable number. The graphs below determine the level of on-time performance for each line during the weekday and the weekend.
Taking into consideration the network as an entirety, the average on-time performance is 59% during the weekday. Bus line 5, 6, and 8 have the best on- time performance with 65% of its stops adhering to its schedule. Bus line 1, Rapid
Line 3, 4, 6 and 10 have a 12-14% chance of arriving early. At 43%, Bus Line 9
Torrance – Carson is the line most likely to arrive late. Bus line 4X Torrance –
Downtown Los Angeles has the worst on-time performance and is also the third most probable line to arrive late during its scheduled route.
3 1 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station
2 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station
3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach
Rapid 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach
4X Torrance - Downtown Los Angeles
5 Torrance - Crenshaw Station
6 Torrance - Artesia Station
7 Redondo Beach - Carson
8 Torrance - LAX Transit Center
9 Torrance - Carson
10 Torrance - Crenshaw Station
60% 70% 90% 0% 80% 100%
Table 3 - Weekday On-Time Performance 2017
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
During the weekend Rapid Line 3 and Bus Line 6 are out of commission.
Although there are two fewer lines running, on-time performance for the active bus lines increase to 67% on Saturdays. Bus Line 5 and Bus Line 10 are the most efficient lines. Bus Line 5 arrives late 10% of its trip and on time 83% of its trips.
Bus Line 10 scheduled time is adhered 78% of its trips and arrives late 11% of the time. Line 4X Torrance – Downtown Los Angeles has the worst on-time performance Saturdays arriving 55% of its trip on time, 17% of its trip early, and
28% of its trips late. Bus Line 3 also poorly performs on Saturdays with 50% of its trips arriving on time and 45% of its trips late.
4 ■ On-Time Early ■ Late
1 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station 2 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach 4X Torrance - Downtown Los Angeles I 5 Torrance - Crenshaw Station c::======~~-1 7 Redondo Beach - Carson 8 Torrance - LAX Transit Center 9 Torrance - Carson I 10 Torrance - Crenshaw Station c::======-- - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Table 4 - Saturday On-Time Performance 2017:
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Service is greatly limited on Sundays with only three bus lines active. On- time performance for the lines as a total is typically at 65% on this day. Bus line 8 is the most efficient line with 79% of its trips on time and only 12% running late.
Line 3 has the lowest satisfactory on-time performance at 60% and has the largest late trips at 34%.
■ On-Time Early ■ Late
1 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach I 8 Torrance - LAX Transit Center ======-...... - - 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Table 5 - Sunday On-Time Performance 2017
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Schedule Efficiency
Living in one of the most popular urban environments, the county of Los
Angeles has been ranked as one of the metropolitan areas with some of the worst gridlock (INRIX, 2018). This is an important factor to take into consideration to ensure proper scheduling occurs to ensure bus line efficiency. The efficiency of a
1 bus schedule can not only be affected by traffic, but also by other sources such as the operator, layover/recovery period, and the number of vehicles scheduled for the route. Schedule efficiency will be calculated by dividing the scheduled running time by the cycle time with an optimal time between 80-85% (TTE&F, 2018).
During the weekdays the average for the entire bus network is 75%. Three of the bus lines are performing at efficient levels. Bus line 1 & 10 have extremely low schedule efficiencies in the low 60%. The average schedule efficiency increases on Saturdays and Sundays. Bus line 1 also has the lowest efficient schedule on the weekends.
Line I Weekday I Saturday I Sunday 1 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station 62% 73% 73% 2 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station 82% 76% - 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach 83% 78% 80% Rapid 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach 87% - - 4X Torrance - Downtown Los Angeles N/A 78% - 5 Torrance - Crenshaw Station 79% 82% - 6 Torrance - Artesia Station 76% - - 7 Redondo Beach - Carson 71 % 74% - 8 Torrance - LAX Transit Center 76% 89% 89% 9 Torrance - Carson 71 % 74% - 10 Torrance - Crenshaw Station 63% 82% - .... lf!.11.•1;.ir:tl~ a D ' ' - Table 6 - Schedule Efficiency October 2017
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Bus Stop Spacing and Number Bus of Stops
The distance between bus stops is an important factor to examine when it comes to bus line reliability. The frequency of bus stops directly affects the overall travel time and should be strategically placed depending on the objective of the
2 line. Bus stops with a short distance between each other would be ideal if an agency wanted riders to experience a short walking distance. Although the walking distance to the bus stop would be much closer it would equate to the travel time for a bus to be much longer due to the frequent stops. The complete opposite effect would occur if bus stops were spaced farther away than the result would be shorter travel time for the bus (TCRP 19, 1996). In taking a look at the spacing between all the bus stops, the average bus stop is spaced about a quarter of a mile from each other. Rapid 3 Bus Line and 4X Bus Line are the only two bus routes that have bus stops that are spaced over half a mile from each other. The purpose of both these bus lines is to cover a longer distance speedily so it is ideal for both these bus lines to have the bus stops with longer distance.
Distance Stops Spacing (Miles) Peak Vehicles PV - Sat PV • Sun Frequency Frequency Frequency (PV) • Saturday • Sunday
1 Torrance. Harbor Freeway Station 27.8 101 0.28 4 3 2 40-60 60 60 2 Torrance. Harbor Freeway Station 26.2 102 0.26 2 2 60 60 3 Redondo Beach • Lono Beach 36.1 141 0.26 8 7 7 20-60 25-60 25-60 Rapid 3 Redondo Beach • Long 36.2 53 0.68 7 20 Beach 4X Torrance - Downtown Los 47.1 71 0.66 6 3 30 60 Angeles 5 Torrance - Crenshaw Station 28.6 113 0.25 2 2 60 50 6 Torrance - Artesia Station 23.4 78 0.30 3 40 7 Redondo Beach • Carson 17.3 73 0.24 1.5 1.5 60 55 8 Torrance. LAX Transit Center 27.7 111 0.25 5 3 2_ 30 40-60 60 - -~ - - -- ~ 9Torrance • Carson ~ 16.6 57 ~ 0.29 ~ 1.5 1.5 ~ 60-- 60 - 10 Torrance • Crenshaw Station 18.9 81 0.23 4 2 30 50
Table 7 - Bus Stop Distance
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Average Daily Ridership:
Earlier in this report, it was mentioned that Torrance Transit has experienced a decline in ridership with a major drop occurring after 2015. In order to better understand which routes are being utilized the most an analysis of the average daily ridership is necessary for each line. When looking at Table 6, the
3 first obvious thing is that each line is utilized the most during the weekday when compared to the weekend. Bus Line 3 going from Redondo Beach to Long Beach is the highest utilized line throughout any day of the week.
■ Weekday ■ Saturday Sunday
1 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Station
2 Torrance - Harbor Freeway Stat.ion -
3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach
Rapid· 3 Redondo Beach - Long Beach - 4X Torrance - Downtown Los Angeles - 5 Torrance - Crenshaw Station -
6 Torrance - Artesia Station -
7 Redondo Beach - Carson -
8 Torrance - LAX Transit Center
9 Torrance - Carson •
10 Torrance - Crenshaw Station
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Table 8 - Average Daily Ridership by Route October 2017
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
4.2 Secondary Survey: Rider Investigation Analysis
Torrance Transit initiated a travel survey in September 2018 to receive feedback and comprehend ridership patterns. Riders were asked various questions that would provide an overview of ridership daily patterns, transit accessibility, and satisfaction. First-hand ridership feedback is critical to help improve existing ridership experience and provide deep insight. Over a two-week period there were 388 riders on a Torrance Transit bus line that were randomly
4 selected to participate in the survey. The number of participant’s survey varied per line depending on their willingness to partake in the study. Although the survey consisted of questions that provided valuable information, only questions that can provide insight towards the improvement of on-time performance will be examined.
Partici ants Per Bus Line Bus Line 1 2 3 R3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name # of 22 15 128 38 23 14 14 11 53 7 63 Participants
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Table 9 - Survey Participants
Service Satisfaction & Improvement Survey:
As a way of determining passenger satisfaction and possible areas of improvements they were asked to rate as either satisfied, neutral, or dissatisfied the following transit network aspects; on-time performance, frequency, the span of service, and days of operation. In order to determine schedule adherence passengers were asked to rate the current on-time performance; 62% of riders were satisfied, 28% were neutral, and 10% were dissatisfied. Both the frequency of service and span of service received identical ratings from passengers.
Passengers were 69% satisfied with both aspects and 8% were dissatisfied. Unlike the previous aspects, days of operation received ratings that were much more acceptable with 80% of passengers satisfied, 13% neutral, and 7% dissatisfied.
As a way of determining what service investment passengers thought
Torrance Transit should be aiming to improve, they were provided a list of seven and asked to choose three that they would prefer. At 67% most surveyors believed
5 more frequent bus service should be the main aspect of investment. Receiving between 30-35%, passengers believed more Sunday service, earlier bus service, later bus service, and more services on Saturday are services that should be invested in. Receiving the least amount of investment from surveyors was expanding service to new areas which received 10% of votes.
Surveyors Method of Payment
A rider’s method of payment can contribute to extending dwelling times at each stop. The use of cash payment is typically the biggest contributor to this.
Even though Torrance Transit has implemented a Tap Card to help reduce the time it takes to pay a bus fare, only 19% of riders use a Tap Card. The majority of rider still prefer to pay their fare with cash while the remaining 14% will use an alternate form of payment such as a student pass, EZ pass, or a monthly pass.
Cash Tap Card Other -14%
(stored value) '"""'"'"T~Pffl(l,_.., ·JJ.. 67% 19%
Figure 2 - Method of Fare Payment
Source: Torrance Transit – Existing and Future Conditions 2018
Surveyors Ridership Context:
Analyzing passenger background is pivotal in receiving a greater understanding of Torrance Transit customer base. Surveyors were asked questions to help determine how often they ride the bus, how long they have been
6 a customer for, vehicle availability, rideshare use, and the main purpose of bus utilization.
A large percent of Torrance Transit customer base has been actively riding the bus for a long period of time. About 51% of riders have been consistently riding the bus for 3 years or more. An estimated 20% of riders have been customers for
1-3 years while 29% have been riding for less than a year. When also asked about the bus frequency of use 55% used it more than 5 days a week, 15% used it 4 days a week, 12% used it 3 days a week, and the rest used it 2 days or less. The large loyal customer base can be attributed to vehicle availability. When asked if access to any form of private vehicle was available, 75% of passengers did not have that luxury.
Determining the purpose of trips on a bus line is important to help assure bus routes are accessing the correct corridors and major destinations. To determine the main purpose of trips on the bus lines, survey participants were asked the main reason why they use the bus. At 51%, surveyors utilize the bus to get to work. A quarter of participants used the bus lines for shopping, 9% used it to get to school, and 6% used it to access medical treatment.
4.3 Case Studies
Bus Rapid Transit Case Study: El Camino Real BRT Phasing Plan – BRT
Industry
Similar to the Torrance Transit, SamTrans Agency located in San Mateo,
California is exploring the option of implementing a BRT service in the El Camino
Corridor. They currently do not operate either a rapid bus line or a full BRT. They
7 have conducted research and case studies to determine if a full BRT would assist in enhancing transit service, essential system components, and ridership demand analysis. A rider survey that was conducted recommends that a short-term transit plan should provide a rapid bus service along the El Camino corridor. Although El
Camino corridor is one of the most active routes in their system, it runs through low-density areas that do not contain enough activity. With future development and an increase in density, the long-term transit plan will provide incremental goals that will evolve a rapid bus line into a full BRT. A rapid bus line and a BRT has similar attributes. Unlike the full BRT, a rapid bus line doesn’t have a dedicated lane but instead operates within existing traffic lanes. This option requires minimal capital investment. Shorter travel time is created due to the limited stops spaced farther away. A full BRT has enhanced operational measures such as dedicated lanes, platform stops, off-vehicle fare payment, queue jump lanes, and bus line branding.
To get a better understanding of rapid bus lines and BRTs, SamTrans studied the EmX which is a BRT that operates in a middle lane. It connects two significant downtowns through a four-mile corridor and extends seven miles to connect to a mall and a medical center. The critical system performance of the
EMX can be seen in the table below:
8 Description
Travel Time • Travel time decreased 4% when compared to the original route.
• Avoiding traffic congestion also contributed to the reduction of travel time. I • Dwell time was reduced by 10% . Improve Reliability • Schedule adherence for this route improved. and On-Time Performance • Inconsistent travel time was reduced . Improve Rider • Riders that were surveyed believed the travel Experience time was reduced by 15 minutes.
• Branding of the BRT helped riders distinguish the bus. Increase Ridership • Ridership has increased 4,000 to 5,400 in just over a year.
• 16% of £mX riders previously rode . D
Table 10: EmX Key System Performance
Some important takeaways after analyzing the EmX system is that there is no single aspect of a BRT that is more important than another. Combining various strategies will be most effective in helping to improve transit reliability. Rider perception is vital to help encourage ridership. Although travel time was decreased by 4%, the rider’s perception of the travel time reduction was much more. Branding of the BRT will also be a determining factor in its success. It is important that riders distinguish the BRT from the other bus lines to easily help identify it.
1 Transit Signal Priority Case Study: Planning and Deploying Transit Signal
Priority in Small and Medium-Sized Cities
This case study examines Burlington and Vermont, a small and mid-sized city who have conducted traffic models prior to the implementation of a transit signal priority program. The purpose of the traffic models is to predetermine the effects that transit signal priorities would have in two different situations. The primary intent for TSP in both these cases is to provide preferential traffic priority to public transit systems.
The main measurement to determine the level of impact that TSP would have is bus travel time. The travel time for each bus is initiated when it travels between the start of the first intersection and when it crosses the second intersection. This also includes dwell time which accounts for delayed traffic and waiting time. All intersection that were studied for both small and mid-sized cities showed an improvement in bus travel time and time reliability. Results ranged from
1 percent to 14 percent improvement amongst all intersections. Nevertheless, the traffic models indicate that all intersections will experience improvement. The post field studies after the implementation of the TSP also confirmed that positive improvements were experienced.
4.4 Research Findings
This section focuses on research findings from the data that was used to explore the level of reliability of the bus lines operated by Torrance Transit. The overall lack of on-time performance by the transit network, especially during the weekday, has caused riders to lose confidence that the bus will arrive according
1 to schedule. Although more than half the riders have been tenured riders for 3 years or more, there is an overall low satisfaction rate with the inconsistent arrival time. Most riders come from low-income backgrounds with minimal to no access to a private vehicle. This forces them to depend heavily on public transportation to get to work, school and other daily activities. This can explain why ridership is much higher during the week in comparison to the weekend. This is also an indicator that other socioeconomic classes have minimal incentive to utilize public transportation either due to reliability issues or a negative perception of public transportation. Rapid 3 bus line and the 4X bus line have stops that are spaced about 0.66 of a mile from each other. The bus lines have a long distance to service; this combined with the bus stop spacing provides a perfect candidate to implement a full BRT along this route. Impractical schedule efficiency exists for bus line 1, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10. Riders who were surveyed indicated that they would like to see greater investment from the agency on bus frequency. Increasing the frequency of buses in the line will improve bus schedule efficiency and rider satisfaction.
2 5.0 Recommendation of Improvement Strategies
Recommendation 1 – Transit Signal Priority Program
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is becoming a common tool that offers transit vehicles priority when approaching a signalized intersection. It’s an innovative system that is receiving attention from not only transit agencies but also from emergency responders. The intent of TSP is to reduce travel time which theoretically should improve on-time performance while having minor effects on opposing traffic. The integration of a TSP program for Torrance Transit would be beneficial in helping schedule efficiency for all bus routes. Previous research has proven the benefits of incorporating such a system. High traffic areas where the status quo remains can see transit reliability worsen. The combination of TSP and
BRT complement each other to improve on-time reliability.
Notes and Concern
The deployment of a TSP will require the buy-in from multiple departments such as the City’s traffic engineers, transit agency, and other stakeholders.
Receiving approval from the various stakeholders may have its challenges but will be necessary to establish the benefits of the TSP program.
Recommendation 2 – Annual Assessment of Bus Lines
Given the lack of on-time performance and the goals set out by the agency, it is important to determine what works and what does not work. The agency has created goals in order to provide local residents with a safer, more reliable mode of transportation while concurrently contributing to economic growth. Developing an annual assessment of each transit line is critical in achieving the agencies goals
1 and improving transit reliability. Developing the structure within the agency to properly assess transit line will assure a high-quality service remains constant. It will also allow for progress tracking and provide transparency for the public.
Notes and Concerns
Transit agency staffing must have the knowledge and be properly trained to effectively assess each bus route. Currently, many agencies are understaffed and providing staff members with additional tasks will mean their focus will be reduced in other areas. Although an annual assessment is not common for Torrance
Transit, it will be beneficial to incorporate into their yearly goals.
Recommendation 3 – Torrance Bus Designated Lanes
The objective of implementing a full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in the City of
Torrance would create a robust transit network that would assist to improve on- time performance. “The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP, 2018) defines BRT as a flexible, rubber-tired, rapid-transit mode that combines stations, vehicles, services, running ways, and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) elements into an integrated system” (TCRP 2018). Infrastructure improvements will be necessary to create designated lanes that will provide fast and cost-effective mobility. The agency recognizes that the most effective way to increase ridership is to provide a transit service that is on-time and reliable. Torrance Transit is heavily reliant on federal funds, grants, and proposition revenue to help fund capital improvement projects. Applying and Increasing the farebox revenue will help provide an alternate source of revenue,
2 Notes and Concerns
Legitimate concerns for the implementation of this recommendation suggest taking future development into account. Currently, there is major development under construction that will change the landscaping of the region;
Extension of the Metro Green Line and the development of the Los Angeles
Stadium and the Entertainment District. Access to both these future development expects to be high which will require adjustment to the existing lines or the creation of new bus lines. Feasibility of the infrastructure project is an additional concern.
Federal and State grants are options to assist with the funding. A public-private partnership with major developers will also be an option to help create funds.
Building off the Agency’s 2015-2017 Short Range Transit Plan, the Existing and Future Conditions Report, AVL data that is collected from each bus line, and this study will provide a good framework of the necessary information needed for a proper annual assessment. Performance measures should remain consistent to properly track advancement. It is critical that annual ridership, on-time performance, and schedule efficiency be included. Additional metrics can also be incorporated to help in determining additional short-term goals.
5.1 Conclusion
In this section, key findings from my analysis are presented.
Recommendations based on the Agencies goals were proposed to assist in resolving transit concerns. Three recommendations were suggested to improve transit reliability, passenger experience, and quality control: implement the infrastructure for a full BRT; integrate a traffic signal preferred program; and annual
1 assessment of bus lines. Cost for applying each recommendation vary, depending on the degree of the recommendation. Grants and public-private partnership are legitimate solutions to assist with the financing. Incremental implementation of the recommendations would allow for a solution over an extended period. All three recommendations are closely associated and if possible, a package of all three solutions should be rolled out concurrently so that the agency can continue achieving its goals in improving transit reliability for its riders.
2 Bibliography
1) Baker, R. J., Collura, J., Dale, J. J., Head, L., Hemily, B., Ivanovic, M., …
Stoppenhagen, G. R. (2002). AN OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SIGNAL
PRIORITY. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/723986
2) Center, L. (n.d.). Falling Transit Ridership: California and Southern
California. 83.
3) Dewi, A. U. (n.d.). RESEARCH ON FACTORS AFFECTING TRAVEL
BEHAVIOR ON CHOICE of TRANSPORTATION MEANS FOR
WORKING ACTIVITY. 150.
4) Hymon, S. (2018, January 9). Update on Green Line South Bay extension
to Torrance. Retrieved April 8, 2019, from The Source website:
https://thesource.metro.net/2018/01/08/update-on-green-line-south-bay-
extension-to-torrance/
5) Ko, W. (n.d.). Traffic Signal Priority Through Signal System Control. 11.
6) Levinson, H. S., Transit Cooperative Research Program, & National
Research Council (U.S.) (Eds.). (2003). Bus rapid transit. Washington,
D.C: Transportation Research Board.
7) Levinson, H. S., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., & Gast, J. (2003). Bus Rapid
Transit: Synthesis of Case Studies. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1841(1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3141/1841-01
8) Ma, Z., Ferreira, L., & Mesbah, M. (2013, October 2). A Framework for the
Development of Bus Service Reliability Measures. Presented at the
1 Australasian Transport Research Forum, ATRF 2013 - Proceedings.
9) Madhuwanthi, R. a. M., Marasinghe, A., Rajapakse, R. P. C. J.,
Dharmawansa, A. D., & Nomura, S. (2015). Factors Influencing to Travel
Behavior on Transport Mode Choice. International Journal of Affective
Engineering, IJAE-D-15-00044. https://doi.org/10.5057/ijae.IJAE-D-15-
00044
10) Muro-Rodriguez, A. I., Perez-Jimenez, I. R., & Gutierrez-Broncano, S.
(2017). Consumer Behavior in the Choice of Mode of Transport: A Case
Study in the Toledo-Madrid Corridor. Frontiers In Psychology, 8, 1011.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01011
11) N. (2018). Torrance Transit Existing and Future Conditions Reports(1st
ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1-147, Tech. No. 1). Torrance, CA: NelsonNygaard
Associate.
12) Næss, P. (2006). Urban structure matters: residential location, car
dependence and travel behaviour (1st ed.). London ; New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
13) Næss, P. (2012). Urban form and travel behavior Experience from a
Nordic context. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(2), 21–45.
https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v5i2.314
14) On-Time Performance - Jeff Becker.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.apta.com/mc/its/previous/2014-
november/presentations/Presentations/On-Time%20Performance%20-
%20Jeff%20Becker.pdf
2 15) Ova, K., & Smadi, A. (n.d.). EVALUATION OF TRANSIT SIGNAL
PRIORITY STRATEGIES FOR SMALL-MEDIUM CITIES. 84.
16) Parker_BRT_CaseStudies-1.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/09264_Parker_BRT_CaseSt
udies-1.pdf
17) SamTrans+ECR+BRT+Phasing+Study+Appendices.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
http://www.samtrans.com/Assets/_Planning/BRT/SamTrans+ECR+BRT+P
hasing+Study+Appendices.pdf
18) showdocument.pdf. (n.d.-a). Retrieved from
https://www.torranceca.gov/home/showdocument?id=38359
19) showdocument.pdf. (n.d.-b). Retrieved from
https://www.torranceca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2718
20) Spears, S. (2013). The Perception-Intention-Adaptation (PIA) Model: A
theoretical framework for examining the effect of behavioral intention and
neighborhood perception on travel behavior (ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1458439994/?pq-origsite=primo
21) Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and
symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research
Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 4(3), 151–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(01)00020-1
22) Taniguchi, A., Grääs, C., & Friman, M. (2014). Satisfaction with travel,
3 goal achievement, and voluntary behavioral change. Transportation
Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 26(Part A), 10–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.06.004
23) Transportation Policy; Studies from University of Sydney in the Area of
Transportation Policy Described. (2012). Transportation Business Journal,
p. 161.
24) Turnquist, M. A. (n.d.-a). Strategies for Improving Reliability of Bus Transit
Service. Transportation Research Record, 7.
25) Turnquist, M. A. (n.d.-b). Strategies for Improving Reliability of Bus Transit
Service. Transportation Research Record, 7.
26) VermontBRT_Technical_Study-Executive_Summary.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
https://media.metro.net/projects_studies/wilshire/images/VermontBRT_Te
chnical_Study-Executive_Summary.pdf
4 Appendices 1 - Frequency and Span of Fixed Route Service ~ 1 . ,l _J ~ kda, - ,,,~ .. w :~d':':' cy n ~ ..,.... = - TnpFreQue ~ SpanofService .. ~ + --)-11111(~ -:-,.....,..,....i(-~~-: , . ~ _ ~ (r __,__ t II ~ (1 r +- +- )iiiiiiii)iiiii ~ --<--,-.--<--),,,o - 1,-=:::(~~~~ C-} -,- . ~ - ()ii)iii(ll(ii(i(ii(j(iii(iiijiii( iii 1), ij ii ~~-=!=1!-) ■ j_ ( ;:: iiii ) , , • , I ,- ~ ______~ - ~ ~ )ii{ - ,, • # ' ~ ~lli( ·~~c:::, , , ~-:- - -:-~~ ,.....,__i--(---0,,,,,..~--0--0,,.,,,..,.....,_~- -~-,-o,,,.),aa L-,i--0--0--6'--,j,,111-~-~~-__,...... ,,..._~ : ' ....--:-:-:-:-)-1--:-,-.::-:-:- 1a--1----i----i----i---~i,.,...i,.,...i--,,,ii,,....i--,,,i----i...... i----i1a--1~ --<--),,,o--- 1 ------~~------~~i------i--i--~~~-- r r 1, ~~~ lll(lll(lll(~~lll(-o-Qoa ___,,._ L [ , ...... :i,.-: r ~ ~ )ii)iiiijiiii)iii(ll( ;,,.-~~~~~--;,,.-;,,.-;,,.-;,,.-;,,.-~~~~~--~-~ 11-(- • )i,,,~ [jiii( ~ ~ , , , , _ G) G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 Beach Beach Beach Beach ~e~r c~:~~ :at:~ o _ T~~~~ Long Long l:=~~:: - donct • e Artesi:':t~tieo~ r;:::: R Redondo Redondo Crens~=~t~tl:~ Crens~~~u:~ T~~:;~~:~ Tr=:;
1 Appendinces 2 - Weekday System Ridership
DOWNTOWN LA ® l~GLEWOOD 0 LAX
(:) ELSEGUNod STATION MANHATTAN i BEACH CD
ARTESIA - e,mnoN ® COMPTON
LAKEWOOD CARSON
'i __j '·- .j CD .' ·- ·- ·-·- -·-·-., ~.... ~ORRAN~W SIGNAL HILL PALOS VERDES ESTATES AIRPC(RI WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP ACTIVITY ·,., BOARDINGS AT STOP ·,·,.,_p'.::i LONG - TORRANCE IRANSIT BEACH
: - ·, TORRANCE CITY I 100 .: LIMITS 2Mi'es DATA SOURCES: IOl!RAMCE TWISII, OCTOB[R 7011
1 Appendinces 3 - Survey: Rider Vehicle Availability/Fare Type
Vehicle Availability
Vehicle availability may be a factor in the frequency of transit use, as 75% of respondents do not have access to a vehicle.
Figure 36 Vehicle Availabi lity
Yes ~ 11asaccess1DYes I • • I• oe~~alvehid.e. but ~ , ~. • MS access to ._ ~ with mcon"ff'tence .. loolhfrs .& , porsonal ••hod• ..to. '
16% 9% 75%
Survey: Fare Type
21% - Student ' 11% ~I Senior 57% ~6% •• ..,-:_ Access Base Fare Card holder '' I
1 Appendinces 4 - Low Income Household Density
LOW INCOME DENSITY (< $15,000/YEAR) ® l HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE < I 1- 2 - TORRANCE TRANSIT 2- 4 TORRANCE □TY • 4-8 1 LIMITS • 8 • 60 v .. CULVER CITY COMMERCE
® HUNTINGTON PARK CD INGLEWOOD • SOUTH GATE DOWNEY
LYNWOOD
PARAMOUNT MANHATTAN COMPTON BEACH @
REDONDO BEACH !:·-· 'i LAKEWOOD CARSON @ ,·~· ' ·,., SIGNAL HILL ·,., PALOS VERDES ESTATES ·,.' ·, ..;=·:::.::;
ROLLING HILLS RANCHO Hliles PALOS VERDES c:::==-•
2 Appendinces 5 - Employment Density
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY JOBS PER ACRE
CULVERCl"~Y
HUNTINGTON I PARK
INGLEWOOD 0 SOUTH GATE LAX DOWNEY
~ LYNWOOD• HAWTHORNE
PARAMOUNT MANHATTAN COMPTON '13EACH
REDONDO BEACH:~ - · I I i CARSON
I ..... ! r· -' ... ," I u •·SIGNAL HILL PALOS VERDES ESTATES ' ·,·,,::;:: -:; LONG Cl) "BEACH
;J ROLLING HILLS RANCHO 0 21-1'les PALOS VERDES
1