DOCSLIB.ORG

An Evaluation of Projected Versus Actual Ridership on Los Angeles’ Metro Rail Lines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Evaluation of Projected Versus Actual Ridership on Los Angeles’ Metro Rail Lines AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES A Thesis 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 Lyle D. Janicek 2019 SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS: AN EVALUATION OF PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ON LOS ANGELES’ METRO RAIL LINES AUTHOR: Lyle D. Janicek DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2019 Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Richard W. Willson Thesis Committee Chair Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Dohyung Kim Urban and Regional Planning Dr. Gwen Urey Urban and Regional Planning ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the support of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. I am especially indebted to Dr. Rick Willson, Dr. Dohyung Kim, and Dr. Gwen Urey of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, who have been supportive of my career goals and who worked actively to provide me with educational opportunities to pursue those goals. I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and other related projects with my time at Cal Poly Pomona. Each of the members of my Thesis Committee has provided me extensive personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both scientific research and life in general. Nobody has been more supportive to me in the pursuit of this project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents Larry and Laurie Janicek, whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. They are the ultimate role models. Most importantly, I wish to thank my loving and supportive partner, Connor Francis, and who provided unending inspiration and care. To my sisters Loni and Lanelle and their families, thank you for reminding me to always smile, even when times are tough. Thank you to Lexi, Cavan, and Brayden for actively keeping me young. To Oakley and Temma for ensuring I navigated out of the house throughout the writing process. And lastly, I’d like to thank Douglas and Al for being gems that provided glimmers of inspiration. iii ABSTRACT The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, also known as Metro, has ambitious goals to expand the rail transit network throughout the county. Corridor studies and Environmental Impact Reports assess and recommend the best alternatives for rail developments using ridership as a primary factor in judging overall performance. This study compares current and historical ridership data with projections provided in environmental impact reports for all fourteen segments of the light and heavy rail network. It compares the ridership with projections set forth in the pre- construction stages of development to assesses whether each segment is over or under performing. The objective of this research is to understand the current rail performance of Metro and provide insight as to how Metro can more accurately predict rail ridership. The findings are that more than half rail segments, especially heavy rail, missed their ridership projections. This research investigates factors that influence the ridership of Metro Lines, including population and job density, route alignment, and the use of federal funding. The project also compares Metro light and heavy rail with the performance of other regional rail networks. Rail ridership between 2014 and 2018 is also presented to focus attention on the recent past. The study seeks to understand Metro rail system ridership performance as it moves into a new era of expansion. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT….........................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................... 7 Forecasting Rail Ridership................................................................................. 7 Optimism in Ridership Forecasting................................................................. 14 Ridership as a Measurement of Performance................................................ 16 Funding Rail Expansion ................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 3: STUDY AREA PROFILES................................................................................. 23 Los Angeles Public Transit, A Brief History ..................................................... 24 Blue Line Initial Segment ................................................................................ 26 Blue Line Long Beach Loop ............................................................................. 27 Blue Line to Financial District.......................................................................... 28 Red and Purple Line: MOS-1 ........................................................................... 30 Green Line....................................................................................................... 31 Purple Line: MOS-2A....................................................................................... 33 Red Line: MOS-2B ........................................................................................... 34 Red Line: MOS-3.............................................................................................. 36 Gold Line: Initial Segment............................................................................... 38 Gold Line: Eastside Extension ......................................................................... 39 Expo Line: Initial Segment............................................................................... 41 Expo Line: Culver City Extension..................................................................... 44 Gold Line: Foothill Extension .......................................................................... 45 Expo Line: Santa Monica Extension ................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 50 v Actual Rail Ridership Data............................................................................... 50 Projected Rail Ridership Data ......................................................................... 52 Projected vs. Actual Ridership Comparison.................................................... 53 Projected Ridership Scenarios ........................................................................ 53 Ridership and Density Regression................................................................... 54 What Does it All Mean? .................................................................................. 55 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………………….…………56 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF FORECAST AND ACTUAL RIDERSHIP ..................................... 57 Projected vs. Actual Ridership Comparison.................................................... 57 Projected Ridership Scenarios ........................................................................ 63 Ridership and Density Regression................................................................... 68 What Does it All Mean? .................................................................................. 71 CHAPTER 6: POLICY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...................................................... 78 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 82 APPENDIX A – Average Weekday Ridership by Segment and Year .................................. 94 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 3. 1 Breakdown of Metro's rail network, average weekday boardings. ..............................24 Table 3. 2 Red Line Project updates from the Federal Transit Authority (Federal Transit Administration, 1998, pg. 3) .............................................................................................38 Table 3.3 Metro Forecasted Projection Data.................................................................................48 Table 5. 1 Segment Performance by Horizon Year ........................................................................59 Table 5. 2 Segment Performance for Fiscal year 2018 with no post-horizon year growth. ..........61 Table 5. 3 Segment Performance Table with County Population Growth Projections..................63 Table 5. 4 Segment Performance Table with 1% Growth Projections...........................................66 Table 5. 5 Segment Performance Table with 2% Growth ..............................................................67 Table 5. 6 Population Density Regression Output .........................................................................69 Table 5. 7 Population Density Regression Output .........................................................................70 Table 5. 8 Combined Density Regression Output ..........................................................................71 vii
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service
    VOLUME I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESTORATION OF HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES J U LY 2 0 1 8 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.4 7th Street Alignment Alternative ................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................ ES-7 ES.6 Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-7 ES.7 Operations and Ridership ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16
    California State Rail Plan 2005-06 to 2015-16 December 2005 California Department of Transportation ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Secretary Business, Transportation and Housing Agency WILL KEMPTON, Director California Department of Transportation JOSEPH TAVAGLIONE, Chair STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JEREMIAH F. HALLISEY, Vice Chair GOVERNOR BOB BALGENORTH MARIAN BERGESON JOHN CHALKER JAMES C. GHIELMETTI ALLEN M. LAWRENCE R. K. LINDSEY ESTEBAN E. TORRES SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON, Ex Officio ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA, Ex Officio JOHN BARNA, Executive Director CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1120 N STREET, MS-52 P. 0 . BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, 94273-0001 FAX(916)653-2134 (916) 654-4245 http://www.catc.ca.gov December 29, 2005 Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman Senate Transportation and Housing Committee State Capitol, Room 2209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee 1020 N Street, Room 112 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear: Senator Lowenthal Assembly Member Oropeza: On behalf of the California Transportation Commission, I am transmitting to the Legislature the 10-year California State Rail Plan for FY 2005-06 through FY 2015-16 by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) with the Commission's resolution (#G-05-11) giving advice and consent, as required by Section 14036 of the Government Code. The ten-year plan provides Caltrans' vision for intercity rail service. Caltrans'l0-year plan goals are to provide intercity rail as an alternative mode of transportation, promote congestion relief, improve air quality, better fuel efficiency, and improved land use practices. This year's Plan includes: standards for meeting those goals; sets priorities for increased revenues, increased capacity, reduced running times; and cost effectiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • Art Leahy, Chief Executive Officer
    ART LEAHY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Art Leahy was appointed as Metrolink’s Chief Executive Officer and began in April 2015. He brings more than 40 years of public transportation leadership and experience to Metrolink. One of the nation’s leading transit officials, Art Leahy served as chief executive officer of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) for six years. During that time, he guided implementation of one of the largest public works programs in United States history, securing billions in federal and state dollars to help finance construction of dozens of transit and highway projects. He led the completion of numerous projects funded by Los Angeles County’s Measure R. Metro has transit and highway projects valued at more than $14 billion, eclipsing that of any other transportation agency in the nation. This includes an unprecedented five new rail projects under construction, including phase 2 of the Expo Line extension to Santa Monica and the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension to Azusa, as well as the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Project, the Regional Connector in downtown Los Angeles, and the first phase of the Westside Purple Line subway extension to Wilshire and La Cienega. Leahy also launched a $1.2-billion overhaul of the Metro Blue Line and guided the purchase of a new fleet of rail cars. And he helped transform the iconic Union Station into the hub of the region’s expanding bus and rail transit network and led the agency’s acquisition of the 75-year-old iconic facility. Though Metrolink is a separate transportation agency from Metro, the two agencies work collaboratively on multiple fronts to provide effective and efficient public transportation options for people throughout the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’S Agenda
    Community Open House #1 South Gate Park January 27, 2016 Today’s Agenda 1) Gateway District Specific Plan 2) Efforts To Date 3) Specific Plan Process 4) TOD Best Practices 5) Community Feedback 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 2 Gateway District Specific Plan What is the West Santa Ana Branch? The West Santa Ana Branch (WSAB) is a transit corridor connecting southeast Los Angeles County (including South Gate) to Downtown Los Angeles via the abandoned Pacific Electric Right- of-Way (ROW). Goals for the Corridor: 1. PLACE-MAKING: Make the station the center of a new destination that is special and unique to each community. 2. CONNECTIONS: Connect residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and destinations to the station. 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL: Concentrate jobs and homes in the station area to reap the benefits that transit brings to communities. 27 JANUARY 2016 | page 4 What is light rail transit? The South Gate Transit Station will be served by light rail and bus services. Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that operates at a higher capacity and higher speed compared to buses or street-running tram systems (i.e. trolleys or streetcars). LRT Benefits: • LRT is a quiet, electric system that is environmentally-friendly. • Using LRT helps reduce automobile dependence, traffic congestion, and Example of an at-grade alignment LRT, Gold Line in Pasadena, CA. pollution. • LRT is affordable and a less costly option than the automobile (where costs include parking, insurance, gasoline, maintenance, tickets, etc..). • LRT is an efficient and convenient way to get to and from destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Template
    The Challenges of Planning and Executing Major Underground Transit Programs in Los Angeles Bryan Pennington, Senior Executive Officer, Program Management • Nation’s third largest transportation system • FY2018 Budget of $6.1 billion • Over 9,000 employees • Nation’s largest clean-air fleet (over 2,200 CNG buses) • 450 miles of Metro Rapid Bus System • 131.7 miles of Metro Rail (113 stations) • Average Weekday Boardings (Bus & Rail) – 1.2 million • 513 miles of freeway HOV lanes 2 • New rail and bus rapid transit projects • New highway projects • Enhanced bus and rail service • Local street, signal, bike/pedestrian improvements • Affordable fares for seniors, students and persons with disabilities • Maintenance/replacement of aging system • Bike and pedestrian connections to transit facilities 3 4 5 6 7 • New rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) capital projects • Rail yards, rail cars, and start-up buses for new BRT lines • Includes 2% for system-wide connectivity projects such as airports, countywide BRT, regional rail and Union Station 8 Directions Walk to Blue Line and travel to Union Station Southwest Chief to Los Angeles Union Station 9 • Rail transit projects • Crenshaw LAX Transit Project • Regional Connector Transit Project • Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Critical success factors • Financial considerations/risk management • Contract strategy • Lessons learned • Future underground construction • Concluding remarks • Questions and answers 10 11 •Los Angeles Basin •Faults •Hydrocarbons •Groundwater •Seismicity •Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide 12 •Crenshaw LAX Transit Project •Regional Connector Transit Project •Westside Purple Line Extension Project • Section 1 • Section 2 • Section 3 13 • 13.7 km Light Rail • 8 Stations • Aerial Grade Separations, Below Grade, At-Grade Construction • Maintenance Facility Yard • $1.3 Billion Construction Contract Awarded to Walsh / Shea J.V.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Update
    Go Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro is unique among the nation’s transportation agencies. It serves as transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder and operator for one of the country’s largest, most populous counties. More than 9.6 million people – one-third of California’s residents – live, work, and play within its 1,433-square-mile service area. Besides operating over 2,000 peak-hour buses on an average weekday, Metro also designed, built and now operates 87 miles of Metro Rail service. The Metro Rail system consists of the Metro Red/Purple Line subway system, and the Metro Blue, Expo, Green and Gold Lines. In total, the Metro Rail system serves 80 rail stations stretching from Long Beach to Downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley, from Culver City to East Los Angeles and Pasadena, from Norwalk to El Segundo, and all points in between. Under construction is the Expo Line Phase II which will stretch from Culver City to Santa Monica and the 11-mile Gold Line Foothill Extension from Pasadena to Azusa. In addition to operating its own service, Metro funds 16 municipal bus operators and funds a wide array of transportation projects, including bikeways and pedestrian facilities, local roads and highway improvements, goods movement, Metrolink commuter rail, and the popular Freeway Service Patrol and Call Boxes. Recognizing that no one form of transit can solve urban congestion problems, Metro’s multimodal approach uses a variety of transportation alternatives to meet the needs of the highly diverse populations in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation
    Special Report 294 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chair: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Vice Chair: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, Kentucky Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg John D. Bowe, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, California Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia William A. V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, Minnesota Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, D.C. Will Kempton, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping Southern California's Future on Track
    Keeping Southern California’s 25Future on Track CONTENTS Message from the Board Chair .........................1 CEO’s Message .....................................................3 A Quarter Century of Moving People: The Metrolink Story .............................................5 How It All Began ................................................19 Metrolink’s Top Priority: Safety .......................27 WHO WE ARE Environment ........................................................31 Metrolink is Southern California’s regional commuter rail service in its Metrolink Relieves Driving Stress ...................35 25th year of operation. Metrolink is governed by The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Board Members Past and Present ..................40 a joint powers authority made up of an 11-member board representing Metrolink Pioneering Staff the transportation commissions of Still on Board ......................................................47 Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. Metrolink Employees Metrolink operates seven routes Put Customers First ...........................................48 through a six-county, 538-route-mile network with 60 stations. Facts at a Glance ...............................................50 For more information, including how to ride, go to www.metrolinktrains.com MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to provide safe, efficient, dependable and on-time transportation service that offers outstanding customer experience and enhances quality of life. For
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Los Angeles Metro Examining the Los Angeles Metro
    Examining the Examining Examining the Los Angeles Metro Angeles Los Los Angeles Metro A NEEDS-BASED TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION NEEDS-BASED A A NEEDS-BASED TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ANALYSIS Frank romo Frank Frank romo Master of Urban Planning, 2016 Planning, Urban of Master Master of Urban Planning, 2016 The planned expansion of the Los Angeles Metro Rail promises to provide Angelinos with access to public transportation. However, some critics of the L.A. Metro Rail believe that the expanding network will primarily serve tourist destinations and powerful economic hubs rather than supporting the residents most in need of public transportation. Through spatial analysis, we find that the L.A. Metro Rail expansion will not benefit the residents most in need of public transportation. spatial analysis n the early 1900s Los Angeles County contained separate rail lines and 73 miles of track (LA Metro one of the largest public transportation systems 2008). The continuing expansion of the L.A. Metro I in the United States. The Pacific Electric Red Rail presents a great opportunity for residents who Car system serviced multiple counties in Southern rely on public transportation. California with over 1,000 miles of streetcar lines. However, with the introduction of the automobile, most of the rail network fell into disrepair and was subsequently dismantled in the 1950s. Over the next few decades, the automobile became the primary mode of transportation and its infrastructure transformed Los Angeles from an interconnected region into a sprawling metropolis dominated by the personal vehicle. As a result, Los Angeles has become a classic example of how planning for personal vehicles can have negative impacts on cities and their inhabitants.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Connector Transit Corridor FY19 Project Profile
    Regional Connector Transit Corridor Los Angeles California (December 2017) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is constructing a 1.9 mile double track light rail transit line in downtown Los Angeles, with 3 new underground stations and the procurement of 4 light rail vehicles. The project will begin at the existing 7th Street/Metro Center Station and will provide connections via a new underground alignment to the existing Metro Blue, Exposition, and Gold Lines. The alignment will extend north underground from the 7th Street/Metro Center Station following Flower Street, curving east under the 2nd Street roadway tunnel and 2nd Street, and continuing east under the intersection of 1st and Alameda Streets, surfacing to connect to the Metro Gold Line tracks within 1st Street at grade to the east and north of Temple Street toward Union Station. In the opening year of 2021 as well as the forecast year of 2035, service will be provided using three-car train consists in the peak period with service every 2.5 minutes. Service will be provided every five minutes during off- peak periods. The hours of operation will be 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. weekdays and weekends. Estimated daily linked trips on the Project using current year inputs are 58,580. This number is expected to grow to 100,980 daily linked trips by 2035. The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $1,402.93 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $669.90 million. Status Following completion of an alternatives analysis in January 2009, and the publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in September 2010, the LACMTA Board selected the locally preferred alternative in October 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • MTA Report December 2009
    Metro Report: Home CEO Hotline Viewpoint Classified Ads Archives Metro.net (web) Resources Safety Pressroom (web) Ask the CEO CEO Forum Employee Recognition Employee Activities Metro Projects Facts at a Glance (web) Archives Events Calendar November 14, 2009: Metro Gold Line train breaks through banner, then a shower of confetti, Research Center/ at official dedication of new light rail to East Los Angeles. Photo by Gary Leonard Library Metro Classifieds 2009 in Review: Growth, Transitions and Farewells Bazaar The Year in Review Metro Info January February March April May June July August September October November December 30/10 Initiative Compiled by Michael D. White Policies Staff Writer Training Metro’s memories of 2009 were marked by a year of growth, transition and some farewells. The Help Desk transit agency saw the inauguration of several new bus and rail services, major progress on a number of Measure R-funded projects and employees also greeted a new CEO. Intranet Policy The year’s highlights included receiving nearly $235 million in federal funding for a host of transit Need e-Help? projects, the opening of the Gold Line Extension to East L.A., and the installation of a state-of- the-art solar panel array at Metro’s Support Services Center in downtown Los Angeles. Call the Help Desk at 2-4357 A record $3.9 billion budget for FY09 was approved to fund the agency’s operational requirements, Contact myMetro.net and later in the year the Metro Board approved its Long Range Transportation Plan which contains an ambitious list of projects for the next 30 years.
    [Show full text]
  • FTA Annual Report on Public Transportation Innovation Research Projects for Fiscal Year 2020 JANUARY 2021
    FTA Annual Report on Public Transportation Innovation Research Projects for Fiscal Year 2020 JANUARY 2021 FTA Report No. 0181 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Federal Transit Administration COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. FTA Annual Report on Public Transportation Innovation Research Projects for Fiscal Year 2020 JANUARY 2021 FTA Report No. 0181 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i MetricMetric Conversion Conversion Table Table Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or "t") (or "metric ton") TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) 5 (F-32)/9 oF Fahrenheit Celsius oC or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION iv FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No.
    [Show full text]