DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Ridership and Customer Satisfaction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Ridership and Customer Satisfaction METRO BUS – SOUND TRANSIT LINK INTEGRATION STUDY Assessment of Ridership and Customer Satisfaction Prepared by: King County Department of Transportation Metro Service Planning Service Development Section MARCH 2017 METRO BUS – SOUND TRANSIT LINK INTEGRATION STUDY Assessment of Ridership and Customer Satisfaction March 2017 This report was prepared by King County Metro Transit. Customer satisfaction research was conducted by Pacific Market Research, LLC Department of Transportation Metro Transit Division King Street Center, KSC-TR-0415 201 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 98104 206-553-3000 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov/metro Alternative Formats Available 206-477-3832 TTY Relay: 711 CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7 SECTION I: RIDERSHIP ASSESSMENT ................................................ 16 Key Findings .......................................................................................................... 16 Changes in Route-Level Transit Ridership and Productivity ................................. 18 Metro Bus Ridership Changes by Neighborhood/Corridor .................................. 25 Ballard .................................................................................................................. 28 Bryant ................................................................................................................... 30 Capitol Hill ............................................................................................................ 32 Central District ..................................................................................................... 34 Crown Hill ............................................................................................................. 36 Downtown Seattle ............................................................................................... 38 East Capitol Hill .................................................................................................... 40 Eastlake ................................................................................................................ 42 First Hill ................................................................................................................ 44 Fremont ............................................................................................................... 45 Green Lake ........................................................................................................... 47 Greenwood .......................................................................................................... 49 Interbay ................................................................................................................ 51 Jackson Park ........................................................................................................ 53 Lake City ............................................................................................................... 55 Laurelhurst ........................................................................................................... 57 Madison Park ....................................................................................................... 58 Maple Leaf ........................................................................................................... 59 Matthews Beach .................................................................................................. 61 Meadowbrook ...................................................................................................... 63 Montlake .............................................................................................................. 65 North Capitol Hill ................................................................................................. 67 North Park ............................................................................................................ 69 Northgate ............................................................................................................. 71 Northshore ........................................................................................................... 73 Phinney Ridge ...................................................................................................... 75 Pinehurst .............................................................................................................. 77 Rainier Valley ....................................................................................................... 79 Ravenna ............................................................................................................... 81 Ridgecrest ............................................................................................................ 83 Roosevelt ............................................................................................................. 84 Sand Point ............................................................................................................ 86 South Lake Union ................................................................................................. 88 Metro Bus Ridership Changes by Neighborhood/Corridor (cont.) University District ................................................................................................. 90 Uptown ................................................................................................................ 94 View Ridge ........................................................................................................... 95 Wallingford .......................................................................................................... 97 Wedgwood ........................................................................................................... 99 Whittier Heights ................................................................................................. 101 Bus-Rail Transfer Activity .................................................................................... 103 Link Ridership ...................................................................................................... 106 Changes in Reliability .......................................................................................... 108 Changes in Travel Time ....................................................................................... 121 Implementation Success and Lessons Learned .................................................. 130 SECTION II: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................... 133 Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 133 Background ......................................................................................................... 135 Pre and Post Reconfiguration Surveys ................................................................ 144 Link Station Transfer Survey ............................................................................... 158 Survey with Phase 1 Onboard Respondents ....................................................... 164 Non-Riders Survey............................................................................................... 168 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 177 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The March 2016 Metro Transit service change evaluated in this report was both a major step forward and a learning opportunity for Metro as we move toward our future transit system: an integrated network of fast, frequent, reliable, and easy-to-use services that get people where they want to go, when they want to go. After two decades of planning and construction, Link light rail service was extended to Capitol Hill and the University of Washington in early 2016. Building on direction from the County Executive, King County Metro worked in partnership with Sound Transit to engage the public in shaping a set of bus service changes to better serve the destinations riders want to reach, expand high-frequency bus services, provide more reliable service, and integrate bus and rail services as the two new stations opened. This “Link Connections” project resulted in one of the largest service changes in Metro history, reflecting Link’s connection of the two busiest transit markets in the state—downtown Seattle and the University of Washington. The March 2016 service change affected 48 routes that provided more than 1.1 million hours of service annually before the change and grew by 193,000 annual service hours as part of the change—largely because of investments by the City of Seattle. The service revisions impacted almost one-third of the service hours in the entire Metro system. Link Connections was not the first major restructure of Metro bus service in recent years. However, the size and scope of the changes made it an important benchmark and focal point for Metro at a time when transit ridership is reaching record highs in the Puget Sound Region. The recent adoption of the METRO CONNECTS long-range vision and the passage of Sound Transit 3 in fall 2016 reflect regional priorities that include continued expansion and integration of transit services to provide high-quality public transportation throughout King County. The Link Connections project is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Motion No. M2020-02 Funding & Cooperative Agreement with City of Seattle for Northgate Access Improvements
    Motion No. M2020-02 Funding & Cooperative Agreement with City of Seattle for Northgate Access Improvements Meeting: Date: Type of action: Staff contact: System Expansion Committee 1/09/2020 Recommend to Board Ron Lewis, DECM Executive Board 1/23/2020 Final action Director Don Davis, Executive Project Director - Northgate Link Extension Kristin Hoffman, Senior Project Manager Proposed action Authorizes the chief executive officer to execute a Funding and Cooperative Agreement with the City of Seattle to contribute funding for Northgate pedestrian and bicycle access improvements, which includes credits for Northgate Link Extension work performed by Sound Transit in support of the agreement, for a total amount not to exceed $7,336,278. Key features summary This agreement implements Sound Transit’s funding contribution to Northgate pedestrian and bicycle access improvements as directed by Board Motion No. M2012-42. The City of Seattle has completed their requirements under Motion No. M2012-42, including securing the $10 million City match for the pedestrian and bicycle bridge access improvements and completing environmental review of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle access improvements. The City of Seattle is responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining the access improvements. Under the Funding and Cooperative Agreement, Sound Transit’s contribution is capped at $10 million which includes credits for current project commitments. These credits are for design, construction, and related administrative costs incurred to accommodate the Northgate access improvements. Sound Transit will reimburse the City on a quarterly basis up to $7,336,278 which reflects credits for work already completed by Sound Transit. Sound Transit's funding obligation for the Northgate access improvement projects terminates upon the opening of Northgate Station or December 31, 2021, whichever is later.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Gaps Analysis Executive Summary
    2020 GAPS ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A variety of unique transportation gaps exist in North King County, an area that includes the cities of North Seattle, Shoreline, Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, and Woodinville. These gaps may be spatial, temporal, institutional, infrastructural, or awareness gaps. Seeing these needs, a community task force supported by the North King County Mobility Coalition formed to understand the region's unique needs better. The purpose of this analysis is to: Understand the mobility challenges in the North King County region for populations with special transportation needs and, in doing so, better coordinate members and service providers to facilitate mobility improvement projects. As a result of this analysis, the North King County Mobility Coalition has identified several prioritized projects and actions for the region. Whether you’re a resident, an elected official, a human service organization, or a private business, a unified voice is required to enact these changes and ensure transportation better serves people throughout North King County. We invite you to join in on these conversations. Accomplishing projects related to the needs identified in this report will result in many benefits for the region and the people our coalition aims to serve. The most prominent recommendations for the North King County Region identified by this report are as follows: ► Directly engage with all North King County cities around transportation issues outlined in this Gaps Analysis and implement actions that will address these issues. ► Increase outreach to underserved communities, especially limited English speakers. ► Alternative services should be as low-barrier as possible with their intake process.
    [Show full text]
  • Sound Transit Transit Development Plan 2013-2018 and 2012 Annual Report
    Transit Development Plan 2013-2018 and 2012 Annual Report Public Hearing Held: July 11, 2013 Operations and Administration Committee Referral to Board: July 18, 2013 Board of Directors Approval for Submittal: July 25, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................2 I: ORGANIZATION .....................................................................................................................2 II: PHYSICAL PLANT ................................................................................................................5 III: SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................................6 IV: SERVICE CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................. 10 V: ACTIVITIES IN 2012 ............................................................................................................ 12 VI: PLANNED ACTION STRATEGIES, 2012 – 2018 .............................................................. 19 VII: PLANNED ACTIVITIES, 2012 – 2018 ............................................................................... 20 VIII: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, 2012 – 2018 ..................................................... 23 IX: OPERATING DATA, 2012 – 2018 ...................................................................................... 23 X: ANNUAL REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES, 2012 – 2018 .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suggested Route Changes for Fall 2012
    Suggested route changes for fall 2012 C Line – New Map of suggested change Suggested change • The new RapidRide C Line would connect Westwood Village and downtown Seattle via Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction, replacing Route 54 and Route 54 Express (current map). Learn more about the C Line. Reason for change • Service investment. Metro is making a service investment in the C Line, its third RapidRide line. New service hours and facilities are expected to speed service and make it more reliable, attracting higher ridership. • More network connections. The C Line would provide a frequent, direct, all-day connection between Westwood Village and downtown Seattle via Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction. It would offer connection opportunities to many frequent routes. • Simplify service. RapidRide service has features that make it easier to use, including real-time information signs and frequent service throughout the day. Alternative service • The C Line would use the same routing as routes 54 through Fauntleroy, Morgan Junction, and Alaska Junction. Service frequency Route Minutes between buses Weekday Saturday Sunday Peak Non-Peak Night C 10 15 30-60 15 15 www.kingcounty.gov/metro/HaveASay 1 King County Metro Transit | Suggested route changes for fall 2012 D Line – New Map of suggested change Suggested change • The New RapidRide D Line would connect Crown Hill and downtown Seattle via Ballard, Interbay, and Uptown (learn more). The D Line would replace Route 15 (both local and express) (current map). Reason for change • Service investment. Metro is making a service investment in the D Line, its fourth RapidRide line.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Detailed Definition of Level 2 Alternatives
    4 DETAILED DEFINITION OF LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVES Based on the conclusions of the Level 1 alternatives evaluation, two light rail alternatives and one BRT alternative, along with the TSM/Baseline and No Build Alternatives, were advanced to the next level of development and evaluation. The findings of the Level 1 evaluation also resulted in recommended refinements and modifications to all of the build alternatives. This chapter summarizes the detailed definitions of the No Build, TSM/Baseline, and three build alternatives carried forward for Level 2 evaluation. Additional information and more detailed alignment and station illustrations are provided in the Level 2 Definition of Alternatives Technical Memorandum (Sound Transit 2011f). The assumptions and guiding principles for the development of the Level 2 alternatives remained the same as those described in Section 3.7.1 for the Level 1 alternatives. 4.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The Level 2 No Build Alternative included only those improvements committed and funded for implementation by the transportation providers in the region. The Level 2 No Build Alternative was unchanged from that defined in Level 1. 4.1.1 Transportation Facilities Only those physical improvements currently funded and committed as of fall 2010 are included in this alternative. Within the study area, these improvements include a number of minor lane additions and modifications to eliminate choke points along I-5, traffic management, and driver information improvements on I-5; and the completion of roadway, BRT, and intersection improvements to SR 99 in Shoreline. The most significant change from today in the study area included in the No Build Alternative is the assumption that light rail extends north to Northgate.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Standards Manual October, 2009 King County Metro Graphic Standards and Guidelines
    Design Standards Manual October, 2009 King County Metro Graphic Standards and Guidelines Contents Introduction to the RapidRide Brand....................................................................1-1 RapidRide Brand Identity Trademark...................................................................................................1-3 Color Palette ...............................................................................................1-4 Proportions.................................................................................................1-5 Clear Space.................................................................................................1-6 Color ..........................................................................................................1-7 Reversed.....................................................................................................1-8 Incorrect Usage...........................................................................................1-9 In Conjunction with the King County Metro Logo .......................................1-11 Print and Electronic Applications System Brochure Cover................................................................................2-1 System Map Style........................................................................................2-2 Line Map Style ............................................................................................2-3 Metro System Map with RapidRide Lines......................................................2-5
    [Show full text]
  • North Corridor Transit Project
    Lynnwood Link Extension Lynnwood Link Extension June 2012 North Corridor Transit Project - NEXT STEPS With route and station alternatives identified, the project team will begin the now Lynnwood Link Extension analysis in order to develop the draft EIS document. This environmental review complies with state and federal law. The draft EIS will examine the potential PROJECT BACKGROUND environmental impacts and benefits of the project alternatives. Where adverse impacts are identified, the draft EIS will identify mitigation measures to avoid The Lynnwood Link Extension is part of the voter-approved Sound Transit 2 IN THIS ISSUE or minimize the impacts for each alternative. The draft EIS is anticipated to be Plan to extend mass transit throughout the region. Once completed in 2023, the Project name change published for public and agency review in mid-2013. You will have the opportunity project will be the northern extension of a light rail system that will provide more than 50 miles of service to the north, south and east of Seattle. to attend public meetings and provide formal comments on the draft EIS Route and station options document. Stay tuned for more information as the project progresses. for review OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN MORE Next steps and schedule Thank you to those who stopped by one of the 10 drop-in sessions held in March Opportunities for the public 2012 from north Seattle to Lynnwood – we were able to speak with over 450 to learn more people and collect more than 200 comments about stations and routes. The team Field observation and testing received a lot of valuable input, which helped the Board identify route and station alternatives for further consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • King County Impact Analysis
    MEMORANDUM To: Executive Dow Constantine From: Rob Gannon, King County Metro John Taylor, Department of Local Services Date: September 18, 2019 Subject: Analysis of Initiative 976 impacts in King County Introduction. Initiative 976, “Bring back our $30 car tab fees,” would repeal or remove authority to impose certain vehicle taxes and fees; limit state and local license fees to $30 for motor vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds or less, except charges approved by voters after the measure's effective date; base vehicle taxes on Kelley Blue Book value; require regional transit authorities to retire bonds early where allowed; and either reduce or repeal taxes pledged to bonds depending on whether bonds are retired by 2020. I-976 will be on the November 2019 ballot statewide. This memo provides a summary of the potential impacts of I-976 to King County Metro, the Roads Services Division, and the regional transportation system. It is based on analysis performed by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), King County, and local jurisdictions. More information on this analysis can be found in the Technical Appendix that begins on page 4. Impacts on King County and local communities. King County does not currently collect a vehicle license fee (VLF) or motor vehicle excise tax (MVET), the taxing sources that would be repealed by Initiative 976. However, the State of Washington, Sound Transit, and 13 King County cities use these tax sources to fund mobility projects in King County, including many operated by Metro or Roads Services. It is difficult to definitively determine the effects of the initiative because its implementation will rely on future decisions of the Legislature, city councils, and Sound Transit Board, and resolution of any potential legal challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Investments Typical Cross Sections
    Broadview Pinehurst Haller Lake NE NORTHGATE WAY SAND POINT WAY NE Broadview Pinehurst Bitter Lake Haller Lake NE NORTHGATE WAY Victory Heights SAND POINT WAY NE Bitter Lake Victory Heights N 105TH ST N NORTHGATE WAY NE AVE 3RD N 105TH ST N NORTHGATE WAY NE AVE 3RD MERIDIAN AVE N AVE MERIDIAN 1ST AVE NE AVE 1ST MERIDIAN AVE N AVE MERIDIAN Targeted InvestmentsNE AVE 1ST Meadowbrook Meadowbrook Typical Cross Sections 103RD ST Matthews Beach GREENWOOD AVE N AVE GREENWOOD NW 100TH ST Northgate Transit NE 103RD ST A100TH ST 3RD AVE NW AVE 3RD Matthews Beach Center 98TH ST 10rd Street NE 4 CtC 60 RW North Beach/Blue Ridge N AVE GREENWOOD NW 96TH ST Northgate Transit Center RAVENNA AVE NE A NW 100TH ST HOLMAN RD NW North College Park Maple Leaf 103rd Street NE NE 100TH ST NE 95TH ST 3RD AVE NW AVE 3RD (Northern Terminus) Crown Hill N AVE AURORA NE 92ND STB North Beach/Blue Ridge NE WAY ROOSEVELT N 90TH ST Greenwood RAVENNA AVE NE NW 96TH ST HOLMAN RD NW NELAKE CITYWAY Maple Leaf 5TH AVE NE AVE 5TH NW 85TH ST North CollegeN 85TH ST Park CORLISS WAY N NE 95TH ST WALLINGFORD AVE N AVE WALLINGFORD 5th Ave NE Wedgwood& NE 95th GREEN LAKE DR N ROOSEVELT WAY NE WAY ROOSEVELT Crown Hill N AVE AURORA NW 80TH ST LINDEN AVE N NE 92ND ST NE 80TH ST 15TH AVE NE AVE 15TH Northgate and SR522 View Ridge Loyal HeightsGreenwoodWhittier Heights N 90TH ST NE 75TH ST 25TH AVE NE AVE 25TH 15 12 10 12 11 20TH AVE NE AVE 20TH Green Lake NELAKE CITYWAY C NE 70TH ST NE RAVENNA BLVD Roosevelt Sidewalk Trac with Turn Lane Trac with Sidewalk 8TH AVE NW 8TH AVE LATONA AVE
    [Show full text]
  • TCRP Report 102 – Transit-Oriented
    TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH TCRP PROGRAM REPORT 102 Transit-Oriented Sponsored by Development in the the Federal United States: Transit Administration Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2004 (Membership as of January 2004) SELECTION COMMITTEE (as of January 2004) OFFICERS CHAIR Chair: Michael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA J. BARRY BARKER Vice Chair: Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner, New York State DOT Transit Authority of River City Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MEMBERS KAREN ANTION MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT Karen Antion Consulting SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC GORDON AOYAGI Montgomery County Government E. DEAN CARLSON, Director, Carlson Associates, Topeka, KS RONALD L. BARNES JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads Central Ohio Transit Authority DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN LINDA J. BOHLINGER GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center and Professor, School of Policy, HNTB Corp. Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles ANDREW BONDS, JR. BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Prof. of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JENNIFER L. DORN JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, Landstar Logistics, Inc., Jacksonville, FL FTA HENRY L. HUNGERBEELER, Director, Missouri DOT NATHANIEL P. FORD, SR. ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Metropolitan Atlanta RTA RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments CONSTANCE GARBER HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT York County Community Action Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Rapidride Roosevelt Project Scoping Report
    Appendix A RapidRide Roosevelt Project Scoping Report THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FINAL REPORT RAPIDRIDE ROOSEVELT PROJECT SCOPING REPORT Prepared for Seattle Department of Transportation March 2019 (Updated January 2020) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................v 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 2. Scoping process .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Overview of Scoping Process ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Notification Process ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Public and Agency/Tribal Scoping Meetings...................................................................... 2-2 3. Agency/Tribal Scoping .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Agencies and Tribes Invited to Participate .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Northgate Transit Oriented Development FACT SHEET
    Winter 2017 Northgate Transit Oriented Development FACT SHEET ABOUT THE PROJECT The Northgate TOD will be a King County and the City of Seattle are working together on mixed use, affordable and vibrant the Northgate Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project to community where people of all redevelop King County’s property near the Northgate Mall and future Northgate Link Light Rail Station. incomes live close to where they work, play and shop. 1st Ave NE NORTHGATE MALL WHAT IS TRANSIT NE 103rd St ORIENTED 3rd Ave NE 5th Ave NE DEVELOPMENT (TOD)? TOD is a type of community NORTHGATE THORNTON TOD PLACE development that includes housing, office, retail and/or other amenities located near public transportation 5 NE 100th St like light rail. N Successful TOD provides people from all walks of life with Today, the four-block area bounded by First Avenue NE, Third convenient, affordable housing and Avenue NE, NE 100th Street, and NE 103rd Street consists transportation options. of a bus transit center and surface parking lots. The project will replace the transit center and parking lots with market- rate and affordable housing as well as retail and commercial IMPROVED TOD MEANS: space. A portion of the redevelopment is planned to open as MORE... LESS... soon as 2021, close to when Sound Transit’s Northgate Link • Car trips and Station is scheduled to open (https://www.soundtransit.org/ • Walkable communities household northgatestation). • Transit service and ridership driving This TOD project is an opportunity to create a vibrant, inclusive • Mobility choices • Traffic community where people of all income levels live close to • Economic opportunity congestion where they work, play, and shop.
    [Show full text]