DOCSLIB.ORG

Report – March 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Agenda # 9-1 May 9, 2016 Meeting To: Board of Directors From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO Subject: Monthly Report – March 2016 Attached is a summary of monthly performance statistics for the transportation, maintenance, and administration departments and a status update on progress made in pursuit of the FY 2016 Action Plan for March 2016 (Attachments 1-5). March 3 – 4, 2016 I attended a meeting of the California Transit Association Executive Committee in San Diego, CA to discuss strategic planning for the association. March 11 – 15, 2016 I attended the American Public Transit Association Legislative Conference in Washington, DC to participate in meetings of the APTA Executive Committee, the APTA Board of Directors, various committees and informational meetings. March 29, 2016 I attended the California Association for Coordinated Transportation conference in San Diego, CA where I participated on a panel presentation on local transportation sales tax measures. March 30, 2016 I met with Josh Shaw, executive director of the California Transit Association to discuss changes in State Transit Assistance allocations and other matters related to the association. Later that day I participated in a meeting of the Oversight Committee of the California Transit Indemnity Pool. Attachment #1 – Dashboard Performance Statistics Attachment #2 – Operations Dept. Report – March 2016 Attachment #3 – Facilities & Maintenance Dept. Report – March 2016 Attachment #4 – Administration Dept. Report – March 2016 Attachment #5 – FY 2016 Action Plan Status Update – March 2016 A complete detail of Monthly Performance Statistics can be viewed within the GM Report at http://www.mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/ Prepared by: ______________________ ATTACHMENT 1 MST Fixed Route YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics Months of July - March Fiscal Years 2014-2016 Ridership Goal = 3,219,175 passengers 3,300,000 3,000,000 3,186,642 3,114,775 3,156,054 2,700,000 2,400,000 Minimum = 2,840,449 passengers 2,100,000 1,800,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 900,000 600,000 300,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total passenger boardings) Passengers Per Hour Goal = 20 passengers p/h 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 Minimum = 15 passengers p/h 18.0 16.0 17.71 14.0 16.06 15.15 12.0 10.0 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Passengers per hour of service) On Time Performance 95.00% Goal = 90% on time 90.00% 90.2% 85.00% 86.5% Minimum = 75% on time 80.00% 82.3% 75.00% 70.00% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Percent of trips within 5 minutes of scheduled arrival) Percentage of Service Delivered 100.00% Goal = 99% completed 99.00% 98.00% 99.91% 99.93% 99.95% 97.00% 96.00% Minimum = 95% completed 95.00% 94.00% 93.00% 92.00% 91.00% 90.00% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Percentage of scheduled trips completed) *Data for Fiscal Year 2013 Unavailable MST Fixed Route YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics Months of July - March Fiscal Years 2014-2016 Fare Box Recovery Ratio Goal = 25% 28% 25% 24% 22% 23% Minimum = 15% 19% 21% 16% 13% 10% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Ratio of passenger fares to total operating costs) Cost Per Revenue Hour $180.00 Maximum = $145.00 per RH $170.00 $160.00 $150.00 $140.00 Goal = $131.67 per RH $130.00 $120.00 $125.28 $128.98 $110.00 $118.91 $100.00 $90.00 $80.00 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total operating cost per hour of service) Miles Between Preventable Collisions 250,000 225,000 Goal = 200K Miles 227,221 200,000 213,977 175,000 189,960 150,000 Minimum = 100K Miles 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total miles travelled between preventable collisions) Miles Between Road Calls 32,000 29,000 26,000 Goal = 15K Miles 23,000 20,000 23,144 17,000 Minimum = 7K Miles 14,000 16,768 14,317 11,000 8,000 5,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Miles travelled between mechanical failure) MST RIDES YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics Months of July - March Fiscal Years 2014-2016 Ridership 98,000 Goal = 87,884 passengers 90,000 82,000 85,943 74,000 85,187 77,229 66,000 Maximum = 96,672 passengers 58,000 50,000 42,000 34,000 26,000 18,000 10,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total cumulative YTD passenger boardings) Passengers Per Hour 2.40 Goal = 1.87 passengers p/h 2.20 2.00 1.80 2.13 1.60 1.83 1.40 1.56 Maximum = 2.06 passengers p/h 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 - FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Passengers per hour of service) On Time Performance 100.0% 97.5% 95.0% Goal = 90% on time 92.5% 90.0% 87.5% 91.2% 85.0% Minimum = 80% on time 82.5% 85.5% 80.0% 77.5% 82.2% 75.0% 72.5% 70.0% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Percent of trips within 15 minutes of scheduled arrival) One Way Trips 77,000 71,000 Maximum = 76,222 one-way trips 65,000 72,807 59,000 68,302 53,000 59,794 47,000 41,000 Goal = 69,293 one-way trips 35,000 29,000 23,000 17,000 11,000 5,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total cumulative YTD one-way passenger trips completed) MST RIDES YTD Dashboard Performance Comparative Statistics Months of July - March Fiscal Years 2014-2016 Fare Box Recovery Ratio 17.0% Goal = 11% 15.0% 15.9% 13.0% 12.8% Minimum = 10% 11.0% 9.0% 10.9% 7.0% 5.0% FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Ratio of passenger fares to total operating costs) Cost Per Revenue Hour $100.00 Goal = $70.86 $90.00 $80.00 $70.00 $60.00 $67.09 Maximum = $77.95 $50.00 $50.53 $40.00 $44.10 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total operating cost per hour of service) Miles Between Preventable Collisions 110,000 100,000 Goal = 110K Miles 90,000 90,682 80,000 78,670 70,000 72,936 Minimum = 100K Miles 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Total miles travelled between preventable collisions) Miles Between Road Calls 90,000 80,000 Goal = 60,000 miles 70,000 77,875 60,000 65,508 50,000 64,779 Minimum = 30,000 miles 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 (Miles travelled between mechanical failure) MST Fixed Route Financial Performance Comparative Statistics July - March Fiscal Year 2016 MST Fixed Route Total Revenue YTD Actual and Budget $32,500,000 $28,000,000 $23,500,000 $28,092,369 $27,799,119 $19,000,000 $14,500,000 $10,000,000 $5,500,000 Minimum 95% $1,000,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST Fixed Route Total Expenses YTD Actual and Budget $28,000,000 $23,500,000 $27,314,595 $24,945,820 $19,000,000 $14,500,000 Maximum 105% $10,000,000 $5,500,000 $1,000,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST RIDES Financial Performance Comparative Statistics July - March Fiscal Year 2016 MST RIDES Total Revenue YTD Actual and Budget $3,100,000 $2,700,000 $2,300,000 $2,806,227 $2,813,373 $1,900,000 $1,500,000 $1,100,000 $700,000 Minimum 95% $300,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget MST RIDES Total Expenses YTD Actual and Budget $3,100,000 $2,700,000 $2,813,373 $2,300,000 $2,686,998 $1,900,000 Maximum 105% $1,500,000 $1,100,000 $700,000 $300,000 YTD Actual YTD Budget ATTACHMENT 2 April 27, 2016 To: Mike Hernandez, Assistant General Manager / C.O.O. From: Robert Weber, Director - Transportation Services Cc: MST Board of Directors Subject: Transportation Department Monthly Report March 2016 FIXED ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS: System Wide Service: (Fixed Route & On Call Services): Preliminary boarding statistics indicate that ridership decreased by 1.55% in March 2016, (350,899), as compared to March 2015, (356,419). Fiscal year to date – passenger boardings have increased by 0.97% as compared to the same period last year. Productivity decreased from 15.5 passengers per hour (March 2015) to 14.3 in March of this year. Supplemental / Special Services: March 5: In support of the Monterey Bay Aquarium “Free To Learn” program, MST provided shuttle services between; the City of Salinas to the Aquarium. The service transported 44 passengers. March 18 & 21: In support of the Monterey Symphony, MST provided shuttle services between; the Sally Griffin Center and the Ord Terrace School in Seaside to Sherwood Hall & the Sunset Center in Carmel. The service transported 83 passengers. March 30: MST provided Trolley shuttle services between the Marriot Hotel in Monterey to the Cannery row area for the annual Aspiring Counties conference. The service transported 16 passengers. System Wide Statistics: . Ridership: 350,899 . Vehicle Revenue Hours: 23,371 . Vehicle Revenue Miles: 401,107 . System Productivity: 14.3 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hour . One-Way Trips Provided: 34,803 Time Point Adherence: Of 141,071 total time-point crossings sampled for the month of March, the TransitMaster system recorded 16,110 delayed arrivals to MST’s published time-points system-wide. This denotes that 88.58% of all scheduled arrivals at published time-points were on time.
Recommended publications
  • Monroe-Sachs Interchange

    Monroe-Sachs Interchange

    Table of Contents Chassis Section Nova Bus 22 Binkley 1 Orion Bus 23 Bluebird School Bus 1 Oshkosh 23 Brockway School Bus 1 Page Suspension 23 Built Rite Trailer 1 Pai Corporation 23 Cascade Trailer 1 Peerles Trailer 23 Chalmers Suspension 1 Peterbilt 23 Chance Bus 1 Prevost 24 Chevrolet 1 Reyco Suspension 24 Duplex Truck 2 Ridewell Corporation 24 Dura Suspension 3 Sterling 25 East Manufacturing Trailer 3 Trailmobile Canada Corp. 25 Ford 3 Turner Quick-Lift Corporation 26 Freightliner 3 Tuthill Technologies 26 Freightliner Custom Chassis 7 Twin Coach 26 Fruehauf 8 Utility Trailer 26 General Trailer Co. 8 Volvo 27 Gillig 8 Watson & Chain Suspension 28 GMC 8 Western Star 28 Great Dane Trailer 10 Western Unit 29 Hardee Manufacturing 10 Hendrickson 11 Highway Product 12 Cab Section Holland 12 Freightliner 30 Hutchens Suspension 12 Link Cabmate Air Suspension 30 Ikarus Bus 12 Western Star 31 International 12 Isuzu 15 Kenworth 16 Lodal Refuse Haulers 18 OEM Interchange 32 Mack 18 Gabriel - SACHS Interchange 37 Marmon Motor 20 Meritor - SACHS Interchange 38 Mitsubishi – Fuso 20 Monroe - SACHS Interchange 39 Neway 20 Specification Chart 40 North American Bus Industries 22 Customer Service & Technical Hotline Back Cover Important Notice The purpose of this catalog is to furnish ZF Services, LLC customers with as complete a listing of their parts requirements as possible. All listings, applications, and interchanges have been compiled as carefully as possible with all available information however, ZF Services, LLC cannot assume any responsibility for possible errors in listings, applications, or interchanges. All references by ZF Services, LLC to the original manufacturer trade names and part numbers are for identification purposes only.
  • Cta 2016 Historical Calendar Cta 2016 January

    Cta 2016 Historical Calendar Cta 2016 January

    cta 2016 Historical Calendar cta 2016 January Chicago Motor Coach Company (CMC) bus #434, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company, was part of a fleet of buses operated by the Chicago Motor Coach Company, one of the predecessor transit companies that were eventually assimilated into the Chicago Transit Authority. The CMC originally operated buses exclusively on the various park boulevards in Chicago, and became known by the marketing slogan, “The Boulevard Route.” Later, service was expanded to operate on some regular streets not served by the Chicago Surface Lines, particularly on the fringes of the city. Chicagoans truly wanted a unified transit system, and it was for this reason that the Chicago Transit Authority was established by charter in 1945. The CMC was not one of the initial properties purchased that made up CTA’s inaugural services on October 1, 1947; however, it was bought by CTA in 1952. D E SABCDEFG: MDecember 2015 T February 2016 W T F S CTA Operations Division S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Group Days Off 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 t Alternate day off if you 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 work on this day 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l Central offices closed 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 1New Year’s Day 2 E F G A B C D 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D E F G A B C 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 C D E F G A B 17 18Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Field Operations Program -- Overview Of

    Field Operations Program -- Overview Of

    July 2000 • NREL/MP-540-27962 Field Operations Program― Overview of Advanced Technology Transportation CY2000 K. Kelly L. Eudy National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 NREL is a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Operated by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste Field Operations Program—Overview of Advanced Technology Transportation, CY 2000 The transportation industry’s private sector is adept at understanding and meeting the demands of its customers; the federal government has a role in encouraging the development of products that are in the long-term interest of the greater public good. It is up to the government to understand issues that affect public health, well-being, and security.
  • 1973) Is, by Almost Any Means of Reconing, a Little Late

    1973) Is, by Almost Any Means of Reconing, a Little Late

    MUN SURV __..___._ ........_~~ ... it if ii ':, "i I ' ~ .11; ~ ' Ii; I Ii; it ' ' I .. ,\ .~ ' ' ~ .;, l -6, l ' 'I .,__ I I . I L I ' L L L • . L I .t.lii i~ h • I • . I •I I I ' I I I I i I I I I L_ "- L L I 'I '- I I 'I I I I I I ! I I I l I '-- '- ._ I - - L_ ' q I i ! i - .L - ,-I 1 I I' ' - I I I I I I ' I I I - ' I - I I I I I ' I - - ! I j ! I - -- - , .:..._ I I I -- I I l MUNICIPAL RAILWAY SURVEY -- 1969-1970 I F O R E W O R D: The Municipal Railway Survey -- 1969-1970 is the fourth in a series of in-depth looks at the operations of various public transit systems in the Western United States (the 1967 SCRTD Survey, Pasadena City Lines I and Denver Tramway were the other three). The publication of this article at this time (January, 1973) is, by almost any means of reconing, a little late. The reason for the lack of timeliness is simply that it took the volunteer workers who prepared this article in their s pare time this long to produce it! The reader might well ask hims elf why the material herein wasn't updated and the article titled Munici­ I pal Railway Survey -- 1972-1973, The answer to this question is that the 1969-1970 fis cal year represented a sign i ficant t urning point in the history of the SAN FRANC ISCO MUNICIPAL RAILWAY.
  • Biodiesel Fleet Durability Study

    Biodiesel Fleet Durability Study

    Draft Final Report Biodiesel Fleet Durability Study Prepared for: Mr. Bob Okamoto California Air Resources Board 1001 "I" Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 July 2010 Submitted by: Dr. Thomas D. Durbin Dr. J. Wayne Miller Ms. S. Michelle Jiang University of California CE-CERT Riverside, CA 92521 951-781-5791 951-781-5790 (fax) Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the California Air Resource Board. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products. Acknowledgments We acknowledge funding from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under the grant No. G06-AF38. i Table of Contents Disclaimer i Acknowledgments i Table of Contents ii List of Tables iv Table of Figures v Abstract vi Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Executive Summary ix 1 Introduction 1 2 Biodiesel Use in Use in Compression Ignition Engines 3 2.1 Biodiesel Basics 3 2.1.1 What is Biodiesel? 3 2.1.2 Properties of Commercial #2 Diesel and Biodiesel Fuels 3 2.1.3 Biodiesel Fuel Standards 5 2.2 Engine and Fuel System with Biodiesel Use 7 2.2.1 Biodiesel Use in Compression Ignition Engines 7 2.2.2 Statement of the Diesel Fuel Injector Manufacturers 9 2.2.3 Warranties 9 2.2.4 Engine Performance 12 2.2.5 Biodiesel Solvency & Filter Plugging 12 2.2.6 Materials Compatibility 12 2.3
  • 2017Chicago Transit Authority a Horse Drawn Omnibus, Originally Operated by the Citizen’S Line Circa 1853, Is Displayed at West Shops at Pulaski and Lake

    2017Chicago Transit Authority a Horse Drawn Omnibus, Originally Operated by the Citizen’S Line Circa 1853, Is Displayed at West Shops at Pulaski and Lake

    HISTORICAL CALENDAR 2017Chicago Transit Authority A horse drawn omnibus, originally operated by the Citizen’s Line circa 1853, is displayed at West Shops at Pulaski and Lake. These early transit vehicles were quite primitive, barely just a notch above stagecoaches – little more than hard, wooden bench seats were provided on either side of very sparsely appointed coaches, with no heat, light, or other amenities. It is hard to believe that, from such humble beginnings, Chicago would one day have the second largest public transit system in North America, as it does today. January 2017 S M T W T F S B C D E F G A 1 New Year’s Day 2 3 4 5 6 7 A B C D E F G 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 G A B C D E F Martin Luther 15 16 King, Jr. Day 17 18 19 20 21 F G A B C D E 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E F G ABCDEFG: December 2016 February 2017 CTA Operations S M T W T F S S M T W T F S Division 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 Group Days Off 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t Alternate day off if 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 you work on this day 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 l Central offices closed 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 26 27 28 Chicago streetcar #225 is outside of the 77th Street carbarn, sporting an early Chicago Transit Authority emblem but still wearing the red and cream color scheme of its predecessor company, the Chicago Surface Lines.
  • Bill No. 85-33 (COR)

    Bill No. 85-33 (COR)

    I lWINA'TRENTAI TRES NA LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN 2015 (FIRST) Regular Session Bill No Introduced by: T. C. Ada AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE GUAM REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (GRTA) TO ENTER INTO A LONG TERM PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT WILL ENABLE AN INVESTOR FINANCED IMPLEMENT A TI ON OF THE GOVERN~1ENT OF GlJAivl TRANSIT BUSINESS PLAN 2009-2015. '~ 1 Section I. Findings & Intent. 1 Lihes/aturan Guahan finds that an effec'\iii-e \:o\_ 2 and efficient public transit system is needed to support Guam· s growing popu.J)i{ion '• '°'\%, 3 and economic development. •" 4 And I Liheslaturan Guahan further finds that a similar observation was 5 made by the Governor of Guam on February 20, 2014 through Executive Order 6 2014-04 noting that despite millions of dollars of annual subsidies, Guam's public 7 transit system is: ( J) "lacking in timeliness, re!iahi/i(y. accessibility··· al! necessary 8 fi111ctions of'transportation and economy ... ". and (2) " ... As the demand [f(Jr 9 transportation related services} grows. so do the concerns over traffic 10 congestion ... ". and 0) " ... improving acccssihi!i(v to contemporary transportation 11 to all Guamanians is a priority .. 12 1 Lihes/aturan Guahan further finds that the island's public transit system is 13 rapidly deteriorating. Consequently the eJlectiveness of the current system is being 14 negatively impacted and is losing its ability to eHiciently serve as an alternate 1 1 mode of transportation. This is evidenced by the fact that ridership has declined 2 30% in the past 4 years. 3 I Liheslaturan Guahan additionally finds that in a December 2008 study, 4 jointly commissioned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 5 Department of Public \Yorks (DP\V) and which formed the basis for the 2030 6 Guam Transportation MasterPlan, the following findings were made.
  • 2020-2025 Transit Development Plan

    2020-2025 Transit Development Plan

    2020 - 2025 TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Wheaton Way Transit Center Grand Opening Nov. 2019 Photo By All American Marine Table of Contents Contents Glossary 3 Section I: Organization 3 Section II: Physical Plant 6 Section III: Service Characteristics 7 Section IV: Service Connections 10 Section V: Activities in 2019 12 Section VI: Proposed Action Strategies, 2020 – 2025 14 Section VII: Capital Planning 16 Section VIII: Operating Data, 2019 – 2025 17 Section IX: Operating Revenues and Expenditures, 2019 – 2025 19 Section X: Transit System Vision Map 20 Appendix I: Routed System Map 21 Appendix II: Equipment & Facilities Asset Inventory 22 Appendix III: Fleet Inventory 23 Appendix IV: SK Ride Service Area Map 24 Appendix V: Kingston Ride Service Area Map 25 Appendix VI: Kingston Fast Ferry Commuter Service Area Map 26 Kitsap Transit 60 Washington Avenue, Suite 200, Bremerton, WA 98337 Date of Public Hearing: September 1, 2020 Pursuant to RCW 35.58.2795 2 Glossary ACCESS – Kitsap Transit’s ADA demand ORCA – One Regional Card for All regional response bus service fare payment card used on Puget Sound area transit systems and WSF ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act PSNS – Puget Sound Naval Shipyard APC – Automatic Passenger Counters ROW – Right of Way AVL – Automatic Vehicle Locator RRFP – Regional Reduced Fare Permit ORCA BTC – Bremerton Transportation Center Card for qualified persons to ride for reduced cost at ½ the normal fare. CRA – Comprehensive Route Analysis TAM – Transit Asset Management Plan CTR – Commute Trip Reduction TIP – Transportation Incentive Program for DOD – Department of Defense Department of Navy employees to help reduce their daily contribution to traffic DSHS – Department of Social and Health congestion and air pollution, as well as Services expand their commuting alternatives.
  • Chassis Catalog

    Chassis Catalog

    Parts for Trucks, Trailers & Buses ® BUS PARTS 7 CHASSIS Proven, reliable and always innovative. TRP® offers reliable aftermarket products that are designed and tested to exceed customers’ expectations regardless of the vehicle make, model or age. FENDERS • SUSPENSION & RIDE CONTROL • WHEEL END Tested. Reliable. Guaranteed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chassis CHASSIS FENDERS Choosing the right Half Fenders - Poly ............................7-5 replacement part or service for your vehicle—whether you own Full Fenders - Poly ............................7-6 one, or a fleet—is one of the Single Axle Fenders - Poly ......................7-7 most important decisions you can make for your business. Super Single Fenders - Half . 7-9 And, with tested TRP® parts Super Single Fenders - Full .....................7-9 it’s an easy decision. Super Single Fenders - Quarter .................7-11 Regardless of the make you drive, TRP® quality Half Fenders ................................7-13 replacement parts are Full Fenders ................................7-17 engineered to fit your truck, trailer or bus. Choose the Single Axle Fenders ..........................7-21 parts that give you the best Quarter Fenders . 7-26 value for your business. Check them out at an approved Fender Mounting Kits .........................7-29 ® TRP retailer near you. Top Flap for Quarter Fender ....................7-39 Mudflap Hangers ............................7-40 The cross reference information in this catalog is based upon data provided by several industry sources and our partners. While every attempt is made to ensure the information presented is accurate, we bear no liability due to incorrect or incomplete information. Product Availability Due to export restrictions and market ® demands, not all products are TRP North America always available in every location.
  • Transit Service

    Transit Service

    TRANSIT SERVICE Transit services in Glendale include the Beeline local transit system and the services provided by the MTA. These systems combine to provide frequent transit service on many key streets in downtown Glendale. Transit service is offered at least every 10 minutes on Brand, Central south of Broadway, San Fernando, 4 Glendale Boulevard, and Broadway. With service this frequent, riders do not need to carry a schedule, but can depend on the next bus arriving soon after they reach their bus stop. Figure 4-1 shows the existing transit services in the study area, including services provided by MTA and the City of Glendale. Despite this network of high frequency transit services, many residents in Glendale find transit services inadequate, or are unaware of the level of service actually provided. GLENDALE DOWNTOWN MOBILITY STUDY | 4-1 4.1 PRINCIPLES The key principles for improving transit service in Glendale include increasing awareness about the services that are avail- able, and marketing a complete system to riders who can choose whether an MTA or Beeline route serves them best. The Downtown Mobility Study recommends operating a new shuttle route which will be dedicated to downtown travel, and linking regional transit corridors with the commercial, entertainment and employment opportunities in the Glendale core. The shuttle route, which can begin service almost immediately using exist- ing resources, should ultimately be improved and expanded for a long term future that may include streetcar operations. Create and market a comprehensive system of coordinated re- gional and local transit that takes advantage of the relatively high level of service that already exists in Glendale, and emphasizes new linkages where needed.
  • Official Newsletter of the Omnibus Society of America, Inc

    Official Newsletter of the Omnibus Society of America, Inc

    AUGUST 1983 OFFICIAL NEWSLETTER OF THE OMNIBUS SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC. RUN#17 2 COVER VIEW CATCO NEWS This month's cover is a safety reminder Under an agreement with Midway Airlines, from the Chicago Motor Coach Co., circa Continental Air Transport has rePainted J 1924. (M. Bernero collection) MCSB's into Midway's new Metrolink (Chicago -LaGuardia) business class service paint JUNE MEETING scheme. The buses are assigned to the downtown Chicago to Midway Airport run. The On June Jrd, the regular monthly meet- buses are painted in maroon, white and gray. ing of OSA was held at Chicago's own CATCO is also now operating the Chicago Bismarck Hotel. Slides were presented Gray Line service, but with North Alnerican by just about everyone. Coverage ranged buses piloted by CATCO drivers who are also from the Milwaukee convention of the providing the commentary. Formal transfer Motor Bus Society to GM trolley coaqhes of the Gray Line franchise from North in Edmonton, canada. A fantastic time American to Continental is expected in the was had by all. tuture. UPCOMING EVENTS TRAILWAYS Our next meeting is scheduled for Oct. On June 21st, under sunny skies, Trailways 7. 198J, at the Bismarck Hotel in new Milwaukee terminal was dedicated in a downtown Chicago at 7:30pm. We are public ceremony. Locat.ed at the corner of also hoping to hold several special 12th and Wells streets. the former tire events between now and October. stay company facility offers a spacious, air- . tuned for details. conditioned waiting room and two indoor bus bays.
  • Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation Filling a Need for Higher Quality

    Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation Filling a Need for Higher Quality

    Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation Filling a Need for Higher Quality Mid-Size Buses The Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation facility in Gaffney, South Carolina covers a total area of 74 acres and includes 283,000 square feet under roof. More than 20,000 chassis are built annually, and more than 600 people are employed at this facility. What makes these FCCC chassis so remarkable is that they are taking the industry to new levels of quality in the area of body-on- by Larry Plachno chassis buses. FCCC. hile Freightliner Custom Chassis tomers, thus increasing this gap in bus sizes. integral coaches but also matched them in Corporation (FCCC) can claim On this side of the Atlantic, bus operators amenities. Even Australia had their remark- Wmany achievements, perhaps the saw little or no advantage in buying shorter able GM-Dennings. The United States and most important is that it has filled a need for integral coaches. The primary difference Canada needed someone to step in and fill quality mid-size buses in recent years. between a 40- and 45-foot coach is only five this gap. Since the traditional low price of Among other things, FCCC has vindicated feet of steel and glass. Hence, the selling fuel in the United States and Canada mini- me in my prediction many years ago that price difference between the two sizes was mized the incentive for shorter integral higher quality body-on-chassis buses would minimal while operating costs were virtu- coaches, it was obvious that the solution to soon become available on the United States ally the same.