Transit Performance Report FY 2017 (JULY 1, 2016 - JUNE 30, 2017)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report
Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report Public Review Draft October 2017 Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison October 2017 Research and Peer Review Research and Peer Review .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A Note on TCRP Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Elasticity of Demand for Commuter Rail ............................................................................... 3 Definition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Commuter Rail Elasticity ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison with Peer Systems ............................................................................................ 4 Fares ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Employer Programs .................................................................................................................................................. -
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Performance Characteristics Stations Mixed Traffic Lanes* Service Characteristics Newest Corridor End‐to‐End Travel Departures Every 'X' Travel Speed (MPH) City Corridor Segment Open length (mi) # Spacing (mi) Miles % Time Minutes BRT Systems Boston Silver Line Washington Street ‐ SL5 2002 2.40 13 0.18 1.03 42.93% 19 7 7.58 Oakland San Pablo Rapid ‐ 72R 2003 14.79 52 0.28 14.79 100.00% 60 12 14.79 Albuquerque The Red Line (766) 2004 11.00 17 0.65 10.32 93.79% 44 18 15.00 Kansas City Main Street ‐ MAX "Orange Line" 2005 8.95 22 0.41 4.29 47.92% 40 10 13.42 Eugene Green Line 2007 3.98 10 0.40 1.59 40.00% 29 10 8.23 New York Bx12 SBS (Fordham Road ‐ Pelham Pkwy) 2008 9.00 18 0.50 5.20 57.73% 52 3 10.38 Cleveland HealthLine 2008 6.80 39 0.17 2.33 34.19% 38 8 10.74 Snohomish County Swift BRT ‐ Blue Line 2009 16.72 31 0.54 6.77 40.52% 43 12 23.33 Eugene Gateway Line 2011 7.76 14 0.55 2.59 33.33% 29 10 16.05 Kansas City Troost Avenue ‐ "Green Line" 2011 12.93 22 0.59 12.93 100.00% 50 10 15.51 New York M34 SBS (34th Street) 2011 2.00 13 0.15 2.00 100.00% 23 9 5.22 Stockton Route #44 ‐ Airport Corridor 2011 5.50 8 0.69 5.50 100.00% 23 20 14.35 Stockton Route #43 ‐ Hammer Corridor 2012 5.30 14 0.38 5.30 100.00% 28 12 11.35 Alexandria ‐ Arlington Metroway 2014 6.80 15 0.45 6.12 89.95% 24 12 17.00 Fort Collins Mason Corridor 2014 4.97 12 0.41 1.99 40.00% 24 10 12.43 San Bernardino sbX ‐ "Green Line" 2014 15.70 16 0.98 9.86 62.79% 56 10 16.82 Minneapolis A Line 2016 9.90 20 0.50 9.90 100.00% 28 10 21.21 Minneapolis Red Line 2013 13.00 5 2.60 2.00 15.38% 55 15 14.18 Chapel Hill N‐S Corridor Proposed 8.20 16 0.51 1.34 16.34% 30 7.5 16.40 LRT Systems St. -
2016 National Transit Summary and Trends
NTD National Transit Database 2016 National Transit Summary and Trends Office of Budget and Policy October 2017 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation National Transit Summaries & Trends 2016 Table of Contents Table of Exhibits ..............................................................................................................iv Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 General Information ..................................................................................................... 7 What is the National Transit Database (NTD)? .................................................................................... 7 Who reports data to the NTD? .............................................................................................................. 7 What are the modes of transit? ............................................................................................................. 8 What is an Urbanized Area (UZA)? .................................................................................................... 10 What is a Rural Area? ......................................................................................................................... 10 What data does the NTD collect? ....................................................................................................... 11 What is Safety and Security reporting?.............................................................................................. -
Benchmarking Presentation
City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 Performance Measurement Mandate 2 Appendix F, Section 101 of the City Charter The Controller shall… • Monitor the level and effectiveness of services provided to the people of San Francisco, • Review performance and cost benchmarks, and • Conduct comparisons of the cost and performance of City government with other cities, counties, and public agencies that perform similar functions Prescribed Service Areas (areas covered by previous benchmarking reports) Condition of urban environment Transportation Human resources Public health & human services Criminal justice City management Parks, cultural & recreational facilities Fire and paramedic services Public works March 2014 Benchmarking Report – Public Transportation 3 Purpose Compare the cost and performance of directly-operated light rail, bus, and trolleybus service provided by SFMTA with similar services in metropolitan areas Peer Selection Methodology • Followed methodology outlined in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 141 – A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry • Designed to provide a robust, practical, and transparent process for selecting peer agencies based on uniformly defined and readily available data • Underwent multiple rounds of review and testing by numerous transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, and state departments of transportation -
SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report
Seattle Department of Transportation SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report July 2019 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................4 1.1. South Lake Union Streetcar.....................................................................4 1.2. First Hill Streetcar ...................................................................................6 1.3. Center City Connector .............................................................................6 2. OPERATIONS HIGHLIGHTS ..................................................................................7 2.1. Governance Structure and Budget Overview ..........................................7 2.2. Status of Negotiations on New Streetcar ILA..........................................8 2.3. Safety & Security Update .........................................................................9 3. FINANCIAL METRICS .........................................................................................10 3.1. South Lake Union Streetcar...................................................................10 3.2. First Hill Streetcar .................................................................................13 3.3. Investment in Streetcar Operations ......................................................15 4. PERFORMANCE METRICS ..................................................................................17 4.1. Ridership ................................................................................................17 -
Support Material Agenda Item No. 6
Support Material Agenda Item No. 6 Transit Committee Meeting March 12, 2020 9:00 AM Location: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority First Floor Lobby Board Room Santa Fe Depot, 1170 W. 3rd Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 DISCUSSION ITEMS Transit 6. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and Omnitrans Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley That the Transit Committee recommend the Board, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority: A. Receive and file an update on the Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley. B. Approve a Budget Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 budget to transfer State Transit Assistance Rail funds from Task No. 0309 - Transit Operator Support to Task No. 0425 - Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives, in the amount of $400,000. Attached you will find Task 1.3: Performance Review Report and Task 1.2: Agency Functional Assessment Report, provided separately for your review. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 1.3: PERFORMANCE REVIEW FINAL – February 25, 2020 WSP USA 862 E. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 350 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL.: +1 909-888-1106 WSP.COM Page Intentionally Left Blank San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review Task 1.3 — Performance Review February 25, 2020 Prepared for: SBCTA Prepared by: WSP USA QUALITY CONTROL Name Date (M/D/Y) Preparation Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/11/2020 Technical Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Quality Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Backcheck & Revision Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/13/2020 Approval for Release Billy H. -
Is Free Public Transportation Feasible in Korea?
1. Introduction Public transportation is defined as a shared passenger transport service with a scheduled timetable and specific route that is available for use by the general public.1) Public transportation modes include buses, metro (subway), trams, trolleybuses, ferries etc. and are distinct from modes such as taxicabs, carpools or hired buses, which are not shared among strangers without private arrangement. Public transportation between cities is dominated by intercity (express) buses, intercity rail, and airlines. Is Free Public Transportation Feasible in Korea? Public transportation provides the general public the basic mobility services to employment, community resources, medical care, and recreational opportunities in communities. People who do not have access to a private motor vehicle such as young students, the aged, the poor, and people banned from driving use public transportation for their travel. Some people also choose to use public transportation since it is cheaper than the cost of driving a car. Public transport services can be operated and managed by profit-driven companies or partially or fully funded by government subsidies. In many Asian countries, public transportation services are predominantly run by privately owned profit-driven companies. In North America, public transportation services are provided by municipal transit authorities. In European countries, public transport operations are often outsourced to private transport operators.2) 1) In some areas, the terms “mass transit”, “public transit”, “public transport” are used for public transportation. 2) Wikipedia, “Public Transport”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport (accessed on Jul. 23, 2014). July / August┃2014┃Vol 19┃No 4 27 Most public transportation services are financed with the farebox revenue from the fare paying passengers and/or government subsidies via tax revenues. -
SYSTEM MAP Scale Is Approximate
Happy Valley Rd Happy Valley 0 1 2 3 4 5 R I- LEGEND Miles SYSTEM MAP Scale is approximate. MAPA DEL SISTEMA Pinnacle Peak Rd 17 Transit Center Valley Metro Rail Local Buses Light Rail, Local, Express Phoenix-Deer Valley Municipal Airport Frequent and reliable all-day rail Main bus route 29th Ave Park-and-Ride Regular service Deer Valley Dr E Marriott Dr and RAPID Bus Routes 19th Ave 27th Ave 27th Ave 23rd service operating 365 days a year Select trips only Barry Point of Interest linking Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa Limited service Deer Valley Rd Eective/Validez 10.28.2019 Goldwater Direction of Travel with connections to Sky Harbor High School R SR Central Avenue Honeywell Airport and many bus routes. Rose Garden Ln Rose Garden Ln Desert Ridge Marketplace St 73rd 602.253.5000 | valleymetro.org Pima Fwy Scottsdale Healthcare Dr Washington Agua Fria Fwy 7th Ave 101 Rail line is on 101 E Mayo Blvd Thompson Peak Pkwy this street Train stops only at Van Buren HonorHealth Scottsdale Beardsley Rd Beardsley Rd 51 RAPID Bus light rail stations Glendale Thompson Peak 7th Street Foothills Library Fast and frequent bus service from Apache Blvd Behrend Dr Yorkshire Dr park-and-rides to downtown Phoenix 7th Avenue Utopia Rd Blvd Tatum Abrazo Arrowhead Hospital E on weekdays 5–8 a.m. and 3–6 p.m. Union Hills Dr Rd Creek Cave Light rail line Roosevelt Union Hills Dr E 56th St Mayo Clinic See light rail map on reverse for details. Phoenix Campus E Foothills Paradise Valley 101 R I-E 12th Street Aquatics Center Ave 27th 17 Community College RAPID stops only at these RAPID route(s) Buckeye Road 59th Ave 59th Arrowhead Ave 57th points and at transit centers. -
MOD Sandbox Presentation
Findings and Lessons Learned from the MOD Sandbox Trip Planning and Fare Payment Deployments February 4, 2021 Sponsored by: Independent Evaluation Team: February 4, 2021 3 4 Agenda ▪ Introductions ▪ Evaluation Objectives and Approach ▪ Evaluation Findings and Lessons Learned – Valley Metro Pass2Go App – TriMet OpenTripPlanner project – VTrans Flexible Trip Planner – Cross Cutting Findings ▪ Demonstration Deployment: Agency Perspectives – Valley Metro Pass2Go App – TriMet OpenTripPlanner project – VTrans Flexible Trip Planner ▪ Panel Discussion . 2/4/2021 Introductions . 2/4/2021 Les Brown, ICF Adam Cohen, TSRC Sara Davidson, ITSA Independent Evaluation Team Panel Moderator Angie Devore, Tyler Olson, Bibiana McHugh, Ross MacDonald, Valley Metro Valley Metro TriMet VTrans Panelists: MOD Sandbox Demonstration Awardees 2/4/2021 Independent Evaluations: Objectives & Approach . 2/4/2021 Independent Evaluation: Goals / Objectives A rigorous, comprehensive evaluation of the MOD demonstrations will deliver a keen understanding of: • Lessons learned and best practices • Public policy • Successful business & partnership models • Scaling innovations • Innovations and strategies • Identifying additional use cases for other contexts Prepare for and conduct a comprehensive independent evaluation (IE) of the MOD Sandbox Demonstrations Examine issues and explore opportunities and challenges for public transportation as they relate to technology- enabled mobility services Evaluate achievement of MOD Sandbox demonstration objectives by testing preestablished hypotheses 2/4/2021 Independent Evaluation: Performance Factors Performance of MOD Sandbox Demonstrations are evaluated by their effects on variables such as the following: ▪ Transit ridership ▪ Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ▪ Wait times ▪ Travel times ▪ Costs ▪ Access to opportunity ▪ Accessibility for persons with disabilities ▪ Equity ▪ User satisfaction 2/4/2021 Independent Evaluation: Methodology Step 6. Define Methods of Step 3. -
2018 TDA Handbook
Transportation Development Act Handbook February 2018 Photo: Aurora Novis Rachid Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Transportation Development Act Overview .............................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: Allocation of TDA Funds........................................................................................... 2 Local Transportation Funds Allocation Process ....................................................................................... 2 State Transit Assistance Funds Allocation Process .................................................................................. 3 State of Good Repair Program Allocation Process .................................................................................. 4 Chapter 3: Eligible Transit Claims ............................................................................................... 5 Eligible Local Transportation Fund Claims ................................................................................................. 5 Eligible State Transit Assistance Fund Claims ........................................................................................... 6 Farebox Recovery Ratio Requirements ........................................................................................................ 6 Additional Claimant Requirements .............................................................................................................. -
Getting on Track Good Investments for Pennsylvania’S Public Transit System
Getting on Track Good Investments for Pennsylvania’s Public Transit System Getting on Track Good Investments for Pennsylvania’s Public Transit System PennPIRG Education Fund Timothy Telleen-Lawton Frontier Group James Browning PennPIRG Education Fund September 2008 Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Lance Haver of the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office and Nathan Wilcox of PennEnvironment for their review of and assistance with this report. The au- thors would also like to thank Tony Dutzik of Frontier Group and Phineas Baxandall of U.S. PIRG for their editorial assistance. The generous financial support of the Surdna Foundation made this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of PennPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Copyright 2008 PennPIRG Education Fund With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, PennPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. PennPIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organiza- tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Pennsylvanians meaningful opportunities for civic participation. Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about PennPIRG Education Fund or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.pennpirg.org. -
Project Title Or Company Name
Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority Discussion Document Reliance Restricted 21 June 2018 | Version 1.0 (Draft) 21 June 2018 | Version 1.0 (Draft) Reliance Restricted Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber 3 E 4th St, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Cincinnati Business Committee 3 E 4th St, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Ernst & Young LLP Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (“SORTA”) 21 June 2018 312 Walnut St Cincinnati, OH This report (the “Report”) has been prepared by Ernst & Young LLP (“EY” or “we”), from information and material 45202 supplied by Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (“SORTA”) for use by Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber & Cincinnati Business Committee (separately and combined, “Client”), for the sole purpose of assisting Client in completing a business assessment of SORTA historical financial performance, benchmarking versus certain peer agencies and 10 year financial projections developed by SORTA management. The nature and scope of our services was determined solely by the Agreement between EY and Client dated February 22, 2018 (the “Agreement”). Our procedures were limited to those described in that Agreement. Our work was performed only for the use and benefit of Client and should not be used or relied on by anyone else. Other persons who read this Report who are not a party to the Agreement do so at their own risk and are not entitled to rely on it for any purpose. We assume no duty, obligation or responsibility whatsoever to any other parties that may obtain access to the Report. The services we performed were advisory in nature. While EY’s work in connection with this Report was performed under the standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (the “AICPA”), EY did not render an assurance report or opinion under the Agreement, nor did our services constitute an audit, review, examination, forecast, projection or any other form of attestation as those terms are defined by the AICPA.