DOCSLIB.ORG

Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis by Alaa Itani A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Alaa Itani 2019 Bus Bridging Decision-Support Toolkit: Optimization Framework and Policy Analysis Alaa Itani Master of Applied Science Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Toronto 2019 Abstract Bus Bridging is the strategy most commonly applied in responding to rail service interruptions in North America and Europe. In determining the required number of buses and source routes, most transit agencies rely on ad-hoc approaches based on operational experience and constraints, which can lead to extensive delays and queue build-ups at affected stations. This thesis developed an optimization model, to determine the optimal number of shuttle buses and route allocation which minimize the overall subway and bus riders delay. The generated optimal solutions are sensitive to bus bay capacity constraints along the shuttle service corridor. The optimization model is integrated with a previously developed simulation tool that tracks the evolution of system queues and delays throughout the bus bridging process. A set of bus bridging policy guidelines were developed based on further analysis of the optimization model outputs using a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model. ii Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my parents and for their continuous support and trust in my abilities. Although they were thousands of miles away, they were always supportive, I couldn’t have made it here without their presence. Secondly, I would like to thank Professor Amer Shalaby, my MASc, supervisor for pushing me to the limits and challenging my abilities. Professor Shalaby was supportive in my ups and downs, his feedback was always helpful, innovative, and challenging. I wouldn’t have made it here without his trust in my abilities and patience in my progress. Thirdly, I would like to thank my flatmates, Toka Sabry, and Asma Nsiri, they were like my family and were always supportive and giving me the best advice, thank you for keeping me company and baring my nagging patterns. Fourthly, I would like to thank my sisters whom I always rely on, although they are thousands of miles away and I barely see them twice a year, their presence in my life is the most essential and most important. I would like also to thank my colleagues in the Transportation Lab, especially the amazing mother Lina El Morshedy who was my sister in Toronto away from my actual family. Her advice, support, help in course work and her coffee breaks were heartwarming. I would like to thank other colleagues, Sami, Sanjana, Albert, Patric, Zahra, Wenting, Graham, Marc, and Daniel for keeping always fun and comfortable environment for work and research. They were always there for answering my questions, hear me nagging, and they were the best lunch/dinner, planners. I would also thank the research associate and project manager Siva for his continuous help, especially in coding, his help was essential and critical. Lastly, I would love to acknowledge Trapeze Group for funding support, provincial funding provided by the Ontario Centres of Excellence and Ontario Research Fund, Canadian federal funding provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and SOSCIP. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Appendices ...........................................................................................................................x Chapter 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 Managing Unplanned Rail Disruptions .......................................................................................1 1.1 Implemented Strategies and Applications ...........................................................................1 1.1.1 Current Practices ......................................................................................................2 1.1.2 Mathematical Models in Research ...........................................................................3 1.2 Scope of Work .....................................................................................................................4 Chapter 2 Bus Bridging Assessment Tool .......................................................................................6 A User Delay Modelling Tool ....................................................................................................6 2.1 Model Data: Input and Output .............................................................................................6 2.1.1 Shuttle Buses Scenario and Input Data ....................................................................6 2.1.2 Model Output .........................................................................................................11 2.2 Case Study: Toronto Transit Commission .........................................................................12 2.2.1 Validating the User Delay Modelling Tool ...........................................................13 2.2.2 Shuttle Bus Data and Scenario Selection ...............................................................15 2.3 Policy Analysis and Implications.......................................................................................17 2.3.1 Shuttle Bus Initial Dispatch Direction ...................................................................17 2.3.2 Dispatch Time ........................................................................................................23 2.3.3 Uncertainty in Predicting Incident Duration ..........................................................24 2.3.4 Demand Reduction.................................................................................................28 2.3.5 Summary of Observations and Policy Guidelines .................................................29 iv 2.4 Web User Interface ............................................................................................................31 Chapter 3 Bus Bridging Optimization Tool ...................................................................................36 Bus Bridging Optimization Model ............................................................................................36 3.1 Problem Description ..........................................................................................................36 3.2 Optimization Model ...........................................................................................................39 3.2.1 Mathematical Formulation .....................................................................................39 3.2.2 Bus-Bay Capacity ..................................................................................................41 3.3 Solution Approach: Genetic Algorithm .............................................................................44 3.3.1 Addressing constraints in GA ................................................................................47 3.4 Case Study .........................................................................................................................49 3.4.1 Description of Incidents .........................................................................................49 3.4.2 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................50 Chapter 4 Classification and Analysis of Rail Disruptions ...........................................................58 Clustering Analysis and Regression Tree Models ....................................................................58 4.1 Subway Disruption Data ....................................................................................................58 4.2 Clustering Analysis ............................................................................................................59 4.2.1 Major Clusters and Sample Incidents ....................................................................62 4.3 Classification and Regression Trees (CART) ....................................................................64 4.3.1 Classification based on Total User Delay (TUD) ..................................................66 4.3.2 Classification based on Number of Shuttle Buses .................................................67 4.4 Rail Disruption Severity Scale ...........................................................................................69 4.4.1 Time Variation and Severity Scale ........................................................................70 Chapter 5 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................72 Lessons Learned and Future Work ...........................................................................................72
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Delineations for the Protected Major Transit Station Areas Within the Downtown Secondary Plan and Draft Citywide MTSA Policy Directions
    REPORT FOR ACTION Draft Delineations for the Protected Major Transit Station Areas within the Downtown Secondary Plan and Draft Citywide MTSA Policy Directions Date: March 30, 2021 To: Planning and Housing Committee From: Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Wards: Ward 10 - Spadina-Fort York; Ward 11 - University Rosedale and Ward 13 - Toronto Centre SUMMARY In June 2020, City Planning initiated the Growth Plan Conformity and Municipal Comprehensive Review ("the MCR") which includes the delineation of 180+ Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) to meet Provincial intensification requirements by July 2022. The introduction of Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) is part of the MCR. An equity lens is being applied to this work program that prioritizes the delineation of PMTSAs to enable the implementation of inclusionary zoning as an affordable housing tool, where market conditions could support it. This report presents the policy approach for advancing the implementation of Major Transit Station Areas and Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and the proposed delineations within the Downtown Secondary Plan. This report is intended as the basis for consultation of the draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) that includes 16 Site and Area Specific Policies (SASPs) that delineate Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) within the Downtown Secondary Plan area. The draft policy directions for the introduction of a new Chapter 8 of the Official Plan will be refined following consultation and brought forward as part of the final Official Plan Amendment. The 16 PMTSA delineations included in this draft OPA would implement the Minister approved Downtown Plan and address the requirements of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (the "Growth Plan") and Section 16(15) of the Planning Act.
    [Show full text]
  • General Manager Subway Construction Date
    TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. S7 Meeting Date June 4, 1968 From: General Manager Subway Construction Date: June 3, 1968 QUEEN STREET SUBWAY FOR STREETCAR OPERATION The Commission, at its meeting of February 8, 1966, approved advising the City of Toronto that it was prepared to co-operate in the study of a "transit facility in the downtown section of Queen Street" and approved advising the Metropolitan Council that the Commission proposes to undertake this study at a cost of $30,000.00, it being understood that the cost involved would form part of the capital cost of the project when approved. The General Secretary transmitted the above approval of the Commission to the City Clerk in a letter dated February 22, 1966, a copy of which is attached. In a letter dated November 2, 1966, a copy of which is attached, the Commission was advised by the Metropolitan Clerk that Metropolitan Council had adopted Clause No. 2 of Report No. 16 of the Transportation Committee, headed "Proposed Queen Street Subway", as amended. The recommendation of Clause No. 2 reads as follows, "It is recommended that the Metropolitan Council formally request the Toronto Transit Commission to complete their study of the physical aspects of the Queen Street tunnel as outlined in the Commission's letter of February 22, 1966, on the understanding that the required expenditure of $30,000.00 will form part of the capital cost of the project." The amendment to Clause No. 2 reads as follows, "The matter of the Queen Street tunnel being considered in relation to the question of the Queen-Greenwood Subway." In accordance with all the foregoing, plans were developed for a "transit facility in the downtown section on Queen Street", and in addition to this a preliminary examination was made of the downtown section in relation to it becoming part of the Queen-Greenwood Subway.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C3. Public Engagement Record: December 2019
    Appendix C3 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Website Screenshots Public Engagement Record: December 10, 2019 to September 16, 2020 • Ask-A-Question Submissions Ask A Question – January 23 to September 16, 2020 Comment title Comment body Response Future Is the western terminus of the line to be built so that it would be able to be We are currently advancing plans for the line between Exhibition/Ontario expansion extended north west at a later date? Thank you Place and the Ontario Science Centre. However, these plans don’t preclude future expansions that may be presented to improve access and meet demand. Thorncliffe Park Where is the station in relation to Overlea Blvd Teams are analyzing the 15 stations identified in the Initial Business Case to Station determine whether or not they should be built, looking at factors like the potential number of users, ease of construction, and cost, to name a few. Findings will be presented in the Preliminary Design Business Case, which we are aiming to complete by summer 2020.By using the GO corridor and building bridges across the Don River instead of tunneling underneath it, a route that is approximately twice the length of the Relief Line South can be built at a similar cost. Also, using the GO corridor will allow people to more easily connect between GO and TTC services that will both be accessible by street level, saving time compared to connections that would lead people into deep underground stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Transit in Toronto Levyrapidtransit.Ca TABLE of CONTENTS
    The Neptis Foundation has collaborated with Edward J. Levy to publish this history of rapid transit proposals for the City of Toronto. Given Neptis’s focus on regional issues, we have supported Levy’s work because it demon- strates clearly that regional rapid transit cannot function eff ectively without a well-designed network at the core of the region. Toronto does not yet have such a network, as you will discover through the maps and historical photographs in this interactive web-book. We hope the material will contribute to ongoing debates on the need to create such a network. This web-book would not been produced without the vital eff orts of Philippa Campsie and Brent Gilliard, who have worked with Mr. Levy over two years to organize, edit, and present the volumes of text and illustrations. 1 Rapid Transit in Toronto levyrapidtransit.ca TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 About this Book 9 Edward J. Levy 11 A Note from the Neptis Foundation 13 Author’s Note 16 Author’s Guiding Principle: The Need for a Network 18 Executive Summary 24 PART ONE: EARLY PLANNING FOR RAPID TRANSIT 1909 – 1945 CHAPTER 1: THE BEGINNING OF RAPID TRANSIT PLANNING IN TORONTO 25 1.0 Summary 26 1.1 The Story Begins 29 1.2 The First Subway Proposal 32 1.3 The Jacobs & Davies Report: Prescient but Premature 34 1.4 Putting the Proposal in Context CHAPTER 2: “The Rapid Transit System of the Future” and a Look Ahead, 1911 – 1913 36 2.0 Summary 37 2.1 The Evolving Vision, 1911 40 2.2 The Arnold Report: The Subway Alternative, 1912 44 2.3 Crossing the Valley CHAPTER 3: R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • TTC Typography History
    With the exception of Eglinton Station, 11 of the 12 stations of The intention of using Helvetica and Univers is unknown, however The Toronto Subway Font (Designer Unknown) the original Yonge Subway line have been renovated extensively. with the usage of the latter on the design of the Spadina Subway in Based on Futura by Paul Renner (1928) Some stations retained the original typefaces but with tighter 1978, it may have been an internal decision to try and assimilate tracking and subtle differences in weight, while other stations subsequent renovations of existing stations in the aging Yonge and were renovated so poorly there no longer is a sense of simplicity University lines. The TTC avoided the usage of the Toronto Subway seen with the 1954 designs in terms of typographical harmony. font on new subway stations for over two decades. ABCabc RQKS Queen Station, for example, used Helvetica (LT Std 75 Bold) in such The Sheppard Subway in 2002 saw the return of the Toronto Subway an irresponsible manner; it is repulsively inconsistent with all the typeface as it is used for the names of the stations posted on ABCabc RQKS other stations, and due to the renovators preserving the original platfrom level. Helvetica became the primary typeface for all TTC There are subtle differences between the two typefaces, notably the glass tile trim, the font weight itself looks botched and unsuitable. wayfinding signages and informational material system-wide. R, Q, K, and S; most have different terminals, spines, and junctions. ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL BLOOR DANGER DA N GER Danger DO NOT ENTER Do Not Enter Do Not Enter DAVISVILLE ST CL AIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR EGLINTON DAVISVILLE ST CLAIR SUMMERHILL ROSEDALE BLOOR The specially-designed Toronto Subway that embodied the spirit of modernism and replaced with a brutal mix of Helvetica and YONGE SUBWAY typeface graced the walls of the 12 stations, progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Improvements for 2002
    SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2002 Subway Streetcars Buses RT October 2001 Service Improvements for 2002 - 2 - Table of contents Table of contents Summary................................................................................................................................................................4 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................................5 1. Planning transit service ...............................................................................................................................6 2. Recommended new and revised services for the Sheppard Subway .......................................10 Sheppard Subway.................................................................................................................................................................................10 11 BAYVIEW – Service to Bayview Station...........................................................................................................................................10 25 DON MILLS – Service to Don Mills Station ....................................................................................................................................11 Don Mills/Scarborough Centre – New limited-stop rocket route ....................................................................................................11 Finch East – Service to Don Mills Station...........................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case February 2020
    Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case February 2020 Eglinton Crosstown West Extension Initial Business Case February 2020 Contents Executive Summary 1 Scope 1 Method of Analysis 1 Findings 3 Strategic Case 3 Economic Case 3 Financial Case 4 Deliverability and Operations Case 4 Summary 4 Introduction 7 Background 8 Business Case Overview 10 Problem Statement 13 Case for Change 14 Problem Statement 14 Opportunity for Change 15 Key Drivers 16 Strategic Value 18 iv Investment Options 24 Introduction 25 Study Area 25 Options Development 25 Options for Analysis 27 Assumptions for Analysis and Travel Demand Modelling 33 Strategic Case 34 Introduction 35 Strategic Objective 1 – Connect More Places with Better Frequent Rapid Transit 38 Criterion 1: To provide high quality transit to more people in more places 38 Criterion 2: To address the connectivity gap between Eglinton Crosstown LRT and Transitway BRT 40 Strategic Objective 2 – Improve Transit’s Convenience and Attractiveness 42 Criterion 2: To provide more reliable, safe and enjoyable travel experience 42 Criterion 2: To boost transit use and attractiveness among local residents and workers 45 Strategic Objective 3 – Promote Healthier and More Sustainable Travel Behaviours 52 Criterion 1: To improve liveability through reduction in traffic delays, auto dependency and air pollution 52 Criterion 2: To encourage use of active modes to access stations 53 v Strategic Objective 4 – Encourage Transit-Supportive Development 57 Criterion 1: Compatibility with Existing Neighbourhood
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Eglinton West Rapid Transit Initial Business Case Analysis
    APPENDIX 4 ENHANCED EGLINTON WEST RAPID TRANSIT INITIAL BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS JUNE 2016 Cover Image: Marcus Bowman TABLE OF CONTENTS Problem Statement II 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Context 2 3.0 Study Overview 4 4.0 Strategic Case 9 5.0 Financial Case 18 6.0 Economic Case 20 7.0 Deliverability and Operations Case 23 8.0 Next Steps 25 Appendix 26 I PROBLEM STATEMENT The implementation of the Mississauga BRT, Eglinton Crosstown Phase 1, as well as Union Pearson Express and RER connections at Mt. Dennis will bring vital rapid transit improvements to the Eglinton corridor and the region, but will also leave a key gap in the rapid transit network along Eglinton West between Mt. Dennis and Renforth Gateway. The corridor provides an opportunity for a connection to Pearson Airport and surrounding employment by linking communities, people, and jobs to and along the Mississauga BRT and Eglinton LRT. An Environmental Assessment was completed in 2010 for an at- grade LRT through the corridor with 14 stops along Eglinton Ave at all cross roads. In the context of current planning work being coordinated between Metrolinx and the City of Toronto there is a need to develop feasible options to optimize the 2010 EA design and understand their various benefits to different users and travel patterns. II INITIAL BUSINESS CASE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Eglinton West: A Gap in the Regional Rapid Transit Network The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area’s Regional Transportation Plan, The Big Move, was adopted in 2008 and set out a 25-year vision for supporting growth in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA District 1964-Present
    Changes to Transit Service in the MBTA district 1964-2021 By Jonathan Belcher with thanks to Richard Barber and Thomas J. Humphrey Compilation of this data would not have been possible without the information and input provided by Mr. Barber and Mr. Humphrey. Sources of data used in compiling this information include public timetables, maps, newspaper articles, MBTA press releases, Department of Public Utilities records, and MBTA records. Thanks also to Tadd Anderson, Charles Bahne, Alan Castaline, George Chiasson, Bradley Clarke, Robert Hussey, Scott Moore, Edward Ramsdell, George Sanborn, David Sindel, James Teed, and George Zeiba for additional comments and information. Thomas J. Humphrey’s original 1974 research on the origin and development of the MBTA bus network is now available here and has been updated through August 2020: http://www.transithistory.org/roster/MBTABUSDEV.pdf August 29, 2021 Version Discussion of changes is broken down into seven sections: 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA 2) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Eastern Mass. St. Ry. Co. Norwood Area Quincy Area Lynn Area Melrose Area Lowell Area Lawrence Area Brockton Area 3) MBTA bus routes inherited from the Middlesex and Boston St. Ry. Co 4) MBTA bus routes inherited from Service Bus Lines and Brush Hill Transportation 5) MBTA bus routes initiated by the MBTA 1964-present ROLLSIGN 3 5b) Silver Line bus rapid transit service 6) Private carrier transit and commuter bus routes within or to the MBTA district 7) The Suburban Transportation (mini-bus) Program 8) Rail routes 4 ROLLSIGN Changes in MBTA Bus Routes 1964-present Section 1) MBTA bus routes inherited from the MTA The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) succeeded the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) on August 3, 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeling Congested?" – Update on Progress to Date
    STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED "Feeling Congested?" – Update on Progress to Date Date: May 26, 2014 To: Planning and Growth Management Committee From: Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division Wards: All Reference P:\2014\ClusterB\PLN\PGMC\PG14076 Number: SUMMARY The current review of the Official Plan's transportation policies has been divided into two approval streams. One set of policy amendments is proceeding towards final approval within this term of Council, while the remainder continue under review with a target approval date of early 2015. This latter set of policies comprises four important transportation planning areas, namely: Rapid Transit Evaluation Framework (RTEF); Surface Transit Network; Cycling Policy Framework; and Street Related Maps and Schedules. This report provides an update on the progress being made on the ongoing review of these four transportation policy areas. RECOMMENDATIONS The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division recommends that: 1. The Planning and Growth Management Committee receive this report for information Financial Impact There are no financial impacts resulting from the adoption of this report. Staff report for action on "Feeling Congested?" Update Report 1 DECISION HISTORY Section 26 of the Planning Act requires each municipality to conduct a review of its Official Plan within five years of it coming into force. At its meeting in May, 2011, the Planning and Growth Management Committee adopted, with amendment, the Chief Planner’s recommendations regarding the general work programme and public consultation strategy for the City’s Five Year Official Plan Review and Municipal Comprehensive Review contained in PG5.2 Five Year Review of the Official Plan and Municipal Comprehensive Review.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Life Cycle Assessment to Analyze the Environmental Sustainability of Public Transit Modes for the City of Toronto
    Applying life cycle assessment to analyze the environmental sustainability of public transit modes for the City of Toronto by Ashton Ruby Taylor A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography & Planning in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 2016 Copyright © Ashton Ruby Taylor, 2016 Abstract One challenge related to transit planning is selecting the appropriate mode: bus, light rail transit (LRT), regional express rail (RER), or subway. This project uses data from life cycle assessment to develop a tool to measure energy requirements for different modes of transit, on a per passenger-kilometer basis. For each of the four transit modes listed, a range of energy requirements associated with different vehicle models and manufacturers was developed. The tool demonstrated that there are distinct ranges where specific transit modes are the best choice. Diesel buses are the clear best choice from 7-51 passengers, LRTs make the most sense from 201-427 passengers, and subways are the best choice above 918 passengers. There are a number of other passenger loading ranges where more than one transit mode makes sense; in particular, LRT and RER represent very energy-efficient options for ridership ranging from 200 to 900 passengers. The tool developed in the thesis was used to analyze the Bloor-Danforth subway line in Toronto using estimated ridership for weekday morning peak hours. It was found that ridership across the line is for the most part actually insufficient to justify subways over LRTs or RER. This suggests that extensions to the existing Bloor-Danforth line should consider LRT options, which could service the passenger loads at the ends of the line with far greater energy efficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1968
    TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1968 RALPH C. DAY TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS RALPH C. DAY, Chairman FORD G. BRAND, Vice-Chairman D. F. HAMILTON J. T. FISHER, Commissioner D. F. HAMILTON, Commissioner b. C. SMYTH, Commissioner OFFICIALS JAMES H. KEARNS, General Manager of Operations W. H. PATERSON, General Manager--Subway Construction H. E. PETTETT, General Secretary R. G. WAITE, Assistant General Manager of Operations JAMES H. KEARNS L. 0. MORLEY, Treasurer 01!·· D. A. ELLIOTT, Q.C., General Counsel H. E. PETTETT . '\"'' J Wm. R. Alien, Esq., Q.C., Chairman And Members of the CGuncil of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto City Hall, TORONTO 100. Ladies and Gentlemen: ANNUAL REPORT- 1968 The high point of the year was the opening of the easterly and west­ erly extensions to the Bloor-Danforth subway. Formal opening ceremonies were held on May 10 and the extensions were opened for passenger service on Saturday, May 11. The easterly extension runs from Woodbine station to Warden station, at St. Clair and Warden Avenues in the Borough of Scarborough, a distance of 2.72 miles. The westerly extension runs from Keele station to Islington station, at Bloor Street West and Islington A venue in the Borough of Etobicoke, a distance of 3.44 miles. The two extensions increased the length of Metro's crosstown subway line to fourteen miles. Passenger response to the new subway extensions has been excellent. Subway riding increased by an estimated 7.7% over 1967. The subway extensions and the accompanying extensive surface route expansion helped to boost the total number of revenue passengers carried by the system to an all-time high, 323,481,655, an increase of 9,068,169 over the previous year.
    [Show full text]