DOCSLIB.ORG

Benchmarking Presentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 Peer Screening and Grouping Factors 4 Screening Factors • Rail operator (yes/no) • Rail operator only (yes/no) • Heavy-rail operator (yes/no) Peer-grouping Factors • Urban area population • Population growth rate • Total annual vehicle miles operated • Percent low-income population • Annual operating budget • Annual roadway delay per traveler • Population density • Freeway lane miles per capita • Service area type • Percent service demand-responsive • State capital (yes/no) • Percent service purchased • Percent college students • Distance from target agency Peer Group Characteristics 5 Percentage of Passenger Trips Carried by Mode of Transportation Dallas Bus Denver Trolleybus Houston Minneapolis Other Bus Pittsburgh Light Rail/Street Car Portland Sacramento Cable Car San Diego Commuter Rail San Francisco San Jose Other Rail Seattle Vanpool 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Annual System Wide Revenue Hours Hours Revenue Wide Annual System 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6 Peer Group Characteristics Group Peer Seattle Houston Denver San Francisco Dallas Portland Pittsburgh Minneapolis San Diego (millions) San Jose Sacramento System Wide Operating Expenditures Expenditures Wide Operating System $250 $500 $750 $0 San Francisco Dallas Seattle Denver Houston Portland Pittsburgh San Jose Minneapolis (millions) San Diego Sacramento Performance Measures Utilized 7 Cost-efficiency Maintenance Administration • Operating costs per revenue hour • Total maintenance expenditures • Operating costs per revenue mile • Maintenance expenses per revenue mile • Revenue miles between vehicle failures Cost-effectiveness Service Quality • Operating costs per boarding • Average system speed • Farebox recovery ratio • Route miles per square mile of service area • Subsidy per boarding • Avg. # of vehicles in operation during weekday midday service Productivity Service Utilization • Boardings per revenue mile • Number of boardings • Boardings per FTE Resource Utilization Other Measures • Revenue hours per FTE • Fares • Avg. in-use energy efficiency & fuel economy • Total operating costs • Boardings per capita Transit Investment • Average fleet age Operating Costs by Mode of Transportation 8 in millions of dollars Light Rail Bus Trolleybus $175 $400 $175 $150 $350 $150 $125 $300 $125 $250 $100 $100 $200 $75 $75 $150 $50 $50 $100 $25 $50 $25 $0 $0 $0 Dallas Dallas Seattle Seattle Denver Denver San Jose San Jose San Houston Houston Portland Portland San Diego San San Diego San Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Sacramento Sacramento Minneapolis Minneapolis San Francisco San San Francisco San Francisco San Differences among light rail systems may partially account for the wide variation in operating costs across agencies Avg. Number of Vehicles in Operation in Weekday Midday Service 9 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus 200 600 200 500 150 150 400 100 300 100 200 50 50 100 0 0 0 Dallas Dallas Denver Seattle Seattle Denver San Jose San Houston Portland San Jose San Houston Portland San DiegoSan Pittsburgh San Diego San Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis Sacramento Minneapolis San Francisco San San Francisco San San Francisco San During non-commute hours on a typical weekday, the SFMTA operates between 3 and 14 times the number of light rail vehicles than its peers, and it operates nearly double the number of trolleybuses Operating Costs vs. Vehicles in Operation 10 $200 San Francisco $150 Dallas (millions) $100 Portland San Jose Denver Pittsburgh $50 San Diego Sacramento Minneapolis Operating Costs Costs Operating $0 Houston 0 30 60 90 120 150 Avg. Weekday Midday No. of Vehicles in Operation The data demonstrate a clear tend of increasing costs with an increase in the number of vehicles in operation Route Miles Per Square Mile of Service Area 11 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus The number of route miles per square mile of service area reflects the overall availability of transit service The SFMTA stands apart from its peers in the amount of coverage it provides The SFMTA’s dense transit network serves many neighborhoods that would otherwise be inaccessible due to a hilly topography Bus Fares During Peak Periods of Operation 12 A review of published transit fares reveals that fares in San Francisco are equal to or lower than those in virtually all of the peer cities Reduced Fares Full Agency Persons w/ Medicare Fare Youth Seniors Disabilities Card Holders Pittsburgh1 $3.25 $1.60 $0.00 $1.25 NA Dallas $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Portland $2.50 $1.65 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Sacramento $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 Seattle $2.50 $1.25 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 Denver $2.25 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 San Diego $2.25 NA $1.10 $1.10 $1.10 Minneapolis $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $0.75 $2.25 San Francisco $2.00 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 San Jose $2.00 $1.75 $1.00 $1.00 NA Houston1 $1.25 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60 Note: 1. Fares are distance based – values shown here are representative only. Boardings Per Capita 13 120 100 Light Rail With 100% of the City’s residential 80 areas within a quarter mile of a bus 60 stop and comparatively lower fares, 40 20 Muni is an attractive choice for 0 transportation Dallas Denver San Jose Houston Portland San Diego The more than 1,000 vehicles in the Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis SFMTA’s fleet support an average of San Francisco 700,000 boardings each weekday 120 100 Bus 80 60 40 20 0 Dallas Seattle Denver San Jose Houston Portland San Diego Pittsburgh Sacramento Minneapolis San Francisco Average System Speed 14 The amount of time a bus takes to traverse its route is influenced by the number of passengers that are served Each time the bus stops to board or alight passengers, it experiences a delay, which reduces the average speed of the bus. This effect likely contributes to the SFMTA’s lower average speeds Houston Pittsburgh 15 Denver Seattle Bus Dallas Portland The data show a high San Jose Minneapolis Sacramento correlation between the 10 San Diego number of boardings per San Francisco 5 revenue mile and average Average System Speed System Average bus speed 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Boardings Per Revenue Mile Vehicle Failures Defined 15 Major Mechanical System Failure A failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or from starting the next scheduled revenue trip because actual movement is limited or because of safety concerns Minor/Other Mechanical System Failures A failure of some other mechanical element of the revenue vehicle that, because of local agency policy, prevents the revenue vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or from starting the next scheduled revenue trip even though the vehicle is physically able to continue in revenue service Revenue Miles Between Total Vehicle Failures 16 Light Rail Bus Trolleybus A “vehicle failure” is considered to be a “breakdown of either a major or minor element of the…vehicle's mechanical system.” This measure is often used as a general indicator of delays that arise due to equipment problems. Compared to its peers, the SFMTA experiences a higher frequency of light rail vehicle and bus failures. Light Rail Vehicle Failures by Failure Type (2011) 17 Location Major Minor/Other Revenue Revenue Miles Revenue Miles Mechanical Mechanical Miles Between Major Between Total Failures Failures Failures ↑ Failures San Francisco 2,329 7,136 5,838,027 2,507 617 Pittsburgh 184 282 1,828,316 9,937 3,923 Minneapolis 104 87 2,054,607 19,756 10,757 Dallas 235 162 6,897,909 29,353 17,375 Portland 266 116 7,808,150 29,354 20,440 Sacramento 98 79 3,696,693 37,721 20,885 San Jose 55 7 2,953,079 53,692 47,630 Denver 92 295 8,455,301 91,905 21,848 Houston 8 28 901,218 112,652 25,034 San Diego 23 623 7,518,512 326,892 11,639 City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Republic of Kazakhstan Almaty Trolleybus Project
    OFFICIAL USE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN ALMATY TROLLEYBUS PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND DUE DILIGENCE STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE 1. BACKGROUND The City of Almaty (the “City”) with population of 1.8 million is the country’s largest and most important business and financial centre, contributing around 25 per cent of the national GDP. As most of rapidly growing conglomerates, the city is experiencing deficit of convenient “green” public transportation aggravated by an increasing number of private cars. Almaty is the only city in Kazakhstan with trolleybus system. Current trolleybus fleet was purchased 10 years ago, and it is close to its full depreciation. Subsequently, the City approached the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the “EBRD” or the “Bank”) to finance renewal of the trolleybus fleet through the purchase of 200 new hybrid trolleybuses and associated depot equipment (the “Project”). EBRD loan would be provided for the benefit of Almatyelectrotrans LLP (the “Company” or “AET”). The City sees the Project as an important measure to improve the environmental situation via expanding electric transport. The Project will allow the Company to improve passenger services by replacing the existing deteriorating fleet and providing vehicles for new lines, should the City decide to expand the trolleybus network. Better public transport services will prevent further modal shift from public transport to personal cars. The City’s public transport carries over 450 million passengers annually. The bulk of passenger traffic (86 per cent) is carried by buses operated by private and municipal companies. Trolleybuses account for 11 per cent of traffic, and the metro for 3 per cent.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study on Introducing Trolleybus System in Hong Kong
    Agreement No. CE 72/99 Feasibility Study of Introducing a Trolleybus System in Hong Kong LIST OF CONTENTS Page 1. STUDY OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 1 1.1 Study Objectives and scope 1 1.2 Case Studies 1 2. TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY 1 2.1 What is a Trolleybus? 1 2.2 Components of Trolleybus Systems for Hong Kong 1 2.3 Trolley Vehicles 2 2.4 The Power Distribution System 3 2.5 Infrastructure and Planning Requirements 4 2.6 Operating a Trolleybus System 5 2.7 Network Planning 6 2.8 Conclusions 6 3. FINANCIAL VIABILITY 6 3.1 Introduction 6 3.2 South East Kowloon Development 6 3.3 Central and Wan Chai 7 3.4 Aberdeen 7 3.5 Conclusions on Financial Viability 8 3.6 Possible Means to Achieve Viability 8 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ISSUES 8 4.1 Air Quality Assessment Methodology 8 4.2 South East Kowloon Air Quality Assessment 9 4.3 Central and Wan Chai and Aberdeen Air Quality Assessments 9 4.4 Other Air Quality Issues 9 4.5 Noise Levels 9 4.6 Landscape and Visual Assessment 10 5. REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORKS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 11 5.1 The Granting of Franchises 11 5.2 Legislative Requirements 11 Transport Department Atkins China Ltd. 3089/OR33/00/E427, May 2001 page i Agreement No. CE 72/99 Feasibility Study of Introducing a Trolleybus System in Hong Kong LIST OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6. THE WAY FORWARD 11 6.1 Introduction 11 6.2 On-road and off-road trials 11 6.3 Requirements of a Pilot Scheme 12 6.4 Locational Options for a Pilot Scheme 12 6.5 The Implementation Process 12 6.6 Additional Investigations 12 Transport Department Atkins China Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No
    Submitted by the expert from OICA Informal document GRSG-110-08-Rev.1 (110th GRSG, 26-29 April 2016, agenda item 2(a)) Trolleybuses: Applicability of UN Regulation No. 100 (Electric Power Train Vehicle) vs. UN Regulation No. 107 Annex 12 (Construction of M2/M3 Vehicles) for Electrical Safety 1. At 110th session of GRSG Belgium proposes to amend UN R107 annex 12 by deleting the requirements for trolleybuses (see GRSG/2016/05) and transfer the requirements into UN R100 (see GRSP/2016/07), which will be on the agenda of upcoming GRSP session in May 2016. 2. Due to the design of a trolleybus and stated in UN Regulation No. 107, trolleybuses are dual- mode vehicles. They can operate either: (a) in trolley mode, when connected to the overhead contact line (OCL), or (b) in bus mode when not connected to the OCL. When not connected to the OCL, they can also be (c) in charging mode, where they are stationary and plugged into the power grid for battery charging. 3. The basic principles of the design of the electric powertrain of the trolleybus and the connection to the OCL is based on international standards developed for trams and trains and is implemented and well accepted in the market worldwide. 4. Due to the fact that the trolleybus is used on public roads the trolleybus has to fulfil the regulations under the umbrella of the UNECE regulatory framework due to the existing national regulations (e.g. European frame work directive). 5. Therefore the annex 12 in UN R107 was amended to align the additional safety prescriptions for trolleybuses with the corresponding electrical standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Competitiveness of Trolleybus in Urban Transport
    Transactions on the Built Environment vol 52, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Competitiveness of trolleybus in urban transport G. ~sten~o',R. ~ozzo~, M. ~alaverna~ & G. sciutto2 'Sciro S.r. l., Genova, Italy ZDepart?nentof Electrical Engineering, University of Genova, Italy Abstract In the search for alternative transportation modes in urban public transport, this paper suggests a comparison between the competitiveness of trolleybus and diesel bus transport modes. This evaluation is based on the relevant life-cycle costs, highlighting that trolleybus transport has a starting high charge of vehicles and wiring purchase as well as the disadvantage arising, in Italy, from the higher price of electric energy compared with diesel oil. Because of these factors, the trolleybus is less competitive than the diesel bus for the Italian urban centres although more friendly for the environment. In the last part of the paper, a case study shows that energy prices and car purchase have a negative influence on the present competitiveness of the trolleybus. 1 Introduction After the Second World War, advanced technology and oil low price encouraged the employment of the diesel bus instead of the trolleybus, which was penalised by its overhead contact line that could not meet the requirements of the quick traffic growth in urban centres. Most trolleybus networks were dismantled between the 60's and 70's. Today, the urgent need to reduce air and acoustic pollution in urban areas as well as a greater environmental awareness, also backed by governmental policies, bring about a renewed interest for the trolleybus. As to the drive development, trolleybus vehicles followed, during the years, the same evolution achieved in the field of light rail EMUS.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Trolleybuses for the Lacmta's Bus System
    ARIELI ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING CONSULTING Report No. 1302 ELECTRIC TROLLEYBUSES FOR THE LACMTA’S BUS SYSTEM PREPARED FOR THE ADVANCED TRANSIT VEHICLE CONSORTIUM UNDER CONTRACT NO. OP 3320661 - 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY California Air Resources Board (CARB) Adopted Urban Bus Transit Rule for 2010 Emission Standards requires that MTA, starting in 2010, set aside 15% of all bus purchases to acquire Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). Currently, none of the buses in the MTA’s inventory can be classified as ZEV, nor there are any transit buses [defined as propelled by an internal combustion engine (ICE) powered by either diesel or alternate fuels] available on the market that can be classified as ZEV. The California emission standards are well ahead of those for the rest of the United States and the manufacturers will not develop suitable vehicles on their own unless incentivized by large customers such as LACMTA. Failure to meet the 2010 Emission Standards will result in regulatory punitive fines and potentially litigation. It is important to note here that this is not the first time that the subject of incorporating electric trolleybuses into the MTA’s bus system comes before the MTA Board of Directors. In the 1992 30-Year Integrated Transportation Plan, electric trolleybuses were the preferred solution to meet CARB air regulations. The Plan provided for 18 routes, 300 miles of overhead wires and 400 peak electric trolleybuses by 2004 to be increased to 1,100 peak electric trolleybuses by 2010. Eventually, the Board voted to terminate the project. After reviewing the various technologies that might qualify as zero emissions under CARB rule, the report focuses on electric trolleybuses as the technology of choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Tychy Trolleybuses Electromobility Since 1982
    Photo Arkadiusz ŁawrywianiecPhoto Tychy Trolleybuses Electromobility Since 1982 Text ARTUR CYWIŃSKI, ZBIGNIEW BRUD Poland is a country, in which trolleybuses are very seldom used in the urban public transport. Now only three cities have a trolleybus traction in the country with anearly forty-million population: Tychy, Gdynia, and Lublin. What is interesting, the history of this means of public transport started in Poland in ... 1930. ill 1999 trolleybuses were running in 12 cit- fuels, resulted in gradual liquidation of this means ies: Dębica (1988-1993), Gdynia (from of urban transport in most of 12 cities, where it was 1943), Legnica (1943-1956), Lublin (from operating. Three centres remained, in which trolley- T 1953), Olsztyn (1939-1971), Poznań buses won the fight for survival. Now, when people (1930-1970), Słupsk (1985-1999), Tychy (from talk louder and louder about the necessity to reduce 1982), Wałbrzych (1944-1973), Warsaw (1946- pollution and the CO2 emission, and also due to the 1973), and Piaseczno (1983-1995) [1]. Unfortu- support under projects co-financed by the European nately, high costs of the traction network operation, Union, they have found their opportunity for fur- do that? do they how the lack of modern vehicles and the lack of ecological ther development. awareness and responsibility for the natural environ- Tychy is an example of a city, where the fate ment confronted with the cheaper and more avail- of the trolleybus network and the ecological public able bus transport, operating based on oil-derivative transport is inseparably related to the latest history 55 Streszczenie Summary Przedstawiony poniżej tekst opisuje historię powstania, rozbudo- Tychy trolleybuses – electric vehicle network since 1982 /2017 wę oraz modernizację sieci trakcyjnej tyskich linii trolejbusowych.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter?
    sustainability Article Transformation of Trolleybus Transport in Poland. Does In-Motion Charging (Technology) Matter? Marcin Wołek 1,* , Agnieszka Szmelter-Jarosz 1 , Marcin Koniak 2 and Anna Golejewska 1 1 Faculty of Economics, University of Gda´nsk,Armii Krajowej 119/121, 81-824 Sopot, Poland; [email protected] (A.S.-J.); [email protected] (A.G.) 2 Faculty of Transport, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warszawa, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 5 November 2020; Accepted: 19 November 2020; Published: 22 November 2020 Abstract: Transport in cities is one of the most important sources of emissions. Electromobility is an essential element in the catalogue of activities of local authorities aimed at combating climate change. Over the years trolleybus transport has been characterised by both phases of development and regression and is still an essential component of zero-emission urban transport in about 300 cities worldwide. The development of electricity storage technology, especially in the form of a battery, has opened up new prospects for this mode of transport. A trolleybus equipped with a battery (in-motion charging technology) gains unique characteristics for operation independent of the catenary. This study presents the approach for assessing the development of in-motion charging for trolleybuses in all Polish cities operating this means of transport. A set of KPIs has therefore, been set and analysed. The analysis covers a comparison between 2014 and 2019, aimed at showing the development of technological innovations in this field. The results clearly show that in-motion charging technology leads to the development of trolleybus transport, although this development has mainly a qualitative dimension.
    [Show full text]
  • 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?..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Tram Vs Trolleybus: They Can't Be Seen As Enemies
    LRT Alternatives Tram vs trolleybus: They can’t be seen as enemies Trolleybuses fell out of fashion in the Left: The Solaris Trollino operates in UK in the 1950s, but they are ‘cleaner’ a number of cities in Eastern Europe than motor buses and can pave the way and on the new for trams. Robert Davidson puts the line in Landskrone, Sweden. Solaris case for their place in the transport mix also supplies Swiss systems also he recent announcement of UK Government plans to providing some of electrify nearly 300 miles (500km) of ‘heavy’ railway these elegant buses over the next decade was accompanied by the Prime to the new system TMinister’s statement that “This will reduce carbon dioxide in Rome. Solaris emissions and mean faster and more reliable services for millions.” This recognises that electric public transport is more TROLLEYBUSES... Critics allege that generating electricity from fossil fuels efficient and attractive, and that the state is investing to simply shifts pollution up the energy chain to the power improve the environment. To hit the UK’s planned 80% ...have lower station. However, the University of California found that target cut in carbon emissions however, it will not be and more even with low-grade coal producing large amounts of CO2 enough to rely on renewables and technical ‘fixes’ – we also predictable (as used in Germany) electric traction almost completely have slash our daily energy consumption by 40%. operating costs. eliminates carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Diesel Transport has a vital role in achieving this. While it is Diesel fuel is engines are only 40% efficient at best and if you include true that motor buses are not the only vehicles which create imported, and we idling and part loads, this plummets to below 30%.
    [Show full text]