GOING NOWHERE FAST? Roy Samaan14 March 2011UP 206 A

Effects of Service Reduction on Transit Quality

Roadmap Research Basis Review of Previous Conclusions Examination of New Variables Use of New Variables to Construct Transit

Quality Index Summary of Findings Conclusion Need for Refinement Questions

Central Policy Questions Does the elimination of METRO bus lines

significantly degrade access to transit? How is quality of transit in most transit

dependent tracts affected? Are there existing alternatives to

eliminated service?

Poverty Rates Around Cancelled Lines

Poverty Rates Around Existing Rapid Lines

DEC 2010: Access Maintained, Quality Reduced

Only East/West Rapid Buses connecting SE LA & SW LA are eliminated & replaced with local service

Rapids connected high poverty areas with transit hubs & job centers

No Additional East/West Rapids Within 1mile of Cancelled Rapid Lines

Standard walk distance is ¼ mile Cancelled North/South Rapids are within1 mile of existing Rapid service

Cancelled Rapid Lines Are in High Usage Corridors

Transit usage in study area high among those earning less than $65k Indicates strong preference for public transit, if not outright transit dependency

Poverty is Useful For Predicting Need, Not Quality of Service

Quality of Service based on multiple factors: Congestion, transit dependency factors,

and speed of rapid bus relative to local bus contribute to service quality

Combining indexed Need Factors and Congestion Factors Gives a rough estimate of service quality

Generation of Need Index Need Index = (% Poverty in tract + %

under 18 + % 65 and up + Usage Intensity)

Weighted towards toward FTA-defined transit dependency variables

Intensity of use given slightly more weight than other factors

Comparison of Need Score vs. Poverty

Highest need scores do not correlate directly to highest poverty Cancelled rapid lines covered need areas not currently covered by

existing rapid service

Calculation of Congestion Index

Factors examined include: Existing bus stop density, local line density, rapid line

density, roadway density and took into account rapid line speed relative to local line speed

Densities were calculated using the following formula: Attribute Density = (Attribute/Area)*(Population/Area)

=> [Attribute *population/(Area*Area)] Spatial joins, field calculator and field geometry used to

generate data Stop density and road density weighted least; rapid

density highest

How does Congestion Score Correlated to Poverty?

High poverty tracts around cancelled east/west lines are only moderately congested relative to DTLA & SFV

Combining Need Index and Congestion Index

Very few High Need areas also had high congestion However, the higher the poverty rate, the higher the average index scores

Creating Transit Quality Index Need Index scores were weighted

slightly higher than Congestion Index scores

Calculated TQI for each census tract It looks like this….

Computation of Transit Quality Index

Countywide Transit Quality Scores

Cancelled rapid lines were an efficient way to get from one low transit quality area to another

Summary of Findings Does the elimination of METRO bus lines

significantly degrade access to transit? No.

How is quality of transit in most transit dependent tracts affected? Negatively.

Are there existing alternatives to eliminated service? Yes for north/south Rapid lines; No for east/west Rapid lines

Conclusions Cancelled rapid lines, especially

east/west lines, served high poverty riders

These lines served census tracts with high need scores and with lower congestion costs than other parts of the city

The loss of these lines reduces the transit quality in southeast and southwest Los Angeles

Necessary Refinement Both Need and Congestion Indices only

give rough estimates Correlating high index scores with

demographic data beyond poverty rates Analysis of forthcoming and proposed

(30/10) rail lines

Questions?