View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
October 14, 2010California Department of Transportation
University of California Transportation Center
Statewide Transit Strategic Plan- Steering Committee Meeting -
Updated Baseline Report per Committee Suggestions 1TOPIC REVISIONS
Vanpools Added to Chapter 8: Shuttles
Paratransit and Demand Response New section: Chapter 4, Transportation for Disabled, Senior, and Low Income Travelers
The “True Cost” of Auto Ownership & Driving
New section: Chapter 14, Cost of Driving Alone vs. Transit
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit New section: Chapter 7
Rural Operators Many of the agencies discussed in the report are rural operators, and their concerns are included in the sections as appropriate (e.g., pages 10 & 15)
“Population and Settlement” approach (Land Use issues)
Discussed in the section on Transit Oriented Development (Chapter 13). Also raised as an issue in the recommendations of Chapter 4. Transit agencies sometimes mention the connection with land use in their documents, but do not discuss the subject in much detail.
Transportation for Disabled, Senior, and Low-Income Travelers
Inventories: • Many different kinds of providers
(public transit agencies, social services agencies, health care agencies, private for-profit companies, faith-based groups)
• Many different kinds of services(transportation to medical appointments, special equipment for disabled transportation, reverse commute / job access, demand response, vouchers for transit/taxi service)
Challenges to Coordination: • Constraints from funding sources, limited knowledge of other providers
with whom to coordinate, tight budgets, limited ability to share resources/equipment
Challenges for Rural Areas:• Longer distances, high-cost services,
fewer options for travelers
2
Cost of Driving Alone • Travelers who have a choice of
modes usually think about immediate costs of
individual trip: i.e., fuel, parking, tolls, time costs vs. cost of transit
fare, waiting time, walking time
• Fixed costs (insurance, maintenance, buying a car) add much more to the actual cost of driving
• External costs—not paid for by driver—include congestion, air pollution, greenhouse
gas emissions, traffic services, noise, induced sprawl
Costs of owning an automobileSource: Litman, Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis
3
Pedestrians and BicyclesPedestrians: Stops and stations: benches, shadeSurrounding streets: sidewalks, pedestrian signals, safe
crossings, good road connectivity, directroutes
Bikes:Capacity limits (2-3 bikes per rack on buses; limited space on peak-hour trains)Sharing road space (bikes and buses)Safe, secure bike parking; bike stations; bike sharing
Source: LACMTA
Source: City of Covina
4
% Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050
Source: The California Department of Finance
Statewide
+52%
5
Yr2010
39.1M
Yr2050
59.5M
<Total Population>
# Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050<Total Population>
Source: The California Department of Finance
Statewide
+20.4M
6
Yr2010
39.1M
Yr2050
59.5M
% Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050<Latino>
Source: The California Department of Finance
Statewide
+114%
7
Yr2010
14.5M
Yr2050
31.0M
# Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050<Latino>
Source: The California Department of Finance
Statewide
+16.5M
8
Yr2010
14.5M
Yr2050
31.0M
# Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050<Over 65 Yrs Old>
Source: The California Department of Finance
10
Yr2010
4.4M
Yr2050
11.6MStatewide
+162%
# Change, 2010-50
California Population Projection 2050<Over 65 Yrs Old>
Source: The California Department of Finance
Statewide
+7.2M
3
Yr2010
4.4M
Yr2050
11.6M
System Performance
Safety Financial Sustainability
Customer Focus Other
On-time arrival(58%)
Number of incidents in X miles (25%)
Farebox recovery ratio(55%)
Number of complaints in X miles (25%)
Proximity of riders to service (22%)
Distance between breakdowns(35%)
Number of injuries in X miles (10%)
Passengers per revenue mile or revenue hour (50%)
Seating capacity(20%)
Distance between stops (10%)
Percent of trips missed (30%)
Operating cost per revenue hour (25%)
Accessibility (18%)
Minimum service by density (10%)
Headway (20%)
Operating cost per revenue mile or passenger mile (20%)
Cleanliness (18%)
Average weekday/ weekend boarding (13%)
Subsidy per passenger trip (13%)
Number of passenger trips (8%)
Common Performance Measures found In SRTPs
(% of agencies studied that report using each measure)
11
Policy Issues & Data SourcesPolicy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesSystem Performance/
Customer Focus
-Level of Service Coverage -Level of Service Hours & Frequency -Level of Service Information-Level of Service Volume -Level of Service Delay -Level of Service Connection-Level of Service Price-Modal Share % (by areas or Corridors)-Ridership (by Transit Stops or Systems)-Public Transit Passenger Miles Traveled ( to Vehicle Miles Traveled)
-FTA National Transit Database (NTD), 1999-2008-APTA Public Transportation Fact Book, 2003-09-BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD)-Each Transit Agency’s Service Lines, Time Tables, and Fare Rates-Each Transit Agency’s Website-RITA/BTS Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database-Transit User Satisfaction Surveys-Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP), 1990 & 2000-American Community Survey (ACS), 2005-08-Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) , 2002-08
Financial Sustainability
-Expenditures per Service Unit-Expenditures per Service Hour-Revenues per Service Unit-Revenues per Service Hour -Farebox Recovery Ratio-External Funds
-NTD, 1999-2008-APTA Public Transportation Fact Book, 2003-2009-State Controller-Each Transit Agency’s Annual Reports & Short-Range Plans
Safety -Accident & Fatality Rates (Passengers vs. Drivers)
-California Traffic Safety Report Card-Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTFA), the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) -National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES)-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008
Access/Mobility -# of Households, jobs, and Services (e.g., retail shops) within ½ Mile of Transit Stops or Highway Ramps- # Jobs within ½ hr. via car vs. transit
-Mean Travel Time (Work & Non-Work)-Peak Hour Traffic Speed & Delay-Travel Time Index (TTI)
-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-Zip Business Pattern (ZBP) Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line & BTS NTAD-Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Database -Texas Transportation Institute
12
Policy Issues & Data SourcesPolicy Issues Potential Measures Available Data Sources
Access/Mobility # of HHs, Jobs, and Services (e.g., retail shops) within ½ Mile of Transit Stops or Highway Ramps
• Mean Travel Time (Work & Non-Work)
• Peak Hour Traffic Speed & Delay
• Travel Time Index (TTI)
U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010American Community Survey (ACS), 2005-08Zip Business Pattern (ZBP) Series, 1998-2008Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2002-08U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line & BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD)Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Database Texas Transportation Institute
• # Jobs within ½ Hr. Via Car vs. Transit
• # Jobs within ½ Hr. via Car vs. Transit
13
Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility for Mission Valley Tract, 2000
#0-15 min. 380,000
0-30 min. 735,000
0-45 min. 1,180,000
0-60 min. 1,375,000
Number of Jobs that can be reached viaAuto-Highway during P.M. Peak Hour
SAN DIEGOCOUNTYDATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2
14
#
Number of Jobs that can be reached viaTransit during P.M. Peak Hour
Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility via Public Transit: Mission Valley, 2000
SAN DIEGOCOUNTYDATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2
15
#0-30 min. 170,000
0-15 min. 75,000
0-45 min. 285,000
0-60 min. 340,000
Note: Grayrepresentsno transit services
Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility
for Mission Valley TractNumber of Jobs that can be
reached via Transit during P.M. Peak Hour
DATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2
16
TimeIsochrone A.I. Auto A.I. Transit
Accessibility Advantage:
Auto to Transit
0-15 Min. 380,000 75,000 5.13
0-30Min. 735,000 170,000 4.32
0-45Min. 1,180,000 280,000 4.21
0-60Min. 1,375,000 340,000 4.04
The Car’s Accessibility Advantage: Mission Valley, 2000
17
TimeIsochrone
Accessibility Advantage Auto to Transit (Avg. 60 sites)
2030Trend-line
Projections
2030Smart Growth
Projections
0-15 Min. 5.46 1.67
0-30Min. 6.70 1.95
0-45Min. 7.65 2.19
0-60Min. 7.95 2.44
Transit Policies & Data Sources (Con.)
Policy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesLand Use -Floor Area Ratio
-Land Use Mixture Index-Open & Pedestrian Space Ratio-Street Connectivity Index-Length of Bike Lanes around Transit Stop-# of Urban Design Components (Trees, Street Furniture, etc.) -# of Parking Lots around Transit Stop
-National/Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Database-Individual Case Studies & Qualitative Surveys -Each Transit Agency’s Property Database-Each Local Government’s Building Codes and Permissions-Each Local Government’s Land Use Database-Each Local Government’s Urban Design Guide Lines-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)
Economic Development -Population Growth %-Employment Growth %-Location Quotient (LQ) -Shift-Share %-Unemployment Rate-Property Market Value -Property Vacancy & Absorption Rates -State & Local Tax Revenues
-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-ZBP Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)-State and Each Local Government’s Annual Tax Report
Environmental Sustainability
-VMT per Capita-VHM per Capita-Sales of Diesel and Gasoline -Air Quality (SOX, NOX and PM10) -GHG Emission per Capita, System or Service
-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008-PeMS Database-California EPA, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics-California EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, 2000-08
<Other>
19
Transit Policies & Data Sources (Con.)
Policy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesLand Use -Floor Area Ratio
-Land Use Mixture Index-Open & Pedestrian Space Ratio-Street Connectivity Index-Length of Bike Lanes around Transit Stop-# of Urban Design Components (Trees, Street Furniture, etc.) -# of Parking Lots around Transit Stop
-National/Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Database-Individual Case Studies & Qualitative Surveys -Each Transit Agency’s Property Database-Each Local Government’s Building Codes and Permissions-Each Local Government’s Land Use Database-Each Local Government’s Urban Design Guide Lines-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)
Economic Development -Population Growth %-Employment Growth %-Location Quotient (LQ) -Shift-Share %-Unemployment Rate-Property Market Value -Property Vacancy & Absorption Rates -State & Local Tax Revenues
-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-ZBP Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)-State and Each Local Government’s Annual Tax Report
Environmental Sustainability
-VMT per Capita-VHM per Capita-Sales of Diesel and Gasoline -Air Quality (SOX, NOX and PM10) -GHG Emission per Capita, System or Service
-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008-PeMS Database-California EPA, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics-California EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, 2000-08
<Other>
19
TOD Residents: Evidence from California (2003) • Ridership Bonus: Transit commute shares exceed
surrounding city by a factor of 5; Commute VMTestimated to be 80% lower
Source: Lund, Cervero, Willson (2004)
Avaiilable: CA TOD Databasehttp://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/
20
Performance Measures
• Inputs (e.g., $ per hour of transit)
• Outputs (e.g., # of vehicle-miles of service)
• Outcomes (e.g., improved transit accessibility)
Examples for Recent Initiatives in CA:• Fare Media • BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)• HSR (High Speed Rail) Proposal
Gauged by:
21
Ex.1 Fare Media PerformanceClipper Card
in San Francisco
Connection: # of transit agencies
“Transit Service”
Reliability: travel speeds & on-time arrival
Coverage: # of POS machines & % of smart card passengers
“Transit Operation ” Passengers per revenue mile or revenue hour Operating cost per revenue mile or passenger mile External revenues (e.g., retail payment)Farebox recovery ratio
TAP Card in Los Angeles
Compass Cardin San Diego
22
Ex.2 BRT Performance
Source: 2008 data from MTA & Qualitative Surveys
Orange Linein Los Angeles
“Transit Service”
“Transit Market”
“Built Environment (Land Use)”
Coverage: Ave. 9,495 pop. in ½ mi buffer Ave. 5,159 emp. in ½ mi buffer Operating Hours: 21 hrsFrequency: 155 buses per day Info/Schedule: 100% (13 out of 13 stops) Connection: Ave. 2.23 feeder bus lines/stop Ave. 315 P&R lots /stopPrice: Base Fare = $1.50 & Transfer = $0.35
Ridership: Ave. 2,153 daily boardings/stop
Street Connectivity (links/nodes): Ave. 2.22 in ½ mi buffer
Bench: 100% (13 out of 13 stops)Shade Cover: 100% (13 out of 13 stops)High-Quality Bus Service
+ Built Environment
23
Ex.3 HSR Performance
Sources: 2008 & 2010 data from Caltrans; ACS; LEHD; Highway Statistics
California HSRin San Jose
“Transit Service”
“Transit Market”
“Economic Development”
“Environmental Sustainability”
Projected: 86 trains/day
Projected: 15,000 boardings/day
Public Transport: 5.3%
Drive Alone: 71.6%
Journey to Work Modal Share 08’
Walk, Bike, Taxi & Others: 12.0%
Car Pooled: 12.8%
Employment 08’: 191,000 jobs Employment Grow 00’-08’: -8.9%Economic Specialization 08’ (LQ >1)
In 5 km of the proposed HSR station
VMT/Capita 08’: 21.0 miles/day in UA
Construction: 1.59Wholesale Trade: 1.40Professional Service: 1.56Management Company: 1.62Administrative: 1.47
Today’s Projections & Figures
24
Last meeting focused on:1) Funding challenges/issues 2) Transit service & technology challenges/issues/opportunities3) Need for outreach
To confirm…Are these the “right” focus areas for the strategic transit plan? Others?
• Are there key points or strategies that the plan should emphasize to improve transit service and delivery?
• Should we be developing strategies on how to meet the goals of SB 375 and regional visions/efforts?
• Are there data needs and the performance measures just discussed on the right track?
• Are there key conclusions that should be highlighted in the baseline report or is it best to let the descriptive materials speak for themselves?
Discussion Topics from the Last Meeting 26
What should be the objectives, content and format of the workshops?
Do you have recommendations on invitees? e.g., transit agencies, MPOs, CMAs, cities, non-profit orgs, others?
*Six workshops to be held between now and Spring 2011in So. Cal./SCAG region, San Diego (SANDAG), Bay Area (MTC), Sacramento (SACOG), Central Cal., Northern Cal. (focusing on smaller communities)
Regional Workshops* 25
Discussion Topics
1) Vision & Priorities for Transit in California
What are the key objectives transit should strive for from a statewide perspective?
What should be the top priorities in trying to achieve these objectives?
What are the commonalities and differences in priorities among the committee members?
27
1) What are the barriers to improvingtransit (e.g., institutional/ coordination, political, $, operations, technology, service connectivity, etc.)
2) What are some successful examples in the state or elsewhere (including abroad if appropriate?)
3) What could be the state's role in promotingand improving transit?
4) What are some implementable initiatives that could be introduced fairly quickly to noticeably improve transit throughout the state?
Other Issues and Topics 28