Table 1 Adopted MIA Loading Standards. Bus 120% Light Rail 190% Heavy Rail 230%

Similar documents
Benchmarking Efficiency for MTA Services. Citizens Budget Commission April 6 th 2011

Customer Service, Operations and Safety Committee Tariff Modifications July 21, 2005

Measuring Accessibility. Andrew Owen Director, Accessibility Observatory May 17, 2017

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) BUS ENGINES

MAGAZINE S. The U.S. and. Canada s. Top 50. Passenger Rail Projects for 2003

State Safety Oversight Program

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT. Residents enjoying the newly opened Brickell City Centre on Nov. 3, 2016.

One Gateway Plaza Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA EXECUTE CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS FOR BUS INSPECTION SERVICES

Overview of Regional Commuter Rail Webinar: Phoenix, Arizona December 18, 2013

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Date: November 13, Board of Directors. Neil McFarlane

35 One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA

Top50. Passenger Rail Projects for 2007 THE U.S. AND CANADA S JUNE 2007 METRO MAGAZINE 21

Metro OPERATIONS COMMITTEE JANUARY 20,201 1 SUBJECT: CNG ENGINE OIL AWARD CONTRACT FOR CNG ENGINE OIL RECOMMENDATION

BLACK KNIGHT HPI REPORT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK

ACTION: ESTABLISH LIFE-OF-PROJECT BUDGET FOR UP TO 100 NEW COMPO BUSES

MOTION NO. M Purchase of Thirty-two Double Deck Buses for Increased Passenger Capacity, Bus Replacement and Service Expansion

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Recommended Contracting Actions For Up To 217 Hybrid Electric & Clean Diesel Buses

Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza ~13.g Tel Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA rnetro.net

Sponsored by. The U.S. and Canada s

TRIMET S PARK & RIDE PROGRAM

NEW YORK SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Tel metro. net

PROGRESS ON BUDGET THEMES AND PERFORMANCE METRICS RECEIVE AND FILE PROGRESS REPORT ON BUDGET THEMES AND PERFORMANCE METRICS

SYSTEM SAFETY, SECURITY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE JULY 17, 2014 PURCHASE OF HYBRID SEDANS APPROVE CONTRACT AWARD ACTION: RECOMMENDATION

TOP 100. Transit Bus Fleets

The Denver Model. Miller Hudson

CHART BOOK ON WAGES, OPERATING COSTS, AND COST OF LIVING

TRANSIT IDEA STRATEGIC INITIATIVE On BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Downsizing Revealed in Top 100. METRO s Transit Bus Fleet survey shows decreased fleet numbers for 46% of agencies listed.

APPROVE CONTRACT MODIFICATION AWARD

VOLUNTARY DIESEL RETROFIT PROGRAM. STAPPA and ALAPCO Fall Membership Meeting October, 2003

Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza q.200n Tpl Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA metro.4 I

Emerging international best practices to promote electric vehicles

Trending to Zero: Battery Electric Buses in Public Transit

Changing Behavior and Achieving Mode Shi2 Goals

Bike Sharing in the City and County of Denver. Parking and Mobility Services Denver Public Works, Transportation and Mobility

Foothill Transit Battery Electric Bus Performance Results

APPROVE VANPOOL VEHICLE SUPPLIER BENCH CONTRACTS

What is the Connector?

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

Policy Research CENTER

is being pushed by the locomotive, which reduces the number of seats in that car.

AWARD CONTRACT FOR LINE BREAKERS

Office of Transportation Bureau of Traffic Management Downtown Parking Meter District Rate Report

Presentation to the Swiss Public Transport Journalists

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

P2000 RAIL CAR AUXILIARY INVERTERS

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

Exhibit to Agenda Item #1

Top 100 Bus Fleets Survey: BY ALEX ROMAN, Managing Editor

Reducing Energy Consumption and Emissions Through Congestion Management

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

WELCOME. Transit Options Amherst - Buffalo Public Workshops

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. TAC Briefing December 4, 2013

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. Agreement to Purchase Compressed Natural Gas Articulated Buses. Staff Report

Knoxville Area Transit (KAT) Transit Development Plan Downtown Transit Plan

Paid Parking at Park & Ride Lots: Framing the Issues. Capital Programs Committee May 2014

MOTION NO. M Purchase of Thirty-one Articulated Hybrid Diesel Expansion and Replacement Buses

Cycle 2 California ZEV Investment Plan Release Briefing. October 3, 2018

UPDATE OF TRANSIT ACCESS PASS (TAP) AND FARE GATE INSTALLATION. Receive and file status report on the TAP Program and fare gate operation.

Verification of Redfin s Claims about Superior Notification Speed Performance for Listed Properties

MOTION No. M Purchase of Five 40-foot Buses PROPOSED ACTION

APPROVE PROPOSED CHANGES TO TIER I BUS SERVICE FOR DECEMBER 2010

Fleets Focus on Attracting Riders with Service Enhancements

Brian Pessaro, AICP National Bus Rapid Transit Institute

SUBJECT: CONTRACT C080S, HOIST REPLACEMENT AT BUS MAINTENANCE DIVISIONS 3, 5, 9, 10, AND 18, PETERSON HYDRAULICS AND ROTARY LIFT, A JOINT VENTURE

Metro REVISED SYSTEM SAFETY, SECURITY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE OCTOBER 16, 2014 SUBJECT: ALTERNATORS AWARD CONTRACT FOR ALTERNATORS RECOMMENDATION

APTA 2CA0le1 nd 7 Ar

Inspection and Maintenance of Friction Brakes. Course 205 PREVIEW ONLY PARTICIPANT GUIDE

Analysis of Top BUS RAPID TRANSIT. Projects in North America SPONSORED BY APRIL 2007 METRO MAGAZINE 27

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Q U.S. INDUSTRIAL & LOGISTICS FIGURES

SFMTA Response to Grand Jury Findings

41 One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA

Blue Ribbon Committee

Update on Bus Stop Enhancements

Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit

One Gateway Plaza Mctropoliin Tknsmon Authority Los Angeles, CA OP , SOUTH REGION CONTRACT BUS SERVICES MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (LACMTA) AND FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)

Central Maryland Transit Development Plan

Table 2: Tests for No-Cointegration Empirical Rejection Frequency of 5% Tests

Bus Rapid Transit. Jennifer Flynn and Cheryl Thole Senior Research Associates Commuter Choice Workshop January 2012 Tampa, FL

CONSENT DECREE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSET PROJECTS CUMMINS INC. Table of Contents

Report by Planning, Development & Real Estate Committee (B) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary

The USDOT Congestion Pricing Program: A New Era for Congestion Management

Transaction Trend. United States. Report Q LE s Real Estate Intelligence is Your Strategic Advantage

Transportation Electrification: Reducing Emissions, Driving Innovation. August 2017

Energy Technical Memorandum

Authorize Public Hearing To Discontinue Non- Regional Metrobus Routes 2W, 12A-S and 20F-Y in Fairfax County

Energize Denver. Unlocking Opportunity in Denver. Public Input Session April 25, 2016

Successful Passenger Rail in the State of California

a GAO GAO MASS TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise Report to Congressional Requesters United States General Accounting Office

Plug-In Electric Vehicle Rates

C. Factory Motor Parts for line item 9 (Spin On Fuel CNG Filter) for a total contract value of $261,971, inclusive of sales tax, and

Transcription:

@ Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA gooiz-2952 zi3.gzz.zooo Tel rnetro.net OPERATIONS COMMITTEE JULY 15,2010 SUBJECT: LOAD FACTOR STANDARDS ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE REPORT RECOMMENDATION Receive and file a report discussing load factor standards. MTA establishes load factor standards to guide service quantity determination. Consideration of passenger demand in conjunction with adopted loading standards determines how many trips must be scheduled for each direction of travel in each time period. This report reviews current MTA loading standards, discusses past practices, compares MTA's current standards to those of other transit operators, and discusses key factors to be considered in reviewing and adopting changes to current loading policies. DISCUSSION MTA's current loading standards are expressed in Sections 3.1 and 4.3 of the adopted Transit Service Policy. The standards express the maximum desirable passenger load as a percentage of the available seats per vehicle. Table 1 shows these standards. Table 1 Adopted MIA Loading Standards Bus 120% Light Rail 190% Heavy Rail 230% Expressing the standard as a function of seating permits a flexible maximum load that varies with the seating capacity of each vehicle. For example, a typical 40-foot bus has 40 seats, so the maximum desirable load would be 48 passengers (the equivalent of 8 standees). An articulated bus has 57 seats, thus the maximum load

would be 68 passengers (including 11 standees). Rail cars are specifically designed to carry a larger proportion of riders standing up. MTA's light rail cars have 76 seats permitting up to 144 passengers per car (including 68 standees) under current standards. Heavy rail cars have 57 seats permitting up to 131 passengers per car (including 74 standees) under current standards. In the past, MTA has varied its loading standards by service type and time of day. For example, frequent local buses were scheduled to 145% of seats during peak periods, and 120% of seats in the off-peak. An express bus might have been scheduled to 100% of seats during peak periods, but only 80% of seats during offpeak times. The Consent Decree that went into effect in 1996 established a single loading standard for buses of 120% at all times. That standard was applied to any floating 20-minute interval during peak periods, and floating hourly intervals otherwise. Since the expiration of the Consent Decree in 2006, MTA's practice has permitted hourly average loads as high as the loading standard. Table 2 presents bus loading standards for the largest U. S. properties. Most properties vary the maximum scheduled load by service type and time of day. As can be seen, a majority of the largest properties permit greater loading than MTA's current standard. Some properties (Atlanta, Oakland, and Seattle) attempt to keep maximum passenger loads within a range rather than below a specific target. Atlanta changes the range of acceptable loads based upon route length (longer routes permit lesser maximum average loads). Seattle also considers the duration of the maximum load. Solely evaluating maximum passenger loads provides a narrow view service capacity. To enrich the analysis, consideration should be given to Average Maximum Load (AML). With a rich data source such as the Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) system, staff can evaluate capacity utilization during any twenty minute or hourly period on any line. What can be discovered through such analysis are time periods where service is better than policy level frequency, yet the AML is below a minimum level. While the Maximum Load Factor identifies time periods where additional trips should be added, the Minimum AML analysis reveals opportunities to reduce trips. If a trip can be removed from a time period with five or more trips per hour, then the service reduction would be unnoticeable to the bus passengers. When considering possible changes to MTA's loading standards, several factors should be taken into account. The loading standard should consider how much physical space is available to each passenger at a given loading, and how long the crowding lasts for. Time of day may also be significant as midday, primarily nonwork trip makers, may not tolerate the same level of crowding as peak period riders. The analysis must also consider the Minimum AML. The impact of varying standards on resource requirements must also be considered as lower loading standards will lead to higher cost to serve a given number of riders. Discussion of Load Factor Standards Page 2

NEXT STEPS A review of MTA's adopted loading standards will be carried out consistent with the factors noted in this report. Proposed changes to current standards will be recommended to the Board of Directors for future consideration, and service levels will be adjusted according to adopted standards. ATTACHMENT Table 2 - Bus Maximum Loading Standards for U. S. Transit Properties Prepared by: Conan Cheung, Deputy Executive Officer, Service Development Dana Woodbury, Transportation Project Manager IV Discussion of Load Factor Standards Page 3

Chief Operations Officer Arthur T. Leahy Chief ~xecutive Officer Discussion of Load Factor Standards Page 4

~ - TABLE 2 BUS MAXIMUM LOADING STANDARDS FOR U. S. TRANSIT PROPERTIES Property New York City (NYCMTA), Los Angeles (LACMTA) New Jersey Transit Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Washington, DC (WMATA) Philadelphia (SEPTA) Houston (MTA of Harris County) Seattle (King County DOT) Standard(s) 1.50 NIA 1.50 1.31-1.69 NIA - 1.30 Comments Varies by bus size -- Denver (RTD) 1 I.OO- 1.25 1 1 1 Miami (MDT) / I. 10-1.60 1 Varies with headway Boston (MBTA) I.OO- 1.40 1 Varies by time of day Pittsburg (PATCO) I.OO- 1.40 I I Minneapolis () 0.50-1.25 1 1 Baltimore (MTA) 1 I.OO - 1.30 1 / - maximum if duration > 20 min. I Chicaao (PACE) 1 NIA I I Dallas (DART) Orange County, CA (OCTA) 1.OO - 1.50 I.OO- 1.25 Oakland (AC Transit) 1 1.26-1.50 Portland (TriMet) i 1.27 Atlanta (MARTA) I I.OO - 1.50 Cleveland (GCRTA) 1.25 Honolulu (DTS) 1.50 - ---- - Milwaukee (MCTS) I.OO - 1.33 San Diego (MTS) Range of acceptable maximum loads - I Fixed at 51 passengers per bus 1.25-1.50 for routes c 10 miles - -- Standards expressed as ratios of passengers to seats Compiled from interviews of agency staff and published documents during 2009 Discussion of Load Factor Standards Page 5