Understanding the Market of Metro Transit's Ridership and Services and How Technology Can Help Kevin J. Krizek Ahmed M. El-Geneidy

Similar documents
Cobb Community Transit

The Who and What: Bus Rapid Transit Riders and Systems in the U.S.

How familiar are you with BRT?

Speaker: Brian Dranzik, Fiscal & Policy Administrator Milwaukee County

METRO RTA TRANSIT MASTER PLAN. May 25-26, 2011

City of Davenport CitiBus Public Transportation Study. April 2015

Customer Satisfaction Tracking Report 2016 Quarter 1

Rehabilitating First- and Last- Mile Connections

Intermodal Connections with Light Rail in Phoenix, AZ Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Planning & Development

Purpose and Need. Chapter Introduction. 2.2 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

Aurora Corridor to E Line

EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT

Market Factors and Demand Analysis. World Bank

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

2014 Metro Transit Customer Survey Highlights

Providence Downtown Transit Connector STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2. Stakeholder Meeting #1 October 24, 2016

TRB Managed Lanes Conference May 22 24, 2012, Oakland, CA

VI. Market Factors and Deamnd Analysis

Transit Ridership - Why the Decline and How to Increase. Hosted by the. Virginia Transit Association

Roadways. Roadways III.

Brighton & Hove Bus Company in Brighton & Hove Council area

Eliminate on-street parking where it will allow for a dedicated bus only lane %

STORAGE SPACE. "I carry a lot of things; too many people with packages on the bus leads to aggravation."

AAMPO Regional Transportation Attitude Survey

PURPOSE AND NEED SUMMARY 54% Corridor Need 1. Corridor Need 2. Corridor Need 3. Corridor Need 4. Corridor Need 5

Rider Satisfaction Survey Phoenix Riders 2004

TriMet Attitude & Awareness Survey. November 2016

Transit Operations in the I-95 Express Lanes

ABOUT THIS STUDY The Tenderloin-Little Saigon Community-Based Transportation Plan

Dear City Council Members,

An Evaluation of Comprehensive Transit Improvements TriMet s Streamline Program

HB 2017 Transit Advisory Committee. June 22, 2018

First in Stoke-on-Trent November 2009 City Council area

2018 Transportation Survey October 17, Prepared by:

San Francisco Asian, Inc.

BUS BUS PASSENGER SURVEY RESULTS ARRIVA Arriva in Merseyside November 2009 PTE (Merseytravel) area

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2

From Disarray to Complete Street:

Approximate Travel Times

BUS BUS PASSENGER SURVEY Cornwall RESULTS FOR:

February 2018 METRO TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AUDIT PROGRAM EVALUATION AND AUDIT

Tempe Green Team. Katelyn Roberts, Ryan Souter, Danielle Vermeer, Jake Wilson

Satisfaction with Canada Line and Connecting Buses. Wave 2

BICYCLE SHARING SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FOR SURAT CITY

Bus Queue Jump (Lane) Utilization: A case study in Calgary, AB Canada Muhammad Asim P.Eng, M.Sc. The City of Calgary

Arriva in Medway July 2010 (Kent) Council area

Highway Engineering, second edition: Martin Rogers 2008 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Cheryl Thole CUTR/NBRTI, Senior Research Associate Tampa, Florida

WHITE PAPER: TRANSIT SERVICE FOR SOUTH SHAGANAPPI

BUS PASSENGER SURVEY Merseyside BUS PASSENGER SURVEY RESULTS FOR: November 2009

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Bus Rapid Transit Plans

BUS PASSENGER SURVEY RESULTS FOR: BUS PASSENGER SURVEY STAGECOACH Stagecoach in GMPTE area

APPENDIX A LITERATURE REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Use TheBus. Just to and from work or school Occasionally as a back up Never Total

Stagecoach in Swindon Borough area

Westside Transportation Access Needs Assessment - Short and Long Term Improvements

Community Transit Solutions for the Suburbs APTA Annual Meeting Steve Fittante, New Jersey Transit Corporation September 30, 2013

Complete Street Analysis of a Road Diet: Orange Grove Boulevard, Pasadena, CA

Rider Satisfaction Survey Total Market 2006

Calgary Transit Route 302 Southeast BRT Year One Review June

EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) PROJECT

APPENDIX C: Survey Open-ended Comments and Pop-up Community Engagement Analysis

Arriva in GMPTE July 2010area

METRO Now. Transit Leader. One of only four urban. gain bus ridership in Purple and Green Lines. Red Line is one

Understanding Rail and Bus Ridership

Executive Summary. TUCSON TRANSIT ON BOARD ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY Conducted October City of Tucson Department of Transportation

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

METRO. Monthly Board Report. February 2009

Uniting Cleveland through the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project

Mumford Terminal Replacement Opportunities Neighbourhood Open House. we are here. PHASE 2 Identifying and Evaluating Candidate Sites

Spring Lake Park Mounds View North Oaks. Arden Hills. Shoreview. Roseville. Little Canada. Falcon Heights SNELLING. Lilydale. West Saint Paul 35E

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Sept. 26, 2011

Bus Rapid Transit ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. Open House

Western Greyhound in Cornwall Council area

ASIA PACIFIC RAIL 2006

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN

Detroiters need to be able to conveniently and reliably get to work, school, church, stores, and parks.

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

Bus Rapid Transit on Silicon Valley s El Camino Real: Working Together to Create a Grand Boulevard Steven Fisher

Community & Transportation Preferences Survey

Short-Term Enhancements Improvements to keep Austin moving. MetroRapid

Item Description: Presentation and Discussion: Berkeley Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative

Appendix A-2: Screen 1 Alternatives Report

METRO Light Rail: Changing Transit Markets in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

July 23, Transit Workshop

Planning Regionally With Transit

Breaking the Cycle of Automobile Dependency

EBOTS Phase 2 Outreach Summary

DON MILLS-EGLINTON Mobility Hub Profile

CAMBRIDGE ACCESS STUDY: TACKLING CONGESTION WORKSHOP

the Story of the 30s & 70s Bus Lines James Hamre - WMATA

Joseph Iacobucci. James Czarnecky, AICP

Transit Workshop with MPO Board

VISION Long Range Plan Update Board Workshop. February 10, 2016

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CAPITAL PROJECTS OPERATING PLANS - NEXT NETWORK TRANSIT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Appendix A-K Public Information Centre 2 Materials

Kevin Manaugh Department of Geography McGill School of Environment

Contents. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Stop Placement Guidelines

Transcription:

Understanding the Market of Metro Transit's Ridership and Services and How Technology Can Help Kevin J. Krizek Ahmed M. El-Geneidy University of Minnesota

Understanding the Market of Metro Transit's Ridership and Services and How Technology Can Help Kevin J. Krizek Ahmed M. El-Geneidy University of Minnesota

All travelers in an urban area Transit riders Non-transit riders 1. Captive transit Choice transit Potential riders Captive auto What do we know of these populations? What are the prospects for increasing these populations? What role can technology play in attracting these populations?

Types of Riders Captive Riders Portland (OR) 23% of the total riders Chicago (IL) 32% of the total riders Choice Riders Portland (OR) 77% of the total riders Chicago (IL) 68% of the total riders

Rider Survey 4408 Onboard Surveys 83 Questions Conducted in 2001 by Periscope (Metro Transit)

Question 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Seats are comfortable 0.52-0.01-0.07 0.17 0.43 0.09 Buses are clean 0.54-0.08 0.03 0.36 0.06-0.13 You are likely to recommend Metro Transit bus service to family, friends, or co-workers 0.55 0.07 0.10 0.16-0.08 0.11 Buses run on schedule Trip length is satisfactory Buses are comfortable You feel safe while waiting for the bus during the day Safety & Satisfaction 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.63-0.04-0.01-0.02 0.07 0.08 0.01-0.03-0.05 0.29 0.15 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.39-0.09 0.11 0.19 0.05-0.33 You feel safe while riding on buses during the day 0.64 0.04-0.05 0.11-0.08-0.33 Overall, you are satisfied with Metro Transit bus service 0.67 0.09 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.02 Buses are reliable 0.69 0.00 0.06 0.30 0.05-0.01 Reduction in time spent waiting to get bus information by phone -0.09 0.65 0.27-0.01 0.20 0.05 Clear, accurate information: Bus Line Courteous customer service on MT info line Reliability 0.05 0.05 0.68 0.83 0.17 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.00 You are able to access route or schedule information using the MT Information Line 0.05 0.84 0.09 0.02 0.18 0.00 Clear, accurate information: Info Line 0.06 0.87 0.07 0.02 0.18-0.03 Faster ways to pay your fare Express bus hours of operation are sufficient Park & Ride lots are conveniently located Park & Ride amenities such as a convenience store, daycare facility, or dry cleaner Coach buses for longer express commutes More express bus routes Travel Time & Service Type -0.05 0.28 0.23 0.07-0.08-0.11 0.09-0.03 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.51 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.75 0.79 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00-0.01 0.06 0.03-0.20-0.04 0.00-0.02 0.09 0.08-0.02-0.09-0.02-0.13 Longer bus service hours -0.07 0.10 0.79-0.04-0.02-0.08 Drivers call out street names at transfer points and intersections with stop lights Drivers operate buses in a safe and responsible manner Drivers present a professional appearance Drivers are helpful Drivers Attitude 0.24 0.30 0.32 0.17-0.02 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.07-0.03 0.00 0.03 0.60 0.69 0.70 0.78 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04-0.06-0.06-0.04 Drivers are courteous 0.25-0.02 0.01 0.84-0.03-0.05 Approximately what was your family's total income last year? How many working automobiles do you have available for your use? Time waiting for transfer buses is not excessive Service Matter 0.11 0.08 0.14-0.22-0.21 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.12-0.02 0.00 0.08-0.68-0.64 0.72 0.12-0.06-0.01 You are comfortable transferring from one bus to another to complete your trip 0.10 0.23 0.03 0.07 0.76-0.06 What is your age? How long have you used our bus service? Personal 0.08-0.03-0.07 0.11-0.13-0.02 0.01-0.12-0.12 0.01 0.77 0.70

Rider Survey Cluster Analysis 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0-0.2-0.4-0.6 Choice Riders 57.5% Captive Riders 42.5% -0.8-1 Safety & Satisfaction Reliability Travel Time & Service Type Drivers Attitude Convenience of Service Personal Characteristics

Main Points Choice Riders Reliability Travel Time Convenience of Service Stop Announcements Captive Riders Safety

Automatic Vehicle Location

Transit Trackers & Next Arrival

London Countdown Multi-Line LED Displays Countdown in Minutes 400 Signs (4,000 Planned) 3 Phases Over 4 Years

All travelers in an urban area Transit riders Non-transit riders 2. Captive transit Choice transit Potential riders Captive auto What do we know of these populations? What are the prospects for increasing these populations? What role can technology play in attracting these populations?

Non-Rider Survey 515 Phone Surveys 75 Questions Conducted by Periscope (Metro Transit) in 2001

Question 1 2 3 4 Frequency of serv ice or time between buses 0.61-0.06 0.10 0.05 On-time perf ormance 0.61-0.05 0.37 0.05 Clarity of the bus stop announcements Visibility of route numbers or names on the outside of the bus Ease of pay ing f are or purchasing bus passes Driv ing competency of the bus driv ers Helpf ulness of the bus driv ers Reliability & Performance 0.77 0.67 0.56 0.56 0.67-0.03 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05-0.07 0.29 0.38 0.30 0.00-0.01-0.02-0.14-0.20 Accuracy of the bus stop announcements 0.76 0.05 0.14 0.00 Courteousness of the bus driv ers 0.65 0.05 0.33-0.16 More amenities such as day care, cof f ee shops, cleaners, drug stores at Park-and-Ride lots 0.10 0.67-0.09 0.16 Employ er-prov ided car f or work purposes or emergencies while at work Personalized help f inding bus routes or scheduling inf ormation Discounted or reduced f ares Guaranteed ride home av ailable if there were an emergency during work hours or if y ou had to work late Amenities -0.03-0.06-0.09 0.03 0.69 0.69 0.73 0.73-0.03 0.06 0.22 0.15 0.03 0.04-0.10 0.12 Shuttle or v an serv ice to shopping centers or stores during lunch breaks 0.06 0.76-0.03 0.04 The buses are not clean -0.10-0.03-0.68 0.11 Comf ort of the bus such as seating and temperature inside Saf ety at the bus stops How appealing, ov erall, is the idea of using the bus? Cleanliness of the buses Trip Environment 0.49 0.35-0.01 0.37-0.04-0.02 0.38 0.04 0.53 0.59 0.61 0.70-0.04 0.07-0.02-0.04 Saf ety f rom crime on buses 0.30 0.03 0.74 0.03 Approximately how f ar is it f rom y our home to the nearest bus stop or shelter? -0.03 0.10-0.12 0.58 How long do y ou think it would take y ou to commute to work or school using a bus? How long does it take y ou to commute to work or school one way in a ty pical day? Travel Time -0.05-0.04-0.05 0.14-0.01 0.04 0.65 0.87 How many miles do y ou ty pically commute to work or school one way? -0.03 0.12 0.02 0.90

0.6 Non-Rider Survey Cluster Analysis 0.4 0.2 0-0.2-0.4-0.6 Potential Riders 51% Auto Captives 49% Reliability and Level of Service Amenities Trip Environment Travel Time

Main Points Potential Riders Access to Service Travel Time Waiting Time Reliability Trip Environment

Technology Applications & Impact Transit Trackers and Next Arrival

Internet Applications Metro Transit Trip Planner

Online Transit Trackers

Passenger s Time Access Time Waiting Time Travel Time Egress Time

Waiting Time

Travel Time

Current Technologies at Metro Transit Transit Signal Priority Automatic Vehicle Location Automatic Passenger Counter Advanced Transit Management Center

Technology Savings in Portland (OR) Findings: On-time performance 9% improvement Run-time variance 18% improvement Average run-time 3% improvement Headway variance 4% improvement Estimated annual benefits: Passenger waiting time $1.6M Passenger travel time $1.9M Operating costs 1 $1.9M Total $5.4M (1) Operating cost benefits depend on schedule adjustments

Bus Rapid Transit Future Projects Utilization of Archived ITS Data in Analyzing Transit Operations and Performance

Understanding the Potential Market of Metro Transit's Ridership and Services and How Technology can Help Kevin J. Krizek & Ahmed M. El-Geneidy University of Minnesota Pictures Credit TriMet David Crout Metro Transit website

Transit Ridership at Metro Transit (from federal reporting requirements) Between 2004 and 2005 Quarterly Report Light Rail Bus Service 48.6% Increase in Number of Trips 31.5% Increase in Number of Bus Trips