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

Similar documents
PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK

Priority Corridor Network Policies and Standards

FY2006 Budget Board Budget Committee request for information. Board Request: Detailed information on bus route 5A DC-Dulless Airport

Arlington County 10-Year Transit Development Plan & Premium Transit Network Briefing. May 2016

ABOUT THE PROJECT. DOWNTOWN WEST Transportation Planning Study. Pennsylvania Ave. NW: H Street NW: Farragut. K St. NW. North. I St.

FY 2018 I-66 Commuter Choice Program Presentation to the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission May 3,

BRIEFING ON PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND CHANGES Additions and Changes to Projects Proposed for Inclusion in the 2015 CLRP Update

Preliminary Transportation Analysis

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

TRANSPORT CHICAGO: STRATEGIC PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS

Interim Transit Ridership Forecast Results Technical Memorandum

M Street SW-Southeast Federal Center

Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan

Capital Metro Monthly Ridership Report September 2017 (Fiscal Year-end 2017)

Presentation of Staff Draft March 18, 2013 COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

Capital and Strategic Planning Committee. Item III - B. April 12, WMATA s Transit-Oriented Development Objectives

Scheduling 101 Calculating Running Time Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Multimodal Operations Workshop Houston, TX

Tunnel Reconstruction South 5 th Street Association October 16, 2018

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

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

Aurora Corridor to E Line

Introductions John Carten noted that Linda Massaro has resigned from the TAC.

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) Application to Miami-Dade Transit

Prince George s County Council Retreat January 5, 2017

Set of plans containing details for game day operations of the Ballpark. Plans set forth the responsibilities and the specific actions of:

Tunnel Reconstruction Brooklyn CB 1 August 14, 2018

VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS

Gratiot Avenue Transit Study Tech Memo #4: Ridership

Understanding Rail and Bus Ridership

City of Davenport CitiBus Public Transportation Study. April 2015

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Calgary Transit Route 302 Southeast BRT Year One Review June

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE IN THE I-66 INSIDE THE BELTWAY CORRIDOR

Transit Workshop with MPO Board

Capital Metro Monthly Ridership Report January 2018 (Fiscal Year 2018)

North Shore Transportation Improvement Strategy

Geo-coding of the 2012 WMATA Rail Survey. Travel Forecasting Subcommittee January 25, 2012 Clara Reschovsky

Semi-Annual DC Circulator Forum. February 25, 2014

Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Safety and Service Delivery. Committee Information Item III-A. April 12, 2018

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

An Incentive-Based Approach to Curbing Automobile Use in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study

What if YOU could help plan Northern Virginia s transportation future?

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of The Draft 2015 CLRP

Everett Transit Action Plan. Community Open House November 16, 2015

Appendix A-K Public Information Centre 2 Materials

Customer Service and Operations Committee. Board Action Item III-A. February 12, 2015

Washington DC Section of ITE Project Briefing

Transportation. Pages E-3 to E-145 PROPOSED FY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) CCCRC Presentation Thursday, June 14, 2018

Transit Operations in the I-95 Express Lanes

FY Transportation Capital Improvement Plan Update Arlington Committee for Transportation Choices

DULLES AREA TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (DATA) February 18, Susan Shaw, P.E., VDOT, Megaprojects Director

Integrating Community Development and Transportation Strategies. November 13, 2014

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

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

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

ITS-NY ANNUAL MEETING Bus Rapid Transit in New York City: Bus Lane Operations on One-Way Arterial Streets

Public Information and Participation Comments

ROUTES 55 / 42 / 676 BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

MORE CONNECTIONS. Redesigning routes for the future of transit in Milwaukee County.

Bus Riders of Saskatoon Meeting with City of Saskatoon Utility Services Department October 23, :30pm 2:30pm th Street West, Saskatoon

M14A/D Select Bus Service

EL CAMINO REAL BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

2014 Mobility Assessment Report Functional Planning & Policy Montgomery County Planning Department

Ridership in Virginia by System FY2017

Appendix C. NORTH METRO STATION AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 88th Avenue Station

Central Corridor. Light Rail Transit. Improving mobility Easing congestion Strengthening our communities. Committee of the Whole January 30, 2008

Strategies to keep people and goods moving in and through Seattle

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Board Action/Information Summary

Market Factors and Demand Analysis. World Bank

Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Project

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

Transportation-Demand Management Community Presentation

STATUS OF 2009 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (AS OF DECEMBER 2013)

Transit Choices December 8, 2016

Operational Comparison of Transit Signal Priority Strategies

Pocatello Regional Transit Master Transit Plan Draft Recommendations

Bus Rapid Transit Plans

Downtown BRT Corridor Alternatives Review: 1 st, 2 nd, 3 rd and 4 th Avenue. Bus Rapid and Conventional Transit Planning and Design Services

Scope of the Transit Priority Project

Paratransit Service. ADA Paratransit Service

Community Task Force July 25, 2017

WELCOME! Please complete a comment sheet as we value your feedback. 4 pm to 8 pm. September 15, Hosted by: AECOM on behalf of City of Calgary

122 Avenue: 107 Street to Fort Road

ADVANCED TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND MODELING

Customer Service and Operations Committee. Board Information Item III-A. March 12, 2015

KING STREET TRANSIT PILOT

Speaker: Brian Dranzik, Fiscal & Policy Administrator Milwaukee County

Technical Working Group November 15, 2017

In station areas, new pedestrian links can increase network connectivity and provide direct access to stations.

Wellington Public Transport Spine Study

Short-Term Transit Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

MBTA Key Bus Route. Community Meeting Route 1 - Cambridge

Presentation to Media. February 27, 2008

Final Study Recommendations AMES TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY. For Public Review and Comment. October Ames Transit Feasibility Study

Transcription:

Evaluation of a Service Restructuring: the Story of the 30s & 70s Bus Lines James Hamre - WMATA

Metrorail is the second largest rail transit system in the nation 230 million annual riders 780,000 weekday riders Metrobus is the fifth largest bus network in the nation 124 million annual ULPT 416,000 weekday ULPT 1500 buses/ 165 Lines MetroAccess is eighth in the nation serving Background About Metro 2.33 million riders in FY 2010 2

WMATA Compact Service Area Metro serves a geographic area covering 1,500 square miles Eight compact member jurisdictions s plus 3 state DOTs Service area population of over 3.5 million 2 commuter rail systems 12 local bus systems 3

What is a Priority Corridor? 4

Metrobus Priority Corridor Network Plan 1. Columbia Pike (Pike Ride) 2. Richmond Highway Express (REX) 3. Georgia Ave./7 th St. 4. Crystal City Potomac Yard 5. Southern Ave. Metro National Harbor 6. Wisconsin Ave./Pennsylvania Ave. 7. University it Blvd./East-West thighway 8. Sixteenth St. (DC) 9. Leesburg Pike 10. Veirs Mill Rd. 11. New Hampshire Ave. 12. H St./Benning Rd. 13. Georgia Ave. (MD) 14. Greenbelt-Twinbrook 15. East-West Highway (Prince George s) 16. Anacostia-Congress Heights 17. Little River Tpke./Duke St. 18. Rhode Island Ave. Metro to Laurel 19. Mass Ave./U St./Florida Ave./8 th St./MLK Ave. 20. Rhode Island Ave. 21. Eastover-Addison Road Metro 22. Colesville Rd./Columbia Pike - MD US 29 23. Fourteenth St. (DC) 24. North Capitol St. 5

Corridor Plans Address All Elements of Service Corridor Design Factors 1. Service Plan (type, frequency, span, coverage) 2. Customer Information Systems 3. Bus Stops and Facilities 4. Service Personnel and Operations Strategies 5. Traffic Operations and Management Strategies 6. Vehicle Design, Features and Amenities 7. Safety, Security and Incident Response 8. Fare Payment Strategies 6

30s and 70s Lines Service Areas Routes 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, M6 Routes 70, 71, 79 7

30s Line Recommended Improvements Implemented in 2008 Created Route 31 Potomac Park to Friendship Heights Created Route M5 from Eastern Market to Naylor Rd Created Routes 37 and 39 Limited Stop Services Eliminated Routes 30, 34, & 35 Supervisor and driver training Updated schedule information at stops 9

Subsequent 30s Line Improvements Adjustments in 2009 Extended M5 from Eastern Market to Archives Renamed Route M5 to Route 34 Added trips to Route 32 to increase capacity 10

What is the Purpose of the Evaluation? Assess whether goals and objectives are being met Evaluate effectiveness of improvements Refine improvements Revisit mid- and longterm planned recommendations 11

Georgia Avenue and 30s Lines Evaluation Study Who is involved? Metro and the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) and original implementation team. What was evaluated? Improvements implemented in 2007 and 2008. Why were these corridors chosen for evaluation? They are the first two lines studied as part of the Priority Corridor Network. When did the evaluation take place? From August 2009 to January 2010.

Evaluation Process 1. Public feedback 2. Assess bus operations 3. Assess street operations 4. Evaluate improvements made to the line 5. Recommend further improvements/refinements t 6. Update implementation strategies 13

How Did Bus Riders and the Public Participate? Rider Survey Public Workshops Comment Sheets Project Hot Line 703-682-5060 Website www.georgiaave-30s-dc.com 14

How Was Public Input Used? Identify and prioritize issues for technical evaluation Provide background for issue analysis and draft recommendations Form a consensus on what issues need to be addressed Ideas/suggestions about further changes or improvements to the line 15

Driver and Supervisor Feedback on 30s Line Shorter routes (31,34,37,39) 34 37 39) have helped reliability Congestion in Georgetown, at H and I Sts NW, and Sousa Bridge SE remain a problem Need to advance signal and runningway improvements Driver training is essential Traffic and parking enforcement needs to be stronger 16

Driver and Supervisor Feedback on 70s Line

Project Measures of Effectiveness Goal Evaluation Criteria Improve Schedule Adherence and Maintain Headway 1. Bus Bunching and Headway Separation Separation 2. On-Time Performance 3. Driver and Supervisor Feedback Reduce Travel Times and Improve Travel Speed 1. Bus Travel Time 2. Bus Travel Speed 3. Scheduled Transit Travel Times Reduce Overcrowding 1. Passenger Loads Per Trip Enhance Customer Experience 1. Customer Comments 2. Driver/Supervisor Comments 3. Bus Stop Improvements and Amenities Improve Efficiency and Productivity 1. Daily Ridership 2. Ridership by Stop 3. Passenger Boarding s Per Revenue Hour 4. Cost Per Boarding 5. Change in Fare Payment Type Achieve Appropriate Balance of Service 1. Level of Service on Different Sections of the Corridor Relative to Demand

Summary of Study Findings Wisconsin Ave. - Pennsylvania Ave. 30s Line 30s Line 1. Ridership remained steady 2. Bus bunching declined partially 3. On-Time performance improved Westbound but declined Eastbound 4. Bus travel speed and times have not changed except for route 37 and 39 5. No overcrowding except on some trips due to schedule adherence problems 6. Productivity and efficiency declined 7. Customers experience enhanced partially

70s Line Summary of Study Findings Georgia Avenue 70s Line 1. Ridership remained steady 2. Schedule adherence has improved partially but headway separation problem remains 3. Good overall On-Time performance but deteriorating slightly nearer to the end terminal in the peak direction 4. Bus travel speed and times has not improved with the exception of route 79 5. Overcrowding reduced on the 70 and 71 but problem remains on route 79 6. Productivity and efficiency declined 7. Customers experience enhanced partially

Limited Stop Services Achieved Travel Time Savings Travel time savings were realized for all three lines Routes 37 & 39 Travel Time vs Routes 32,3636 Route 37 26% Route 39 25% Route 79 Peak 22% Base 26% Route 79 Travel Time vs Routes 70,71

Reliability Was Improved by Service Management On-time Performance of 30s Line Early (Prior to Change) Exact (Prior to Change) 1 5 min Late (Prior to Change) > 5 min Late (Prior to Change) Early (Current) Exact (Current) 1 5 min Late (Current) > 5 min Late (Current) 70% 65% 68% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 43% 39% 37% 36% 33% 31% 32% 32% 30% 26% 26% 23% 23% 24% 21% 20% 18% 18% 19% 15% 14% 14% 10% 9% 8% 5% 3% 0% 0% AM Eastbound AM Westbound PM Eastbound PM Westbound WISCONSIN AVE & ALBEMARLE ST NW 47% 22

30s Line Recommendations Recommendation Benefit Cost Estimate 1. Reinstate Dedicated Improve Reliability Supervisors 2. Expedite Running Way Improvements Improve I Headway Separation Improve Travel Time and Speed Helps to Improve Headway Separation Implementation Time Period $400,000 Short Term $100,000 Short Term 3. Marketing Campaign for Route 37 and 39 Improve Awareness of the services Increase Ridership $20,300 Short Term 4. Modify Supervisor Playbook Improve Service Management $3,400 Short Term 5. Expand Driver Training Improve Drivers Knowledge Improve Customer Experience $33,400 Short Term 6. Implement Dedicated Traffic Control Officers and Parking Enforcement Staff 7. Implement 30s Line Operation Center Improve Travel Time and Speed Improve Reliability Improve Headway Separation Assist Supervisors in addressing reliability and line management issues $688,500 Medium Term $160,000 Long Term Total $1,405,600

Georgia Avenue 70s Recommendations Recommendation Benefit Cost Estimate 1. Reinstate Dedicated Improve Reliability Supervisors 2. Add Peak Period Capacity on Route 79 3. Expedite Proposed Running Way Improvements Improve Headway Separation Relieve Overcrowding in the Peak Periods Improve Slow Travel Times Improve Headway Separation 4. Design Bus Stop Bulbouts, Improve Slow Travel Times Improve Service Reliability Enhance TSP / Study Restricting Peak Period Parking Improve Headway Separation Implementation Time Period $320,000 Short Term $372,200 Short Term None Short Term $30,000 Short Term 5. Develop 70s Line Supervisor Improve Service Management $5,300 Short Term Playbook 6. Expand Driver Training Improve Drivers Knowledge Improve Customer Experience $28,000 Short Term 7. Implement Dedicated Traffic Control Officers and Parking Enforcement Staff Improve Travel Time and Speed Improve Reliability Improve Headway Separation Total $1,214,500 $459,000 Medium Term

For more information metrobus-studies.com or www.wmata.com About Metro / Planning & Development 25

30s Line Ridership by Route by Year

70s Line Ridership by Route by Year

30s Line Survey Results

Georgia Avenue Line Survey Results Shift in Mode/Market On-Time Reliability Travel Time Improvement Passenger Crowding