alameda county transportation commission 2013 … · matthew bomberg, assistant transportation...

1

1ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

2013 Performance Report

A presentation to PPLC

Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Planning and PolicyMatthew Bomberg, Assistant Transportation PlannerApril 14, 2014

2

• Track trends and progress towards goals in transportation plans

Purpose of Performance Report

transportation plans Countywide Transportation Plan

Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans

Congestion Management Program statute

• Identify needs for more extensive analysis• System level monitoring • System-level monitoring

Complemented by other more focused monitoring efforts (e.g. LOS monitoring, modal plans)

6.2

2

3Scope of Performance Report

Commute Patterns RoadwaysCommute PatternsGeneral population and employment trendsCommute flowsCommute mode share

yFreeway delaysFreeway speedsLocal road pavement conditionCollisions

TransitRidershipService utilizationCost-effectivenessService interruptions & fleet age

Bicycling and WalkingCollisionsCountsNetwork/project completion from local jurisdiction summaries

On-time performance & speedAll 7 operators, fixed route only

Master plan completionProgram participation

Data Sources: Existing or publically available dataPrevious fiscal year (FY12/13) or most recent available plus historic trends

4

• Demand for travel on the rise: Alameda County had largest percentage increase in population in California in 2013 and saw job growth for third consecutive year

Key Findings

j g y• Uneven employment recovery: Alameda County employment

rate lags the overall Bay Area• Regionally essential: More than 25% of all Bay Area commuters

touch Alameda County• More regional commute patterns: Alameda County residents

increasingly work in other counties; Alameda County workers increasingly commute from other countiesincreasingly commute from other counties

• Balanced commute modes: 36% of Alameda County workers use transit, walking biking, telecommute, or carpool, while 64% drive alone

• More multimodal: share of Alameda County workers using transit, walking, biking, and telecommuting up 5% since 2000

3

5

• Freeway congestion up: Severe congestion increased by over 20% on freeways last year

• Local road state of repair unchanged: Average local road

Key Findings, cont.

• Local road state of repair unchanged: Average local road condition not improving greatly and 20% of roads are poor or failed

• Overall safety improvements: Roadway collisions are down over last decade

• Transit ridership climbing but challenges loom: Ridership is up overall and for most operators but aging assets, crowding, and dense urban operating conditions (for buses) pose challengesdense urban operating conditions (for buses) pose challenges

• Walking and biking: counts are on the rise, collision rates declining, and network buildout continues

6Commute Patterns: Population and Jobs

Population and job recovery 12

14Quarterly Unemployment Rate

both continued in 2013

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2005

, Q1

2005

, Q3

2006

, Q1

2006

, Q3

2007

, Q1

2007

, Q3

2008

, Q1

2008

, Q3

2009

, Q1

2009

, Q3

2010

, Q1

2010

, Q3

2011

, Q1

2011

, Q3

2012

, Q1

2012

, Q3

2013

, Q1

Alameda County Bay Area

640650660670680690700

1.481.5

1.521.541.561.58

loye

d (th

ousa

nd)

nts (

mill

ion)

Residents and Jobs in Alameda County

Source: Department of Finance Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Employment data

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

600610620630640

1.41.421.441.46

Wor

kers

em

p

Resid

en

Residents Jobs

Alameda County employment rate lags region

4

7Commute Patterns: Worker FlowsAlameda County plays critical role supporting regional

commute travel.

3,160,000 318,000

309,000

246,0001,159,000

Commutes within, to, from, or through the Bay Area Region

Commutes within, to, from, or through Alameda County

From

286,000

Involving Alameda

County (27%)

Not Involving Alameda County (73%)

Within

ToThrough

Source: Census Bureau Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics data

8Commute Patterns: Worker Flows

O i i D ti ti i f k h li k i

Alameda County commutes became more regional in nature over last decade.

30% 34%

33% 35%

50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Origin-Destination pairs of workers who live or work in Alameda County

Live in another county, work in Alameda CountyLive in Alameda County

36% 31%

30% 34%

0%10%20%30%40%50%

2002 2011

Live in Alameda County, work in another countyLive and work within Alameda County

5

9Commute Patterns: Journey-to-work Mode ShareWorkers living in Alameda County use a diverse mix of

transportation modes to commute to work

10% 2% 4%1%

6%26%

All modes Non-driving modes

64%

13%

Drive Alone Carpool Public TransitBike Walk OtherWork from Home

Source: American Community Survey 2012 1-Year Estimate

10Commuting Patterns: Journey-to-work Mode Share

Alameda County commutes became more multimodal over last decade

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perc

ent o

f wor

kers • Combined share of solo-

driving and carpooling dropped by 5 percent

• Working from home is fastest-growing mode

• Public transit walking

80% 75%

0%2000 2012

Drove AloneCarpooledPublic TransitBike, Walk, Telecommute, Other

Public transit, walking, and biking mode share all increased

• Biking mode share nearly doubled

Source: Census 2000 and American Community Survey 2012 1-Year Estimate

6

11Roadways: Freeway Delay

Average daily freeway delay increased by 22 percent overall from FY11/12 to FY12/13

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000Average Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay vs. 35 mph threshold

NightEveningPMMidAM

21%

0

10,000

20,000

FY11/12 FY12/13 FY11/12 FY12/13

Weekday Weekend

AM

37%Note: chart

shows “severe” delay (excess

travel time from speeds below

35 mph)

Source: INRIX, Inc. Analytics Suite

12Roadways: Pavement Condition Index

100100%

Average PCI declined slightly and is flat over last 5 years; one in five roads is “failed” or “poor”

30405060708090100

30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Ave

rage

PC

I

cent

of L

ane-

Mile

s

01020

0%10%20%

2007 2008-9 2010 2011 2012

Per

Poor or Failed At Risk, Fair, or GoodVery Good or Excellent Average PCI

Source: MTC StreetSaver Database

7

13Roadways: Collisions

12035 000

Collisions continued a long-term downward trend in 2011; injury and fatal collisions down 32 percent since 2002.

70

80

90

100

110

120

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

mbe

r of F

atal

ities

mbe

r of C

ollis

ions

40

50

60

0

5,000

10,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Num

Num

Property Damage Only Injury & Fatal Fatalities

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System

14Transit: Ridership

Total annual boardings in Alameda County increased by 4 percent in FY12/13 over FY11/12

40,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000

Total Annual Boardings in Alameda County (thousand)

• BART accounted for two-thirds of ridership growth

• Bus boardings up after declining in four of five previous years amid major service cuts

020,00040,000

BART Commuter Rail Bus Ferry

• Ferry boardings increased while commuter rail declined

• Long-term shift from bus to BART

Source: National Transit Database (2005-2012) and preliminary NTD filings (2013)

8

15Transit: Service Utilization

115120125130

Lev

els

Boardings per RVH Trend

BARTAC Transit

Most transit operators saw improvement or minimal

change in service utilization in

Boardings per Revenue Vehicle Hour

Transit FY2005 FY2012 FY2013 Percent Percent

80859095

100105110

Perc

ent o

f 200

5

• Service utilization is measured by boardings per revenue vehicle hour (RVH)

• BART saw large increase in service utilization and carries nearly 15 passengers

gFY2012-13

Transit Operator

FY2005 FY2012 FY2013 Percent Change vs. FY2012

Percent Change vs. FY2005

BART 55.95 65.44 69.49 6% 24%

ACE 34.22 38.97 39.82 2% 16%

AC Transit 36.05 33.23 34.20 3% -5%

LAVTA 16.93 14.00 13.86 -1% -18%

Union City 10.05 12.74 12.52 -2% 25%

WETA 75.46 110.22 107.25 -3% 42%

carries nearly 15 passengers per RVH more than in 2005

• AC Transit improved service utilization in FY2013 and has improved this metric in 3 of last 4 years


16Cost Efficiency• Most operators have seen increasing in cost per rider and/or cost per

Revenue Vehicle Hour since 2005

Transit: Other Trends

State of Good Repair• Frequency of service interruptions declined for all operators in FY12/13• Fleets of most operators are in midlife on average

Union City Transit (relatively new fleet) and BART (very old fleet) are exceptions

AC Transit unveiled first shipment of new bus purchase in late FY12/13 and BART procuring new cars

Service Quality• Experiences improving on-time performance were mixed

AC Transit achieves lower on-time performance but must contend with dense, congested urban conditions

• AC Transit has seen steady decline in commercial speed (speed accounting for delays) since 2005

9

17Bicycling and Walking: Counts

Data collected through the Alameda CTC bicycle and

pedestrian count program suggest 12001400

Number of Bicyclists Counted (9 long-term monitoring locations)

40%

Female Percent of Cyclists Counted

pedestrian count program suggest that levels of cycling and walking are growing and that the diversity

of cyclists is increasing

2500

Number of pedestrians counted (6 long-term monitoring locations)

0200400600800

10001200

2002* 2004* 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2002 2003 2010 2011 2012

18Bicycling and Walking: CollisionsCollisions involving bicyclists have

increased, however bicycle counts have increased faster.

Collisions involving pedestrians have declined even as counts of

pedestrians have increased

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0100200300400500600700800

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

Fata

l Col

lisio

ns

Num

ber o

f Col

lisio

ns

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Fata

l Col

lisio

ns

Num

ber o

f Col

lisio

ns

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

20 20

Sources: Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System, Alameda CTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program

Changes from 2002 to 2011

Injury/Fatal Collisions

Counts

Biking +21% +75%Walking -18% +47%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

10

19Bicycling and Walking: Network Completion

15

20

Miles of Bikeway InstalledJurisdictions reported installing more than 25 miles of bikeways and completing more than 30

0

5

10

Class I Class II Class III

Multi-use trail (paved)Bike lane (not upgraded*)Bike lane (upgraded*)Bike route (route with shared lane markings)Bike route (bicycle boulevard)

Multi-Use Trail Bike Lane Bike Route

p gmajor pedestrian capital

projects FY12/13

New trailSidewalk gap closure

Widened sidewalkCrossing improvements

Major Pedestrian Capital Projects Completed

Bike route (bicycle boulevard)

Source: Survey of Local Jurisdictions

0 10 20 30

Traffic calming elementsMajor pathway rehabilitation

Total

Note: categories defined by Alameda CTC staff based on responses from local jurisdictions staff. A project may fall in multiple categories. Chart does not include improvements including signal timings or detection to improve crossing safety, curb ramp installations, or installation of standalone traffic calming elements (e.g. single speed bump)

20Alameda CTC Performance Monitoring: What’s Next?

• Explore ways to integrate data requests with Compliance ReportsCompliance Reports

• Coordinate with regional agencies on collection of land use data (e.g. development approvals) and evaluation of land use/transportation coordination measures

• Identify new performance measures as part of Goods Movement, Arterials, and Transit plans System-level to Facility-level

• Evaluate investments in relation to performance

11

21

Questions?

22

EXTRAS

12

23Commute Patterns: Worker FlowsAlameda County commutes became more regional in

nature over last decade.

Where Alameda County

Workers Seek Employment

2002 2011

52%46%

54% 48%

Where Alameda County

Businesses Find Workers

20112002

52% 47%

53%48%

24Roadways: Freeway Travel Speeds

Average speeds declined in weekday AM and PM peaks and weekend midday from FY11/12 to FY12/13

54565860626466

Average Freeway Speed

FY10-11FY11-12

48505254

Weekday, AM Peak (7-9 am)

Weekday, Midday (12-2

pm)

Weekday, PM Peak (4-6 pm)

Weekend, Midday (12-2

pm)

FY11 12FY12-13

13

25Transit: Cost Efficiency

120

130

140

5 Le

vels

Cost per Rider Trend

BARTAC Transit

Cost containment is a critical challenge facing

transit operators

Cost per Rider ($2013)

Transit FY2005 FY2012 FY2013 Percent Percent

80

90

100

110

120

Perc

ent o

f 200

5transit operators

• Cost efficiency is one of many service planning considerations for transit operators; operators achieve different costs per rider based on different technologies and service structures

• BART has generally managed to Transit Operator

FY2005 FY2012 FY2013 Percent Change vs. FY2012

Percent Change vs. FY2005

BART $5.01 $4.21 $4.59 9% -8%

ACE $20.74 $15.86 $16.03 1% -23%

AC Transit $4.32 $5.61 $5.32 -5% 23%

LAVTA $5.76 $7.36 $7.14 -3% 24%

Union City $8.73 $6.26 $6.64 6% -24%

WETA $11.19 $9.57 $15.03 57% 34%

BART has generally managed to contain cost per rider though it saw an increase in FY2013

• AC Transit has seen longer term increases in cost per rider, though this metric declined in FY2013


26

FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Rail Mean Time Between Service Delay (Hours)

BART 2,683 2,796 2,995 3,216 3,758

Transit: Service Interruptions & Fleet Age

All transit operators reduced the ,683 ,796 ,995 3, 6 3,758

ACE 546 438 388 2,438 359

Bus Average Distance Between Mechanical Failure (Miles)

AC Transit 4,656 5,727 7,941 6,556 8,244

LAVTA 4,904 4,837 6,353 15,249 17,397

Union City 3,880 4,902 11,402 13,749 16,505

reduced the frequency of

service interruptions in FY2013

TransitO t

Average A ( )

Typical U f l Lif The fleets of most Operator Age (yrs) Useful Life

BART 33.8 34.8

ACE 13.5/12.1 30/40

AC Transit 7.6 15

LAVTA 8.7 15

Union City 4.4 12

WETA 12.6 15

The fleets of most operators are

midway through their useful lives on

averageSource: National Transit Database (2005-2012) and preliminary NTD filings (2013)

14

27Transit: On-Time Performance & Commercial Speed

80%100%

Percent On-Time Arrivals Bus operators generally saw declines in average commercial

speed (speed accounting for d l ) i FY12/13 diff t

0%20%40%60%

FY11 12 FY12 1314.00

15.00Average Commercial Speed (mph)

delays) in FY12/13; different operating conditions lead to differences in performance

across operators

FY11-12 FY12-13

11.00

12.00

13.00

AC Transit LAVTA Union City Transit

Experiences improving on-time performance were mixed;

different operating conditions lead to differences in

performance across operators. Source: National Transit Database (2005-2012) and preliminary NTD filings (2013)

28Transit: BART Trends

140

150

vels

120125130

ls

80

90

100

110

120

130

Perc

ent o

f 200

5 Le

v

80859095

100105110115120

Perc

ent o

f 200

5 Le

ve

BoardingsRevenue Vehicle HoursOperating Costs ($2013)Fare Revenue ($2013)

Boardings/RVHOp. Costs ($2013)/RVHOp. Costs ($2013)/Board

15

29Transit: AC Transit Trends

130

140ve

ls

130

140

ls

70

80

90

100

110

120

Perc

ent o

f 200

5 Le

v

80

90

100

110

120

Perc

ent o

f 200

5 Le

ve

BoardingsRevenue Vehicle HoursOperating Costs ($2013)Fare Revenue ($2013)

Boardings/RVHOp. Costs ($2013)/RVHOp. Costs ($2013)/Board

30Bicycling: Counts

7000

Number of Bicyclists Counted (61 locations countywide)

42%

Data collected through the Alameda CTC bicycle and pedestrian count program

0100020003000400050006000

2010 2011 2012

42%

Female Percent of Cyclists Counted

pedestrian count program suggest that levels of cycling

are growing and that the diversity of cyclists is

increasing

1400

Number of Bicyclists Counted (9 long-term monitoring locations)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0200400600800

100012001400

2002* 2004* 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012

64%


16

31Bicycling: Collisions

Collisions involving bicyclists have increased,

2

3

4

5

6

200300400500600700800

of F

atal

Col

lisio

ns

mbe

r of C

ollis

ions

30%40%50%60%70%80%

Percent Change (2002 to 2011)

however bicycle counts have increased faster.

0

1

0100200

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 Num

ber o

Num

Property Damage OnlyInjury & FatalFatal Collisions

0%10%20%

Injury and Fatal Collisions

Bicyclists Counted


32Bicycling: Local Master Plan Completion

At the conclusion

f FY12/13 of FY12/13, nine

jurisdictions had local

master plans that

were adopted within the within the last five

years, and three more have a plan or update underway.

17

33Bicycling: Network Completion

Jurisdictions reported installing more than 25 miles of bikeways in FY12/13, and several reported installing upgraded bicycle lane

f iliti th t i ti d i ibilit f li t

5

10

15

20

Miles of Bikeway Installed by Facility Type

facilities that improve separation and visibility of cyclists

0

5

Class I Class II Class III

Multi-use trail (paved)Bike lane (not upgraded*)Bike lane (upgraded*)Bike route (route with shared lane markings)Bike route (bicycle boulevard)

Multi-Use Trail Bike Lane Bike Route


34Bicycling: Programs and Education

120140160

14 00016,00018,00020,000

ons

nerg

izer Bicycle safety education

classes, attendance, and

20002500300035004000

60

80

100

f Atte

ndee

s

of C

lass

es

020406080100

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Ener

gize

r Sta

ti

Peop

le Ta

llied

at E

nSt

atio

ns

Energizer station participantsNumber Energizer Stations

attendance per class have all increased in consecutive years.

0500100015002000

0

20

40

FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13

Num

ber o

f

Num

ber

Classes Attendees

Number Energizer Stations

Bike to Work Day energizer stations and

participants tallied have grown since 2006.

Sources: Bicycle Safety Education Grant Program Progress Reports, Bike to Work Day Annual Report

18

35Walking: Counts

Count data collected through the Alameda CTC 20,000

Number of pedestrians counted (62 locations countywide)

count program suggests that walking increased in 2012

and has increased over the long-term

2500

Number of pedestrians counted (6 long-term monitoring locations)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

2010 2011 2012Year-over-year percent

change

0500

1000150020002500

2002 2003 2010 2011 2012 -10%0%

10%20%30%40%50%

North Central South East

20112012


36Walking: Collisions

Collisions involving pedestrians have declined by nearly one-fifth even as pedestrian counts have

15

20

25

30

35

400500600700800900

1000

of F

atal

Col

lisio

ns

ber o

f Col

lisio

ns

10%20%30%40%50%60%

Percent Change (2002 to 2011)

y pincreased by nearly fifty percent.

0

5

10

0100200300

Num

ber

Num

b

Property Damage Only Injury & FatalFatal Collisions

-30%-20%-10%

0%10%

Injury and Fatal Collisions

Pedestrians Counted


19

37Walking: Local Master Plan Completion

At the conclusion

f FY12/13 of FY12/13, eight

jurisdictions had local

master plans that

were adopted within the within the last five

years, and four more

have a plan or update underway.

38Walking: Network Completion

Jurisdictions reported completing 30 major pedestrian capital projects in FY12/13.

Widened sidewalk

Crossing improvements

Traffic calming elements

Major trail/pathway maintenance

Total

Note: categories defined by Alameda CTC staff based on responses from local

jurisdictions staff. A project

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

New trail

Sidewalk gap closure

Widened sidewalk

Number of projects completed

may fall in multiple categories. Chart does not

include improvements including signal timings or

detection to improve crossing safety, curb ramp installations, or installation

of standalone traffic calming elements (e.g.

single speed bump)


20

39Walking: Programs and Education

Safe Routes to School has expanded rapidly into 147 schools countywide.

6890

30

454

66

5670

8840

60

80

100

120

140

160be

r of P

artic

ipa

ting

Scho

ols

(at e

nd o

f sch

ool y

ear) 102

total

147 total

240

56

0

20

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Num

School year

Comprehensive ProgramTechnical AssistanceHigh School PilotSan Leandro Pilot (Schools added to program)Comprehensive/Technical Assistance Combined

Source: Safe Routes to School Program Annual Reports

alameda county transportation commission 2013 … · matthew bomberg, assistant transportation...

Documents