cmrt comprehensive op analysis_2013.pdf

8/14/2019 CMRT Comprehensive Op Analysis_2013.pdf

1/159

2013Comprehensive Operational Analysis


2/159


3/159


4/159

8.2 LAUREL TO MAPLE LAWN ROUTE ................................................................................................................. 8-1288.3 ANNAPOLIS TO ODENTON ROUTE ................................................................................................................. 8-1308.4 ANNAPOLIS TO BWIROUTE ........................................................................................................................ 8-1328.5 ODENTON TO COLUMBIA ROUTE .................................................................................................................. 8-133

9. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ............................................................................................................. 9-135

9.1 BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT STUDY ................................................................................................................. 9-1359.2 FUTURE TRANSIT FACILITIES PLAN ................................................................................................................ 9-1369.3 FLEET REPLACEMENT AND UTILIZATION PLAN ................................................................................................. 9-137

10. GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 10-139

11. APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................................................... 11-145

12. APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................... 12-146


5/159

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Distribution of Spoken Languages .......................................................................................................... 3-14

Table 4-1: Peer Systems based on Population and Service Area ............................................................................. 4-23

Table 4-2: Peer Systems based on Monthly Revenue ............................................................................................. 4-23

Table 4-3: FY 2013 Efficiency Ranking for CMRT Routes ......................................................................................... 4-31

Table 4-4: CMRT Route Efficiency Ratings versus Schedule Adherence by Route .................................................. 4-31

Table 4-5: Performance Rankings by Route ............................................................................................................. 4-33

Table 5-1: A Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................... 5-36

Table 5-2: A Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 .................................................................... 5-37

Table 5-3: A Route Financial Information, March 2013 .......................................................................................... 5-38

Table 5-4: B Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................... 5-43

Table 5-5: B Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 .................................................................... 5-44

Table 5-6: B Route Financial Information, March 2013 ........................................................................................... 5-44

Table 5-7: C Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................... 5-48

Table 5-8: C Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 .................................................................... 5-50

Table 5-9: Financial Information for March 2013 .................................................................................................... 5-50

Table 5-10: E Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................. 5-55

Table 5-11: E Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 .................................................................. 5-56Table 5-12: E Route Financial Information, March 2013 ......................................................................................... 5-57

Table 5-13: G Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................. 5-62

Table 5-14: G Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 ................................................................. 5-63

Table 5-15: G Route Financial Information, March 2013 ........................................................................................ 5-64

Table 5-16: H Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 ............................................................. 5-68

Table 5-17: H Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013.................................................................. 5-70

Table 5-18: H Route Financial Information, March 2013......................................................................................... 5-70

Table 5-19: J Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013 .............................................................. 5-76

Table 5-20: J Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 ................................................................... 5-77

Table 5-21: J Route Financial Information, March 2013 .......................................................................................... 5-77

Table 5-22: K Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, April 2013 ................................................................ 5-83

Table 5-23: K Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 .................................................................. 5-84

Table 5-24: K Route Financial Information, April 2013 ............................................................................................ 5-85

Table 5-25: M Route Ridership and Average Daily Boardings, April 2013 ............................................................... 5-89

Table 5-26: M Route Schedule Adherence, February 2013 April 2013 ................................................................. 5-90

Table 5-27: M Route Financial Information, April 2013 .......................................................................................... 5-90

Table 6-1 Proposed Fare Structure vs, New Fare Structure .................................................................................... 6-96

Table 7-8: Route M Recommended Fare Structure ................................................................................................. 6-98

Table 6-2: Employee Pass Discounts...................................................................................................................... 6-101

Table 7-1: Route A Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ........................................................................... 7-103

Table 7-2: Route B Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ........................................................................... 7-105

Table 7-3: Route E Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ............................................................................ 7-109

Table 7-4: Route G/H Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ....................................................................... 7-112

Table 7-5: Route J Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ............................................................................ 7-116

Table 7-6: Route J Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics ............................................................................ 7-120Table 7-7: Route M Existing vs. Proposed Operational Statistics .......................................................................... 7-124

Table 9-1: Fleet Utilization, 2013 2017 ............................................................................................................... 9-138

Table 9-2: Fleet Replacement Plan, 2013 2017 .................................................................................................. 9-138


6/159

TABLE OF GRAPHS

Graph 3-1: Distribution of Survey Responses vs. System Ridership ........................................................................ 3-12

Graph 3-2: Age Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 3-13

Graph 3-3: Race Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 3-13

Graph 3-4: Race Distribution by Route .................................................................................................................... 3-13

Graph 3-5: Income Distribution ............................................................................................................................... 3-14Graph 3-6: Vehicle Ownership by Route ................................................................................................................. 3-14

Graph 3-7: Trip Purpose by Route ........................................................................................................................... 3-15

Graph 3-8: Frequency of Use by Route.................................................................................................................... 3-15

Graph 3-9: Time Periods of Use ............................................................................................................................... 3-16

Graph 3-10: Mode of Travel to Bus Stop ................................................................................................................. 3-16

Graph 3-11: Transferred from Other System .......................................................................................................... 3-16

Graph 3-12: System Transfer by Route .................................................................................................................... 3-17

Graph 3-13: Fare Media and Payment Distribution ................................................................................................ 3-18

Graphs 3-14 thru 3-22: Customer Opinion of Service Aspects ................................................................................ 3-19

Graph 3-23: Trip Planning Tools Used ..................................................................................................................... 3-20

Graph 4-1: FY2013 Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route ..................................................................................... 4-25

Graph 4-2: FY2013 Boardings per Revenue Mile by Route...................................................................................... 4-26

Graph 4-3: FY2013 Operational Cost per Hour by Route ........................................................................................ 4-26

Graph 4-4: FY2013 Subsidy per Passenger by Route ............................................................................................... 4-27

Graph 4-5: FY2013 Schedule Adherence ................................................................................................................. 4-28

Graph 4-6: FY2013 Average Fare Paid per Passenger by Route .............................................................................. 4-29

Graph 4-7: FY2013 Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route ............................................................................................. 4-29

Graph 5-1: A Route Segment Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5-37

Graph 5-2: A Route Trip Analysis - Weekday ........................................................................................................... 5-39

Graph 5-3: B Route Segment Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5-43

Graph 5-4: B Route Trip Analysis Weekday .......................................................................................................... 5-45

Graph 5-5: B Route Trip Analysis Saturdays ......................................................................................................... 5-45

Graph 5-6: C Route Segment Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5-49

Graph 5-7: C Route Trip Analysis Weekday .......................................................................................................... 5-51

Graph 5-8: E Route Segment Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 5-56Graph 5-9: E Route Trip Analysis - Weekday ........................................................................................................... 5-58

Graph 5-10: G Route Segment Analysis ................................................................................................................... 5-63

Graph 5-11: G Route Trip Analysis Weekday ........................................................................................................ 5-65

Graph 5-12: H Route Segment Analysis ................................................................................................................... 5-69

Graph 5-13: H Route Trip Analysis - Saturday ......................................................................................................... 5-72

Graph 5-14: J Route Segment Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5-76

Graph 5-15: J Route Trip Analysis Weekday ......................................................................................................... 5-79

Graph 5-16: J Route Trip Analysis Saturday .......................................................................................................... 5-79

Graph 5-17: K Route Segment Analysis ................................................................................................................... 5-84

Graph 5-18: K Route Trip Analysis Weekday ........................................................................................................ 5-86

Graph 5-19: K Route Trip Analysis Saturdays ........................................................................................................ 5-86

Graph 5-20: M Route Segment Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5-90

Graph 5-21: M Route Trip Analysis Weekday ....................................................................................................... 5-92


7/159

TABLE OF MAPS

Map 2-1: Population Total Population .................................................................................................................... 2-4

Map 2-2: Population Persons per Acre ................................................................................................................... 2-4

Map 2-3: Employment Total Number of Jobs ......................................................................................................... 2-5

Map 2-4: Employment Total Number of Jobs Earning less than $1,250/Month .................................................... 2-5

Map 2-6: Income Percent of Households Earning Less Than $25,000/year ........................................................... 2-6

Map 2-5: Income Median Household Income ........................................................................................................ 2-6

Map 2-7: Age Population Age 15 to 24 Years ......................................................................................................... 2-7

Map 2-8: Age Population Age 65 Years and Over ................................................................................................... 2-7

Map 2-10: Minority Populations Percent of Minority Population .......................................................................... 2-8

Map 2-9: Vehicle Ownership Households with no Vehicles Available .................................................................... 2-8

Map 2-11: Landuse/Land Cover 2010 ...................................................................................................................... 2-11

Map 5-1: A Route Average Daily Boardings ............................................................................................................. 5-40

Map 5-2: A Route Average Daily Alightings ............................................................................................................. 5-41

Map 5-3: B Route Average Daily Boardings ............................................................................................................. 5-46

Map 5-4: B Route Average Daily Alightings ............................................................................................................. 5-47

Map 5-5: C Route Average Daily Boardings ............................................................................................................. 5-52

Map 5-6: C Route Average Daily Alightings ............................................................................................................. 5-53Map 5-7: E Route Average Daily Boardings ............................................................................................................. 5-59

Map 5-8: E Route Average Daily Alightings ............................................................................................................. 5-60

Map 5-9: G Route Average Daily Boardings............................................................................................................. 5-66

Map 5-10: G Route Average Daily Alightings ........................................................................................................... 5-67

Map 5-11: H Route Average Daily Boardings ........................................................................................................... 5-73

Map 5-12: H Route Average Daily Alightings ........................................................................................................... 5-74

Map 5-14: J Route Average Daily Boardings ............................................................................................................ 5-80

Map 5-15: J Route Average Daily Alightings ............................................................................................................ 5-81

Map 5-16: K Route Average daily Boardings ........................................................................................................... 5-87

Map 5-17: K Route Average Daily Alightings ........................................................................................................... 5-88

Map 5-18: M Route Average Daily Boardings .......................................................................................................... 5-93

Map 5-19: M Route Average Daily Alightings .......................................................................................................... 5-94

Map 7-1: A Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment .............................................................................................. 7-104

Map 7-2: B Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment - Weekday............................................................................. 7-106

Map 7-3: B Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment - Weekend ............................................................................ 7-106

Map 7-4: C Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday & Weekend ........................................................ 7-108

Map 7-5: E Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment ............................................................................................... 7-110

Map 7-6: G Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday ........................................................................... 7-113

Map 7-7: G/H Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment - Saturday ......................................................................... 7-114

Map 7-8: J Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday and Saturday (Option1) ...................................... 7-117

Map 7-9: J Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Sunday (Option 1) ............................................................... 7-117

Map 7-10: J Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday and Saturday (Option 2) ................................... 7-118

Map 7-11: J Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Sunday (Option 2) ............................................................. 7-119

Map 7-12: K Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Disney Road Routing) ..................................... 7-121

Map 7-13: K Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Disney Road Routing) ..................................... 7-122Map 7-14: K Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Reece Road Routing) ...................................... 7-123

Map 7-15: K Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Reece Road Routing) ...................................... 7-123

Map 7-16: M Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Peak) ............................................................. 7-125

Map 7-17: M Route Proposed vs. Existing Alignment Weekday (Off-Peak) ....................................................... 7-125

Map 8-1: Odenton to Savage Proposed Route ...................................................................................................... 8-128

Map 8-2: Laurel to Maple Lawn Proposed Route .................................................................................................. 8-130

Map 8-3: Annapolis to Odenton Proposed Route ................................................................................................. 8-131

Map 8-4: Annapolis to BWI Proposed Route ......................................................................................................... 8-133

Map 8-5: Odenton to Columbia Proposed Route .................................................................................................. 8-134


8/159


9/159

1. IntroductionOver the last ten years, the Baltimore-Washington Corridor has experienced exponentialpopulation and employment growth in the region. This has contributed to an increase in roadwaycongestion on a majority of the main corridors and major arterials. In 2007, the GreaterBaltimore Committee, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the Maryland Chamber ofCommerce commissioned a study by TTI that estimated that total roadway congestion costs thecitizens of Maryland over $3.1 billion per year in lost working hours and fuel.

Central Maryland Regional Transit (CMRT) has managed public transit systems in theBaltimore-Washington region since 1987. The Baltimore Washington Corridor Chamber(BWCC) created the forerunner to Central Maryland Regional Transit the CorridorTransportation Corporation (CTC) - in May 1987 as a tax exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofitorganization with a specific mission to provide transit services to working people throughout theregion.

In 25 years, CMRT has expanded from serving 178,000 passengers on nine buses and five routesto the oversight and management of two public transit services operating in a three county area,Anne Arundel, Howard and Prince Georges counties and a commuter express serviceconnecting Northern Virginia and Central Maryland. The total size of the current CMRT fleet is70 vehicles, operating on fixed and paratransit routes. In FY 2013, CMRT provided over 1.6million trips.

CMRTs fixed-route service is branded as two transit systems, CMRT and Howard Transit. ThisComprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) focuses only on the CMRT-branded fixed routesystem. Formerly known as Connect-a-Ride, the CMRT system operates nine fixed routes in aservice area of approximately 100 square miles. CMRT operates in portions of three counties(western Anne Arundel, northern Prince Georges County and eastern Howard County) andincludes the City of Laurel, College Park, Glen Burnie, Columbia and Ellicott City. In FY 2013,the CMRT service carried over 600,000 passengers. CMRT also operates a limited paratransitoperation that consists of ADA curb-to-curb service.

The duration of service is between 6:00AM and 11:00PM. The majority of the routes operate on

a Monday through Saturday schedule. The CMRT system connects customers to larger regionaltransportation services such as the Maryland Transit Administration rail and bus routes in theBaltimore area and the WMATA rail and bus service in the Washington DC area. All routesoperate on set timetables with designated stops.


10/159

1-2 Central Maryland Regional Transit

1.1 Project OverviewCMRT recognizes the need to analyze the transit services in the Central Maryland region everyfive years, to effectively transport people where they want to go, when they want to get there.This detailed Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) is being performed to evaluate howwell CMRTs transit network is serving existing population, employment and activity centers inthe Central Maryland region, as well as the overall productivity and effectiveness of eachindividual bus route.

CMRTs COA consisted of the following tasks:

A Market Analysis that was used to identify concentrations of population andemployment, as well as other activity centers that have the ability to effectively supporttransit services.

A Passenger Surveythat was conducted during the spring of 2013 to identify the travelpatterns, demographics and preferences of a comprehensive sample of customers, whocurrently ride CMRT services.

The development of new Service Performance Standardsthat allowed CMRT to gaugethe productivity of each individual route, as well as the system as a whole. Thesestandards will also be used to determine where service should be provided, to designservice, and to determine appropriate service levels.

Detailed Route Evaluations, that consisted of in-depth analysis of each route includingwho it is intended to serve, its ridership patterns, segment and trip analysis, operationalcosts, revenue analysis and general recommendations on the routes strengths andopportunities for improvement that would serve more riders or improve route

productivity. A Fare Policy Analysis that detailed the current fare structures and improvements that

can be made in order to enhance the customer experience and make the system moreaccessible to a wider range of customers.

The Recommended Service Improvementsthat consisted of the improvements that willbe made to each route within the next year to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ofthe system, as well as the marketing strategies that are being initiated to familiarize morepeople with transit options in the region.

Future Service Expansionsthat incorporated new markets that the CMRT service shouldexpand to and the associated operational costs to achieve this goal.

A Capital Improvements Plan that consisted of the development of a future bus stopimprovement plan, a fleet maintenance and replacement plan, and a facilities design plan.

The recommendations from the COA will be presented to CMRT passengers and otherstakeholders for comment. Once those comments have been received, project staff will developfinal recommendations that will reflect the components of each scenario that were mostfavorably reviewed by stakeholders and that would provide the most effective service withinCMRTs financial abilities.


11/159

2. Market AnalysisIn this section, staff examined recent data from various sources to assess the current and futuremarket conditions of the CMRT service area. The purpose of the Market Analysis is to guideservice planning decisions in order to maximize the allocation of resources to those areas thatdemonstrate the greatest need for services and have the highest potential for success.

Four key areas will be reviewed as a part of this market analysis: population and employmentdensity; common transit-user demographics including income, age, vehicle ownership, andminority population concentrations; a CMRT passenger profile; and a review of existing andfuture development and land uses.

2.1 Population and Employment DensityPopulation and employment densities are important factors to consider when evaluating theeffectiveness and efficiency of transit services. Using American Community Survey 5-yearestimates from 2011, Map 2-1 displays the concentration of population by census track and Map2-2 displays the density of population per acre.

The largest concentrations of population observed within CMRTs service area are:

North Laurel Severn Odenton/Waugh Chapel

Similarly, the areas with the highest residential density are:

South and West Laurel Southeast Columbia City of Greenbelt Severn Odenton Crofton

Using aggregated 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, availablethrough the US Census Bureau, Map 2-3 estimates the total number of jobs in each census tractin the CMRT service area and Map 2-4 displays the total number of jobs earning less than$1,250/month by census tract (approximately $15,000 per year). This supports CMRTsassumptions that major employment centers exist in or around:

Columbia Mall (E route) East Columbia (E route)


12/159


BWI Marshall Airport (J and K routes) Arundel Mills Mall and the Maryland LIVE! Casino (J and K routes) City of Laurel (A, B, C, E, G, H, and J routes) Glen Bernie (J route) Fort Meade (K and M routes) - Although not accurately reflected in the LEHD dataset,

Fort Meade is also a known significant source of employment in the CMRT service area.

2.2 Transit User DemographicsThis portion of the Market Analysis examines the existence of typical transit-dependentpopulations such as youth populations (18-24 years), elderly populations (65 years and over),low-income households (earning less than $25,000/year), minority or disadvantaged populations,and households without vehicles. Identifying concentrations of these populations will helpinform the planning process as CMRT evaluates the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness

of its system.

Map 2-5 displays the median area household income of census tracts within Anne Arundel,Howard and Prince Georges counties. Map 2-6 depicts the percentage of households earningless than $25,000/year by census tract. Relative to the rest of the CMRT service area, lower-income households are concentrated in the following areas:

City of Laurel (A, B, C, E, G, H, and J routes) East Columbia (E route) West Columbia (E route) Severn (K route) Glen Bernie (J route) Greenbelt (H route) College Park (G and H routes)

Due to limited incomes, college-age and younger populations tend to have limited-access topersonal vehicles and often rely on public transit services to travel. Likewise, elderlypopulations also rely on transit due to constrained incomes and, sometimes, a diminishedphysical capacity. Map 2-7 shows the density of populations 14 to 24 years old and Map 2-8shows populations over 65 years.

Although there were no significant pockets of young or elderly populations, the following areashad the most notable concentrations:

College Park (G and H routes) youth populations North Laurel (A, B, C, E, G, H, and J routes) elderly and youth populations Columbia ( E route) elderly and youth populations Severn (K route) elderly and youth populations Arundel Mills/Jessup (J and K routes) elderly and youth populations Odenton (K and M routes) elderly and youth populations Portions of Glen Bernie (J route) elderly and youth populations


13/159

Central Maryland Regional Transit

Car ownership is an important indicator of a persons predisposition to use transit. Map 2-9shows the number of households with no vehicle available per census tract in the CMRTservice area. The communities with the highest number of households with no vehicles are:

South Columbia (E route) Glen Bernie (J route) City of Laurel (A, B, C, E, G, H, and J routes) Greenbelt (H route) College Park (G and H routes)

Minority populations are also more likely to use public transit services. Within the existingCMRT service area, Map 2-10 shows that the densest communities of minority populations are:

City of Laurel (A, B, C, E, G, H, and J routes) Severn (K route) Greenbelt (H route)


14/159


Map 2-1: Population Total Population

Map 2-2: Population Persons per Acre


15/159


Map 2-3: Employment Total Number of Jo bs

Map 2-4: Employment Total Number of J obs Earning less th an $1,250/Month


16/159


Map 2-5: Income Median Household Inco me

Map 2-6: Incom e Percent of Households Earning L ess Than $25,000/year


17/159


Map 2-8: Ag e Population Age 65 Years and Over

Map 2-7: Age Populatio n Ag e 15 to 24 Years


18/159


Map 2-9: Vehicle Ownership Households with no Vehicles Available

Map 2-10: Minority Populations Percent of Minority Population


19/159


2.3 Development and Land Uses2.3.1 Current Land UsesMap 2-11 is a map of the generalized existing land uses within Anne Arundel, Howard andPrince Georges counties and the City of Laurel. According to this map, produced by theMaryland Department of Planning, there is a concentration of high density housing within thefollowing CMRT service areas:

Columbia, North Laurel/Savage, South Laurel, East Laurel/Russett Green, Near Arundel Mills Mall, Within Fort Meade, Severn, South Odenton/Piney Orchard, Crofton, and Southwest Glen Bernie.

Concentrations of industrial uses exist along the Baltimore Avenue/Route 1 corridor, EasternHoward County, and near the BWI Marshall Airport. Commercial centers are located at BWIMarshall Airport, Arundel Mills, and throughout Columbia and Laurel.

2.3.2 New and Future DevelopmentsIn recent years, CMRTs service area has experienced tremendous growth. However, CMRTservices have not been able to expand to serve these new residential and employment centers.Some notable areas and communities with new developments within or near the CMRT servicearea include:

Odenton: new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments in the OdentonTown Center.

Waugh Chapel/Crofton:new senior and multi-family residential as well as commercialand retail developments including big-box stores such as Target and Wegmans.

Maple Lawn: new multi-family residential developments, retail developments, andresearch labs and offices for Johns Hopkins University.

Fort Meade: new headquarter facilities for three major US Department of Defenseagencies Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Media Activityagency (DMA), and the Defense Adjudication Activities agency. New mixed-incomehousing developments to replace aging army housing. Additionally, new commercial andoffice construction.

Jessup/Annapolis Junction: new commercial facilities and expansions to existingbusiness parks such as the National Business Park.


20/159

10 Central Maryland Regional Transit

Arundel Mills:new multi-family housing developments, new hotel development and a24-hour casino facility.

CMRT should also begin considering how to implement service for planned future development,including, but not limited to:

Odenton:more new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. Odenton MARC Station:plans for transit-oriented development around the station. Fort Meade: continued growth of commercial space with the expansion of National

Security Agencys (NSA) East Campus development and the growth of CyberCommands.

Centre at Laurel Mall:retail redevelopment of the Laurel Mall site. Savage MARC Station:plans for transit-oriented development around the station. Laurel MARC Station:plans for transit-oriented development around the station.


21/159

Market Analysis


Map 2-11: Landuse/Land Cover 2010


22/159

This page was intentionally left blank.


23/159

3. Passenger Survey AnalysisAs part of the 2013 CMRT Comprehensive Operational Analysis, a passenger survey wasconducted to identify the passengers demographic characteristics, travel patterns, and theirassessment of CMRTs services and performance. The survey was open between May 16 andJune 6, 2013. Respondents were able to obtain surveys on board all CMRT vehicles, through theCMRT website, and from a CMRT representative at Laurel Mall and Arundel Mills Mall onselected days. A total of 574 survey responses were collected. A copy of the survey is attachedin Appendix A.

The distribution of survey responses by route is displayed in Graph 3-1. When compared to theactual distribution of ridership in the CMRT system, the 2013 passenger survey had anoverstated share of responses for those routes that use the Laurel Mall as a transfer hub (A, B, C,E routes) and an understated share of responses for the those routes that use Arundel Mills Mallas a transfer hub (J and K routes). The Arundel Mills Mall transfer hub was sampled by fieldsurveyors; however, due to staffing limitations, it was not sampled as often as the Laurel Mallhub.

3.1 Demographic CharacteristicsOf those that responded, approximately 55% indicated they were female and 45% were male.The majority of riders are between the ages of 20 and 34 years old (see Graph 3-2). The secondmost popular age cohort was 45 to 59 years old. These results are consistent with the 2009passenger survey.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

A B C E G H J K M

Share of Survey Response Share of System Ridership

Graph 3-1: Distribution of Survey Responses vs. System Ridership


24/159


Of those that responded to the survey, the most common race selected was Black or AfricanAmerican which appeared at the rate of 69% among respondents (see Graph 3-3). The secondmost common response was White at 15%. Compared to 2009 survey results, there was a slight

increase in minority ridership.

Graph 3-4 depicts the distribution of race by each route. With the exception of the M route,CMRTs fixed- route services have a majority-minority ridership base.

Graph 3-4: Race Distri butio n by Route

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C E G H J K M

Black or African American White

Other Race American Indian or Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Asian

Graph 3-2: Age Distribution

Under 173%

17-1911%

20-3439%

35-4416%

45-5924%

60 andAbove

7%Native

Hawaiian orPacificIslander

1%

Asian3%

AmericanIndian orAlaskaNative

4%

Other Race8%

White15%

Black orAfrican

American69%

Graph 3-3: Race Distribut ion


25/159

-14 Central Maryland Regional Transit

Table 3-1: Distribut ion of Spoken Languages

Roughly 60% of the respondents indicatedthat their estimated household income wasunder $30,000 per year (see Graph 3-5). Of

those, 26% stated that their householdincomes were under $10,000, which isbelow the Federal Poverty Level forhouseholds of one 1 . Compared to theprevious survey, CMRT passengers wereslightly less affluent than they were in2009.

Vehicle ownership was also low forCMRT passengers. Approximately 82%of respondents said that they do not own a

car. The M route was the only route wherevehicle-ownership was more prevalentthan non-ownership (see Graph 3-6).

Primary Language Percent of Respondents

English 86.0%Spanish 5.7%French 2.1%Chinese 0.6%

Other Language 2.8%Primary Language Percent of Respondents

1US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013 poverty guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia,

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

Graph 3-6: Vehicle Ownership by Route

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C E G H J K M

Does not own a vehicle Vehicle-Owner

Under

$10,00026%

$10,000 -$19,999

17%

$20,000 -$29,999

17%

$30,000 -$39,999

11%

$40,000 -

$49,9997%

$50,000 -$74,999

12%

$75,000 -$99,999

5%

$100,000and above

5%

Graph 3-5: Income Distribution


26/159


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C E G H J K M

Every Day 2 or more times per week Once a week 1 to 3 times per month

Graph 3-8: Frequency of Use by Route

The primary language spoken by CMRT passengers is English (86%) (see Table 3-1). However,6% indicated that they speak Spanish and 2% indicated that they speak French.

3.2 Travel PatternsThe 2013 Passenger Survey also asked riders about their travel behaviors and use of the CMRTsystem. According to the responses gathered, the two most popular trip purposes (excludingtrips home) were to travel to work (58%) followed by school (12%) and other purposes (9%).

Routes E, G and K riders had the most school-related trips at 21.5%, 25.0%, and 15.4%,respectively (see Graph 3-7). Routes A and B had the highest number of medical-related trips at11.4% and 10.1% respectively. Shopping trips had the highest percentage on the C (13.4%) andJ (12.6%) routes. Out of the entire system, the K route had the most signification percentage ofsocial/recreational-related trips at 12.0%.

The majority of the respondents, 52%, said that they use the service every day and an additional33% said they use the service two or more times per week. This is a slight decrease from 2009,where 62% responded that they ride every day. The G, H, and J routes had the highest percent ofcasual riders; those riding once per week or one to three times per month (see Graph 3-8).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C E G H J K M

Work School Medical Appointment Shopping Social/Recreation Other

Graph 3-7: Trip Purp ose by Rou te


27/159


When asked what times they use theservice, an overwhelming amount saidearly morning (between 6:00 am and 9:00

am) or during the day (between 9:00 amand 3:00 pm) (see Graph 3-9). However,this is when the bulk of the CMRTservices operate, so it is expected thatthose are the most frequent times thesystem is used.

The majority of survey respondents statedthat they walked to their bus stop (seeGraph 3-10). However, nearly 30%indicated that they arrived at that bus stop

through a transfer. Of those thattransferred, 38% came from anotherCMRT route, 27% came from a WMATAservice, and 16% transferred from Howard Transit (see Graph 3-11).

Compared to the 2009 survey, the 2013 survey recorded a 12% increase in transfers within theCMRT system but a 19% decrease in transfer from MTA services. However, a portion of thischange may be attributed to the surveying method. In 2009, field surveyors were stationed atboth Laurel Mall and Arundel Mills Mall. Due to staffing limitations, 2013 surveyors were notable to be stationed at Arundel Mills on all days of surveying. Therefore, a smaller sample of theArundel Mills Mall routes (J and K) was obtained.

CMRT38%

The Bus10%

HowardTransit16%

MTA9%

Metrorail(WMATA)

11%

Metrobus(WMATA)

16%

Graph 3-11: Transferred from Other System

6 am - 9am daily

26%

9 am - 3pm daily

27%3 pm - 6

pm daily23%

After 6 pmdaily11%

On theweekend

13%

Graph 3-9: Time Periods of Use

Walk

62%

Transferredfrom another

services30%

Caught a ride3%

Other2%

Drive2%

Taxicab1%

Bike0%

Graph 3-10: Mode of Travel to Bu s Stop


28/159


Graph 3-12 illustrates the breakdown of transfers from the different systems by route. Inaddition to transfers from within the CMRT system, the A route had 38% of transfers come fromthe WMATA MetroBus system. The C route saw a significant number of transfers from Prince

Georges countys The Bus system. However, there are no established connections between TheBus and the CMRT C route. Presumably, these survey respondents are referring to the PrinceGeorges Call-A-Bus service. CMRT staff have observed Call-A-Bus passenger being picked upand dropped off at the Laurel Mall, where they make connections to out-of-county services. Outof the entire system, the E route had the highest percentage of transfers from the Howard Transitbus system. The G and H routes saw the majority of transfers from the WMATA MetroRailsystem and the J and K routes had the highest shares of transfers from MTA services.

Respondents were also asked to provide suggestions on other times they would like to see theservice operate. Of those that provided suggestions, over 40% indicated that they would likeevening or late night service and over 30% suggested Sunday service. Other suggested times ofservice included early morning and more frequent service.

When asked what other locations or communities they would like served, some of the frequentsuggestions were new or increased service to Annapolis, Beltsville, Bowie, Columbia, Greenbelt,

Jessup/Fort Meade, Odenton, and Silver Spring.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C E G H J K

CMRT The Bus Howard Transit MTA Metrorail (WMATA) Metrobus (WMATA)

Graph 3-12: System Transfer by Route

*No transfers were reported by M route respondents


29/159


3.3 PaymentsGraph 3-13 shows the distribution of payment options. Not surprisingly, regular cash fare is the

dominate payment method at 74%. Transfers are the second most common method of payment,indicated by 5% of respondents. The monthly pass and the ten-ride fare cards are somewhatunder-utilized, at just 4% and 2%, respectively.

3.4 Customer ExperienceIt is important to understand how a transit user views the services so that a provider can betterdeliver those services and communicate information. The 2013 CMRT Passenger Survey askedcustomers to rate nine aspects of CMRTs service, ranging from driver safety and attitude, toease of information gathering and CSR friendliness, to on-time performance and bus stopplacement. Graphs 3-14 thru 3-22 show the responses for each metric. The results aresummarized below:

Drivers: The majority of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that drivers aresafe (79%) as well as helpful and friendly (58%).

Route and Schedule Info:The majority of respondents either strongly agreed or agreedthat information was easy to use (73%).

Call Center: Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that information was easy toobtain over the phone (47%) and that Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) werefriendly (51%).

Bus Stops and Shelters: Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that bus stops werereadily available (56%) and adequately marked (61%).

Ride Experience: The majority of respondents agreed that buses were clean and wellmaintained (56%). However, on-time performance was the lowest rated aspect out of allnine aspects in this survey. Over one-third, or 35%, indicated that they disagreed orstrongly disagreed that buses were on-time.

Graph 3-13: Fare Media and Payment Dis tribu tion

Cash, regular fare$1.75

74%

Cash, reduced fare$0.8511%

10 Ride Fare Card2%

10 Ride Fare Card,reduced

1%Monthly Pass

4%Monthly Pass,

reduced2%

Medicare CardHolder

1%

Transfer fromanother system

5%


30/159

P


StronglyAgree27%

Agree52%Neutral

14%

Disagree4%

StronglyDisagree

3%

Drivers are safe

StronglyAgree22%

Agree36%

Neutral23%

Disagree12%

StronglyDisagree

7%

Drivers are helpful and f riendly

StronglyAgree27%

Agree46%Neutral

15%

Disagree7%

StronglyDisagree

5%

Route/schedule info is easy to use

StronglyAgree16%

Agree31%

Neutral31%

Disagree11%

StronglyDisagree

11%

It's easy to get bus info on the phone

StronglyAgree18% Agree

33%

Neutral31%

Disagree10%

StronglyDisagree

8%

CSRs are friendly and h elpfulStronglyAgree17%

Agree39%

Neutral22%

Disagree12%

StronglyDisagree

10%

Buses are clean and well-maintained

StronglyAgree14% Agree

30%

Neutral21%Disagree

17%

StronglyDisagree

18%

Buses are on time

StronglyAgree17%

Agree39%

Neutral20%

Disagree15%

StronglyDisagree

9%

Bus shelters and sto ps are readily available

StronglyAgree22%

Agree39%

Neutral18%

Disagree13%

StronglyDisagree

8%

Bus stop s are adequately marked

Graphs 3-14 thru 3-22: Customer Opinion of Service Aspects


31/159


When asked what trip planning tools were used, respondents indicated that they most heavilyrelied on paper schedules (30%) followed by the CMRT website (22%) and the call center (15%)(see Graph 3-23). The least commonly used tool was mobile applications (4%) even though

83.1% of respondents said that they have access to the internet and 69.4% said that they owned asmart phone or tablet device.

3.5

FindingsBased on the results of the CMRT 2013 Passenger Survey, CMRT can conclude that:

The majority of CMRT customers are low-income, minorities with little-to-no access toalternative transportation. CMRT customers rely on the service and use it nearly everyday to travel.

The majority of CMRT riders use the service to get to and from work; other trip types aresignificantly less common. There are few casual or choice riders.

The CMRT system experiences a high rate of out-of-system transfers, suggesting that theCMRT system connects customers regionally.

Expanding the service hours and frequencies would be an obvious improvement in themobility of CMRT customers.

Expanding the service area to include surrounding communities and employment centerswould improve the mobility of CMRT customers.

Overall, customers are satisfied with their experience on CMRT service, with theexception of on-time performance.

Although most customers have access to the internet and smartphones, utilization rates ofthe websites and mobile technologies are lower than expected.

TRIPWebsite

11%

CMRTWebsite

22%

Call Center15%

Paperschedules/

maps30%

GoogleMaps11%

MobileApplication

4%

Other7%

Graph 3-23: Trip Planning Tools Used


32/159

This page was intentionally left blank.


33/159


4. Service Performance StandardsIn order to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of each route in the CMRT system, serviceperformance standards must be defined and applied using operational statistics associated witheach route. These performance standards will rank each route across a set of quantitativestatistics, as well as determine how well each route is fulfilling its role in the CMRT system. Forthe analysis below, FY 2013 operational data was utilized to perform the calculations.

Service improvement recommendations will be based upon the performance of each route inseven distinct metrics, four of which are combined into an efficiency rating to gauge the overall

health and effectiveness of an individual route:

Efficiency Rating (comprised of the following);o Boardings per Revenue Hour The average number of passengers boarding the

bus within a fixed amount of service hours provided by a route. Thismeasurement analyzes the efficiency of the utilization of the routes.

o Boardings per Revenue Mile The number of passengers boarding the busalong a fixed amount of miles traveled while the route is in service. Thismeasurement takes a routes capital investment and infrastructure intoconsideration when measuring for effectiveness.

o Operational Cost per Revenue Hour The monetary cost for CMRT to provideone hour of service on a particular route. This calculation takes into considerationthe operational costs, fuel costs, and fixed fees associated with each route.

o Subsidy per Passenger The cost of providing service for a single passengeronce farebox revenue has been deducted from operational costs. This metricmeasures the cost-effectiveness of a route.

Schedule Adherence This metric determines the success rate of a routes ability toremain on its published schedule. For this COA, a route is considered on-time if it

arrives at a timepoint less than 5 minutes late or less than 1 minute early.

Average Fare Paid This measurement averages the amount of fare paid by eachpassenger.

Farebox Recovery RatioThis measurement that illustrates the percentage of operatingexpenses that are covered by transit fares paid by the passengers. Advertising revenuewas not included in the calculations.


34/159


4.1 Peer System Comparisons and Benchmark EstablishmentGuided by a peer system comparison between CMRT and other transit systems across the United

States, benchmarks were established to set a standard by which performance measurements areevaluated and compared. CMRT identified two sets of peer systems in which to compare thesystem, the first was based on square miles and population size and the second was based onrevenue miles per month. The CMRT service area is roughly 100 square miles with a populationof roughly 437,000, and operates approximately 50,000 revenue hours per month.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the peer comparison findings. According to peer systems operatingin a similar sized service area with a similar population density, CMRT should have roughly 19boardings per hour and just under 1.5 boardings per revenue mile. Due to a lack of operatingresources, CMRT falls well short of these expected benchmarks. Furthermore, when CMRT iscompared to systems that run a similar amount of monthly revenue miles, CMRT still falls well

short of expected performance levels.


35/159

Service Performance Standards


Table 4-1: Peer Systems based on Population and Service Area 2

July 2012 to May 2013* Boardi ngs Rev Hours Rev Miles Boardi ngs/Hr Boardi ngs/Mil e VOMS Pop Sq Mi Pop/Sq

The Wave Transit System (Mobile, AL) 1,127,877 85,159 1,279,578 13.24 0.88 23 326,183 117 2,788

Jefferson Parish Department of Transit Administration (Gretna, LA) 1,911,445 88,910 1,327,742 21.50 1.44 29 431,019 94 4,585

Golden Empire Transit District (Bakersfield, CA) 5,712,208 272,233 3,621,961 20.98 1.58 64 466,353 98 4,759

Gold Coast Transit (Oxnard, CA) 3,264,820 167,852 1,692,688 19.45 1.93 41 360,623 91 3,96

AVERAGE 3,004,088 153,539 1,980,492 18.79 1.46

CMRT 579,347 45,918 770,877 12.62 0.75 14 437,000 100 4,370

DIFFERENCE FROM AVERAGE -80.7% -70.1% -61.1% -32.9% -48.4%

* - The Wave and Golden Empire did not report June 2013 figures for revenue hours and revenue miles

Table 4-2: Peer Systems based on Monthly Revenue Miles 2

July 2012 to June 2013 Boardi ngs Rev Hours Rev Miles Boardi ngs/Hr Boardi ngs/Mil e VOMS Pop Sq Mi Pop/Sq

Rogue Valley Transportation District (Medford, OR) 1,415,110 56,199 819,839 25.18 1.73 19 154,081 65 2,370

Williamsburg Area Transit Authority (Williamsburg, VA) 1,010,092 54,309 877,100 18.60 1.15 22 57,000 144 396

City of Waukesha Transit Commission (Milwaukee, WI) 1,047,316 62,250 849,127 16.82 1.23 21 141,642 43 3,294

Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority (Topeka, KS) 1,136,393 54,079 804,580 21.01 1.41 22 122,377 58 2,110

AVERAGE 1,152,228 56,709 837,662 20.40 1.38

CMRT 627,841 49,945 841,295 12.57 0.75 14 437,000 100 4,370

DIFFERENCE FROM AVERAGE -45.5% -11.9% 0.4% -38.4% -46.0%

2Source: National Transit Database and CMRT FY 2013 Operating Data


36/159


Using these results as guidance, the following benchmarks were established for this report.Minimum/maximum and target standards were established, using the peer analysis and systemaverages. Given the lack of operating resources in the CMRT system, some target standards

were established to be slightly lower than the average performance levels of peer systems. Formost individual minimum/maximum metrics, the 80th percentile (or 20th percentile for costfigures) of the CMRT system-wide average was determined to be a reasonable level ofexpectation.

Boardings per Revenue Houro Minimum standard: 11.54 boardings per houro Target standard (80thpercentile):15.05 boardings per hour

Boardings per Revenue Mileo Minimum standard: 0.67 boardings per houro Target standard (80thpercentile): 0.82 boardings per mile

Operational Cost per Revenue Hour3o Maximum standard: $77.59 per revenue houro Target standard (20thpercentile): $76.07 per revenue hour

Subsidy per Passenger3o Maximum standard: $5.31 per passengero Target standard (20thpercentile): $3.93 per passenger

Schedule Adherenceo Minimum standard: 80% on-time performanceo Target standard: 90% on-time performance

Average Fare Paido No less than 80% of the base fare for a particular route

Farebox Recovery Ratio3o Minimum standard: 22%o Target standard (80thpercentile): 27%

4.2 Route Performance by Individual MetricIn order to better understand the dynamics that govern the effectiveness of each CMRT route,individual performance metrics must be analyzed and taken into consideration. Strong or poorperformances in a particular metric will provide insight into how a particular route should bemodified or improved. All seven of the individual metrics utilized in this report will be analyzedindependently to determine specific operational trends within each route. As stated above inSection 4.1, the average value across all CMRT routes in a given metric will be accepted as theminimum acceptable standard for most measurements (excluding the M Route in someinstances). A target goal in each measurement was also established using peer comparisons.This is the level at which we expect all routes to perform at or exceed. Future COAs will assessroute performance based on the guidelines established in this edition and establish newperformance standards based on their results.

3M Route not used in system average


37/159


4.2.1 Boardings per Revenue HourFY 2013 boardings per revenue hour for each CMRT route can be found in Graph 4-1. The

average boardings per revenue hour across all CMRT routes is 11.54. A target standard of 15.05boardings per revenue hour was established.

Staff wages make up a large portion of the CMRT operating budget, so this metric is optimizedwhen maximum output (number of passengers riding while employees are deployed) is achievedwith minimal input (employee hours required to operate CMRT bus services).

Only two routes surpassed the target standard (E and J) while the A, H and K routes camerelatively close to meeting this standard. The C and M routes performed the worst in this metric,falling well short of the minimum standard.

Graph 4-1: FY2013 Boarding s per Revenue Hour b y Route

4.2.2 Boardings per Revenue MileGraph 4-2 illustrates the amount of boardings per revenue mile in FY 2013 for all CMRT routes.

A minimum standard of 0.67 boardings per revenue mile was established, while the targetstandard was set at 0.82.

As expected, routes that performed well in boardings per revenue hour also did well in terms ofpassengers carried per revenue mile. The C route did not fall as short in this category as it did inboardings per revenue hour, which shows that the route might have too many revenue hours builtinto its schedule.

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

A B C E G H J K M

Minimum Standard Target Standard


38/159


Graph 4-2: FY2013 Boarding s per Revenue Mile by Route

4.2.3 Operational Cost per HourGraph 4-3 depicts the operational cost per revenue hour for each CMRT route in FY 2013. Thisvalue is comprised of three components: fixed costs, operational costs, and fuel escalators.

A maximum acceptable cost standard of $77.59 per hour was established, and three of the nineroutes (A, B, H) failed to meet this standard. The C and J routes came very close to failing thisstandard. A target standard ($76.07) was established at 20% of the average cost, and only the E,K and M routes were able to meet this standard.

The M route is by far the least expensive route to operate in the CMRT system in terms of rawmonetary expenditures. This is due to the fact that the M Route is currently under a separatecontract with Anne Arundel County.

Graph 4-3: FY2013 Operational Cost per Hour b y Route

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.700.80

0.90

A B C E G H J K M


$55.00

$60.00

$65.00

$70.00

$75.00

$80.00

$85.00

A B C E G H J K *M

Maximum Standard Target Standard

*Fixed costs not included in calculation


39/159


4.2.4 Subsidy per PassengerGraph 4-4 illustrates the subsidy provided for each passenger on a given route in the CMRTsystem. Again, the maximum and target standards were calculated without consideration of M

route data. The maximum acceptable standard was set at $5.31 per passenger, and the targetstandard ($3.93 per passenger) was calculated at 20% of the average. The importance of thismetric is that routes with higher subsidies are costlier to operate.

This graph shows that it is very costly for CMRT to provide bus services for passengers on the Cand M routes, as both routes suffer greatly from low monthly farebox revenue. In regards to theM route, extremely low ridership and a reduced fare structure ($1.00 base fare) make the M routethe costliest route to operate by a wide margin.

The J and K routes surpass the target standard and also require the least amount of subsidy perpassenger, which indicates healthy levels of farebox revenue collection and ridership on these

routes.

Graph 4-4: FY2013 Subsidy per Passenger by Route

4.2.5 Schedule AdherenceOn-time performance is a major factor in determining a riders confidence in the reliability of atransit system. Poor schedule adherence leads to missed transfer connections, the disruption of apassengers daily life, and a general sense of dissatisfaction from the ridership base. Therefore,it is imperative to maintain very high levels of schedule adherence. The WashingtonMetropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) uses a 2013 target goal of 78% for trip arrivalsat time points within a window of no more than 2 minutes early or 7 minutes late.(www.wmata.com/about_metro/scorecard/index.cfm?). CMRTs service area and ridership baseare not subjected to the levels of traffic congestion and passenger overcrowding that affects

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

A B C E G H J K *M

Maximum Standard Target Standard *Fixed costs not included in calculation


40/159


many of WMATAs bus routes. Therefore, it was determined that a minimum standard of 80%for trip arrivals at time points within a window of no more than 1 minute early or 5 minutes latewas appropriate as a minimum standard for this COA. As it is written in the formal operations

contract between CMRT and its current operations contractor (First Transit), a 90% targetstandard for on-time performance is expected.

Using these standards for schedule adherence, every CMRT route except the M route falls shortof both the minimum and target standards. Improvements to on-time performance are requiredon all routes, with additional focus dedicated towards the worst performing, longer mileageroutes (e.g., the E and J routes). As a result, route timing analyses and restructuring are requiredfor all routes.

Graph 4-5: FY2013 Schedule Adherence4by Route

4.2.6 Average Fare Paid per PassengerAverage fares for a route that are significantly lower than the base fare level most likely indicatean increased use of pre-paid fare media, an abundance of passengers paying discounted farelevels (youth, senior citizens, and disabled), or prevalent fare evasion.

Graph 4-6 shows the average fare paid by CMRT passengers on each route. It was establishedthat the average fare should not fall under 80% of the published base fare ($1.40 for all CMRTroutes, $0.80 for the M route). The only routes that did not meet the established benchmarkswere the E, G, and H routes. However, the E route accepts transfers issued on Howard Transitroutes, which significantly decreases the amount of cash revenue collected in the farebox. Also,the G and H routes parallel Metrobus routes, so there is an increased prevalence of the SmartTriptransfer policy, thus reducing the amount of cash collected in the farebox.

4Source NextBus AVL Data

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C E G H J K M



41/159


Graph 4-6: FY2013 Average Fare Paid per Passenger by Route

4.2.7 Farebox Recovery RatioMost publicly funded transit agencies are not self-sufficient, and require external revenue andmunicipal subsidies to cover the majority of operating expenses. For this COA, Graph 4-7displays the farebox recovery ratio for each route in the CMRT system in FY 2013. The M routewas not figured into the minimum and target standard calculations. A minimum standard of 22%was established for all routes, and a target goal of 27% was established as a high level of fareboxrecovery.

Due to extremely low ridership and a reduced base fare, the M route possesses the lowestrecovery ratio by a wide margin. The B, C, and G routes also recover very little of its operating

expenses from farebox revenue, and thus require a large level of subsidized financial support.The E route recovery ratio is somewhat compromised by the prevalent usage of transfers fromHoward Transit routes. The A and H routes recover an above-average percentage of revenuefrom fares, while the J and K routes exceed the target standard.

Graph 4-7: FY2013 Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route

$0.00

$0.25

$0.50

$0.75

$1.00

$1.25

$1.50

$1.75

$2.00

A B C E G H J K M

Target Standard (80% of $1.75 base fare) M Route Target Standard (80% of $1.00 base fare)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

A B C E G H J K *M

Minimum Standard Target Standard * Fixed costs not available for the M Route.


42/159


4.3 Efficiency Rating and ResultsThe efficiency rating provides a glimpse at the overall health of each route in the system. Itrewards individual routes for operating with high levels of efficiency at relatively low costs. SeeTable 4-3 for a breakdown of the efficiency ratings by individual route.

For each route, the efficiency rating was calculated as follows:1. Obtain a CMRT system-wide average for Boardings per Revenue Hour, Boardings per

Revenue Mile, Operational Cost per Revenue Hour, and Subsidy per Passenger.2. Determine how far each individual route deviated from the system average of each metric

in terms of standard deviations.3. For each metric, the distances from the mean are combined and rectified into an

efficiency rating for each route. The lowest combined score is added to each routes

individual score so that only positive values are obtained.

The efficiency rating for each route is then measured against the average rating for all nineCMRT routes. A ranking system was established as follows:

140% or higher of average rating: High performance level. Increased frequency and/orservice upgrades are recommended to keep pace with heavy demand.

90% to 140% of average rating: Average performance level. Minor to moderatemodifications are recommended to improve service quality.

Lower than 90% of average rating: Average to poor performance level. Moderate ormajor modifications required to improve service quality.

The efficiency rating does not take schedule adherence into consideration, so a furthercomparison of efficiency against this metric is required. See Table 4-4 for a comparison of theefficiency ratings versus schedule adherence


43/159



Table 4-3: FY 2013 Efficiency Ranking for CMRT Routes

Act ual Values Dist ance f rom MeanCombined Score Ranking

RouteBoardings/Hour

Boardings/Mile

Subsidy/Passenger

Cost/Hour

Boardings/Hour

Boardings/Mile

Subsidy/Passenger

Cost/Hour

A 13.06 0.83 $4.63 $80.28 0.38 0.79 0.47 -0.80 0.84 4.99B 10.59 0.61 $5.89 $79.19 -0.24 -0.29 0.16 -0.61 -0.99 3.16C 6.31 0.55 $10.84 $77.55 -1.32 -0.60 -1.05 -0.33 -3.30 0.85E 15.30 0.84 $3.98 $75.75 0.95 0.87 0.63 -0.03 2.41 6.56G 11.09 0.61 $5.70 $76.22 -0.11 -0.29 0.21 -0.11 -0.31 3.83H 14.93 0.81 $4.04 $79.05 0.85 0.69 0.61 -0.59 1.57 5.71J 15.23 0.79 $3.46 $76.72 0.93 0.58 0.75 -0.19 2.06 6.21K 13.95 0.81 $3.89 $75.97 0.61 0.67 0.65 -0.07 1.86 6.01M 3.43 0.18 $16.45 $59.48 -2.05 -2.41 -2.42 2.73 -4.15 0.00

AVG 11.54 0.67 $6.54* $75.58* 4.15

STD DEV 3.97 0.20 $4.09 $5.89

*M Route not included in this calculation.

Table 4-4: CMRT Route Efficiency Ratings versus Schedule Adherence by Route

Route Ranking % of Avg % On-Time % Late % Early SummaryE 6.56 158% 42.4% 54.7% 2.9%

E, J, K routes: High efficiency, relatively low cost, suffers from poor schedule adherence.J 6.21 150% 34.1% 59.3% 6.6%K 6.01 145% 65.3% 24.4% 10.2%H 5.71 138% 45.9% 47.9% 6.1%

H, A, G routes: Average efficiency performance. Minor to moderate changes are recommended.A 4.99 120% 68.4% 26.1% 5.5%G 3.83 92% 66.7% 18.8% 14.5%B 3.16 76% 56.0% 36.6% 7.4%

B, C, and M routes: Poorly performing routes that require major modifications or elimination.C 0.85 20% 73.9% 17.6% 8.5%M 0.00 0% 81.5% 5.8% 12.7%

AVG 4.15


44/159


4.4 Performance Statistics FindingsAs seen in the tables above, the E, J, and K routes establish themselves as being the mostefficient routes in the CMRT system. Throughout FY 2013, these routes carried the mostpassengers per revenue hour and revenue mile, and required relatively low levels of financialsupport.

However, these routes also perform relatively poorly in terms of schedule adherence. More oftenthan not, these routes arrive late at timepoints, and any schedule/route modifications must takeinto consideration both high passenger demand and the goal of establishing better on-timeperformance. The E and J routes are also very long in terms of mileage; therefore routeshortening could be examined as a potential solution for these routes.

The H, A, and G Routes fall under the category of routes that do not perform poorly, but stillrequire moderate levels of modification to increase their efficiency and effectiveness and preventthem from becoming poorly performing routes. Routes falling under this category may require aspecific focus on the following analyses to pinpoint a particular deficiency in a route, whichcould include a:

Segment Analysis To identify and potentially eliminate underperforming andunproductive portions of the route.

Exploration of new service areas To locate adjacent service areas to capitalize on newservice patterns which can improve operational and economic efficiencies.

The B, C, and M Routes received poor efficiency rankings due to a combination of prolonged

unproductive ridership levels and high operational costs. These routes consume valuableresources that can be deployed elsewhere in the system. The operations costs for these routes areheavily subsidized by state and local funding sources, and recover very little of their operatingcosts through collected farebox revenue. As a result, these routes in their current configurationsare major financial drains on public monetary resources, and are very expensive to operate.Segment analyses should be conducted in order to facilitate moderate to major levels of routerestructuring. Service level reductions or complete discontinuation are also plausible options toconsider for routes in this category. In addition, the B Route also suffers from poor scheduleadherence due to an ill-timed schedule. Additional consideration must be given to route timingwhen developing potential solutions for this route.

A combination of targeted solutions and improvements shall be developed for each route basedupon the performance metrics utilized in this section. Table 4-5 recaps and consolidates all ofthe findings from this section. Future service plans for each CMRT route should be based uponthe following performance aspects for each route.


45/159



Table 4-5: Performance Rankings by Route

RouteBoardings per

HourBoardings per

Mile Cost per Hour Subsid y per Passenger Schedul e Adherenc e Average Fare Paid Farebox RecoveryA Above Average Exceeds Target High Below Average Below Standard Exceeds Target Above AverageB Below Average Below Average High High Well Below Standard Exceeds Target Below Average

C Well Below Average Well Below Average Average Very High Below Standard Exceeds Target Well Below AverageE Exceeds Target Exceeds Target Low Low Well Below Standard Below Target Below AverageG Below Average Below Average Low High Below Standard Below Target Well Below AverageH Nearly Exceeds Target Nearly Exceeds Target High Low Well Below Standard Below Target Above AverageJ Exceeds Target Nearly Exceeds Target Average Low Well Below Standard Exceeds Target Exceeds TargetK Nearly Exceeds Target Nearly Exceeds Target Low Low Below Standard Exceeds Target Exceeds TargetM Well Below Average Well Below Average Very Low Very High Exceeds Target Exceeds Target Well Below Average

A Routeo The route needs lower operational costs per revenue hour, and slight reductions in subsidization. o Slight schedule modifications are recommended to repair on-time performance.

B Routeo The route needs to improve upon the number of passenger trips per hour and revenue mile. o The route is very expensive to run in its current incarnation; operational costs need to be lowered. o Schedule adherence is a major issue. Schedule timing changes to the published schedule are required.

C Routeo The route is very inefficient and performs very poorly in most categories. The route carries very few riders, is verycostly to operate, and has minor problems adhering to published schedule.

o The route performs significantly better in boardings per mile than boardings per hour. A reduction in service hoursmight be a plausible solution for this route. Major restructuring or route elimination is also recommended.

E Routeo The route performs very well in most metrics. Farebox collection is low and most likely due to a high volume of

transfers from Howard Transit routes.o On-time performance is a serious problem on this route. Route shortening and/or re-timing of the entire route is

recommended.


46/159


G Routeo Performs below average in most categories. Minor to moderate-scale changes

across a number of areas are recommended to make the route perform at a higher

level.o A well-balanced combination of schedule modifications and segment analyses are

recommended to improve performance.o Given the routes similarity to Metrobus services in this service area, an analysis

of the route and its relationship with the Metrobus and Metrorail network isrecommended.

H Routeo The route is highly productive in terms of ridership efficiency, but is plagued by

high operational costs and very poor schedule adherence. Schedule re-timing andsegment analyses are recommended to streamline the route and improve itsperformance.

o Given the routes operational status and relationship with WMATA, a discussionwith the agency is recommended to ensure clarity and consistency in how theroute is to be operated and improved.

J Routeo Extremely poor schedule adherence is the biggest concern on this route, as it

performs very efficiently in nearly every performance metric.o Route shortening is recommended for this route, as it is the longest route in the

CMRT system in terms of end-to-end mileage.

K Routeo Much like the J route, the K route performs well in most performance metrics

except for schedule adherence.

o Schedule adjustments, segment analyses, and minor to moderate routerestructuring/shortening proposals are recommended to improve on-timeperformance.

M Routeo The route performs very poorly in nearly every performance metric except for

schedule adherence. It carries very few riders, and is very costly for CMRT tooperate.

o Major restructuring or complete elimination of the route is recommended, as it ishighly inefficient and wasteful to operate in its current configuration.


47/159


5. Route Profiles5.1 A Route: Laurel Mall South Laurel5.1.1 Alignment and OperationThe A route operates between the City of Laurel (Prince Georges County) and the communityof South Laurel in Prince Georges County. The round-trip length of the A route is 15.4 miles.

The A route travels along 4thStreet, Ashford Boulevard, Cherry Lane, Van Dusen Road, Contee

Road, Route 197, and South Laurel Drive.

Within the CMRT system, the A route shares transfer points with the B, C, E, G, H, and J, whichconnect riders with major employment/commercial centers such as Arundel Mills Mall andColumbia Mall, and multimodal terminals such as the MTA Light Rail and Metrorail Stations.The A route also shares transfer points with the following systems: Howard Transit Purple route;and WMATA 87, 88, 89, Z9, and Z29 routes.

Hours of Operation:

Weekdays, 6:00AM to 6:50PMo 30 minute headways

Saturdays, 9:00AM to 6:50PMo 60 minute headways

Communities, Destinations, & Points of Interest Served:

Laurel Mall Laurel High School Laurel Regional Hospital Laurel Town Center Route 197 Park and Ride Lot Parkview at Laurel Senior Center Patuxent River Community Park Crystal Plaza South Laurel Drive


48/159


5.1.2 RidershipFifteen peak hour ride checks were conducted on the A route between March and May 2013. Six

peak hour round trips had passenger loads of 10 or greater in the peak direction of travel(Mornings from South Laurel to Laurel Mall, evenings from Laurel Mall to South Laurel). Noneof the remaining surveyed trips had passenger loads greater than 10.

Table 5-1: A Route Ridershi p and Average Daily Boardings, March 2013

Average Dai ly Board ings Total Riders hipWeekday 255 5,360Saturday 136 682

5.1.3 Segment AnalysisFor the A route, outbound trips are defined towards South Laurel and inbound trips are definedas towards Laurel Mall.

On outbound trips, most boardings occurred at Laurel Mall, and these passengers generally tendto alight along major roadways (Contee Road and Route 197), Laurel Regional Hospital, andwithin the residential areas along South Laurel Drive (see Map 5-1 and Map 5-2).

On inbound trips, boardings distribute themselves across the Route 197 and Contee Roadcorridors. Laurel Regional Hospital is also a major source of boardings on inbound trips. Mostalightings occur at Laurel Mall, Laurel Regional Hospital, and along the inbound portions ofRoute 197 and Contee Road.

Through ride check observations and interactions with operators, it was noted that there is aconsiderable level of safety and schedule adherence concerns regarding left turns across Route197 from Briarcroft Lane after serving the Park and Ride Lot. It was observed that operators canlose as much as two to three minutes from waiting for an opening in traffic congestion to safelymaneuver a left turn onto Route 197.

The most productive stops along the A route are at Laurel Mall and Laurel Regional Hospital(see Graph 5-1). The most productive stretches of the A route are along Contee Road and Route197. The least productive stretches of the A route are along Ashford Boulevard and Van DusenRoad. Also of note is the extremely low level of passenger activity at the Route 197 Park and

Ride. This illustrates that the A route carries very few commuters in its ridership base.


49/159



Comprehensive Operational Analysis

Graph 5-1: A Route Segment Analysi s

5.1.4 Schedule AdherenceOn weekdays, A route trips generally begin on-time from Laurel Mall and arrive on-time at itsterminal in South Laurel, but inbound trips are where many schedule adherence problems arise.Inbound time points are located in the same locations as outbound time points, but operators aregiven less time on inbound trips to travel between Route 197 Park and Ride and Laurel Mall thanon outbound trips. Also, heavier and more frequent instances of passenger activity on theinbound stretch between South Laurel and Laurel Regional Hospital may be degrading on-timeperformance. Still, there is enough recovery time built into the layover at Laurel Mall that many

A route trips are able to start their next round trip on-time.

Saturday schedule adherence exhibits a similar pattern to weekdays, except with slightly loweron-time performance.

Table 5-2: A Route Schedule Ad herence, February 2013 Apri l 2013Direction: To South Laurel

Weekdays SaturdaysTimepoint Stop Early On Time Late Early On Time LateLaurel Mall 4.2% 85.8% 10.0% 2.3% 84.5% 13.2%Laurel Regional Hospital 2.5% 86.2% 11.3% 2.4% 79.8% 17.7%Route 197 Park and Ride 9.9% 79.0% 11.1% 7.8% 71.3% 20.9%S Laurel Dr @ Laurelwalk Dr S 4.0% 74.6% 21.4% 2.4% 70.2% 27.4%

Direction: To Laurel MallTimepoint Stop Early On Time Late Early On Time LateS Laurel Dr @ Laurelwalk Dr S 1.1% 71.4% 27.5% 0.0% 62.9% 37.1%Route 197 Park and Ride 7.1% 68.8% 24.0% 4.8% 67.7% 27.4%Laurel Regional Hospital 1.2% 55.3% 43.5% 0.0% 50.8% 49.2%Laurel Mall 1.9% 50.6% 47.5% 1.6% 50.8% 47.6%

0102030405060708090

100

LaurelMall

AshfordBlvd

CherryLane

Van DusenRd

LaurelRegionalHospital

Contee Rd Route 197Park and

Ride

Route 197 SouthLaurel

Passengers

Avg Daily Boardings Avg Daily Alightings


50/159


5.1.5 Trip AnalysisUnlike most CMRT routes, the A route exhibits more productivity during the mid-day trips than

during traditional rush hours (see Graph 5-2). Most mid-day trips have higher average boardingsand alightings per trip than most of the rush hour trips on this route. This may be correlated withthe lack of mid-day service on the WMATA routes 87, 88 and 89, which overlap with portions ofthe A route.

Also, trips starting from Laurel Mall at the bottom of the hour have less pas

cmrt comprehensive op analysis_2013.pdf

Documents