October 14, 2010California Department of Transportation

University of California Transportation Center

Statewide Transit Strategic Plan- Steering Committee Meeting -

Updated Baseline Report per Committee Suggestions 1TOPIC REVISIONS

Vanpools Added to Chapter 8: Shuttles

Paratransit and Demand Response New section: Chapter 4, Transportation for Disabled, Senior, and Low Income Travelers

The “True Cost” of Auto Ownership & Driving

New section: Chapter 14, Cost of Driving Alone vs. Transit

Bicycle and Pedestrian Access to Transit New section: Chapter 7

Rural Operators Many of the agencies discussed in the report are rural operators, and their concerns are included in the sections as appropriate (e.g., pages 10 & 15)

“Population and Settlement” approach (Land Use issues)

Discussed in the section on Transit Oriented Development (Chapter 13). Also raised as an issue in the recommendations of Chapter 4. Transit agencies sometimes mention the connection with land use in their documents, but do not discuss the subject in much detail.

Transportation for Disabled, Senior, and Low-Income Travelers

Inventories: • Many different kinds of providers

(public transit agencies, social services agencies, health care agencies, private for-profit companies, faith-based groups)

• Many different kinds of services(transportation to medical appointments, special equipment for disabled transportation, reverse commute / job access, demand response, vouchers for transit/taxi service)

Challenges to Coordination: • Constraints from funding sources, limited knowledge of other providers

with whom to coordinate, tight budgets, limited ability to share resources/equipment

Challenges for Rural Areas:• Longer distances, high-cost services,

fewer options for travelers

2

Cost of Driving Alone • Travelers who have a choice of

modes usually think about immediate costs of

individual trip: i.e., fuel, parking, tolls, time costs vs. cost of transit

fare, waiting time, walking time

• Fixed costs (insurance, maintenance, buying a car) add much more to the actual cost of driving

• External costs—not paid for by driver—include congestion, air pollution, greenhouse

gas emissions, traffic services, noise, induced sprawl

Costs of owning an automobileSource: Litman, Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis

3

Pedestrians and BicyclesPedestrians: Stops and stations: benches, shadeSurrounding streets: sidewalks, pedestrian signals, safe

crossings, good road connectivity, directroutes

Bikes:Capacity limits (2-3 bikes per rack on buses; limited space on peak-hour trains)Sharing road space (bikes and buses)Safe, secure bike parking; bike stations; bike sharing

Source: LACMTA

Source: City of Covina

4

% Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050

Source: The California Department of Finance

Statewide

+52%

5

Yr2010

39.1M

Yr2050

59.5M

<Total Population>

# Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050<Total Population>

Source: The California Department of Finance

Statewide

+20.4M

6

Yr2010

39.1M

Yr2050

59.5M

% Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050<Latino>

Source: The California Department of Finance

Statewide

+114%

7

Yr2010

14.5M

Yr2050

31.0M

# Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050<Latino>

Source: The California Department of Finance

Statewide

+16.5M

8

Yr2010

14.5M

Yr2050

31.0M

# Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050<Over 65 Yrs Old>

Source: The California Department of Finance

10

Yr2010

4.4M

Yr2050

11.6M Statewide

+162%

# Change, 2010-50

California Population Projection 2050<Over 65 Yrs Old>

Source: The California Department of Finance

Statewide

+7.2M

3

Yr2010

4.4M

Yr2050

11.6M

System Performance

Safety Financial Sustainability

Customer Focus Other

On-time arrival(58%)

Number of incidents in X miles (25%)

Farebox recovery ratio(55%)

Number of complaints in X miles (25%)

Proximity of riders to service (22%)

Distance between breakdowns(35%)

Number of injuries in X miles (10%)

Passengers per revenue mile or revenue hour (50%)

Seating capacity(20%)

Distance between stops (10%)

Percent of trips missed (30%)

Operating cost per revenue hour (25%)

Accessibility (18%)

Minimum service by density (10%)

Headway (20%)

Operating cost per revenue mile or passenger mile (20%)

Cleanliness (18%)

Average weekday/ weekend boarding (13%)

Subsidy per passenger trip (13%)

Number of passenger trips (8%)

Common Performance Measures found In SRTPs

(% of agencies studied that report using each measure)

11

Policy Issues & Data SourcesPolicy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesSystem Performance/

Customer Focus

-Level of Service Coverage -Level of Service Hours & Frequency -Level of Service Information-Level of Service Volume -Level of Service Delay -Level of Service Connection-Level of Service Price-Modal Share % (by areas or Corridors)-Ridership (by Transit Stops or Systems)-Public Transit Passenger Miles Traveled ( to Vehicle Miles Traveled)

-FTA National Transit Database (NTD), 1999-2008-APTA Public Transportation Fact Book, 2003-09-BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD)-Each Transit Agency’s Service Lines, Time Tables, and Fare Rates-Each Transit Agency’s Website-RITA/BTS Intermodal Passenger Connectivity Database-Transit User Satisfaction Surveys-Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP), 1990 & 2000-American Community Survey (ACS), 2005-08-Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) , 2002-08

Financial Sustainability

-Expenditures per Service Unit-Expenditures per Service Hour-Revenues per Service Unit-Revenues per Service Hour -Farebox Recovery Ratio-External Funds

-NTD, 1999-2008-APTA Public Transportation Fact Book, 2003-2009-State Controller-Each Transit Agency’s Annual Reports & Short-Range Plans

Safety -Accident & Fatality Rates (Passengers vs. Drivers)

-California Traffic Safety Report Card-Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)-National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTFA), the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) -National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES)-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008

Access/Mobility -# of Households, jobs, and Services (e.g., retail shops) within ½ Mile of Transit Stops or Highway Ramps- # Jobs within ½ hr. via car vs. transit

-Mean Travel Time (Work & Non-Work)-Peak Hour Traffic Speed & Delay-Travel Time Index (TTI)

-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-Zip Business Pattern (ZBP) Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line & BTS NTAD-Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Database -Texas Transportation Institute

12

Policy Issues & Data SourcesPolicy Issues Potential Measures Available Data Sources

Access/Mobility # of HHs, Jobs, and Services (e.g., retail shops) within ½ Mile of Transit Stops or Highway Ramps

• Mean Travel Time (Work & Non-Work)

• Peak Hour Traffic Speed & Delay

• Travel Time Index (TTI)

U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010American Community Survey (ACS), 2005-08Zip Business Pattern (ZBP) Series, 1998-2008Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), 2002-08U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line & BTS National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD)Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Database Texas Transportation Institute

• # Jobs within ½ Hr. Via Car vs. Transit

• # Jobs within ½ Hr. via Car vs. Transit

13

Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility for Mission Valley Tract, 2000

#0-15 min. 380,000

0-30 min. 735,000

0-45 min. 1,180,000

0-60 min. 1,375,000

Number of Jobs that can be reached viaAuto-Highway during P.M. Peak Hour

SAN DIEGOCOUNTYDATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2

14

#

Number of Jobs that can be reached viaTransit during P.M. Peak Hour

Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility via Public Transit: Mission Valley, 2000

SAN DIEGOCOUNTYDATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2

15

#0-30 min. 170,000

0-15 min. 75,000

0-45 min. 285,000

0-60 min. 340,000

Note: Grayrepresentsno transit services

Isochronic Measure of Job Accessibility

for Mission Valley TractNumber of Jobs that can be

reached via Transit during P.M. Peak Hour

DATA: SanDAG Network; CTPP, Parts 1, 2

16

TimeIsochrone A.I. Auto A.I. Transit

Accessibility Advantage:

Auto to Transit0-15 Min. 380,000 75,000 5.13

0-30Min. 735,000 170,000 4.32

0-45Min. 1,180,000 280,000 4.21

0-60Min. 1,375,000 340,000 4.04

The Car’s Accessibility Advantage: Mission Valley, 2000

17

TimeIsochrone

Accessibility Advantage Auto to Transit (Avg. 60 sites)

2030Trend-line

Projections

2030Smart Growth

Projections

0-15 Min. 5.46 1.670-30Min. 6.70 1.950-45Min. 7.65 2.190-60Min. 7.95 2.44

Transit Policies & Data Sources (Con.)

Policy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesLand Use -Floor Area Ratio

-Land Use Mixture Index-Open & Pedestrian Space Ratio-Street Connectivity Index-Length of Bike Lanes around Transit Stop-# of Urban Design Components (Trees, Street Furniture, etc.) -# of Parking Lots around Transit Stop

-National/Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Database-Individual Case Studies & Qualitative Surveys -Each Transit Agency’s Property Database-Each Local Government’s Building Codes and Permissions-Each Local Government’s Land Use Database-Each Local Government’s Urban Design Guide Lines-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)

Economic Development -Population Growth %-Employment Growth %-Location Quotient (LQ) -Shift-Share %-Unemployment Rate-Property Market Value -Property Vacancy & Absorption Rates -State & Local Tax Revenues

-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-ZBP Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)-State and Each Local Government’s Annual Tax Report

Environmental Sustainability

-VMT per Capita-VHM per Capita-Sales of Diesel and Gasoline -Air Quality (SOX, NOX and PM10) -GHG Emission per Capita, System or Service

-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008-PeMS Database-California EPA, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics-California EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, 2000-08

<Other>

19

Transit Policies & Data Sources (Con.)

Policy Issues Potential Measures Available Data SourcesLand Use -Floor Area Ratio

-Land Use Mixture Index-Open & Pedestrian Space Ratio-Street Connectivity Index-Length of Bike Lanes around Transit Stop-# of Urban Design Components (Trees, Street Furniture, etc.) -# of Parking Lots around Transit Stop

-National/Statewide Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Database-Individual Case Studies & Qualitative Surveys -Each Transit Agency’s Property Database-Each Local Government’s Building Codes and Permissions-Each Local Government’s Land Use Database-Each Local Government’s Urban Design Guide Lines-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)

Economic Development -Population Growth %-Employment Growth %-Location Quotient (LQ) -Shift-Share %-Unemployment Rate-Property Market Value -Property Vacancy & Absorption Rates -State & Local Tax Revenues

-U.S. Population Census 1990, 2000 & 2010-ACS, 2005-08-ZBP Series, 1998-2008-LEHD, 2002-08-Private Property Transaction Databases (e.g., First American)-State and Each Local Government’s Annual Tax Report

Environmental Sustainability

-VMT per Capita-VHM per Capita-Sales of Diesel and Gasoline -Air Quality (SOX, NOX and PM10) -GHG Emission per Capita, System or Service

-FHWA Highway Statistics, 1990-2008-PeMS Database-California EPA, iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics-California EPA, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data, 2000-08

<Other>

19

TOD Residents: Evidence from California (2003) • Ridership Bonus: Transit commute shares exceed

surrounding city by a factor of 5; Commute VMTestimated to be 80% lower

Source: Lund, Cervero, Willson (2004)

Avaiilable: CA TOD Databasehttp://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/

20

Performance Measures

• Inputs (e.g., $ per hour of transit)

• Outputs (e.g., # of vehicle-miles of service)

• Outcomes (e.g., improved transit accessibility)

Examples for Recent Initiatives in CA:• Fare Media • BRT (Bus Rapid Transit)• HSR (High Speed Rail) Proposal

Gauged by:

21

Ex.1 Fare Media PerformanceClipper Card

in San Francisco

Connection: # of transit agencies

“Transit Service”

Reliability: travel speeds & on-time arrival

Coverage: # of POS machines & % of smart card passengers

“Transit Operation ” Passengers per revenue mile or revenue hour Operating cost per revenue mile or passenger mile External revenues (e.g., retail payment)Farebox recovery ratio

TAP Card in Los Angeles

Compass Cardin San Diego

22

Ex.2 BRT Performance

Source: 2008 data from MTA & Qualitative Surveys

Orange Linein Los Angeles

“Transit Service”

“Transit Market”

“Built Environment (Land Use)”

Coverage: Ave. 9,495 pop. in ½ mi buffer Ave. 5,159 emp. in ½ mi buffer Operating Hours: 21 hrsFrequency: 155 buses per day Info/Schedule: 100% (13 out of 13 stops) Connection: Ave. 2.23 feeder bus lines/stop Ave. 315 P&R lots /stopPrice: Base Fare = $1.50 & Transfer = $0.35

Ridership: Ave. 2,153 daily boardings/stop

Street Connectivity (links/nodes): Ave. 2.22 in ½ mi buffer

Bench: 100% (13 out of 13 stops)Shade Cover: 100% (13 out of 13 stops)High-Quality Bus Service

+ Built Environment

23

Ex.3 HSR Performance

Sources: 2008 & 2010 data from Caltrans; ACS; LEHD; Highway Statistics

California HSRin San Jose

“Transit Service”

“Transit Market”

“Economic Development”

“Environmental Sustainability”

Projected: 86 trains/day

Projected: 15,000 boardings/day

Public Transport: 5.3%

Drive Alone: 71.6%

Journey to Work Modal Share 08’

Walk, Bike, Taxi & Others: 12.0%

Car Pooled: 12.8%

Employment 08’: 191,000 jobs Employment Grow 00’-08’: -8.9%Economic Specialization 08’ (LQ >1)

In 5 km of the proposed HSR station

VMT/Capita 08’: 21.0 miles/day in UA

Construction: 1.59Wholesale Trade: 1.40Professional Service: 1.56Management Company: 1.62Administrative: 1.47

Today’s Projections & Figures

24

Last meeting focused on:1) Funding challenges/issues 2) Transit service & technology challenges/issues/opportunities3) Need for outreach

To confirm…Are these the “right” focus areas for the strategic transit plan? Others?

• Are there key points or strategies that the plan should emphasize to improve transit service and delivery?

• Should we be developing strategies on how to meet the goals of SB 375 and regional visions/efforts?

• Are there data needs and the performance measures just discussed on the right track?

• Are there key conclusions that should be highlighted in the baseline report or is it best to let the descriptive materials speak for themselves?

Discussion Topics from the Last Meeting 26

What should be the objectives, content and format of the workshops?

Do you have recommendations on invitees? e.g., transit agencies, MPOs, CMAs, cities, non-profit orgs, others?

*Six workshops to be held between now and Spring 2011in So. Cal./SCAG region, San Diego (SANDAG), Bay Area (MTC), Sacramento (SACOG), Central Cal., Northern Cal. (focusing on smaller communities)

Regional Workshops* 25

Discussion Topics

1) Vision & Priorities for Transit in California

What are the key objectives transit should strive for from a statewide perspective?

What should be the top priorities in trying to achieve these objectives?

What are the commonalities and differences in priorities among the committee members?

27

1) What are the barriers to improvingtransit (e.g., institutional/ coordination, political, $, operations, technology, service connectivity, etc.)

2) What are some successful examples in the state or elsewhere (including abroad if appropriate?)

3) What could be the state's role in promotingand improving transit?

4) What are some implementable initiatives that could be introduced fairly quickly to noticeably improve transit throughout the state?

Other Issues and Topics 28