CommunityBased Transit Improvement Project

1
Community-Based Transit Improvement Project
Los Angeles Metro Rapid Market Assessment - Final
Report -

• Prepared for 
• California Department of Transportation
•  
• Prepared by
• TDA, Inc. and Ryan Snyder Associates
• June 2004

2
Metro Rapid Market Assessment
3
Purpose Approach

• Identify Evaluate Options to Attract New Riders
• Focus on Los Angeles Metro Rapid Bus, an
  innovative new service
• Identify characteristics of Metro Rapids riders

4
What is Metro Rapid?

• A version of Bus Rapid Transit
• Distinctive vehicle appearance
• Exclusive stops
• Fewer stops (average 1 stop per 0.8 miles)
• Signal Priority
• High Frequency ( 310 minutes peak, 10-20 minutes
  off-peak)
• Operates in general traffic lane

5
Metro Rapid Bus Routes(as of Jan. 1, 2003)
Began 2001
Began Dec. 2002
Source MTA
6
Planned Metro Rapid System Expansion

• Implementation of two additional routes every six
  months
• Network of 24 routes to be deployed until 2007

7
What has Metro Rapid Achieved?

• Increased ridership between 9 and 42 per
  corridor
• Attracted new riders from 9 to 39 of
  the increase are new transit riders
• Reduced trip times for all riders by up to
• 24 minutes on average

8
Route Selection Approach

• Selected corridors for study based on demographic
  compatibility with other California metropolitan
  areas
• Conducted on-board surveys of riders to provide
  before and after comparisons of Metro Rapid
  service
• Evaluated riders characteristics to identify
  differences between previous and new riders

9
Corridors for Demographic Comparison

Van Nuys
Ventura
Soto
Santa Monica
Wilshire/Whittier
Florence
Pico
Broadway
Crenshaw/Rossmore
Vermont
10
Housing Density and Population Density (Mean
Values)
Source Census 2000 TDA Inc.
11
Mean of Median Household Income
Source Census 2000 TDA Inc.
12
Persons in Poverty Households with No
Vehicle
Source Census 2000 TDA Inc.
13
Corridors for Demographic Comparison (Summary)
14
Los Angeles County Selected Demographic
Criteria Source 2000 U.S. Census
Selection Criteria Households with No Vehicle
gt10 Population Density gt10,000 persons/sq.
mi. Median Annual Household Income
lt30,000 Persons in Poverty gt 10 Transit
ridership to work gt 10
15
Other California Metropolitan Counties for
Comparison

• Northern
• Alameda
• Contra Costa
• Santa Clara
• San Mateo
• San Francisco

• Central Valley
• Sacramento
• Stanislaus
• San Joaquin

• Southern
• Orange
• San Diego
• Riverside

16
Other Counties matching combined LA criteria
gt10,000 persons/sq.mi. lt30,000 median
household income gt10 households with no
vehicle gt20 persons in poverty gt10 transit
commute
San Francisco County
Alameda County
17
Northern Counties matching selected LA
criteriaBlock Groups gt10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.
San Francisco County
Alameda County
18
Northern Counties matching selected LA
criteriaBlock Groups gt10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.
Santa Clara County
Contra Costa County
San Mateo County
19
Central Valley Counties matching selected LA
criteria Block Groups gt10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.
Sacramento County
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
20
Southern Counties matching selected LA criteria
Block Groups gt10,000 persons/Sq. Mi.
San Diego County
Orange County
Riverside County
21
CA Counties Meeting Criteria
22
Summary of County Compatibility

• Partial but important comparability exists
• 5 out of 11 counties meet density, poverty and no
  vehicle criteria
• 5 out of 11 meet income criteria
• 8 out of 11 meet density criteria
• Thus, Los Angeles corridors can provide
  information on market characteristics relevant
  for other areas in California!

23
Metro Rapid Corridors Selected for Market Analysis
24
On-Board Surveys on Three Selected Routes

• Goal of 200 completed interviews per route
• Initial round

25
On-Board Surveys

• Follow-up round, 90 days after start of Metro
  Rapid service

Delayed pending installation of signal priority,
then cancelled Cancelled due to late start-up
following MTA strike marketing policy
limitations
26
Key Rider Characteristics

• New riders have somewhat higher incomes

27
Household Income Compared Previous and New
Riders in Wilshire/Whittier Corridor
28
Household Income Compared Previous and New
Riders in Florence Corridor
29
Key Rider Characteristics

• New riders had greater access to cars for their
  trip

30
Key Rider Characteristics

• New riders were slightly younger
• and predominantly male

31
Riders Travel Patterns

• New riders made somewhat more discretionary trips

32
Riders Travel Patterns

• New riders were attracted from a variety of
  previous modes, especially cars
• Some trips were also induced by Metro Rapid

33
Riders Travel Patterns

• Trip distances on Metro Rapid are similar for
  both
• new and previous transit riders

34
Riders Travel Patterns

• New riders made substantially fewer transfers

35
Riders Travel Patterns

• New riders transferred did so to local buses
• and to rail at higher rates

36
Riders Travel Patterns

• Fewer transfers yielded shorter trip times for
  new riders
• All riders reported significant time savings by
  using Metro Rapid

37
Summary of New Rider Characteristics

• Higher incomes than previous riders
• Over twice as many have access to cars for their
  trip
• Predominantly male
• Greater discretion in choosing their mode of
  travel for particular trips
• Simpler trip patterns with fewer transfers to
  minimize trip time.

38
Gains in Daily Ridership

• Significant restructuring of Local/Limited routes
  with Metro Rapid
• Net gain of 20 in total revenue hours in
  Florence Wilshire/Whittier corridors helps
  boost ridership
• 80 gain in revenue hours in Ventura corridor
  (with new locals plus Metro Rapid) also boosts
  ridership

39
Estimated Gains in Annual Ridership

• These corridors have experienced ridership gains
  from 9.6 to 42 with Metro Rapid

Estimated based on 255 weekdays 52 Saturdays
at 70 of weekday ridership 58 Sundays and
holidays at 55 of weekday
40
Costs

• Capital costs include
• New low floor vehicles 307,000 each
• New stops approx. 100,000 each
• Signal priority equipment and installation
  approx. 15,000 - 20,000 per intersection

41
Costs

• Operating costs are based on
• Additions of Metro Rapid routes
• less Reductions in local routes
• Net Operating Cost in Corridor

42
Estimated Capital Cost per New Rider
For Florence, stations not yet installed and
signal priority only partially installed costs
per MTAs budget.
43
Estimated Operating Cost perNew Rider
Final cost not available estimated per MTA
budget.
44
Total Annual Costs per New Rider
Final cost not available estimated per MTA
budget.
45
Conclusions

• More frequent, faster service attracts new riders
• New riders have higher incomes, and greater mode
  choice, but make fewer transfers
• Most new riders live within ¼ mile of the stop
  and will walk to the bus
• Costs per new rider are very reasonable compared
  to other investments in other modes