Post on 24-Aug-2020
10/7/2016
1
Ridership:Short Term Responses
Board of DirectorsStudy Session
October 11, 2016
Shuttles
2
Multi-modal services for our customers
Ridership
10/7/2016
2
Ridership
Mission: To supply the public with a high-quality, safe and efficient transportation system that should enhance quality of life by increasing access and mobility, reducing congestion, improving the environment and promoting economic vitality.
3
Ridership
Vision: The District is a mobility leader, providing transportation choices and a sustainable future that meets the needs of our diverse communities.
4
10/7/2016
3
Ridership
• What ridership trends has the District experienced in the last year?
5
Ridership Trends
6
10/7/2016
4
Ridership
• What effect do sustained low fuel prices have on ridership?
7
Ridership vs. Gasoline Prices
‐25.000%
‐20.000%
‐15.000%
‐10.000%
‐5.000%
0.000%
5.000%
10.000%
2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2014 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1
National SamTrans CA Gas Price
8
10/7/2016
5
Ridership vs. Gasoline Prices
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
60,000
65,000
70,000
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Total Trips - YearFY2014 17,029,450FY2015 18,544,670FY2016 19,233,430
9
Shuttles
Total Trips - YearFY2014 2,959,850FY2015 2,771,870FY2016 3,075,270
10
Ridership vs. Gasoline Prices
10/7/2016
6
Ridership by Mode
FY2016
28,415,420
FY2011
29,460,440
FY2012 FY2013
30,911,316
33,087,700
FY2014 11FY2015
34,826,783
550 million passenger miles
Ridership Status
• Percent Change from FY15 to FY 16
• Caltrain (3.58%)
• Shuttles (9.87%)
• Paratransit (8.60%)
• SamTrans (2.58%)
• System Wide (1.79%)12
10/7/2016
7
Ridership
• Factors that affect ridership:o Fuel Prices
o National and Local economy
o Job market
o Usefulness and convenience
o Cost
o Safety
o Others?
13
Ridership
• How can we design a smart motor bus system?
• What performance indicators should we be considering/evaluating?
14
10/7/2016
8
Performance Measures
• The National Transportation Database (NTD) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) share similar performance measures
• Operating cost per revenue-vehicle hour (cost/hr)
• Operating cost per passenger (cost/pass)
15
Performance Measures
• Passenger per revenue-vehicle hour (pass/hr)
• Passenger per revenue-vehicle mile (pass/mi)
• Farebox recovery (fare/cost)
• Safety (miles/accidents)
16
10/7/2016
9
Performance Measures
• How do we identify, evaluate and select low performing routes?
• What performance measures are most suitable for route elimination?
• How many resources can we redistribute if we eliminate low-performing routes?
17
Tensions
• We cannot grow our way out of deficit
• There is an inherent tension between coverage and frequency, and social justice and costs
18
10/7/2016
10
Title VI
• Using Title VI categories to identify unique trends within SamTrans
• Coastal
• Community
• Local
• Multi-city
• Mainline
19
Performance Standards
• Example: Calculate the median value of passengers per service hour (pass/hr) for each Title VI category and then set a standard to identify low performing routes, i.e. 50% below the median value
20
10/7/2016
11
Ridership – Title VI Categories
21
Ridership – Coastal
22
10/7/2016
12
Ridership – Community
23
Ridership – Local
24
10/7/2016
13
Ridership – Multi-city
25
Ridership – Mainline
26
10/7/2016
14
Performance Standards
• Evaluate low performing routes against other measurements such as, average weekday passengers (AWR), cost per passenger (cost/pass), cost per passenger mile (cost/mi), and farebox recovery
• Use a dashboard to measure and illustrate trends and historical performance (see Appendix A)
27
How we measure up
• System wide ridership was up in FY16, but starting to measure a slight decline in FY17
• MTC measurements for 25 Bay Area Transportation Systems during FY15
• Service effectiveness (pass/hr), Caltrain ranked 2nd and SamTrans ranked 8th
28
10/7/2016
15
• Cost efficiency (cost/hr) – Caltrain ranked 3rd, and SamTrans ranked 7th
• Cost effectiveness (cost/pass) – Caltrain ranked 15th, and SamTrans ranked 10th
• Farebox recovery ratio (rev/cost) –Caltrain ranked 2nd, and SamTrans ranked 16th
29
How we measure up
Next Steps
• Set Performance Metric
• Evaluate Routes
• Assess Resources/Human Impacts
30
10/7/2016
16
Appendix A
2016 SamTrans Service Statistics
31
TOTAL PASSENGERSAVERAGE WEEKDAY
PASSENGERSWEEKDAY
PASSENGERS/HOURWEEKDAY
COST/PASSENGER
TOTAL MILESTRAVELLED PREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS
MILES BETWEENPREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS
WEEKDAYON-TIME PERFORMANCE
System**
South Base
1,482,011
651,179North Base
830,832
System*
Local
1,446,107
3,081,946
Mainline
1,167,865
Community148,228
Coastal64,508
Multi-City
254,677
System**
North Base
South Base
90,446
170,615
72,032
System*
Local
19,262
40,104
Mainline
14,309
Community2,314
Coastal892
Multi-City
3,327
24System*
13Coastal
52Community
System**
North Base
South Base
25Local
17Multi-City
26Mainline
22
17
5
$6.82
$12.86
$3.22
$6.78
$9.75
$6.41
System* Coastal Community Local Multi-City Mainline
System*: 83% Community: 80%
Coastal: 90%
Local: 86% Mainline: 79%
Multi-City: 79%
* Total number does not include Dumbarton ridership
* *Only includes service that is directly operated by SamTrans
Stats 2016 SamTrans Service StatisticsQuarterly Report (Apr-Jun)