TransitWiki - User contributions [en]

SIRI

2018-01-18T22:45:21Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with " {| align="center" style="width: 60%; background-color: White; border: 1px solid #8a8; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:8px; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" | styl..."

{| align="center" style="width: 60%; background-color: White; border: 1px solid #8a8; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:8px; " cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
| style="font-size: 8pt; color: black; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |
|[[File:Transitwikilogo.png|100px]]
|<big>'''This page is a "[[:category:Stubs|stub]]" - it needs more content.'''</big>

You are invited to [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|veaction=edit}} add your knowledge].

Please contribute!
|}
<includeonly>
[[Category:Stubs]]
</includeonly>
<noinclude>

Service Interface for Real Time Information (SIRI) is a European standard for real-time information which has had limited adoption in the United States, but would be compatible with hardware and network systems which meet European standards. The GTFS family of standards could also be compatible with these systems. SIRI is based on the Transmodel abstract model for public transport information, and comprises a general purpose model, and an XML schema for public transport information.

== Scope ==
SIRI allows pairs of server computers to exchange structured real-time information about schedules, vehicles, and connections, together with general informational messages related to the operation of the services. The information can be used for many different purposes, for example:

* To provide real time-departure from stop information for display on stops, internet and mobile delivery systems;
* To provide real-time progress information about individual vehicles;
* To manage the movement of buses roaming between areas covered by different servers;
* To manage the synchronisation of guaranteed connections between fetcher and feeder services;
* To exchange planned and real-time timetable updates;
* To distribute status messages about the operation of the services;
* To provide performance information to operational history and other management systems.

SIRI includes a number of optional capabilities. Different countries may specify a country profile of the subset of SIRI capabilities that they wish to adopt.

== References ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Interface_for_Real_Time_Information Wikipedia page on SIRI]

[http://user47094.vs.easily.co.uk/siri/documentation.htm White paper on SIRI]

GTFS-flex

2018-01-18T22:08:33Z

GTFS-ride

2018-01-18T22:05:35Z

Jordanfraade:

GTFS-ride

2018-01-18T22:01:54Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with " {| cellspacing="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" style="width: 60%; background-color: White; border: 1px solid #8a8; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:8px; " | styl..."

{| cellspacing="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" style="width: 60%; background-color: White; border: 1px solid #8a8; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:8px; "
| style="font-size: 8pt; color: black; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |
|[[File:Transitwikilogo.png|100px]]
|<big>'''This page is a "[[:category:Stubs|stub]]" - it needs more content.</big>

You are invited to [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|veaction=edit}} add your knowledge].

Please contribute!
|}
<includeonly>
[[Category:Stubs]]
</includeonly>
<noinclude>

GTFS-ride is a feed specification that allows public transportation agencies to describe and assess service consumption. GTFS-ride has arisen as a necessary complement to GTFS and GTFS-RT, which describe the kinds of service provided by a transit agency. The Oregon Department of Transportation is funding GTFS-ride specifications to describe occupancy, boarding, and alighting per stop. This will create a standards-compliant data stream for analyzing transit usage. This data is also a prerequisite for assessing transit-corridor person delay, a metric which can be used to prioritize investments in Bus Rapid Transit projects.

Transit priority

2018-01-18T18:25:52Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with ""Transit priority" and "transit first" refer to policies that promote the use of transit, walking, bicycling, and sometimes taxis and shared-ride services over private automob..."

"Transit priority" and "transit first" refer to policies that promote the use of transit, walking, bicycling, and sometimes taxis and shared-ride services over private automobile travel. Changes made to street design and infrastructure under transit-priority policies range from installing signal priority (a less involved "spot" treatment) to implementing separated bus-only lanes (an extensive, corridor-level treatment). All these policies share the goal of elevating shared modes of travel to a level of convenience that parallels driving, especially in corridors in which automobiles exact high externalities on non-drivers (e.g., busy urban avenues where buses tend to get stuck behind private-vehicle traffic).

== Benefits of Transit Priority ==

Unlike major capital improvements, which are popular with voters but also very expensive and involved, transit-priority policies are relatively easy and cheap to implement. They can be tailored so that they are highly responsive to the concrete, demonstrated needs of riders (i.e., installed at "pinch points" where traffic is especially bad or where transit vehicles encounter major delays). Research shows that even small increases in vehicle speed and reliability can pay off with significant ridership gains.

== Transit Priority Techniques ==

=== Bus-Only Lanes ===
Bus-only lanes can increase the ease of access, reliability and appeal of transit service particularly within dense, congested areas. In recent years, cities have experimented with painting bus-only lanes to further distinguish the lanes for exclusive transit use and to elevate awareness of transit generally. Bus-only lanes are commonly used in BRT projects, but also exist in other applications such as transit corridors, and queue jumpers.

Bus-only lanes can be full-time or have hours of operation (e.g., during peak hours). Some allow taxis and/or bicycles; others are exclusive to transit vehicles and right-turning vehicles. Commonly, bus-only lanes are curbside, which necessitates their sharing intersection-adjacent space with right-turning vehicles, which can add significant congestion and transit vehicle delay, particularly where turning vehicles in front of transit vehicles must wait for crossing pedestrians. Median bus-only lanes are rarer as they require boarding islands, but have the advantage of eliminating traffic conflicts and maintaining lane exclusivity for transit vehicles. Contraflow bus lanes are rarer still, and involve a transit-only lane on a one-way street, with transit vehicles running in the opposite direction as traffic.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header text !! Benefits !! Challenges !! Remediations
|-
| Curbside Lanes || No extra space needed for stops || Often congested due to illegal parking/waiting and right-turning vehicles || Use curb lane for parking/turns and adjacent lane for bus only; use automated enforcement; reserve spots for deliveries; restrict delivery hours
|-
| Median Lanes || Less likely to be congested than curbside lanes || Requires more space for platforms
Lanes conflict with left-turning traffic
Pedestrians must cross traffic to reach platform
|| Ban left turns or create separate signal phase
|-
| Contraflow Lanes || Lanes are “self-enforcing”; Violations are rare and easy to spot || Prevents use of curb for deliveries || Reserve curb lane for deliveries and use next lane over for transit
|}

=== Transit Signal Priority ===
TSP involves programming traffic signals to be actively responsive to transit vehicle movement, allowing transit vehicles to pass through the corridor more quickly than they otherwise would. While TSP can be used with bus-only lanes for greater effectiveness, it can also be implemented on its own where bus-only lanes are infeasible or not yet developed.

TSP strategies include extending green lights for approaching transit vehicles (detected through in-pavement sensors and/or through on-board transponders), making red lights shorter for waiting transit vehicles, and adding or changing traffic signal phases to favor transit vehicle movement. Some TSP systems can be developed to use a context-specific algorithm to determine when and how long to trigger a TSP request, such as the individual transit vehicle’s schedule adherence, which improves TSP performance 3-6%. Theoretically, TSP algorithms could also be set to consider passenger occupancy, as well. TSP benefits do, however, diminish with higher volume/capacity ratios.

=== Other Transit Priority Tools ===

'''Queue jumps''' refer to a specific type of transit signal priority used at signalized intersections that gives transit vehicles a special signal to “jump ahead” before other traffic gets a green light. Queue jumps typically are installed where a bus has its own lane (or bus bay stop) at the near side of the intersection, but not the far side. They are, essentially, very short bus-only lanes with a single TSP installation. The “head start” that queue jumps give transit vehicles obviates the need for them to merge with traffic and helps keep them on schedule.

Typically stretched over a couple blocks, '''transit malls''' constitute urban space given over primarily to transit service. They have exclusive transit only lanes and are sometimes closed to all vehicle traffic. Importantly, they are designed around easy and safe pedestrian access and are usually retail or mixed-use areas. Among the best known examples is Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, the first transit mall in the U.S., constructed in 1967.

'''Transit corridors''' are streets in dense, urban areas in which a public investment in transit service is visibly established even in the absence of transit vehicles. Often, transit corridors have an improved streetscape amenable to pedestrians, enhanced street furniture particularly at bus stops, bicycle facilities, and restrictions on curbside parking. Some have part-time or even full-time bus-only lanes. Frequent, high-quality transit service serves the corridor. While transit corridors can have much in common with transit malls (pedestrian-friendly environment, bus-only lanes) and with BRT (frequent transit service, TSP), they are typically longer than malls and shorter than BRT routes.

Automated fare media

2018-01-18T05:34:13Z

Jordanfraade:

[[File:Clipper_card.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Clipper Card is an automated fare medium used in the San Francisco Bay Area by seven of the region's transit agencies, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). Photo by Flickr user sam_churchill.]]

[[Category:Bus rapid transit]]
[[Category:Technology]]

==Introduction==
Transit agencies have traditionally used cash-based fare systems, but cash is expensive to transport, count, and guard. It can also be inconvenient for riders to have to pay an exact fare for each leg of a trip. For these reasons, many agencies have introduced automated fare media by expanding fare payment to electronic, magnetic-stripe contact cards and more recently to smartcards.

A smartcard is a contactless, reusable, prepaid card that includes an embedded microchip to monitor fare transactions and stored balance. Payment is processed through a microchip using [[near field communications]] or [[radio frequency identification (RFID)]]. Transit agencies view smartcards as a potentially revolutionary advancement due to their benefits, which include convenience, greater fare flexibility, operational cost savings, service enhancements, decreased fare-processing time, centralized fare collection, more efficient fare pricing, and greater capacity for data compilation of ridership and travel behavior.

Several U.S. transit agencies have also deployed mobile ticketing solutions. They include TriMet (Portland), San Diego, Boston, and Dallas. Riders can install applications on their smartphones.

==Types of Systems==
Automated fare media can come in a variety of formats and can even include credit and debit cards. One key point to remember is that there are two types of systems: open and closed. Open systems accept payment through fare media issued by an entity outside of the transit system, such as a bank or a university. Closed systems only accept payment forms issued by that system.

Transit-system management of fare collection can be a costly endeavor and there may be some advantages to outside management of the fare-payment system. However, with credit and debit cards, some of the advantages of prepayment will be lost.<ref name="tcrp32">[http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/153815.aspx Fleishman, D., Schweiger, C., Lott, D., & Pierlott, G. (1998). “Multipurpose Transit Payment Media.” Transit Cooperative Research Program.]</ref>

== Interagency coordination ==
Automated fare media can be used to consolidate fare media among several agencies within a region. This has the benefit of making transfers between agencies more simple and straightforward for transit customers. The Bay Area's Clipper Card is a good example of several agencies working together to use a common payment medium.

==Reducing vehicle dwell time==

Automated fare media can reduce or eliminate the need for transit customers to pay in cash, a typically time-intensive process compared to electronic fare media. Many electronic fare media in use feature the ability to pre-load the fare card with passes or cash value.

The Federal Transit Administration notes:

<blockquote>

Many transit agencies offer prepaid fare media, such as a season pass, stored value card, or ticket. If a driver is required to inspect passes, boarding can be longer than with payment in change. An electronic fare box with a card reader can reduce boarding time for pass holders.

Fare cards with a microchip, or smart cards, can allow transit agencies to offer a more sophisticated fare policy. Contactless smart cards need only be waved at a marked spot, and therefore can reduce payment time.<ref>[http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4362.html "Fare Collection." Federal Transit Administration.]</ref></blockquote>

==Resistance to use of smart cards==
There are many reasons why riders would choose to use cash for fare payment rather than smartcards or other prepaid fare payment. Reasons include the perception that the initial cost of obtaining the card will not be worth the investment, the fear of losing a pre-paid card’s value, concerns about [[Privacy Issues|privacy issues]], and the convenience of cash for the occasional rider.<ref name="tcrp32" />

==References==
<references />

==Additional Reading==
[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/UCB/2008/PRR/UCB-ITS-PRR-2008-14.pdf Iseki, H., Demisch A., Taylor, B.D., & Yoh, A.C. (2008). “Evaluating the Costs and Benefits of Transit Smart Cards.”. California PATH Program, UC Berkeley.]
: This study examines the cost-benefit analysis strategies of three transit agencies prior to implementation of smart card systems for fare payment.

[http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13479.html Federal Highway Administration. (2001). "Ventura County Fare Integration: A Case Study; Promoting Seamless Regional Fare Coordination."]
: This report by the Federal Highway Administration is a case study of Ventura County, California's transition to using several Intelligent Transportation Systems, including contactless fare cards, or smart cards. The report includes a description of the lessons learned from this multi-jurisdictional transition. Most importantly, the report outlines the institutional needs, the technical requirements, the methods for gaining customer acceptance, and lessons learned to make the program more successful.

[[media:ElectronicFareCollectionOptionsforCommuterRailroads.pdf| Rainville, L., Hsu, V., & Peirce, S. (2009). “Electronic Fare Collection Options for Commuter Railroads.” Federal Transit Administration.]]
: This 2009 study from the Federal Transit Administration describes the experiences of six commuter railroad systems that have begun using automated fare media, including 'contact' and 'contactless' fare cards. Case studies include San Diego's Coaster commuter rail line. Lessons learned are specifically tailored to commuter rail systems.

Transit benefit assessment district

2018-01-18T05:04:50Z

{| cellspacing="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" style="width: 60%; background-color: White; border: 1px solid #8a8; text-align: center; -moz-border-radius:8px; "
| style="font-size: 8pt; color: black; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" |
|[[File:Transitwikilogo.png|100px]]
|<big>'''This page is a "[[:category:Stubs|stub]]" - it needs more content.</big>

You are invited to [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|veaction=edit}} add your knowledge].

Please contribute!
|}
<includeonly>
[[Category:Stubs]]
</includeonly>
<noinclude>

Transit Benefit Assessment Districts are a way of raising revenue for transit that involves a property-tax surcharge on parcels or businesses. SB 142 (2013) allows Transit Benefit Assessment Districts within one-half mile of an existing or proposed transit station. The tax assessment must be proportional to the benefit received by property within this zone, and approval requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of the transit agency's board and absence of protest by a majority of property owners within the zone. SB 142 was modeled after funding mechanisms used by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to extend BART to San Jose.

Bus-on-shoulder

2018-01-17T22:05:44Z

Jordanfraade:

[[File:BusOnShoulder.jpg|thumbnail|right|The Minneapolis/St. Paul region has the largest application of BBS in the nation.]]

== Introduction ==
Bus-on-shoulder operations, also known internationally as '''"bus bypass shoulder" (BBS)''' operations, are a low-cost strategy allowing buses to travel at or near free-flow speeds through congested arterial and freeway routes. BBS describes the routing of a bus onto the shoulder of a road, usually a highway, in lieu of the standard general-purpose lanes. BBS is a policy-based alternative to constructing dedicated rights-of-way or restricting lane use to high-occupancy vehicles (HOV). The primary goal is to prioritize the reliable performance of public transit over capacity for single-occupant vehicles (SOV). Bus-on-shoulder is typically used only where roadway congestion is severe enough that traveling on the shoulder improves on-time reliability and even decreases overall trip time.

Currently, bus-on-shoulder programs have been implemented in 13 metropolitan areas in the United States, as well as in metropolitan areas in Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Ireland<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, J., Kaba, F., McElduff, K., Ho, L. S., & Machemehl, R. PEAK PERIOD BUS USE OF FREEWAY SHOULDERS. 2015]</ref>. In the United States one of the most extensive networks of bus-only shoulders is found in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/bosupdate.pdf Minnesota Department of Transportation. Bus-Only Shoulders - A Transit Advantage]</ref>.

In the United States, bus-on-shoulder programs typically restrict bus use of the shoulder to periods when the free-flow speed drops below a particular threshold (e.g. 35 miles per hour in the Twin Cities and Columbus, 25 miles per hour in Miami), and prevent buses from traveling more than 10 mph (San Diego) to 15 mph (Twin Cities) faster than the general-purpose lanes — up to the threshold speed of 35 mph<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, P. C. Bus Use of Shoulders (Vol. 64). Transportation Research Board. 2006]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. Implementing Bus on Shoulder in Florida. 2016]</ref>— for safety purposes. The speed-based restrictions do not seem to apply in Ottawa, Canada where busses can use the lanes 24 hours a day<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A Guide for Implementing Bus on Shoulder (BOS) Systems. 2012]</ref>. Ten feet seems to be the minimum width of shoulder accepted by agencies for use in bus-on-shoulder programs, with a 12-foot width recommended in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>, <ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. In San Diego, shoulders were widened to 11 feet by narrowing the inside shoulder
<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. The desired pavement thickness for a shoulder in the Twin Cities is 7 inches (capable of withstanding the bus’s weight)<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. “Bus-Only Shoulders in the Twin Cities.” Minnesota case study. 2007]</ref>. The design of catch basins and rumble strips in the shoulders have been altered in the Twin Cities to accommodate a smoother bus ride<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma, Frank. 2007]</ref>.

== Benefits ==
Despite the modest speed improvements they enable, bus-on-shoulder programs have improved on-time performance in the Twin Cities, San Diego and Miami<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. Riders, in particular, seem to perceive a significant time savings from the lanes (possibly a result of the effect of the bus moving quickly past congested lanes). Passengers in Ohio, San Diego, and the Twin Cities have given positive feedback on the lanes<ref>[https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/ctr-publications/iac/bus_use_frwy_shoulders_201506.pdf Zuehlke, et. al. 2015]</ref>. By making use of existing freeway infrastructure, bus-on-shoulder lanes have cost as little as $1,500 to $100,000 per lane-mile to implement in the Twin Cities, a figure considerably less than adding a new lane (with an average cost of $2 million to $10 million per lane mile<ref>[https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/adding-new-lanes-or-roads-4-pg.pdf Texas A and M Mobility Institute. Adding New Lanes or Roads.]</ref>) or implementing mixed-lane bus rapid transit systems (which cost $1 - $7 million per mile on average<ref>[https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf Transportation Research Board. TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. 2007]</ref>), with arguably greater effects on performance. In addition, bus-on-shoulder lanes in the Twin Cities might have improved performance for bus services that don’t use the freeway by permitting the out-of-service buses to deadhead quickly<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos, P., & Thakuriah, P. Planning for Bus-on-Shoulders Operations in Northeastern Illinois: A Survey of Stakeholders. 2009]</ref>.

Another advantage of this strategy is improved access on and off a highway, which can speed up passenger stops, especially for express-style service.

If local, regional, or state policy allow, BBS can be very quick to implement. Because there are few to no infrastructure costs, implementation could be as simple as rescheduling and retraining. It may be a challenge to motivate policy makers to allow BBS given its limited use in the United States. Some areas have allowed limited demonstration projects, an example of which is described below.

== Concerns ==
===Access Control===
A successful bus-on-shoulder operation requires control of bus access to the shoulder when the flow of traffic falls below the speed threshold<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. Control of entry is needed both to signal to busses that it is okay to use the lane and to prevent cars from following busses into the lane.<ref>[http://www.its.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/volvocenter/blipeichlerthesis.pdf Eichler, M. D. Bus Lanes with Intermittent Priority: Assessment and Design . 2005]</ref> Moreover, access should be limited, as in the Twin Cities, to licensed transit (or intercity bus) operators, to maximize the benefits to public transport<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Dynamic, electronic road signs that change their display to indicate when buses are allowed in the lanes, may help solve the problem<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

===Safety===
Operating any vehicle on the shoulder of a high-speed facility significantly increases risks. As MNDOT notes, the exception is limited to buses, which are driven by highly trained professionals. Shoulders are generally reserved for emergency vehicle access and to provide safe haven for disabled vehicles. While a bus operator should be able to see stopped vehicles well enough in advance to merge into the next lane, circumstances can change quickly leaving the operator fewer options for escape. The bus-on-shoulder program in Atlanta has addressed this conflict by creating additional pull-outs on the right side of the shoulder for emergency or enforcement vehicles<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

Visibility around access ramps can also be a challenge. Older facilities may have very narrow exits or on-ramps making a challenge both for the bus traveling at high speed and other vehicles entering the highway.

However, the bus-on-shoulder program in the Twin Cities, the longest-running program, has had a good safety record, with only 20 accidents — none involving fatalities — occurring in the first decade of the lanes’ implementation<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>. Conflicts with merging traffic on the right shoulder can be averted through ramp metering technology (as done in Vancouver<ref>[https://bctransit.com/servlet/documents/1403640670226 BC Transit. Infrastructure Design Guidelines. January 2010.]</ref>) or by permitting use of the right shoulder only where the bus makes frequent exits and/or on-or-off ramps occur infrequently<ref>[http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/pdf/10.3141/2111-02 Metaxatos & Thakuriah. 2009]</ref>. The only bus-on-shoulder program in the US to encounter a major accident, along a segment of Route 9 in Middlesex County, New Jersey, lacked special speed restrictions (busses could travel at the normal maximum speed), suggesting the importance of the 15 mile per hour limit on the speed differential (and a lower maximum speed limit) for safe operation<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>.

In cold climates, the shoulder may be essential for snow storage if it cannot be cleared beyond the paved surface, diminishing the practicality of the bus-on-shoulder service.

===Intergovernmental Cooperation===
More generally, intergovernmental cooperation is necessary for systems’ implementation in the United States given the separation of responsibility for road planning and transit operation<ref>[http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol16/iss4/2/ Agrawal, A. W., Goldman, T., & Hannaford, N. Shared-use bus priority lanes on city streets: approaches to access and enforcement. Journal of Public Transportation. 2013]</ref>. In previous instances, implementation required collaboration, at a minimum, between a metropolitan transit agency, the agency in charge of the road (often a State DOT), and an enforcement agency (e.g. in Minnesota<ref>[http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/teamtransit/pdf/Bus-Only-Shoulders-Report.pdf Douma 2007]</ref>, Virginia<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=TTkuHTXVuXkC&lpg=PA20&ots=buawRmj_J_&dq=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&lr&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q=bus%20on%20shoulder%20transit%20agency%20coordination&f=false Martin, Peter C. "Bus Use of Shoulders." Transportation Research Board. 2006.]</ref>, Atlanta<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>). In San Diego, the collaboration has occurred between SANDAG (the Metropolitan Planning Organization) and Caltrans<ref>[https://doi.org/10.17226/22809 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012]</ref>. In Minnesota, a collaborative partnership titled “Team Transit,” spearheaded by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the regional transit authority, Metro Transit, and including city governments and the state highway patrol, has led the regional bus on shoulder project. The Florida Department of Transportation’s Statewide Guidance for Bus on Shoulder Implementation recommends that transit agencies (who are knowledgeable about local service patterns) initiate bus on shoulder proposals and that the State Department of Transportation review (and approve) these proposals<ref>[http://www.fdot.gov/transit/Pages/Bus_on_shoulders_Guidance_013117.pdf Florida Department of Transportation. 2016]</ref>. However, the document assumes a piecemeal implementation process, by which each proposal results in the formation of a separate task force. A statewide bus-on-shoulder program should involve input from both local transit agencies and the State Department of Transportation, which may be best informed to determine alignments’ safety and feasibility, and requires a large-scale planning framework spearheaded the state agency, but that draws on input from all stakeholders.

== Applications in California ==
A November 2006 newsletter produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) noted that the San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System (SDMTS) Route 960 had been operating a 10-month trial of bus-on-shoulder service. Benefits of the project were 99% on-time performance, high customer satisfaction, and measurable time-savings for commuters. No accidents had been observed in the BBS portion of the service at the time<ref>SANDAG. the rEgion Newsletter. [http://www.sandag.org/enewsletter/archives/november2006/feature_1.html "Buses on shoulders - a smooth ride"] November 2006</ref>. At the time of this writing, that project had concluded and was discontinued due to new construction on the highway. According to information on [http://www.sandag.org/ the SANDAG website], no other BBS service is operating currently, but SANDAG and SDMTS are working to develop a new BBS service elsewhere.

Outside of urban areas, California has several freeway corridors with at least 6 long-distance bus services a day that are subject to regular congestion. These include Interstate 15 from the Cajon Pass to the Nevada State Boundary and Interstate 5 from Irvine to San Diego. Designating shoulder use for bus services on these routes can help reduce travel time and increase ridership on intercity bus service from Los Angeles to Las Vegas<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/Las%20Vegas%2C%20NV%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref> and from Los Angeles to San Diego<ref>[https://www.wanderu.com/en/depart/Los%20Angeles%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/San%20Diego%2C%20CA%2C%20United%20States/2017-09-07 Wanderu.com search. September 6, 2017]</ref>. A precedent for intercity bus use of highway shoulders can be found in Ireland, where the long-haul bus operator, Bus Eireann, can use shoulders on highways approaching Dublin<ref>[http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/buses-can-use-hard-shoulder-to-beat-20m-delays-25890429.html Hogan, Tracey. "Buses can use hard shoulder to beat 20 m delays." Independent.Ie. December 29, 2004.]</ref>. Given the needed for unimpeded travel over a long-distance, use of the left shoulders would be preferable on these routes.
== References ==
<references />
[[Category:Operating effectiveness]]

Local option sales taxes

2018-01-17T21:25:18Z

Jordanfraade:

A '''local option sales tax''' is a tax designated for a special purpose, levied at the citywide or countywide level. In the last several decades California has made ample use of LOSTs to fund the expansion of public transit. LOSTs usually take the form of an extra percentage appended to the standard sales tax, and as with all new revenue increases in California, must be approved by anywhere from a majority to 2/3 of voters. In 2015, local funding was the single biggest source of transit revenue in California (40.1% of all revenue). In Fiscal Year 2014-5, revenue from LOSTs eclipsed revenue from passenger fares for the first time since FY 2006-7.

== History ==
[https://www.accessmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/07/Access-22-02-Local-Option-Transportation-Taxes.pdf According to research by Martin Wachs], Local Option Sales Taxes first gained popularity in the 1980s as a response to falling gas-tax revenues at the state and local level. Before 1980, it was rare for cities to allow local governments to levy and collect their own transportation taxes, but throughout the 1990s 21 states had adopted them in some form. Data from 1995-9 shows that while revenue from user fees increased by 18% during this period, revenue from "other local taxes (including local sales taxes) increased by 58%.

Wachs attributes the popularity of LOSTs to four major factors:
* Direct local voter approval. The measures result in projects near voters' homes and workplaces, and provide tangible benefits.
* Finite lives. Usually a LOST persists for 15-20 years before sunsetting, and then must be reauthorized. If the results do not live up to voters' expectations, they can choose not to renew the tax.
* Specific lists of transportation projects. LOST revenues may only be used to fund specific programs, which limits politicians' ability to divert money to other projects. Voters know exactly what they are getting up front.
* Local control over revenues.

== Criticism ==
Because LOSTs are appended onto sales taxes, they have been criticized for their regressive effects. Even though poor people are more likely to use transit than the wealthy, the majority of low-income people still do the vast majority of their travel by car. Thus, they pay more of a regressive tax to fund a system they do not use themselves.

Wachs writes that LOSTs are "gradually but inexorably changing the way we finance transportation systems" by abandoning the principle of "user pays." Economists generally agree that "user fees have at least some tendency to induce more efficient use of the transportation system," unlike sales taxes which apply to all citizens equally. (Think of fuel taxes incentivizing drivers to buy hybrid or zero-emissions vehicles, or congestion pricing helping to smooth traffic flows in busy city centers.)

Finally, Wachs writers, "While transportation planners and engineers often apply analytical procedures like cost-benefit analysis to determine which investments should be selected, ballot measures...substitute election campaigns—sometimes called "beauty contests"—for analysis." This can distort priorities towards prestige "ribbon-cutting opportunities" and away from the nuts-and-bolts qualities of good service.

== List of Major California LOSTs Since 2000 ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Jurisdiction !! Year !! Vote Margin !! Provisions
|-
| Santa Clara Co. || 2000 || 70-30 || 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax to extend BART to San Jose
|-
| San Diego || 2004 || 67-33 || Extends 1/2-cent sales tax to fund transit through 2028
|-
| Los Angeles County || 2008 || 67-33 || 1/2-cent sales tax increase for 30 years to fund transit and roads
|-
| Santa Barbara County || 2008 || 79-21 || 1/2-cent sales tax to support roads and transportation for 30 years
|-
| Sonoma and Marin Counties || 2008 || 68-32 || One-percent sales tax increase to fund SMART rail and trail project
|-
| Alameda County || 2014 || 70-30 || Increase transportation sales tax from 1/2 cent to 1 cent
|-
| Los Angeles County || 2016 || 70-30 || Raise sales tax by 1/2 percent to pay for transportation projects and renew additional 1/2-cent sales tax upon its expiration
|-
| San Francisco || 2016 || 66-34 || Raise sales tax by 0.75% to fund homelessness and road/transit improvements
|-
| Santa Clara County || 2016 || 71-29 || Increase transportation sales tax by 1/2 cent to fund BART expansion
|}
''All LOST information from http://www.cfte.org/elections/past''

Local option sales taxes

2018-01-17T21:23:03Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with "A '''local option sales tax''' is a tax designated for a special purpose, levied at the citywide or countywide level. In the last several decades California has made ample use..."

Congestion Pricing

2018-01-17T01:37:12Z

Jordanfraade:

'''Congestion pricing''' refers to levying surcharges on drivers, in order to influence their behavior and account for the negative externalities of driving. Generally, because automobiles are bought with a single large up-front purpose and transit trips are paid for by ride, most auto owners view the time, monetary, and uncertainty costs of auto travel as lower than those of transit travel, even if their total costs of vehicle ownership and use are much higher over the long run. This has a significant impact on the decision whether to drive or take transit, and makes personal auto travel appear more attractive.

This is important because private vehicle usage produces extensive negative externalities; that is, costs imposed on others that are not borne by the driver. Some of the most significant externalities produced by vehicle usage include roadway congestion, the risk of crashes, the cost of building and maintaining roadway infrastructure, greenhouse gas emissions, and air, soil and water pollution. However, it is possible to mostly internalize external costs through the use of pricing, which has been shown to significantly influence driving and transit use.

== Overview ==
The aim of vehicle pricing is not punitive, but rather to increase efficiency, efficacy, and equity of the road network. Pricing roadway use increases efficiency and smooths traffic flows by shifting when, where, and how people travel. Pricing fuel increases efficacy by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicles and other modes that reduce emissions per mile traveled. And pricing the use of roadways and parking spaces increases equity by charging people in proportion to the social and environmental costs their choices impose on society, encouraging them to make choices that have fewer societal impacts. By smoothing traffic flows, pricing can actually move more people, and in some cases more vehicles, but with less wasted time and lower emissions.

Currently, no major U.S. city engages in a comprehensive congestion-pricing scheme. International cities with congestion pricing include Singapore (since 1975) and London (since 2003), and Stockholm (since 2006). A proposal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan was defeated in the State Legislature in 2008. Revenues from congestion pricing can be used for any purpose identified by the state, though the most successful pricing programs have used the money to improve public transit and road facilities.

== Congestion Pricing in California Today ==

California currently prices automobile usage through:

* Tolling on selected highway and bridges
* High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, known as Express Lanes or value-pricing
* Motor vehicle fuel taxes and fees
* Annual registration and vehicle licensing fees
* Municipal parking charges

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Region !! Examples
|-
| MTC (Bay Area) || Express Lanes (HOT): I-580, I-680, CA-237
Variable Bridge Tolls: San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge
|-
| SANDAG || Express Lanes: I-15
|-
| SCAG (Los Angeles) || Express Lanes: I-10 HOT, I-110 HOT, CA-91 HOT
Toll roads with fixed peak surcharges and off-peak discounts: CA-73, CA-133, CA-241, CA-261
|}

== Future Pricing Options ==
Congestion-pricing plans can have a variety of goals, and the State has decided that any plan implemented on a large scale must:
* Remove transit from traffic congestion and increase vehicle speeds and reliability.
* Encourage transit ridership by increasing the relative attractiveness of transit.
* Be technically feasible for widespread implementation.
* Be equitable for rural areas, which typically lack meaningful transit alternatives.

=== Expanded Express Lanes ===
Expanding the Express Lanes program would implement High-Occupancy Toll lanes across more of California's highways. While these lanes would provide benefits to certain lower-capacity long-distance forms of transit such as express buses, commuter services, and vanpools, they are often not conducive to high-capacity local transit services due to the inherent design requirements that separate HOT lanes from freeway entry and exits. Overall, outside of express bus services that operate as commuter shuttles between suburbs and downtowns, they have limited applicability on a broad scale.

=== All-Lanes Highway Congestion Tolling ===
All-lanes highway congestion tolling would entail pricing some the State’s freeways with either incremental charges at periodic tolling stations, or distance-based tolling assessed based on freeway entry and exit points for each vehicle. As is already done at existing HOT facilities, specific prices could vary by vehicle type (with heavier vehicles paying more) by with time of day and day of week (with more congested time periods having higher costs). Time-of-day charges could be set in advance based on historical congestion levels or could be adjusted in near-real time (e.g., every 5 minutes) based on actual congestion. Prices could be set so as to achieve a target free-flow traffic speed on freeways, such as 45 miles per hour. During low-demand periods, highway usage could be unpriced (free).

In order to be truly effective at relieving congestion, all-lanes highway tolling would need to be implemented across the entire freeway system in a given region. This would have the effect of pricing all long-distance automobile travel, since long-distance travel on lower-speed facilities is usually unattractively time-consuming. Such a program could reduce congestion for transit on both freeways and on surface streets and increase demand for transit—especially for longer distance services during peak-pricing periods, such as the morning and evening peak commute hours and weekend and holiday travel periods.

=== Cordon-Area Congestion Tolling ===
In contrast to freeway tolling, cordon programs price all roadways within a set geographic area. All vehicles must pay either: 1) once for every entry into the tolled area, 2) once for every crossing of the cordon, whether entry or exit, 3) a daily fee for the right to drive within the cordon area. Tolls could be adjusted to achieve a target maximum number of vehicles within the cordon area, a target free-flow speed on select surface streets within the cordon area, or target queue lengths or vehicle wait times at select intersections within the cordon area. Cordon pricing will likely be most attractive in areas of California with the greatest congestion on surface streets where walking, bicycling, and transit are robust mobility options.

== Congestion Pricing and Transit ==
Pricing automobile use has important benefits for transit. Where pricing is in place, and when the price of a car trip exceeds the value of a car trip to the user, the would-be driver will choose different routes, different travel times, and/or different modes of travel. The benefit to transit is that the consequent reduction in congestion on roadways means transit vehicles can operate more quickly (reducing the number of vehicles needed to maintain headways) and more reliably adhere to their schedules (improving rider satisfaction).

While pricing provides an impetus for travelers to consider their travel options more carefully, pricing roadway use on its own is not enough to manage overall travel demand. More and enhanced transit service (as well as other modal options) must provide a meaningful travel choice to travelers who have opted not to drive alone. With enhanced transit and roadway pricing in place, a “virtuous cycle” emerges whereby pricing reduces the demand for driving and allows for better and faster transit operations. With greater reliability and faster speed, transit is then able to attract more riders and serve them more efficiently.

Congestion Pricing

2018-01-17T01:36:33Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with "'''Congestion pricing''' refers to levying surcharges on drivers, in order to influence their behavior and account for the negative externalities of driving. Generally, becaus..."

'''Congestion pricing''' refers to levying surcharges on drivers, in order to influence their behavior and account for the negative externalities of driving. Generally, because automobiles are bought with a single large up-front purpose and transit trips are paid for by ride, most auto owners view the time, monetary, and uncertainty costs of auto travel as lower than those of transit travel, even if their total costs of vehicle ownership and use are much higher over the long run. This has a significant impact on the decision whether to drive or take transit, and makes personal auto travel appear more attractive.

This is important because private vehicle usage produces extensive negative externalities; that is, costs imposed on others that are not borne by the driver. Some of the most significant externalities produced by vehicle usage include roadway congestion, the risk of crashes, the cost of building and maintaining roadway infrastructure, greenhouse gas emissions, and air, soil and water pollution. However, it is possible to mostly internalize external costs through the use of pricing, which has been shown to significantly influence driving and transit use.

The aim of vehicle pricing is not punitive, but rather to increase efficiency, efficacy, and equity of the road network. Pricing roadway use increases efficiency and smooths traffic flows by shifting when, where, and how people travel. Pricing fuel increases efficacy by encouraging the use of cleaner vehicles and other modes that reduce emissions per mile traveled. And pricing the use of roadways and parking spaces increases equity by charging people in proportion to the social and environmental costs their choices impose on society, encouraging them to make choices that have fewer societal impacts. By smoothing traffic flows, pricing can actually move more people, and in some cases more vehicles, but with less wasted time and lower emissions.

Currently, no major U.S. city engages in a comprehensive congestion-pricing scheme. International cities with congestion pricing include Singapore (since 1975) and London (since 2003), and Stockholm (since 2006). A proposal by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan was defeated in the State Legislature in 2008. Revenues from congestion pricing can be used for any purpose identified by the state, though the most successful pricing programs have used the money to improve public transit and road facilities.

== Congestion Pricing in California Today ==

California currently prices automobile usage through:

* Tolling on selected highway and bridges
* High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, known as Express Lanes or value-pricing
* Motor vehicle fuel taxes and fees
* Annual registration and vehicle licensing fees
* Municipal parking charges

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Region !! Examples
|-
| MTC (Bay Area) || Express Lanes (HOT): I-580, I-680, CA-237
Variable Bridge Tolls: San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge
|-
| SANDAG || Express Lanes: I-15
|-
| SCAG (Los Angeles) || Express Lanes: I-10 HOT, I-110 HOT, CA-91 HOT
Toll roads with fixed peak surcharges and off-peak discounts: CA-73, CA-133, CA-241, CA-261
|}

== Future Pricing Options ==
Congestion-pricing plans can have a variety of goals, and the State has decided that any plan implemented on a large scale must:
* Remove transit from traffic congestion and increase vehicle speeds and reliability.
* Encourage transit ridership by increasing the relative attractiveness of transit.
* Be technically feasible for widespread implementation.
* Be equitable for rural areas, which typically lack meaningful transit alternatives.

=== Expanded Express Lanes ===
Expanding the Express Lanes program would implement High-Occupancy Toll lanes across more of California's highways. While these lanes would provide benefits to certain lower-capacity long-distance forms of transit such as express buses, commuter services, and vanpools, they are often not conducive to high-capacity local transit services due to the inherent design requirements that separate HOT lanes from freeway entry and exits. Overall, outside of express bus services that operate as commuter shuttles between suburbs and downtowns, they have limited applicability on a broad scale.

=== All-Lanes Highway Congestion Tolling ===
All-lanes highway congestion tolling would entail pricing some the State’s freeways with either incremental charges at periodic tolling stations, or distance-based tolling assessed based on freeway entry and exit points for each vehicle. As is already done at existing HOT facilities, specific prices could vary by vehicle type (with heavier vehicles paying more) by with time of day and day of week (with more congested time periods having higher costs). Time-of-day charges could be set in advance based on historical congestion levels or could be adjusted in near-real time (e.g., every 5 minutes) based on actual congestion. Prices could be set so as to achieve a target free-flow traffic speed on freeways, such as 45 miles per hour. During low-demand periods, highway usage could be unpriced (free).

In order to be truly effective at relieving congestion, all-lanes highway tolling would need to be implemented across the entire freeway system in a given region. This would have the effect of pricing all long-distance automobile travel, since long-distance travel on lower-speed facilities is usually unattractively time-consuming. Such a program could reduce congestion for transit on both freeways and on surface streets and increase demand for transit—especially for longer distance services during peak-pricing periods, such as the morning and evening peak commute hours and weekend and holiday travel periods.

=== Cordon-Area Congestion Tolling ===
In contrast to freeway tolling, cordon programs price all roadways within a set geographic area. All vehicles must pay either: 1) once for every entry into the tolled area, 2) once for every crossing of the cordon, whether entry or exit, 3) a daily fee for the right to drive within the cordon area. Tolls could be adjusted to achieve a target maximum number of vehicles within the cordon area, a target free-flow speed on select surface streets within the cordon area, or target queue lengths or vehicle wait times at select intersections within the cordon area. Cordon pricing will likely be most attractive in areas of California with the greatest congestion on surface streets where walking, bicycling, and transit are robust mobility options.

== Congestion Pricing and Transit ==
Pricing automobile use has important benefits for transit. Where pricing is in place, and when the price of a car trip exceeds the value of a car trip to the user, the would-be driver will choose different routes, different travel times, and/or different modes of travel. The benefit to transit is that the consequent reduction in congestion on roadways means transit vehicles can operate more quickly (reducing the number of vehicles needed to maintain headways) and more reliably adhere to their schedules (improving rider satisfaction).

While pricing provides an impetus for travelers to consider their travel options more carefully, pricing roadway use on its own is not enough to manage overall travel demand. More and enhanced transit service (as well as other modal options) must provide a meaningful travel choice to travelers who have opted not to drive alone. With enhanced transit and roadway pricing in place, a “virtuous cycle” emerges whereby pricing reduces the demand for driving and allows for better and faster transit operations. With greater reliability and faster speed, transit is then able to attract more riders and serve them more efficiently.

Transit metrics

2018-01-16T23:41:42Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics and criteria exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" (i.e., evaluating how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., evaluating how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

== Supply-Side Transit Metrics ==
* ''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.
* ''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

== Demand-Side Transit Metrics ==
'''''Ridership''''' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:
* ''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."
* ''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.
* ''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.
* ''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.
'''<code><nowiki>[[File:</code>'''https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/9/93/Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png'''<code>]]</nowiki></code>'''

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>

== Efficiency vs. Effectiveness ==
Efficiency and effectiveness are two related but separate ways to evaluate transit service. Generally speaking, "efficiency" is concerned with the ratio of costs to benefits in a monetary sense. "Effectiveness" is concerned with the ratio of ''service consumed'' (i.e., ridership) to overall costs.

Common measurements of cost-efficiency are operating expense per vehicle revenue mile or vehicle revenue hour. Measurements such as VRH per employee or VRM per transit vehicle can also help agencies gauge their service efficiency.

Common measurements of cost-effectiveness include the ratio of fare revenues to operating expenses (also known as the [[Farebox Recovery Ratio|"farebox recovery ratio"]]) and operating expense per passenger boarding. Measurements of service-effectiveness include Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile or Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour. Generally speaking, effectiveness measures are best suited to evaluate the performance of large agencies in major urban areas, which receive heavy subsidies and expend millions of dollars every day but can defray these costs through very high ridership. (New York's Second Avenue Subway line would be an example of a transit line that is not very cost-effective because of its extremely high capital costs, but is cost-efficient because of its high ridership.)

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T02:07:20Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics and criteria exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" (i.e., evaluating how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., evaluating how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.

'''<code><nowiki>[[File:</code>'''https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/9/93/Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png'''<code>]]</nowiki></code>'''

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>'''Efficiency vs. Effectiveness'''

Efficiency and effectiveness are two related but separate ways to evaluate transit service. Generally speaking, "efficiency" is concerned with the ratio of costs to benefits in a monetary sense. "Effectiveness" is concerned with the ratio of ''service consumed'' (i.e., ridership) to overall costs.

Common measurements of cost-efficiency are operating expense per vehicle revenue mile or vehicle revenue hour. Measurements such as VRH per employee or VRM per transit vehicle can also help agencies gauge their service efficiency.

Common measurements of cost-effectiveness include the ratio of fare revenues to operating expenses (also known as the [[Farebox Recovery Ratio|"farebox recovery ratio"]]) and operating expense per passenger boarding. Measurements of service-effectiveness include Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile or Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour. Generally speaking, effectiveness measures are best suited to evaluate the performance of large agencies in major urban areas, which receive heavy subsidies and expend millions of dollars every day but can defray these costs through very high ridership. (New York's Second Avenue Subway line would be an example of a transit line that is not very cost-effective because of its extremely high capital costs, but is cost-efficient because of its high ridership.)

Farebox Recovery Ratio

2018-01-12T02:06:17Z

Jordanfraade:

The '''farebox recovery ratio''' of a transit system is the percentage of total operating expenses that are made up by passenger fares. The figure is calculated by dividing total passenger-fare revenue by total operating expenses. Farebox-recovery ratio is a key metric used to judge the financial health of transit systems, and varies heavily based on geography, fare structure, and ridership patterns.

Because farebox recovery ratio deals with operating expenses alone rather than total (capital + operating) expenses, the following types of transit systems tend to have higher overall farebox-recovery ratios:
* Rail-Based (particularly commuter or high-capacity rail)
* Distance or Zone-Based Fares
* Asian and European systems

Few major transit systems throughout the world have a farebox-recovery ratio of 100%. Within California, BART has the highest farebox-recovery ratio, and a variety of state laws use this metric to evaluate transit-system performance. For example, in order to qualify for funding under the state Transportation Development Act (TDA), urban transit agencies must maintain a farebox ratio of 20% and rural agencies must maintain a ratio of 10%. Exceptions are sometimes made for new routes or routes that serve disadvantaged populations. In the United States, California ranks seventh for farebox-recovery ratio, at 27.9% (behind New Jersey, New York, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Massachusetts). (Baselines 174-5). Within California, the Bay Area has the highest farebox-recovery ratio (60.9% within the MTC MPO area), while the Los Angeles area has among the lowest (21.4%).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio <nowiki>[Insert Wikipedia table here re: Farebox Ratios of major transit systems around the world]</nowiki>]

Farebox Recovery Ratio

2018-01-12T02:04:25Z

Jordanfraade: Created page with "The '''farebox recovery ratio''' of a transit system is the percentage of total operating expenses that are made up by passenger fares. The figure is calculated by dividing to..."

The '''farebox recovery ratio''' of a transit system is the percentage of total operating expenses that are made up by passenger fares. The figure is calculated by dividing total passenger-fare revenue by total operating expenses. Farebox-recovery ratio is a key metric used to judge the financial health of transit systems, and varies heavily based on geography, fare structure, and ridership patterns.

Because farebox recovery ratio deals with operating expenses alone rather than total (capital + operating) expenses, the following types of transit systems tend to have higher overall farebox-recovery ratios:
* Rail-Based (particularly commuter or high-capacity rail)
* Distance or Zone-Based Fares
* Asian and European systems

Few major transit systems throughout the world have a farebox-recovery ratio of 100%. Within California, BART has the highest farebox-recovery ratio, and a variety of state laws use this metric to evaluate transit-system performance. For example, in order to qualify for funding under the state Transportation Development Act (TDA), urban transit agencies must maintain a farebox ratio of 20% and rural agencies must maintain a ratio of 10%. Exceptions are sometimes made for new routes or routes that serve disadvantaged populations. In the United States, California ranks seventh for farebox-recovery ratio, at 27.9% (behind New Jersey, New York, Washington D.C., Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Massachusetts). (Baselines 174-5). Within California, the Bay Area has the highest farebox-recovery ratio (60.9% within the MTC MPO area), while the Los Angeles area has among the lowest (21.4%).

[Insert Wikipedia table here re: Farebox Ratios of major transit systems around the world]

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T01:15:41Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics and criteria exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" (i.e., evaluating how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., evaluating how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.

'''<code><nowiki>[[File:</code>'''https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/9/93/Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png'''<code>]]</nowiki></code>'''

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>'''Efficiency vs. Effectiveness'''

Efficiency and effectiveness are two related but separate ways to evaluate transit service. Generally speaking, "efficiency" is concerned with the ratio of costs to benefits in a monetary sense. "Effectiveness" is concerned with the ratio of ''service consumed'' (i.e., ridership) to overall costs.

Common measurements of cost-efficiency are operating expense per vehicle revenue mile or vehicle revenue hour. Measurements such as VRH per employee or VRM per transit vehicle can also help agencies gauge their service efficiency.

Common measurements of cost-effectiveness include the ratio of fare revenues to operating expenses (also known as the "farebox recovery ratio") and operating expense per passenger boarding. Measurements of service-effectiveness include Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Mile or Boardings per Vehicle Revenue Hour. Generally speaking, effectiveness measures are best suited to evaluate the performance of large agencies in major urban areas, which receive heavy subsidies and expend millions of dollars every day but can defray these costs through very high ridership. (New York's Second Avenue Subway line would be an example of a transit line that is not very cost-effective because of its extremely high capital costs, but is cost-efficient because of its high ridership.)

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T00:58:34Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.

'''<code>[[File:</code>'''https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/9/93/Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png'''<code>]]</code>'''

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T00:57:58Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.

'''<code><nowiki>[[File:Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png]]</nowiki></code>'''

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T00:37:25Z

Jordanfraade:

A wide variety of metrics exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.<gallery>
https://www.transitwiki.org/TransitWiki/images/9/93/Strengths_and_Weaknesses_of_Ridership_Metrics.png
</gallery>

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>

Transit metrics

2018-01-12T00:33:25Z

Jordanfraade: Creating Article

A wide variety of metrics exist to help planners evaluate the performance of transit, and different metrics are appropriate for different circumstances and types of agencies. Generally, transit metrics can be divided into "supply-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how much and what kind of service is being provided), and "demand-side" metrics (i.e., that evaluate how many people are using the service, and in what ways).

'''Supply-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Vehicle Revenue Miles'' are the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in revenue service, i.e., a vehicle that is open to ridership by the general public.

''Vehicle Revenue Hours'' are the total number of hours during which a transit vehicle is operating in revenue service. VRH is frequently seen as a preferable supply-side metric to VRM, because it is less influenced by the relative sprawl or density of an agency's service area.

'''Demand-Side Transit Metrics'''

''Ridership'' is the most straightforward, consistent, and regularly measured metric that can be used to assess the performance of transit in California on various geographic scales. ''The 2018 STSP Recommendations Report recommends that California adopt a statewide performance target of doubling transit boardings per capita in the state between 2015 and 2030.''

Various ways exist to measure and quantify ridership. They include:

''Unlinked Passenger Trips.'' This counts [http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx "the number of times passengers board public transportation vehicles. Passengers are counted each time they board vehicles no matter how many vehicles they use to travel from their origin to their destination and regardless of whether they pay a fare, use a pass or transfer, ride for free, or pay in some other way."] Unlinked passenger trips are also called "Boardings."

''Linked Passenger Trips'' counts the number of end-to-end trips made on a transit network. A trip that requires a transfer from one bus line to one rail line, for example, would count as two unlinked trips but one linked trip.

''Passenger Miles'' counts the cumulative number of miles travelled by all transit passengers. One passenger traveling one mile counts as one PM, as do two transit passengers traveling one-half mile each.

''Passenger Hours'' counts the cumulative amount of time that passengers spend riding transit. One passenger riding transit for one hour counts as one PH, as do two passengers traveling for 30 minutes each.

<gallery>
[[File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png|thumb]]
</gallery>

File:Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics.png

2018-01-12T00:32:58Z

Jordanfraade:

Strengths and Weaknesses of Ridership Metrics