- •2006 Evaluation of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (max) Bus Rapid Transit Project
- •Max is one of 17 National brt Projects that make up the brt Consortium supported by fta
- •Executive Summary III max Project Fact Sheet VII
- •List of Exhibits 79
- •1.0 Introduction
- •1.1 Evaluation Overview
- •1.2 Max Evaluation Objectives
- •Max evaluation objectives
- •Figure 2-1: max system schematic map
- •2.1 Project and Corridor Description
- •2.2 Running Ways
- •Figure 2-2: More than half of max’s 7.5 mile route is an exclusive curbside bus lane
- •2.3 Stations
- •Figure 2-3: Typical max station (Jerry’s Nugget South)
- •Figure 2-4: Lake Mead station with max ticket vending machine
- •Figure 2-5: Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center
- •2.4 Vehicles
- •2.5 Fare Collection
- •Figure 2-10: Ticket Vending Machine
- •Figure 2-11: Uniformed security officer checking for fare proof of payment using Personal Digital Assistant
- •2.6 Intelligent Transportation Systems (its)
- •2.7 Service and Operations Plans
- •2.8 Branding and Marketing
- •Figure 2-12: max marketing materials
- •Figure 2-13: Opening Day Celebration
- •3.0 System costs
- •3.1 Capital Costs
- •Table 3-1: Overview of Capital Costs associated with the max service*
- •3.2 Operating Costs
- •Vehicle Operation & Maintenance
- •Table 3-2: max Operating Costs, July 2004 to December 2005
- •4.1 Planning and Design
- •4.2 Vehicle Service, Maintenance and Operations Plan
- •Vehicle Service Plan
- •Vehicle Maintenance
- •Vehicle Operations
- •4.3 Implementation and Management of the its Elements
- •4.4 Branding and Public Acceptance of Service
- •Figure 4-2: Deuce, rtc's new double decker bus, operates on the heavily traveled Las Vegas strip.
- •Table 4-3: Importance of max features in docking the vehicle for precise stops*
- •5.1 Travel Time
- •Table 5-5: Has your travel time changed since riding max?
- •Figure 5-1: Has your travel time changed since riding max? (October 2005)
- •Table 5-6: Rate the speed of travel on max and cat
- •Table 5-7: For riders transferring from other cat/max routes, how long did you wait at the location you transferred? (October 2005)
- •Table 5-8: Rate the Wait Time at max and cat Stations
- •Table 5-9: Dwell Time Model Results
- •5.2 Reliability
- •Table 5-10: Rate the Dependability of max and cat
- •Figure 5-3: Driver Assessment of max features for route speed and reliability compared to cat
- •5.3 Identity and Image
- •Table 5-11: Passenger Rating of Vehicles and Shelters,
- •Max and cat riders
- •Table 5-12: All things considered rating of max and cat by riders of the service
- •Figure 5-4: Overall Rating of max / cat Service (October 2005)
- •Figure 5-5: Survey of cat riders, “Have you ever ridden max?”
- •Table 5-13: Overall rating of max service by cat riders and cat service by max riders
- •Figure 5-6: Survey of cat riders, “Do you prefer to ride cat or max?”
- •5.4 Safety and Security
- •Table 5-14: Rate the Safety of max / cat Vehicle
- •Figure 5-8: Rate the Safety of max Stations / cat Stops (October 2005)
- •5.5 Capacity
- •6.1 Ridership
- •Figure 6-1: Average Boardings per Day, max and 113, January 2004 to July 2006
- •Figure 6-3: Index of Changes in Boardings, lvbn Corridor and Systemwide
- •Table 6-1: Previous mode of max riders
- •Figure 6-4: Previous mode of max riders (October 2005)
- •Table 6-2: Rider ethnicity
- •Figure 6-5: Rider ethnicity
- •Table 6-3: Rider age
- •Figure 6-6: Rider age
- •Table 6-4: Employment status
- •Figure 6-7: Employment status
- •Table 6-5: Rider gender
- •6.2 Capital Cost Effectiveness
- •6.3 Operating Cost Efficiency
- •Figure 6-8: Intensity of Use, max compared to 113
- •Figure 6-9: max Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour
- •Figure 6-10: max Operating Cost per Boarding
- •6.4 Land Use
- •Figure 6-11: Opportunities for Redevelopment: North Las Vegas
- •6.5 Environmental Quality
- •7.1 Max is a success
- •7.2 What Works
- •Table 7-1: Calculation of Time Savings per Trip due to Dwell Time Reduction during Peak (7 am to 7 pm)
- •7.3 Summary of Lessons Learned
- •Vehicle Procurement
- •Its: Traffic Signal Priority and Queue Jumper Technology
- •Brt max Service Questionnaire
Vehicle Maintenance
As discussed, the CIVIS vehicle design includes new vehicle technology and systems not previously tested in the United States, such as an electric drive system with a diesel-driven generator and electric motors. Anticipating challenges associated with maintaining the vehicles, RTC developed a multi-pronged management plan that included:
-
Identifying and selecting the best electronic technicians available;
-
Providing these staff with extensive hands-on training;
-
Requiring two-years of on-site after sales service to help with vehicle maintenance;
-
Setting up on-going internal meetings to discuss maintenance that included conference calls with vehicle manufactures;
-
Tracking parts usage to ensure frequently needed parts are in stock; and
-
Taking advantages of vehicle technology such as on-board diagnostic systems to be proactive about vehicle repairs and maintenance.
As they did with the vehicle operators, RTC and Veolia also selected the best electronic technicians working for CAT and trained them extensively, both locally in Las Vegas as well as in France where they worked directly with the manufacturer. Technicians were also rewarded with salary increases and an opportunity to work on cutting-edge electronic systems. These strategies created a team spirit and fostered a sense of pride. To date, of the four mechanics currently assigned to MAX, three have been with the project since inception.
RTC also required a significant after-sales service component in their contract with Irisbus, the manufacture of the CIVIS vehicle. After-sales elements included a CIVIS vehicle expert with appropriate language skills on-site in Las Vegas for two years. In addition, Irisbus promised to have a technical expert at the plant available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to troubleshoot when maintenance or operation problems arose. The Las Vegas and Irisbus teams also had weekly conference calls. RTC considered these services essential to their success. Irisbus and RTC effectively became partners in the successful implementation of the CIVIS vehicles, a relationship that greatly enhanced the success of vehicle implementation.
The CIVIS vehicle maintenance team acknowledged that they have had parts supply problems; early in the project they underestimated the time required for spare parts to get from France to Las Vegas and the impact of custom requirements on parts delivery. Most of these problems have been overcome, primarily by identifying high usage items, typically parts associated with the drive train system, and keeping these items in stock.
Lastly, RTC and Veolia also recognized that with the CIVIS vehicles, communication between drivers and technicians is more important as compared with the CAT fleet. This is because the CIVIS vehicles have on-board diagnostics that give drivers information about CIVIS vehicles, including mechanical issues. They trained the drivers to understand the diagnostic system and communicate this information to the maintenance team. As a result, they have been able to identify problems earlier and avoid others all together.