- •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
7.2 What Works
MAX drivers were asked to rank the features of the system that contribute most to its overall success. The three features the drivers identified were multiple doors for entry and exit (20 drivers chose), off-board fare collection (20 drivers chose) and the queue jump (14 drivers chose). Only 4 drivers chose the center drive position (although drivers did consider center position important for precision docking); 3 drivers chose the signal priority; and 3 drivers chose the passenger features. No driver chose the communications equipment as being a major factor in MAX success.
Our study confirms that off-board fare collection, combined with multiple-door and level boarding, is a key factor in reducing travel time and thus increasing ridership. The dwell times on MAX are much lower than on standard service, and do not increase as rapidly with increases in passenger boardings. The importance of this effect can be seen when comparing peak vs. off-peak times on MAX and its parallel Route 113 service. Travel time increases on average by 5 minutes during the peak on 113, but by only 1 to 3 minutes on MAX.
The total travel time saving in the peak period was 12 minutes southbound and 14 minutes northbound. How much of this is attributable to reduced dwell time? We estimated the number of seconds of time savings per boarding, alighting, and per stop using a regression model. Data from the APC system show that there are about 75 ons and 75 offs per trip in the peak period on both MAX and route 113. Table 7-1 combines these data with the regression results to estimate the time savings per trip due to reduced dwell time. As shown in line 3 of Table 7-1, we calculate that 13 minutes of the Rt. 113 travel time, but only 5.7 minutes of MAX travel time, is the result of boarding delay during the 7 am to 7 pm period. Thus MAX saves 7.6 minutes per trip solely because of faster boarding and alighting. In line 4 we compare this time savings to the total time savings per trip estimated in Section 5.1. The conclusion is that speedier dwell time accounts for more than half the total travel time savings.
Table 7-1: Calculation of Time Savings per Trip due to Dwell Time Reduction during Peak (7 am to 7 pm)
|
|
Pas-sengers Boarding |
Pas-sengers Alighting |
Stops |
Total |
% Due to Reduced Dwell |
|
|
1. Activities per Trip |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113 |
75 |
75 |
26 |
- |
|
|
|
MAX |
75 |
75 |
12 |
- |
|
|
|
2. Seconds per Activity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113 |
3.9 |
1.0 |
16.5 |
- |
|
|
|
MAX |
1.6 |
1.5 |
9.0 |
- |
|
|
|
3. Minutes per Trip |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
113 |
4.9 |
1.3 |
7.2 |
13.3 |
|
|
|
MAX |
2.0 |
1.9 |
1.8 |
5.7 |
|
|
|
difference |
2.9 |
-0.6 |
5.4 |
7.6 |
|
|
|
4. Total Time Savings per Trip (from all sources) |
|
|
|
|||
|
Southbound |
|
|
|
14.0 |
54% |
|
|
Northbound |
|
|
|
12.2 |
62% |
|
|
Sources: 1. Estimated from APC data on average boardings and alightings at each stop during 7 am to 7 pm peak. |
|
|||||
|
2. From Table 5-9. 3. Product of lines 1 and 2, divided by 60. |
|
|||||
|
4. Difference shown in line 3 compared to travel time savings from Tables 5-2 and 5-4. |
|
|||||
Where does the rest of the travel time savings come from? Since we conclude that TSP had little effect, the time savings must be due principally to a reduction in the number of stops. Fewer stops means less time lost to acceleration and deceleration, and probably less signal delay because the bus is better able to keep up with traffic signal progression.