List of Figures... 4 List of Maps... 6 Introduction... 7 Data Sources... 8

Transcription

1 SERVICE EVALUATION APRIL 2014

2 Table of Contents List of Figures... 4 List of Maps... 6 Introduction... 7 Data Sources... 8 Service Overview and Service Fundamentals System Overview... 9 Service Area... 9 Routes and Service Span... 9 Historic Ridership Directly-Operated and Contract-Operated Services Service Fundamentals for Transit Design Performance Metrics Service Design Decisions Existing Conditions System-Wide Network Structure and Service Levels Frequency Span System Boarding Patterns System Ridership Ridership by Time Period Ridership by Route Trip Length Transfer Patterns System Performance Productivity Financial Effectiveness Quality of Service and Customer Experience Frequency Span Page 2

3 Reliability Approachability Alignment Passenger Load Performance of Directly-Operated and Contract-Operated Routes Existing Conditions Sub-Area Northwest Sub-Area Service Overview Performance Service Design and Delivery Matching Service to Demand Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Service Overview Performance Service Design Delivery Matching Service to Demand Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Service Overview Performance Service Design and Delivery Matching Services to Demand Southwest Sub-Area Service Overview Performance Service Design and Delivery Matching Service to Demand Service Evaluation Key Findings Overall Findings Trade-Offs Appendix Existing Conditions Individual Routes Page 3

4 List of Figures Figure 1: Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics... 9 Figure 2: Annual Historic Ridership Figure 3: Contracted and Directly-Operated Routes Figure 4: Weekday Peak Frequency by Route Figure 5: Summary of Daily CommuterLink Trips Figure 6: Summary of Passenger Activity and Resource Distribution across Sub-Areas Figure 7: Weekday CommuterLink Ridership by Time Period Figure 8: Weekday CommuterLink Boardings per Trip by Time Period Figure 9: Weekday Local Route Ridership by Time Period Figure 10: Weekday Local Route Productivity by Time Period Figure 11: Weekday Midday to Peak Time Period Boarding Ratio Histogram Figure 12: Weekday Midday to Peak Time Period Boarding Ratio by Local Route Figure 13: Comparison of Boardings and Resource Shares for Local Routes Figure 14: Weekday Boardings by Route Figure 15: Saturday Boardings by Route Figure 16: Sunday Boardings by Route Figure 17: Average Trip Length by Route Compared to Total Route Length Figure 18: Top 20 Transfer Pairs within the RTA System Figure 19: Weekday Productivity for Local and Trolley Routes Figure 20: Saturday Productivity by Route Figure 21: Sunday Productivity by Route Figure 22: Weekday CommuterLink Productivity (Boardings per Trip) Figure 23: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route Figure 24: Saturday Farebox Recovery Ratio Figure 25: Sunday Farebox Recovery Ratio Figure 26: Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding by Route Figure 27: Saturday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding Figure 28: Sunday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding Figure 29: Weekday Percentage of On-Time Trips by Service Type Figure 30: Weekday Percentage of On-Time, Early, and Late Trips Figure 31: Image of New RTA Local Route Vehicle Figure 32: Image of CommuterLink Vehicle Figure 33: Passenger Capacity Analysis Figure 34: CommuterLink Productivity DO/CO Figure 35: Weekday Boardings DO/CO Figure 36: Weekday Productivity DO/CO Figure 37: Weekday Subsidy per Boarding DO/CO Figure 38: Overview of Routes in Northwest Sub-Area Figure 39: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 4

5 Figure 40: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Northwest Sub-Area Routes Figure 41: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Northwest Sub-Area Figure 42: Overview of Routes in Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Figure 43: Productivity for Local Routes for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area 73 Figure 44: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Routes Figure 45: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Figure 46: Overview of Routes in Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Figure 47: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub- Area Figure 48: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Routes Figure 49: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Figure 50: Overview of Routes within the Southwest Sub-Area Figure 51: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Figure 52: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Temecula Lake-Elsinore Sub-Area Routes Figure 53: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Southwest Sub-Area Page 5

6 List of Maps Map 1: Service Area Overview... 8 Map 2: West Riverside County Network Structure Map 3: System-Wide Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop Map 4: Productivity by Segment for Non-CommuterLink Routes Map 5: CommuterLink Productivity (Boardings per Trip) by Route Segment Map 6: System-Wide Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route Segment Map 7: System-Wide Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding by Route Segment Map 8: Network Structure of the Northwest Sub-Area Map 9: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Northwest Sub-Area Map 10: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Map 11: Financial Effectiveness of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Map 12: Network Structure of Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 13: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 14: Productivity of Local Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 15: Subsidy per Boarding of Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 16: Network Structure of the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 17: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 18: Productivity of Local Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 19: Subsidy per Boarding of Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 20: Network Structure of Southwest Sub-Area Map 21: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Southwest Sub-Area Map 22: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Map 23: Subsidy per Boarding for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Map 24: Average Weekday System-Wide Scheduled Bus Speed by Route Segment Map 25: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Local Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area.. 99 Map 26: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area 100 Map 27: Weekday Farebox Recovery for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 28: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Map 29: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 30: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Map 31: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Map 32: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area 106 Page 6

7 Introduction The Service Evaluation is a key component of the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). Analysis of existing transit service in Western Riverside County provides a data-driven understanding of the system s performance which will inform future recommendations and system improvement decisions. The following analysis will identify current successes and challenges within the RTA service area and opportunities for maximizing use of agency resources, improving quality of service, growing ridership, and addressing unmet ridership needs. The Service Evaluation provides a comprehensive analysis of the RTA system by examining service at the system, sub-area, and individual route level. The large geographic extent and varying population and employment densities within the RTA service area require a more in-depth analysis than a system-wide assessment can provide. The RTA service area has therefore been divided into four sub-areas for micro analysis to allow for more detailed service evaluation within the context of the larger system. The four sub-area divisions are the following: Northwest Sub-Area: Corona, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, Riverside, and Temescal Canyon Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area: March JPA, Mead Valley, Moreno Valley, and Perris Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Hemet, and San Jacinto Southwest Sub-Area: Canyon Lake, French Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and Winchester This evaluation identifies key findings with insight into ridership patterns, productivity, and financial effectiveness in the following sections: Overview and Service Fundamentals describes the features of the existing transit system, its network structure, and the types of services it provides in addition to outlining service fundamentals for evaluating system performance and service design. Existing Conditions System-wide - analyzes the existing network structure, ridership patterns, and system performance in the system as a whole. Existing Conditions Sub-areas examines performance and service design principles within four defined sub-areas. Service Evaluation Key Findings summarizes key overall findings from the Service Evaluation. Existing Conditions Individual Route Level provides key findings on an individual route level. Page 7

8 Data Sources The Service Evaluation used data collected during the on-board ridecheck conducted in February and March of Ride checkers recorded boarding, passenger load, and on-time data at each stop on every trip operated by RTA. This ridership data was used as the basis for all performance calculations and data analysis. This evaluation also looked at data collected in the on-board passenger survey to better understand transfer patterns and the customer experience. Map 1: Service Area Overview Page 8

9 Service Overview and Service Fundamentals System Overview Service Area Riverside Transit Agency provides Riverside residents with fixed-route, commuter express, and paratransit services throughout western Riverside County. Cities with the service area include: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Corona, Eastvale, French Valley, Jurupa Valley, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, March JPA, Mead Valley, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, Wildomar, and Winchester. Routes and Service Span RTA operates 44 fixed-routes, four of which are branded trolley services in downtown Riverside and Temecula. Forty-two fixed-routes run Monday through Friday from approximately 4:00 AM to 10:30 PM, and the other two routes (Routes 50 and 54) runs Monday through Thursday only. Twenty-six routes run on Saturday from approximately 5:30 AM to 9:00 PM while 24 routes run on Sunday from approximately 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Eight of these fixed-routes are CommuterLink routes that provide connections to areas both within and outside the main RTA service area. RTA also provides para-transit and Dial-a-Ride services for those protected under the American Disabilities Act or those who do not have access to the fixed-route service. RTA provides service at frequencies between 20 and 90 minutes. This wide range of frequencies is tailored to the variety of types of RTA services that meet different transit mobility needs. Figure 1: Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics Route CO/DO 1 Sub-Area Role Frequency Span 2 1 UCR/Riverside Downtown Terminal to W. Corona Metrolink Station 3 Swan Lake/Pat s Ranch DO Northwest Sub-regional 20 4:00 AM 10:30 PM Road to Belle & 10 th 6:45 PM CO Northwest Sub-regional 45 5:15 AM 7 Lake Elsinore Outlet Center to Inland Valley Medical Center CO Southwest Community 60 5:30 AM 9:00 PM 8 Lake Elsinore Walmart to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center CO Southwest Community 60 5:45 AM 7:45 PM 1 CO is Contract Operated services and DO is Directly Operated services 2 Span of Service is Weekday Only Page 9

10 Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics Route CO/DO 1 Sub-Area Role Frequency Span 2 10 Big Springs & Watkins to Galleria at Tyler 11 Moreno Valley Mall/March ARB 12 La Cadena & Stephens to Merced & Magnolia 13 Spruce & Atlanta to Galleria at Tyler 14 Galleria at Tyler to Loma Linda VA Hospital 15 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Merced & Magnolia 16 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Moreno Valley Mall 18 Sunnymead Ranch to Moreno Valley College 19 Moreno Valley Mall to Perris Station Transit Center 20 Magnolia Center, RCRMC, Moreno Valley College 21 Galleria at Tyler to Country Village 22 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center 23 Temecula-Murrieta- Wildomar 24 Temecula to Pechanga Resort to Temecula Wal- Mart 27 Galleria at Tyler to Florida & Lincoln 29 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Hamner & Limonite 30 Perris Weston & Strohm to Wal-Mart 31 Beaumont/Banning to San Jacinto & Hemet Valley Mall 32 Hemet Valley Mall to Mt. San Jacinto College 33 Hemet Sanderson to East Hemet DO Northwest Community 60 5:15 AM 9:45 PM DO Moreno Community 60 5:30 AM Valley/Perris 8:45 PM DO Northwest Community 60 5:30 AM 9:30 PM DO Northwest Community 60 4:30 AM 8:30 PM DO Northwest Sub-regional 70 5:30 AM 8:30 PM DO Northwest Community 45 4:00 AM 9:00 PM DO DO CO/DO DO Northwest and Moreno Valley/Perris Moreno Valley/Perris Moreno Valley/Perris Northwest and Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-regional 20 4:15 AM 10:00 PM Community 60 6:00 AM 8:00 PM Sub-regional 45 4:15 AM 10:00 PM Sub-regional 60 5:30 AM 9:45 PM CO/DO Northwest Sub-regional 60 6:15 AM 8:15 PM DO Northwest, Regional 60 4:45 AM Moreno Valley and 9:30 PM Southwest CO Southwest Community 70 6:00 AM 8:00 PM CO Southwest Community 80 6:00 AM 7:00 PM DO Northwest, Moreno Valley, Hemet Regional 60 4:00 AM 10:00 PM DO Northwest Sub-regional 60 6:00 AM 7:00 PM CO CO CO CO Moreno Valley/Perris Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Community 50 7:00 AM 7:30 PM Sub-regional 70 6:00 AM 8:00 PM Community 70 6:15 AM 7:45 PM Community 70 7:00 AM 7:00 PM Page 10

11 Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics Route CO/DO 1 Sub-Area Role Frequency Span 2 35 Beaumont/Banning to Moreno Valley Mall CO Moreno Valley/Perris and Hemet Regional 65 6:15 AM 7:30 PM 40 Lake Elsinore to Sun City CO Southwest Sub-regional 85 6:15 AM 7:30 PM 41 Mead Valley Community Center to CO/DO Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-regional 60 5:00 AM 7:00 PM Moreno Valley College and RCRMC 42 San Jacinto Hemet CO Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Community 70 7:45 AM 7:45 PM 49 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Country Village DO Northwest Sub-regional 55 4:30 AM 8:30 PM 50 Jury Trolley CO Northwest Trolley 30 7:15 AM 6:00 PM 51 Crest Cruiser UCR- Canyon Crest Towne Centre CO Northwest Trolley 40 7:00 AM 7:30 PM 54 Commerce St. Metrolink Parking Lot to County Administrative Center CO Northwest Trolley 15 6:30-8:30 AM, 11:30 AM-1:30 PM, 4:30-6:30 PM 55 Promenade Mall- Harveston CO Southwest Trolley 15 6:30-8:00 AM, 2:30-4:15 PM 61 Sun City-Menifee- Murrieta-Temecula CO Southwest Sub-regional 90 6:30 AM 7:30 PM 74 San Jacinto-Hemet-Sun City-Perris 79 Hemet-Winchester- Temecula 202 Murrieta-Temecula- Oceanside Transit Center 204 Riverside to Montclair Transit Center 206 Temecula-Murrieta- Lake Elsinore-Corona Metrolink 208 Temecula-Sun City- Perris-Moreno Valley- Riverside CO CO Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area and Southwest Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area and Southwest Regional 75 6:15 AM 7:30 PM Regional 70 4:45 AM 8:30 PM CO Southwest CommuterLink 8 AM, 6 PM trips CO/DO Northwest CommuterLink 8 AM, 10 PM trips CO/DO CO/DO Northwest and Southwest Northwest, Moreno Valley/Perris, and Southwest Northwest and Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area CommuterLink 8 AM, 10 PM trips CommuterLink 8 AM, 9 PM trips 4:00-9:00 AM 4:00-8:00 PM 4:30-9:15 AM 2:00-8:00 PM 4:00-8:00 AM 4:30-8:45 PM 3:30-9:15 AM 2:30-8:30 PM 210 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Palm Desert (Beaumont/Banning) CO CommuterLink 3 AM, 3 PM trips 3:45-6:00 AM 6:00-7:30 PM 212 Hemet-San Jacinto- CO Northwest and CommuterLink 8 AM, 6 PM 4:00-9:30 AM Page 11

12 Summary of RTA Routes and Service Characteristics Route CO/DO 1 Sub-Area Role Frequency Span 2 Riverside Metrolink Station and Downtown 216 Riverside Downtown Terminal to Village at Orange 217 San Jacinto-Hemet- Temecula-Escondido Historic Ridership Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area trips 4:00-8:15 PM DO Northwest CommuterLink 6 AM, 8 PM 4:30-10:00 AM trips 1:15-8:00 PM CO Hemet/San CommuterLink 9 AM, 8 PM 4:00-8:30 AM Jacinto/Pass Area trips 3:00-8:30 and Southwest PM Ridership on RTA service has been growing over the past six years, up 18.4 percent since 2007 despite the 2010 recession. RTA provides transportation for over 8 million passengers each year and has over 20,000 boardings each weekday. Figure 2: Annual Historic Ridership Annual Boardings (millions) Fiscal Year Directly-Operated and Contract-Operated Services RTA, in following industry best practice, has identified opportunities to improve efficiency by contracting routes to third-party operators at lower operating cost rates. In general, routes that are less productive are operated by outside contractors, reducing RTA s operating subsidy on routes with lower levels of farebox revenue. Of the local routes ranked in the bottom half of system productivity, 13 of the 16 routes are operated by contractors. Five routes have a split operation, with part of the service operated directly and part by contractor. Page 12

13 Figure 3: Contracted and Directly-Operated Routes Number of Routes Operated by Direct and Contracted Operation Weekday Saturday Sunday Directly-Operated Contract-Operated Split Operation Service Fundamentals for Transit Design Service fundamentals provide a framework for evaluating transit performance and identifying opportunities for improvement. Service fundamentals are divided into two categories: Performance Metrics and Service Design Decisions. Performance metrics show how a route performs while service design decisions provide an explanation for why a route performs the way it does. The previous RTA Market Assessment established that it is important to evaluate many different factors when analyzing market demand for transit and the same is true when evaluating service performance. No one metric or design decision provides a complete story of a route s performance, but when considered as a whole a clear picture of existing performance is generated. Performance Metrics Performance indicators provide a way of quantifying the strength of a route s performance and comparing it with others in the system. The magnitude of a performance indicator is directly related to the number of passengers who ride a given route. Performance indicators are an important tool for evaluation because they allow routes that vary greatly in boardings, service, or cost levels to be compared directly against one another. Ridership An analysis of ridership not only evaluates how many customers use a route, but also the patterns of boardings and when customers ride. Productivity Productivity is measured by dividing boardings by revenue hours (or per trips for CommuterLink service). It shows the ridership generated per unit of service invested and provides an understanding of the effectiveness of a route. Farebox Recovery Ratio The farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue to operating costs. It indicates the percentage of operating costs covered by passenger revenue. A higher farebox recovery ratio means the route requires relatively less subsidy. Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per passenger is the difference between fare revenue and operating cost on a per passenger boarding basis. It is calculated by subtracting a route s revenue from its operating cost and dividing by the number of boardings. Page 13

14 Service Design Decisions While transit agencies cannot directly affect many factors which influence ridership, they can make important service design decisions that can positively influence a customer s decision to ride transit. This section details the impact that decisions on service frequency, span, speed, reliability, approachability, route alignment, and network role have on ridership levels. Frequency Frequency refers to how often a bus on a route serves that route. Higher frequencies reduce out-of-vehicle wait time and reduce the need of passengers to consult schedules and time their arrival at stops to make trips. Service Span Service span is the hours and days of operation of a route. It affects ridership by limiting when passengers can travel. Greater service span provides more travel flexibility and improves customer experience. Service Speed The speed of travel (in-vehicle travel time) is second only to frequency in attracting ridership. Reduced delay rather than higher street speeds is the key perceived value to customers. Reliability Service reliability impacts a passenger s ability to rely on a service to get them to their destination in a timely and consistent manner. Approachability The approachability of a system refers to how easy it is for a passenger to navigate and understand a system. Systems that are approachable make customers comfortable with using public transit. Alignment The alignment refers to the operating path of the transit route. Alignment design should balance customer access (walk distances) with service directness (fast travel). Direct service is generally preferred by customers (it results in shorter trip times and higher frequency since direct service takes fewer operating resources which can be then invested in higher frequencies). Consumer research has found that most customers will walk further to better service given a choice. Network Role While the design of individual routes is important, how they come together into an efficient and effective network is critical to attracting use of transit for all kinds of trip-making by a broad cross-section of the community (transit lifestyle design). Page 14

15 Existing Conditions System-Wide System-wide analysis provides an understanding of the network structure of the system and how routes interact with and compare to one another within the context of the entire service area. Subsequent analysis on network structure, ridership patterns, service performance, and service design characteristics will identify where transit is successful and where opportunities for service improvement exist. Network Structure and Service Levels RTA operates the second largest service area in the country, covering 2,500 square miles. This large size has resulted in a dispersed distribution of population and employment centers surrounded by low density rural development throughout the region. Consequently, RTA s efforts to serve this vast area with cost-effective and efficient transit have been challenging. Spreading resources among the many routes needed to provide area-wide coverage results in very low-frequency services across a large part of the service area. Low-frequency routes with less than hourly service levels account for 25 out of 36 non-commuterlink routes. In response to development patterns and geography, RTA s network is based on hub-and-spoke structure. The system focuses around multiple transfer hub stops, examples of which are Galleria at Tyler in Riverside, Moreno Valley Mall, Hemet Valley Mall, and downtown Riverside. Multiple routes spoke out of each transfer hub. A hub-and-spoke network provides for facilitated local and regional transfer activity at hubs (much like air travel), but does so at a risk of out-of-direction travel and longer trip times. RTA services also facilitate multiple connections to areas outside Riverside County. CommuterLink routes provide service to San Diego, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties. Local fixed-routes connect with other transit agencies including Pass Transit in Beaumont, OCTA in Orange County, Sunline in Coachella Valley, and Metrolink rail which serves multiple destinations in Southern California. These system connections to other transit systems greatly expand regional mobility options. The various routes within the RTA service area serve different mobility roles, which influences the type of travel they can effectively serve. RTA service roles include community-level circulation, sub-regional travel, and inter- and intra-regional travel. The review of existing RTA routes, detailed in the individual route analysis section later in this report, identifies that numerous routes currently serve multiple roles. Each role serves a range of transit needs from local trips to the grocery store to inter-regional work commutes. RTA runs three different types of service operation: Local Fixed-Routes RTA operates 32 local fixed-routes, of which 14 are directly-operated, 15 are contract-operated, and three have split operation. Local fixed-routes vary greatly in length and include routes that serve all three service functions: community, sub-regional, and regional. Community routes primarily stay within one city and are intended for local travel. Sub-regional Page 15

16 routes provide connections to adjacent cities while regional routes connect cities across Western Riverside County. All local fixed-routes will be evaluated together, but their performance is influenced by the type of role they serve within the system. Trolleys RTA runs four community-based trolley routes, all of which are contract-operated. These routes serve a specific market, cover a small service area, and are fully-funded (subsidy is guaranteed by third parties). Passengers ride free or for a fare of 25 cents or less. RTA runs a trolley vehicle on local Route 24, but this route acts like a local fixed-route and not like a trolley route. CommuterLink The eight CommuterLink routes provide regional connections throughout the RTA service area and operate primarily during peak travel times to accommodate work commutes. Two are directly-operated, four are contract-operated, and the remaining two are operated both directly and by a contractor. CommuterLink routes have higher average fares than local fixed-routes due to the longer length of their routes. Because they travel longer distances, they tend to have fewer stops, fewer total passenger boardings, and lower performance than local routes. Because the service structure of these service types varies so greatly, the performance of local, Trolley, and CommuterLink routes will be evaluated separately. Attention will also be given to what role a route serves within the system to help identify performance trends in routes that serve similar functions. Page 16

17 Map 2: West Riverside County Network Structure Page 17

18 Frequency Frequency refers to how often a bus serves a particular route. Passengers are more likely to use frequent transit service and there are particular thresholds that can significantly influence ridership generation. Transit use for travel breaks into two principal groups: lifeline riders (have to use transit) and lifestyle riders (choose to use transit). Lifestyle ridership is largely attracted to spontaneous-use frequencies of generally 10 minutes or better, 3 where passenger wait time is minimized and service is frequent enough that customers don t time their stop arrival using a schedule they just show up. High service frequency eliminates the need for passengers to plan their trips around bus schedules which ultimately attracts more riders, more cost-effectively. Lifeline riders have limited mobility options will ride transit, even if it operates infrequently (60 minute frequencies or worse). Services that rely on lifeline ridership typically struggle to meet minimum performance targets for productivity or cost recovery. RTA routes vary greatly on service frequency. Average weekday peak frequency for local routes is just 60 minutes. CommuterLink routes are evaluated based on the number of trips they provide each day instead of the frequency of trips. Only two local routes (Routes 1 and 16) run at 15 or 20 minute frequency, three run at 45 minute frequency (Routes 3, 15, and 19), Route 30 runs at 50 minutes, and the rest run at a frequency at or greater than 60 minutes. Trolleys range from 15 to 40 minute frequency. Lifeline coverage with frequencies of 60 minutes or greater is an important part of any transit network. Lifeline coverage increases the service area of a transit system, increasing the number of people who have access to service. Focusing efforts on lifeline coverage does not typically grow ridership but can provide critical coverage for many riders located in less dense markets. The majority of RTA routes provide lifeline coverage which offers little flexibility in travel and requires riders to plan their trips around bus schedules which discourages ridership. RTA can work towards attracting more passengers by investing in increasing transit lifestyle frequencies along key transportation corridors. 3 While 10 minutes or better frequencies are needed to fully realize transit lifestyle market potential, a minimum of 15 minute service is considered the threshold at which lifestyle riders begin to be attracted to transit (just showing up at the stop). Page 18

19 Figure 4: Weekday Peak Frequency by Route 100 Weekday Peak Frequency by Route Weekday Peak Frequency (Minutes) Average Peak Frequency and Frequency for Lifeline Service Minimum Frequency for Lifestyle Service Route Page 19

20 Figure 5: Summary of Daily CommuterLink Trips CommuterLink Trips per Day Route Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound AM PM AM PM Span Service span refers to the hours and days of operation of a route and impacts ridership by affecting when passengers can travel. All-day service provides passengers with multiple travel options and more flexibility than limited service hours. Similarly, the decision to operate routes only on weekdays or on weekdays and weekends can greatly affect riders, especially those who rely on transit seven days a week. Generally, greater service spans will attract more riders by providing a greater number of trip possibilities. RTA local routes typically run all day, starting between 4:00 AM and 7:30 AM and ending between 6:45 PM and 10:45 PM. Just over half, 17, of these routes run before 6:00 AM and 25 percent, eight, run later than 9:00 PM. Trolley routes span is from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM. CommuterLink routes serve the peak period and start between 3:45 AM and 4:30 AM and end between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM in order to accommodate commuters schedules. RTA operates 26 fixed routes and one CommuterLink route on Saturdays and 24 fixed routes and one CommuterLink on Sundays leaving riders with plenty of flexibility for travel on weekends. Weekend service spans from 5:30 AM to 9:00 PM are shorter than weekdays. RTA s wide service span gives passengers great flexibility when planning their trips which encourages ridership. Page 20

21 System Boarding Patterns System Ridership Total weekday daily system ridership is approximately 33,500 passenger boardings. The majority of boardings are concentrated around transfer hub stops, reflecting the hub-and-spoke network structure. Boardings at transfer hub stops, among the largest concentrations shown on the system-wide boarding map, can represent either trip origins or use of the hub stop as a transfer location. Routes located along linear corridors and in the more dense community centers have higher levels of ridership. Ridership becomes less concentrated as routes leave community centers and enter areas with lower population and employment densities. Map 3 shows cumulative weekday boardings across the 44 routes. The circle sizes are proportional to the number of boardings at each stop. The following table (Figure 6) summarizes how boardings and resources are distributed among the four sub-areas. Northwest has the strongest performance and accounts for the majority of system ridership. It is also the sub-area with the highest employment and population densities. The Northwest sub-area has a greater percentage of boardings (58%) than of revenue hours (48%), making it the most productive sub-area. Moreno Valley/Perris is second, and its share of boardings nearly equals its percent of system resources. Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area and Southwest have very similar boarding numbers, but the Southwest sub-area has a lower productivity because it takes more revenue hours to generate similar ridership. Both these sub-areas have boarding percentages significantly lower than their share of system resources, indicating a need to better match services to demand. These sub-areas also have the lowest employment and population densities in the region and are a greater challenge for successful fixedroute transit. Figure 6: Summary of Passenger Activity and Resource Distribution across Sub-Areas Summary of Passenger Activity and Resource Distribution Across Sub-Areas Sub-Area Northwest Moreno Valley/Perris Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Southwest Total Boardings 18,180 7,944 2,655 2,684 Total Revenue Hours Total Productivity Percent of Boardings 57.8% 25.3% 8.4% 8.5% Percent of Revenue Hours 47.6% 26.4% 10.9% 15.1% Local Routes Served Page 21

22 Map 3: System-Wide Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop Page 22

23 Ridership by Time Period Examining ridership by time period provides insight into how riders use the system and into the distribution of trip-making over the course of the day. The time periods are defined as follows: Early AM: Start of service 5:00 AM AM Peak: 5:01 AM 9:00 AM Midday: 9:01 AM 3:00 PM PM Peak: 3:01 PM 6:00 PM Evening: 6:01 PM end of service CommuterLink Weekday Ridership by Time Period CommuterLink ridership is peak-oriented, which is expected given that service is designed for commuter travel. Despite equal numbers of passengers during the AM and PM peak periods, the PM peak requires more service hours, lowering productivity. Despite low ridership, midday productivity (14.7 passengers per trip) is higher than PM Peak productivity (13.7), indicating that carrying riders in both directions can be more cost-effective. On the other hand, productivity in the Early AM is very low (4.7), indicating service and demand are not matched well during this time period. Figure 7: Weekday CommuterLink Ridership by Time Period Daily Boardings Early AM AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Time Period Figure 8: Weekday CommuterLink Boardings per Trip by Time Period 25 Boardings per Trip Early AM AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Time Period Page 23

24 Local Fixed-Route Ridership by Time Period Ridership by time period throughout the week exhibits ideal patterns for ridership growth. Ridership during midday hours is roughly twice that seen during each peak period. Because the midday time period has almost twice as many hours as each peak, this means that the system maintains ridership and productivity levels throughout the day. The AM and PM Peak each have almost half the riders of the Midday time period with productivity of 22.6 and 22.8 passengers per hour, respectively, compared to Midday s 24.4 passengers per revenue hour. Balanced ridership and productivity across time periods indicates both that RTA matches service levels to ridership demand and that opportunities for generating increased lifestyle transit ridership are present. Evening ridership is lower with lower productivity, but it provides return trips for passengers who started their travel earlier in the day. Figure 9: Weekday Local Route Ridership by Time Period Daily Boardings Weekday Saturday Sunday 0 Early AM AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Time Period Figure 10: Weekday Local Route Productivity by Time Period Boardings per Revenue Hour Early AM AM Peak Midday PM Peak Evening Time Period Weekday Saturday Sunday Page 24

25 Local Route Midday versus Peak Period Activity Systems with potential for ridership growth generate ridership activity throughout the day. Systems with high midday ridership serve multiple trip purposes instead of primarily work commutes. RTA has an overall midday to peak ridership ratio of 0.99 meaning the peak periods and midday period have nearly equal ridership, indicating a balanced customer use profile and a strong potential for ridership growth. The histogram below shows that most local route segments have a midday to peak ratio of 0.7 to 1.1 and demand is balanced between the time periods. Analyzing the midday to peak ratios of each route segment can help advise on what service spans may be most appropriate for different routes in order to maximize service efficiency. Figure 11: Weekday Midday to Peak Time Period Boarding Ratio Histogram 30 Frequency (Number of Segments) A majority of route segments maintain ridership levels throughout the day More Midday to Peak Boarding Ratio Page 25

26 Figure 12: Weekday Midday to Peak Time Period Boarding Ratio by Local Route Midday to Peak Weekday Boarding Ratio Route Midday Boardings AM and PM Peak Boardings Early Morning and Evening Boardings ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Daily Weekday Boardings Page 26

27 Ridership by Route Weekday Weekday boardings vary by route and service type. The average number of weekday boardings for a local route is 983 boardings. However, Route 1, with 7,586 passengers a day, accounts for 23 percent of system-wide weekday ridership. Excluding Route 1, the average for weekday boardings is 770 boardings among the remaining local routes. The local routes with the top 5 total number of boardings (Routes 1, 16, 15, 19, and 27) account for 48 percent of all local boardings. All these routes pass through higher density areas, and Routes 1, 16, 15, and 19 run at the two highest frequencies of local routes in the system. In contrast, the five local routes with the lowest total boardings (Routes 24, 33, 35, 40 and 42) account for only four percent of all local boardings. These routes run through areas of low density, and all have service frequencies of less than 60 minutes. The 22 remaining routes account for the remaining other 48 percent of boardings. The top 5 routes and the middle 22 routes have the same number of boardings between them, emphasizing the strength of these top 5 routes. The implication for the COA Plan is that improving just these five routes will positively impact half of RTA s current riders. While the top five routes account for 48 percent of local boardings, they only use 36 percent of local resources, which indicates a higher productivity and superior return on investment. These five routes form the core spines of the network and are prime candidates for additional service investment. Similarly, the bottom five routes use seven percent of resources and only return four percent of ridership. Average weekday boardings are 147 for Trolley routes and 175 for CommuterLink routes. However, Route 51 accounts for 65 percent of all Trolley boardings while Route 54 accounts for less than one percent. Figure 13: Comparison of Boardings and Resource Shares for Local Routes 4% Top 5 Routes Middle 22 Routes Bottom 5 Routes 7% 48% 36% 48% 57% Route Share of System Boardings Route Share of System Resources Page 27

28 Figure 14: Weekday Boardings by Route 3000 Route 1 = 7,586 Boardings Weekday Boardings by Route Local CommuterLink Trolley 2500 Number of Boardings Local Average Route Page 28 Trolley Average CommuterLink Average

29 Saturday Ridership drops by over 50 percent from weekday to Saturday service due to lack of demand for service to and from work or school. Route 1 still accounts for 24 percent of local route boardings. Average Saturday boardings is 586 passengers and 463 passengers when Route 1 is excluded. The top five routes are Routes 1, 16, 19, 27, and 22, and they account for 54 percent of local route boardings. Figure 15: Saturday Boardings by Route Number of Boardings Route 1 = 3,535 Boardings Local CommuterLink Local Average Route Sunday Ridership drops even further on Sunday which is not uncommon. In general, routes rank roughly the same in number of boardings on Saturdays and Sundays. Average Sunday boardings is 481 passengers and 376 passengers when Route 1 is excluded. The top five routes are Routes 1, 19, 16, 27, and 15, and they account for 55 percent of Sunday boardings. Figure 16: Sunday Boardings by Route Number of Boardings Route Local CommuterLink Local Average Page 29

30 Trip Length Evaluating average passenger trip length provides insight into how passengers utilize a transit system. Longer trip lengths suggest that passengers mainly use routes for long sub-regional travel or interregional trip-making, while shorter trip lengths are indicative of more productive higher seat turnover. The average trip length in the overall RTA system is 6.9 miles, and 6.12 miles without CommuterLink routes. Because RTA routes serve many different roles, one way to compare the type of trip activity across routes is to examine average trip length as a percentage of the total route length. Figure 17 shows this ratio for each route and colors the local routes by type (community, sub-regional, regional, CommuterLink, and trolley). Based on the analysis of average trip lengths as a percentage of total route length, the types of trips on community versus sub-regional routes do not form a clearly delineated pattern. On regional routes, no average trip length is longer than half the length of the route. This suggests that passengers are using regional routes for a considerable amount of intra-city travel instead of using regional routes to move from region to region. The best example of this is Route 27, with a route length of 50 miles connecting Hemet, Perris, and Riverside, but an average trip length of 13.5, suggesting strong intra-city and travel to adjacent regions rather than cross service area trip-making. Of local fixed-routes, Route 24 (Temecula) has the highest turnover with passenger trips only 14 percent of the route while Route 40 (Canyon Lake) has the lowest turnover with passenger trips averaging 60 percent of the route length. Moreover, existing customer use of RTA routes suggests that many routes may have lengths much longer than the travel patterns they intend to serve. Figure 17 demonstrates that customers rarely ride the full length of a route. As routes pass through multiple market types, the routes are split into segments with distinct ridership groups. Turnover of passengers along regional routes questions the appropriateness of having such long routes in a system. If most passengers use regional routes for intracity travel, certain regional connections may merit adjustments. Page 30

31 Figure 17: Average Trip Length by Route Compared to Total Route Length Average Trip Length by Route Route Route Length (Miles) Community Sub-Regional Regional CommuterLink Trolley Page 31

32 Transfer Patterns As a result of the hub-and-spoke network, transfers are often necessary on passenger trips. Almost one fourth of RTA boardings, 22.3 percent, transfer to another route in order to complete their trip. 4 Passengers transferring from one RTA route to another are 19.2 percent of boardings, while 3.1 percent transfer to or from a route operated by another transit agency. The following table displays the top 20 transfer pairs within the system. All of these top 20 transfers take place in downtown Riverside or Moreno Valley. The top four transfer pairs all involve Routes 1, 16, and 19, indicating that these routes are key network links within the system. Route 1 is involved in 15 of the top 20 transfer pairs while Route 16 is involved in seven pairs. Route 1 is both the route most traveled to and most traveled from, accounting for 15.7 percent of all region-wide transfers with 1,592 transfers on an average weekday. Route 16 ranks second in transfers with a total of 945, and Route 19 ranks third with a total of 277. These three routes are three of the top four routes by ridership levels and form the spine of passenger activity in Riverside. Figure 18: Top 20 Transfer Pairs within the RTA System Top 20 Transfer Pairs From Route To Route Number of Transfers Transfer activity analysis is based on data collected in the Winter 2013 Ridecheck. Page 32

33 System Performance Analysis of service performance involves an examination of productivity and financial effectiveness. Evaluating how each route performs within the context of the entire system provides an understanding of the role each route serves and helps identify areas for restructuring or changes in investment level. Productivity Productivity is the measurement of the effectiveness of a route and is measured by dividing total passenger boardings by total revenue hours for each route. It measures ridership generated per unit of service, making it possible to compare the performance of routes with greatly differing ridership and service levels. Productivity is influenced by both market and service design choices. Agencies cannot control the market for transit, but they can mitigate poor market conditions through more efficient and effective service and network design. Matching service levels to market opportunities is one way to strengthen service productivity. Weekday Productivity varies greatly across routes and service types. The average productivity is 22.5 passenger boardings per revenue hour for local fixed-routes, 12.2 passengers per trip for CommuterLink routes, and 16.3 passengers per revenue hour for Trolley routes. RTA operates 10 routes with productivity over 25 (eight local, two trolleys), attracting significant ridership and improving the financial stability of the system. Nine routes operate with a productivity of less than ten (three local, two trolleys, four CommuterLink) which indicates a potential mismatch in service type and levels to market demand on these routes. The four local fixed-routes with the highest number of boardings are also all in the top five for productivity (Routes 1, 15, 16, and 19). These are the most productive routes in the system and also have the highest number of boardings, making them good candidates for future investment in order to grow ridership. On the other hand, Route 27 which is 5 th highest in boardings is 16 th highest in productivity 5, and Route 18 which is 2 nd highest in productivity is 12 th highest in boardings. These factors serve as a reminder that individual performance indicators cannot be looked at independently the entire story of a route must be examined when evaluating performance. Further evaluating unexpected performance such as these can help identify areas for route improvement. Such detailed analysis can be found in the individual route profiles. Examination of productivity by segment shows the correlation between route productivity and market demand for transit. The only segments with productivities over 30 passengers per hour are located in the densest parts of Western Riverside County (central Riverside and Moreno Valley). The regional routes that connect urban centers and travel through rural areas of very low density have productivities of less than 20 passengers per hour because they cover long distances but accrue few boardings along the way. 5 Route 27 is a long regional route with an average passenger trip length over 13 miles long with low seat turnover. Page 33

34 Figure 19: Weekday Productivity for Local and Trolley Routes Weekday Productivity for Local and Trolley Routes Local Trolley Boardings per Revenue Hour Local Average Trolley Average Route Page 34

35 Map 4: Productivity by Segment for Non-CommuterLink Routes Page 35

36 Saturday While the system maintains relatively high productivity on Saturdays with an average of 19.5 passengers per hour, only five routes have productivities over 20 passengers per hour. On the whole, routes with high productivity on weekdays have high productivity on Saturdays, but there are a few exceptions. Routes 18, 20, and 41 all experience a drop in productivity, and all serve Moreno Valley College which is not in operation on weekends. Route 19 experiences a productivity increase on Saturdays. Figure 20: Saturday Productivity by Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Route Local Average Sunday Productivity drops to an average of 16.3 passengers per revenue hour on Sundays. This is not surprising given that most routes run similar schedules on Saturdays and Sundays and previous graphs showed drops in ridership numbers on Sundays. No routes have a higher productivity on Sundays than on Saturdays. Figure 21: Sunday Productivity by Route Boardings per Revenue Hour Route Local Average Page 36

37 CommuterLink Productivity Productivity for express service, like CommuterLink, is better evaluated on a per trip basis than on a per revenue hour basis. The average CommuterLink route productivity is 12.2 passengers per trip on weekdays. Only Route 216 runs on weekends, and its productivity is 19.3 passengers per trip on Saturdays and 18.1 passengers per trip on Sundays. Overall, the average number of passengers per trip indicates the existing capacity on CommuterLink service is underutilized and in many cases can be met by a van-size vehicle. Figure 22: Weekday CommuterLink Productivity (Boardings per Trip) 20 Boardings per Trip CommuterLink Average Route Page 37

38 Map 5: CommuterLink Productivity (Boardings per Trip) by Route Segment Page 38

39 Financial Effectiveness Financial stability is crucial to the success of any transit network, and it is developed by efficiently managing resources and route investment. Identifying which routes are most or least costly to run can help result in a more efficient allocation of resource investment. Routes with strong financial effectiveness are candidates for additional investment while routes with weak financial effectiveness may cost too much to warrant improvement efforts. Trolley routes are fully-funded by external sources and are excluded from the following analysis. Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox recovery ratio is the ratio of fare revenue 6 to operating costs. Higher farebox recovery ratios indicate higher cost-effectiveness and measure the portion of operating costs covered by passenger fares. The higher the farebox recovery ratio, the lower the subsidy a route needs to operate, leaving more funding available to operate more service. Weekday The average weekday farebox recovery ratio for local routes is 27 percent. Given the challenging market conditions for transit in Western Riverside County, the existing average farebox recovery indicates positive existing practices on the part of RTA. Route 1 has the highest ratio of 42 percent. Route 40 has the lowest with 15 percent. The average weekday farebox recovery ratio for CommuterLink routes is 23 percent. 6 Average fare revenue includes cash fares, tickets, passes, external subsidy agreements, and Measure A funds. Page 39

40 Figure 23: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio 45% 40% Local CommuterLink Trolley Operating Revenue / Operating Cost 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Local Average Routes are fully funded (55 is 20% funded) CommuterLink Average 0% Route Page 40 Average fare revenue includes cash fares, tickets, passes, external subsidy agreements, and Measure A funds.

41 Map 6: System-Wide Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio by Route Segment Page 41

42 Saturday The average Saturday farebox recovery ratio is 22 percent. Route 41 has the lowest ratio in the system by a wide margin. Figure 24: Saturday Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Revenue / Operating Cost 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 Local CommuterLink Local Average Route Sunday The average Sunday farebox recovery ratio is 18 percent with Route 41 again showing significant lower financial performance. Figure 25: Sunday Farebox Recovery Ratio Operating Revenue/Operating Cost 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Route Local CommuterLink Local Average Page 42

43 Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per passenger boarding measures how much it costs to operate a route on a per boarding basis. It is calculated using passenger revenue minus operating cost divided by the total number of passenger boardings. Financial performance is not always proportional to the service performance. A route could have few boardings but also a low subsidy per boarding if the route has low operating costs that could result from the efficient use of few vehicles or a higher average passenger fare. Weekday Average weekday subsidy per passenger on local routes is $2.64 with no significant outliers. Interestingly, Route 32 has average boardings and productivity but the second lowest subsidy per passenger in the system. Route 40 has the highest subsidy per passenger at $4.33. The average subsidy for CommuterLink routes is much higher at nearly $10.00 per passenger boarding and range from $7.50 to $ In general, CommuterLink routes have higher subsidies per passengers than local routes because they incur high mileage costs traveling over long distances with little opportunity to gain new riders along the route with the higher fares only partly compensating for the reduced cost-effectiveness. Route 202 (South County to Oceanside) is a costly outlier with the highest subsidy per passenger boarding at $ While CommuterLink service plays a significant role by providing regional links across and beyond the RTA service area, the high cost of providing this service warrants consideration of more cost-effective alternatives. Page 43

44 Figure 26: Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding by Route Weekday Subsidy per Boarding $ ($3.00) ($6.00) Local Average Routes are fully funded (55 is 20% funded) Subsidy per Boarding ($9.00) ($12.00) ($15.00) CommuterLink Average ($18.00) ($21.00) Local CommuterLink Trolley Average fare revenue includes cash fares, tickets, passes, external subsidy agreements, and Measure A funds. ubsidy per Passenger Boarding by Route Page 44

45 Map 7: System-Wide Weekday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding by Route Segment Page 45

46 Saturday Average Saturday subsidy per passenger is $3.52. Overall, subsidies are higher due to decreased ridership productivity. Route 41 is an extreme outlier, with a subsidy per passenger of $ Its ridership drops 80 percent from weekdays to Saturdays. Figure 27: Saturday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding $ Subsidy per Boarding ($3.00) ($6.00) ($9.00) ($12.00) ($15.00) ($18.00) Local Average ($21.00) Local CommuterLink Route Sunday Average Sunday subsidy per passenger is $4.59. Again, Route 41 is an outlier with a subsidy of $ Figure 28: Sunday Subsidy per Passenger Boarding $ Subsidy per Boarding ($3.00) ($6.00) ($9.00) ($12.00) ($15.00) ($18.00) Local Average Local CommuterLink ($21.00) Route Page 46

47 Quality of Service and Customer Experience Customer experience plays a significant role in maintaining system ridership as people are more likely to use a transit system if they have a positive travel experience. There are multiple factors that affect customer experience, many of which are outside of agency control such as courtesy of other passengers, traffic, or road conditions. However, there are also system design factors that agencies can pay attention to in order to directly improve customer experience, including reliability, approachability, route alignment, and passenger load. Frequency For passengers, the out-of-vehicle wait time is twice as important as the in-vehicle travel time (both are key determinants for attracting customers). The number one improvement passengers cited in the onboard passenger survey was more frequent service on existing routes. Riders ranked Time Spent Waiting for Bus the lowest of 13 categories with an overall score of 3.3 out of 5, and 43 percent wanted to see higher service frequency. Reducing out-of-vehicle wait time through increased frequency should be a priority for the COA Plan. Span Service span affects customer experience by determining when passengers can start and complete trips. A wider service span provides passengers with more trip flexibility, improving customer satisfaction. Although RTA service offers all-day service and considerable weekend service, in the on-board passenger survey, 20 percent of riders wanted later service on existing routes, and this was the third highest ranked category for desired service improvements. Reliability Service reliability impacts a passenger s ability to predict travel in a timely and consistent manner. Ontime performance helps retain ridership and improve passenger experience. Late and unpredictable arrivals negatively affect perception of service quality and reduce the competitiveness of transit with other modes of transportation. 7 Based on RTA standards, on-time trips were those that departed zero to six minutes after their scheduled departure time. Overall, 68 percent of trips are on-time, 18 percent are late, and 14 percent are early. Industry best practices target an overall on-time performance of around 85 percent as desirable. It should be noted that early departures have a significant higher negative impact on ridership in systems like RTA with mostly infrequent service, as riders missing early trips have to wait until the next one which for RTA is often 60 minutes or more. As well to note, poor OTP has an even greater impact on transferring passengers, especially between infrequent routes. Route 61 has the lowest on-time performance with just 24 percent of trips on-time. Route 1, the system s most popular route, has an on-time performance of just 65 percent, with 15 percent of trips leaving early. By campaigning on-time performance, RTA can improve system performance and enhance the customer experience. 7 Recent research conducted by the Transportation Center at Berkeley identified unreliable service as the number one reason passengers stopped using transit in the San Francisco Bay Area. Page 47

48 Figure 29: Weekday Percentage of On-Time Trips by Service Type 100% 90% Weekday On-Time Performance Local CommuterLink Trolley 80% Percent of On-Time Trips 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% System Average 20% 10% 0% Route Page 48

49 Figure 30: Weekday Percentage of On-Time, Early, and Late Trips 100% Weekday On-Time Performance On Time Late Early 90% 80% 70% Percent of Trips 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Route Page 49

50 Approachability Approachability refers to the ease with which passengers can navigate a transit system. People are more likely to use transit if they can easily understand maps, schedules, and signs and if service design is streamlined and navigable. Intimidating systems discourage passenger use while approachable systems increase passengers level of comfort and willingness to use public transit. Branding the system with easily recognizable logos and coloring greatly improves the approachability of a transit system. Good branding can help communicate the existence of different types of transit services for different mobility needs, and corridor branding can make it easier for passengers to know where they are along the route while traveling. RTA provides clear ride guides which make the system easy to navigate and approachable. Half of riders get trip information from RTA ride guides, so the fact that they are easy to read is an important part of providing customers with information. RTA recently introduced new 40-foot buses. These buses demonstrate good branding and advertise a desirable product attractive, inviting, clean, and green. Figure 31: Image of New RTA Local Route Vehicle The trolleys, fixed-route buses, and CommuterLink buses are all branded differently and use different types of vehicles which let potential passengers know what services are available to them. Figure 32: Image of CommuterLink Vehicle Page 50

51 Alignment Route alignment affects customer experience by influencing both access and overall travel times. Deviations away from main corridors or non-linear route alignments add to the length of a route which increases travel time of passengers on-board and decreases customer satisfaction. Passengers tend to take the most direct route to their destination, so if multiple routes serve the same destinations, the one with the most direct alignment is typically the most productive. Given the highly differentiated development densities throughout Western Riverside County, the COA will need to consider route alignments within the overall regional and sub-regional network to best balance access (coverage) and travel time and their impact on resources available for service frequency. Passenger Load Passenger load is the number of passengers on a vehicle at any given time, and it is an indicator of passenger comfort along routes. Buses with high passenger loads provide a less comfortable environment as loads increase if passengers have to stand for long periods or have limited personal space. Analysis of passenger loads on RTA vehicles indicates that in general there are no overcrowding issues on RTA vehicles. As shown in Figure 33, less than one-third of routes have trips with loads that exceed 85 percent of vehicle capacity (51 passengers), and only 11 percent of routes have trips that exceed capacity. Overall, only 1.4 percent of trips have over 85 percent of capacity and only 0.5 percent of trips exceed capacity. This low amount of high passenger loads indicates that RTA vehicles provide a comfortable environment for passengers. Page 51

52 Figure 33: Passenger Capacity Analysis Weekday Trips Over Capacity Route Trips under 85% of Capacity Trips over 85% of Capacity Trips over Capacity Number of Weekday Trips Page 52

53 Performance of Directly-Operated and Contract-Operated Routes RTA improves overall efficiency by contracting routes to third-party operators at lower operating cost rates. As shown in the graphs below, overall, RTA has successfully chosen the right routes to contract out, as these routes are consistently the ones with lower performance. RTA can evaluate directlyoperated routes with lower performance and contract-operated routes with higher performance to reassess the appropriate type of operation for these routes to further improve efficiency. Boardings Overall, directly-operated routes have higher boardings than contract-operated routes. Only two directly-operated routes (Routes 11 and 29) have fewer boardings than a contract-operated route. Of the routes with split operation, Route 19 has the highest number of boardings and the fewest number of directly-operated trips. Productivity Similarly to boarding patterns, directly-operated routes have higher productivities than contractoperated routes. Routes 14, 27, and 29 are the only directly-operated routes that have lower productivities than a contract-operated route. The same patterns are evident in the CommuterLink routes as well. Figure 34: CommuterLink Productivity DO/CO Boardings per Trip Directly-Operated Contract-Operated Split Operation Route Subsidy per Passenger For subsidy per passenger boarding, there is no clear pattern between directly-operated and contractoperated routes. While contract-operated routes have fewer boardings, they also have lower costs, decreasing their subsidies per passenger. Page 53

54 Figure 35: Weekday Boardings DO/CO Weekday Boardings by Route Directly-Operated Contract-Operated Split Operation Number of Boardings Route Page 54

55 Figure 36: Weekday Productivity DO/CO 40 Weekday Productivity Directly-Operated Contract-Operated Split Operation 35 Boardings per Revenue Hour Route Page 55

56 Figure 37: Weekday Subsidy per Boarding DO/CO Weekday Subsidy per Boarding $0.00 ($3.00) Routes are fully funded (55 is 20% funded) ($6.00) Subsidy per Boarding ($9.00) ($12.00) ($15.00) ($18.00) ($21.00) Directly-Operated Contract-Operated Split Operation Route Average fare revenue includes cash fares, tickets, passes, external subsidy agreements, and Measure A funds. Page 56

57 Existing Conditions Sub-Area Analysis at the sub-area level allows for more in-depth analysis than a system-wide assessment can provide. Because the RTA service area is so large, it contains different areas with distinctly differently markets for transit. Evaluating service at the sub-area level allows for analysis better tailored to specific market types. The four sub-area divisions are the following: Northwest Sub-Area: Corona, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, Riverside, and Temescal Canyon Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area: March JPA, Mead Valley, Moreno Valley, and Perris Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Hemet, and San Jacinto Southwest Sub-Area: Canyon Lake, French Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and Winchester This section includes the following analyses for each sub-area: Service Overview: Where do routes go and what role does each route play in providing mobility within the sub-area? Performance: What are the ridership and performance patterns of sub-area routes? Service Design and Delivery: What design features of existing routes lead transit to be more or less successful in each sub-area? Matching Service to Demand: How does service design and location correlate with areas identified in the RTA Market Assessment as having strong transit demand potential? What improvements can be made to best serve the transit demand needs in each sub-area? Page 57

58 Northwest Sub-Area The Northwest sub-area contains the cities of Corona, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, Riverside, and Temescal Canyon. It has the highest population and employment densities in the service area and contains a variety of market typologies from urban core to rural, meaning that mobility solutions will vary greatly throughout the area. Key destinations include downtown Riverside, the Galleria at Tyler, UC Riverside, RCC, and Riverside Community Hospital. Service Overview The Northwest sub-area is served by 14 local fixed-routes, three trolleys, and four CommuterLink routes. Only four of these local routes stay within Riverside - the rest provide connections to other communities or regions. Routes in this sub-area provide direct connections to Loma Linda, Moreno Valley, Jurupa Valley, Eastvale, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Ontario, Murrieta, Temecula, Beaumont, Palm Desert, Norco, and Orange County. Figure 38: Overview of Routes in Northwest Sub-Area Overview of Routes in Northwest Sub-Area Route Service Type Cities Served 1 Sub-regional Corona, Riverside 3 Sub-regional Corona, Eastvale, Norco 10 Community Riverside 12 Community Riverside 13 Community Riverside 14 Sub-regional Loma Linda, Riverside 15 Community Riverside 16 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Riverside 20 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Riverside 21 Sub-regional Jurupa Valley, Riverside 22 Regional Lake Elsinore, Perris, Riverside 27 Regional Hemet, Perris, Riverside 29 Sub-regional Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Riverside 49 Sub-regional Jurupa Valley, Riverside 50 Trolley Riverside 51 Trolley Riverside 54 Trolley Riverside 204 CommuterLink Jurupa Valley, Ontario, Riverside 206 CommuterLink Corona, Murrieta, Temecula Page 58

59 208 CommuterLink Menifee, Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, Temecula 210 CommuterLink Beaumont, Moreno Valley, Riverside 212 CommuterLink Hemet, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto 216 CommuterLink Corona, Orange County, Riverside Page 59

60 Map 8: Network Structure of the Northwest Sub-Area Page 60

61 Performance Sub-Area Ridership A majority of RTA boardings occur in the Northwest sub-area, accounting for 58 percent of system boardings on local routes. Map 9 represents weekday boarding activity by stop within the Northwest sub-area. Patterns of passenger boardings indicate the presence of both high-activity linear corridors and centers. The highest concentrations of activity are present at the downtown Riverside sand Galleria at Tyler transfer hub stops. Boardings are concentrated along the Magnolia Ave corridor and other linear corridors in the heart of Riverside. Boarding levels drop in areas with lower population and employment densities such as in Mira Loma, Eastvale, and Woodcrest. Sub-Area Productivity and Financial Effectiveness Productivity in the Northwest sub-area is among the highest in the RTA service area, both overall and on a segment level, reflecting the stronger market opportunities for transit. The sub-area posts an average productivity of 27.3 passengers per hour (pph) for local routes, the highest average productivity of all the sub-areas. In addition, the average productivity in the sub-area is 20 percent greater than the system average of 22.5 passengers per hour. Of the ten most productive local routes throughout the system, seven operate in this sub-area. The most productive segment is on Route 1 from the Brockton Arcade to the Downtown Terminal with a productivity of 60 passengers per revenue hour. Other segments with productivities over 50 pph are University & Iowa to Canyon Crest & MLK on Route 16 and Mission & Rubidoux to Downtown Terminal on Route 49. The least productive segment is on Route 21 from Limonite & Collins to Felspar & Jurupa with a productivity of just 7.5 pph. The only other segment with a productivity of less than 10 pph is the segment of Route 14 that goes out to the VA Hospital in Loma Linda with a productivity of just 9.4 pph. Route segments in this sub-area exhibit a range of subsidies per passenger boarding. In general, routes that travel through the densest areas are more financially effective than those that pass through more rural areas. Certain routes vary greatly in financial effectiveness from one segment to another. Route 12 for example has a subsidy per passenger that falls in three different categories throughout the course of its alignment, meaning it is operating inconsistently and could be made more effective. The average subsidy per passenger in this sub-area for local routes is $2.12, well below the local system average of $2.64. Page 61

62 Map 9: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 62

63 Figure 39: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Northwest Sub-Area Productivity by Route The sub-area has the highest concentration of higher productivity routes and the remaining routes mostly perform at system average Several routes have higher than average productivity in the sub-area Boardings per Revenue Hour Route Route Average Productivity Sub-Area Productivity Page 63

64 Map 10: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 64

65 Map 11: Financial Effectiveness of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 65

66 Service Design and Delivery Frequency A majority of the routes in the sub-area are lower-frequency, limiting opportunities for passengers to ride spontaneously. Without frequent service, RTA s ability to capitalize on the market demand potential present in the sub-area will be limited. Trolley routes 50 and 54 provide the most frequent service in the sub-area running at every 15 minutes. All of the routes that operate at a frequency of more than 60 minutes run through this sub-area. Routes 1 and 16 have the highest local service frequencies and productivities in the sub-area, while Route 14 has the lowest frequency and also the lowest productivity. The local routes within the sub-area are designated in blue in the graph below. Figure 40: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Northwest Sub-Area Routes Boardings per Revenue Hour Peak Frequency (Minutes) Figure 41: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Northwest Sub-Area CommuterLink Trips per Day Route Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound AM PM AM PM 204 Riverside to Montclair Corona to Temecula Riverside to Temecula Riverside to Beaumont Riverside to Hemet Riverside to Orange Page 66

67 Alignment and Network Structure The network structure varies in this sub-area depending on both the market opportunities and the road network. Throughout the sub-area where justified by the market conditions, rethinking the network and route opportunities to maximize the opportunities for customers to use the system spontaneously, which will require introduction of minute service frequencies during key travel periods, should be a priority for the COA. The central core area is comprised of six routes that serve both the downtown and the Galleria at Tyler (Routes 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15) via different route alignments, with some of them terminating at the hub stops while others continue on their respective corridors. While having multiple routes serving the same two key destinations creates competition for riders traveling from end to end (or hub to hub), in this case the routes also provide connections from their individual alignments to these key transit areas with good ridership along most of the intermediate segments. The most direct alignment with the greatest frequency (Route 1) serving the major higher density mixed-use corridor, Magnolia Avenue, has the strongest ridership generation. However, although the network structure is appropriate, all of the route alignments and operation should be considered for efficiency improvements through both streamlining (reducing indirect routings) and faster travel times (delay reduction options). The options for other network strategies (e.g., grid) are limited due to the narrow route network structure and linear market development parallel to Magnolia and Hwy 91. The eastern part of this sub-area from downtown Riverside to UCR is also largely productive with clean linear corridors: University, MLK, Blaine/3 rd east-west and Chicago and Iowa north-south. Mixed-use development and the greater densities are found on the east-west corridors which are anchored by downtown Riverside on the west and UCR on the east. The consolidation of local service on University (Routes 1, 14, 16, 22) is appropriate, but there are opportunities to strengthen the corridor brand in concert with the upcoming introduction of limited stop service/improved frequency and with the following BRT. Given the current convergence of routes on the corridors, RTA should consider whether BRT branding should focus on branding the service or branding the corridor. Linking network rethinking with the City of Riverside s plan for new sustainable development from UCR to downtown will provide a cost-effective return for RTA. The western part of this sub-area encompassing Corona, Norco, and Eastvale is dominated by two main local corridors: Magnolia/6 th east-west and Main/Hamner north-south. The network challenge is that outside of Corona, the market typologies are not transit oriented and reflect either historic, more rural development or newer automobile-centric suburban development. In this case the emphasis on long local routes to meet mobility needs makes introducing frequency improvements complex or expensive. The COA should look for opportunities to maintain direct service alignments and improve frequencies in a cost-effective manner supported by existing and potential ridership. Page 67

68 Matching Service to Demand The Northwest sub-area has the highest transit demand potential out of the four sub-areas. Downtown Riverside is served by over 15 different routes with a range of frequencies from 20 to 70 minutes. Despite the great variety of service, high levels of demand indicate the area could benefit from frequencies of even greater than 20 minutes along key corridors to attract spontaneous use riders. The suburban areas in north of Riverside in Jurupa Valley and Eastvale, and south of downtown Riverside by Woodcrest have less demand for transit and lower population and employment densities. Each of these areas is served by one or two routes that provide connections to downtown Corona, downtown Riverside, or Metrolink stations that provide the opportunity for inter-regional travel. The Northwest sub-area operates three Trolley routes in downtown Riverside. The routes vary greatly in service and performance. Each Trolley route has a streamlined alignment and serves a very specific ridership market. Route 51 has the strongest performance despite the lowest frequency (40 minutes) because it provides convenient service for UC Riverside students to get from campus to places of residence or employment opportunities in Riverside. Route 50, the Jury Trolley, provides service from parking lots to the Riverside County Court House. The limited market generates low ridership, making this route less productive. Similarly, Route 54 transports city employees from the Metrolink Parking Lot across the Hwy 91 to the County Administration Building. This route has very few riders and consequently very low productivity despite high frequency (15 minutes), suggesting little demand for this connection. Page 68

69 Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area The Moreno Valley/Perris sub-area includes March JPA, Mead Valley, Moreno Valley and Perris. Key destinations include Moreno Valley Mall, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, Moreno Valley College, March JPA, and downtown Perris. Moreno Valley has high employment and population densities while Perris is less dense and developed. Service Overview There are 14 routes in the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area, three of which are CommuterLink routes. Only three of the local fixed-routes stay only within one community, the rest provide connections to other communities and regions. Routes within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area connect these cities with downtown Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, San Jacinto, Murrieta, Temecula, and Beaumont. Figure 42: Overview of Routes in Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Overview of Routes in Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Route Service Type Cities Served 11 Community Moreno Valley 16 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Riverside 18 Community Moreno Valley 19 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Perris 20 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Riverside 22 Regional Lake Elsinore, Perris, Riverside 27 Regional Hemet, Perris, Riverside 30 Community Perris 35 Regional Beaumont, Moreno Valley 41 Sub-regional Moreno Valley, Perris 74 Regional Hemet, Perris 208 CommuterLink Menifee, Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, Temecula 210 CommuterLink Beaumont, Moreno Valley, Riverside 212 CommuterLink Hemet, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto Page 69

70 Map 12: Network Structure of Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 70

71 Performance Sub-Area Ridership Boarding activity is concentrated at the Perris Station Transit Center, Cherry Hills & Bradley, Moreno Valley College (MVC), RCRMC, and Moreno Valley Mall transfer center stops and at the intersection of Alessandro and Perris Blvd. Boarding activity in this sub-area is driven by schools (MVC and high schools), transfer opportunities, and key destinations. The sub-area accounts for 25 percent of systemwide boardings on local routes. Sub-Area Productivity and Financial Effectiveness Productivity varies greatly within the sub-area. The routes in this sub-area run the entire spectrum of RTA performance with routes spaced between the second most productive and third least productive local routes in the system. The average productivity for segments in this sub-area is 21.5 passengers per revenue hour. Routes are more productive in Moreno Valley where there is higher population and employment density than in Perris where populations are more dispersed. Individual route segments have an even broader range of productivity, between 10 pph to over 50 pph. In general, the routes that stay within this sub-area have lower subsidies per passenger. The sub-area average is $3.28. Routes 20, 30, and 41 vary greatly in average subsidy per passenger from segment to segment indicating inconsistency in boarding activity and costs along the route alignments. Page 71

72 Map 13: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 72

73 Figure 43: Productivity for Local Routes for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area 40 Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Productivity by Route 35 Routes in this sub-area span a wide range of productivities Boardings per Revenue Hour Four routes have lower than route average productivity in the sub-area while two have higher than average productivity Route Average Productivity Route Sub-Area Productivity Page 73

74 Map 14: Productivity of Local Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 74

75 Map 15: Subsidy per Boarding of Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 75

76 Service Design Delivery Frequency Routes in this sub-area exhibit a range of frequencies and productivities. Seven routes operate at minute frequencies and perform at a wide range of productivity. These routes provide the same level of service through a variety of market topologies with corresponding productivities with little relationship between productivity and frequency. For instance, Route 16 connecting to Riverside has the most frequency but has average productivity due to long unproductive segments necessary to connect the sub-areas. Routes 18 and 19 perform well despite having infrequent service due to efficient resource use, good market opportunities, and relatively linear alignments. Figure 44: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Routes 40 Boardings per Revenue Hour Peak Frequency (Minutes) Figure 45: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area CommuterLink Trips per Day Route Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound AM PM AM PM Alignment On the whole, routes in the Moreno Valley/Perris sub-area have straight route alignments, are not duplicative with other routes, and provide one-seat rides to major sub-area destinations, all factors contributing to higher productivities. Routes 19 and 20 follow linear corridors for the majority of their alignment, and they have the 2 nd and 4 th highest productivities in the sub-area respectively. Route 30 is Page 76

77 has the lowest productivity among routes in downtown Perris or Moreno Valley, and it has a route alignment with multiple deviations away from major corridors and is duplicative with Routes 22 and 19. The overall network in Moreno Valley/Perris is a hybrid with a partial grid structure that deviates to multiple hub stops. Historically, that has made sense given the low service frequencies that make street corner transfers inconvenient for customers. The COA should rethink the network as the area continues to build out and the market support for improved frequencies makes other transfer options feasible. Matching Service to Demand The region in this sub-area with the highest transit demand potential, downtown Moreno Valley, has high route concentration. Five local routes circulate through this area, and additional routes provide regional connections to Riverside. However, none of the routes that go beyond Moreno Valley Mall run at a frequency of greater than 45 minutes. There is an opportunity to consider rebalancing the route coverage with more frequency based on the industry experience that customers walk further for better service. Downtown Perris has low transit demand potential, but it is served by seven routes. The Perris Station Transit Center lies in the very center of the Riverside Transit Agency service area and provides riders with the opportunity to transfer to a route with direct connections to major cities in all directions. While many passengers may not be traveling to and from downtown Perris, the great amount of service in this area is warranted to ensure the success of the hub-and-spoke system structure. The Perris Blvd corridor is served by a 45-minute frequency, the second highest frequency in the subarea. The one area in Perris with substantive transit demand potential (south of Rider St and east of Perris Blvd) has no service today and should be considered for service in the COA Plan development. On the other hand, Routes 30 and 41 perform below average and serve areas with low demand potential for transit and very low population and employment densities. Alternative service options should be considered for these routes. Page 77

78 Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area The Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area includes the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, Beaumont, Banning, and Calimesa. The Hemet/San Jacinto and Beaumont/Banning areas are separated by a great geographic expanse with little density making it hard to connect the two areas cost-effectively. Key destinations in this sub-area are Hemet Valley Mall, Hemet Valley Medical Center, Soboba Casino, San Jacinto Library, and Mt. San Jacinto College. Service Overview The Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area is served by RTA with eight local fixed-routes, and three CommuterLink routes. Only four routes stay within the sub-area, the rest serve as connections to other regions. Figure 46: Overview of Routes in Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Overview of Routes in Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Route Service Type Cities Served 27 Regional Hemet, Perris, Riverside 31 Sub-regional Beaumont, Hemet, San Jacinto 32 Community Hemet, San Jacinto 33 Community Hemet, San Jacinto 35 Regional Beaumont, Moreno Valley 42 Community Hemet, San Jacinto 74 Regional Hemet, Menifee, Perris, San Jacinto 79 Regional Hemet, Temecula 210 CommuterLink Beaumont, Moreno Valley, Riverside 212 CommuterLink Hemet, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto 217 CommuterLink Escondido, Hemet, San Jacinto, Temecula Page 78

79 Map 16: Network Structure of the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 79

80 Performance Sub-Area Ridership Ridership in this sub-area makes up 8.5 percent of system boardings on local routes. Boarding activity is concentrated at three transfer hub stops: Hemet Valley Mall, Mt. San Jacinto College, and the Wal-Mart in Beaumont. Ridership is also concentrated along Florida Avenue and State Street, the two major linear corridors transecting Hemet and San Jacinto. Sub-Area Productivity and Financial Effectiveness The productivity of route segments within Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area averages 17.5 passengers per revenue hour, lower performance when compared with the rest of the system. Routes in the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area underperform when compared with the rest of the system. Route 32 has the highest productivity in the sub-area, but 14 th highest productivity overall among local routes. The route segment with the highest productivity is Route 27 along Florida Avenue with a productivity of 29.1 passengers per hour. The least productive segment is on Route 33 from Hemet Valley Mall to the Wal-Mart at Sanderson & Stetson with a productivity of only 5 pph. Routes 27, 74, and 79 are regional routes that have one terminus in Hemet/San Jacinto, and the segments of these routes that lie within the sub-area are more productive than the routes as a whole. Overall, route productivity drops as routes leave the developed center of the sub-area and branch out to areas with less development and density. Despite low route productivity, route segments in this sub-area have above average subsidies per passenger, with a sub-area average of $2.59. Overall, subsidies in this sub-area are lower than those in the Moreno Valley/Perris sub-area. Page 80

81 Map 17: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 81

82 Figure 47: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area 40 Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Productivity by Route 35 Routes in this sub-area generally perform below system average with the exception of a few routes with notably strong performance Boardings per Revenue Hour Several routes have considerably higher than route average productivity within the sub-area Route Average Productivity Route Sub-Area Productivity Page 82

83 Map 18: Productivity of Local Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 83

84 Map 19: Subsidy per Boarding of Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 84

85 Service Design and Delivery Frequency There are no routes that operate at higher than a 60 minute frequency in the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area and many operate below at odd 65, 70, and 75 minute headways, which makes service connections challenging for the customer and operations. The low levels of service limit passenger mobility and decrease the competitiveness of transit with other modes of transportation. Florida Avenue is the major East/West corridor in the sub-area, and it is only served by Route 27 which runs once an hour. The major North/South corridor (State Street) is served by multiple routes, but two of them are CommuterLink routes which make only limited stops. Route 31 is the only local fixed-route that serves this entire corridor, and it runs only once every 70 minutes. Figure 48: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Routes 40 Boardings per Revenue Hour Peak Frequency (Minutes) Figure 49: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area CommuterLink Trips per Day Route Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound AM PM AM PM Alignment The overall network orientation in this sub-area is hub-and-spoke with Hemet Valley Mall (HVM) serving as the central hub stop and Mt. San Jacinto College and Wal-Mart (Beaumont) serving as secondary hub stops. Route 27 is linear along Florida Avenue (Hemet s key multi-use corridor) from Valle Vista through the HVM to Perris and is productive despite being just hourly. Routes 31, 21, and 74 all connect HVM with Mt. San Jacinto College. Route 32 has the lowest productivity (19.3 pph) of the three routes along Page 85

86 this segment due to its many deviations away from major corridors and its non-linear route alignment. Despite its slightly higher frequency, Route 74 performs best on this segment (25.9 pph) because it has the most linear route alignment and stay on major corridors. Routes 33 and 42 have multiple deviations and low productivities. There is considerable duplication of routes within the sub-area. Few routes have unique coverage of an area. This overlap between routes results in competition for ridership between routes, which decreases overall ridership numbers and uses resources that could be redeployed in improving frequencies. Given the arrangement of corridors and centers in this sub-area, the current hub-and-spoke network looks like a good choice, but can be significantly enhanced by addressing the frequency and alignment deviation issues. Matching Services to Demand The areas of highest transit demand potential are being served by multiple routes. Hemet Valley Mall is a major transfer center that provides regional connections to the rest of Riverside County and serves as a local transfer hub stop for many community routes.rta provides regional connections to Beaumont via Route 31 and 35, and the area of high transit demand potential in Banning is served by Pass Transit services operated by the City of Banning. Routes 31 and 35 serve both the Wal-Mart and K-Mart transfer hub stops in Beaumont and Banning, and service can be made more efficient by consolidating these stops. Though there is considerable service in downtown Hemet, the area could benefit from more service along key transportation corridors. Route 27 is the only local route that runs along Florida Avenue, the major east/west corridor in the region, and it only runs at 60-minute frequency. This is the most productive segment of this route (29.1 passengers per hour) with productivity nearly twice that of its second most productive segment (16.8 passengers per hour) which goes from Hemet to Sun City. Similarly, Route 31 is the only local route that serves the north/south State Street corridor, and it runs at 70-minute frequency. The segment of the route that runs along State Street is also the most productive segment of the route. Additional investment in Routes 27 and 31 would help match transit demand in this area to the level of service being provided and grow ridership. Page 86

87 Southwest Sub-Area Canyon Lake, French Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and Winchester comprise the Southwest sub-area. This sub-area has the lowest population and employment densities of the four sub-areas, and the lowest percentages of demographic sectors more likely to use transit, resulting in low demand for transit within the sub-area. Its suburban nature and lack of an urbanized core further contributes to the challenge of creating successful transit in this sub-area. Service Overview The Southwest Sub-Area is served by nine local fixed-routes, one trolley, and three CommuterLink routes. Of the local fixed-routes, five are community-specific, two connect with nearby communities, and two provide regional connections to Hemet and downtown Riverside. CommuterLink routes provide connections outside of Riverside County to Oceanside and Escondido. Figure 50: Overview of Routes within the Southwest Sub-Area Overview of Routes in Southwest Sub-Area Route Service Type Cities Served 7 Community Lake Elsinore 8 Community Lake Elsinore 22 Regional Lake Elsinore, Perris, Riverside 23 Community Murrieta 24 Community Temecula 40 Sub-regional Lake Elsinore, Sun City 55 Trolley Temecula 61 Sub-regional Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula 74 Regional Hemet, Menifee, Perris, San Jacinto 79 Regional Hemet, Temecula 202 CommuterLink Murrieta, Oceanside, Temecula 206 CommuterLink Corona, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula 208 CommuterLink Menifee, Murrieta, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside, Temecula 217 CommuterLink Escondido, Hemet, San Jacinto, Temecula Page 87

88 Map 20: Network Structure of Southwest Sub-Area Page 88

89 Performance Sub-Area Ridership Ridership in this sub-area makes up 8.5 percent of system boardings on local routes. It has the same share of system-wide boardings as the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area sub-area, but twice the population, indicating that residents in the Southwest sub-area are less inclined to use transit. Boardings are concentrated at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center, Cherry Hills & Bradley, County Center Drive, and Promenade Mall transfer hub stops. Other notable stops of boarding activity are MSJC-Menifee, Wal- Mart in Lake Elsinore, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center, and Chaparral High School stops. The only linear concentration of ridership in the sub-area is the service encircling Lake Elsinore (Routes 7 and 8). Sub-Area Productivity and Financial Effectiveness This sub-area has some of the lowest productivities in the system. The average productivity is 12.7 passengers per hour compared to 22.5 for the entire system. With the exception of Routes 8, the local fixed-routes in this sub-area lie in the bottom third of routes when ranked by productivity. Of the three routes that span across multiple sub-areas, the segments within the Southwest sub-area are less productive than the routes overall. The segment from Riverside Dr. and Grand to the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center is the highest performing segment in the sub-area with a productivity of 24.7 pph. This segment is productive because it serves an area of relatively high density and connects it with a major transfer hub stop and entertainment center. The second most productive segment (Graham and Langstaff to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center on Route 7 with 22.2 pph) also serves the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center. The least productive segment is on Route 23 in residential Murrieta with a productivity of 5.6 passengers per revenue hour. The Southwest sub-area has the highest subsidies per boarding in the system, with an average of $3.74 per boarding. Service in this area is expensive to provide and costs RTA significant resources that could be better invested in areas with higher demands for transit. Page 89

90 Map 21: Weekday Boarding Activity by Stop within the Southwest Sub-Area Page 90

91 Figure 51: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area 40 Southwest Sub-Area Productivity by Route 35 Boardings per Revenue Hour Routes in the sub-area perform below system average Routes that travel through multiple sub-areas perform below route average within this sub-area Route Average Productivity Route Sub-Area Productivity Page 91

92 Map 22: Productivity of Local Routes for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Page 92

93 Map 23: Subsidy per Boarding for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Page 93

94 Service Design and Delivery Frequency With the exception of the Route 55 trolley which runs every 15 minutes, there are no routes in this subarea with higher than 60-minute peak frequency. Of all the routes that run at 60 and 70 minute frequencies, the segments that run through the Southwest sub-area are among the least productive in the system. Figure 52: Peak Frequency vs. Productivity for Temecula Lake-Elsinore Sub-Area Routes 40 Boardings per Revenue Hour Peak Frequency (Minutes) Figure 53: Summary of CommuterLink Service in Southwest Sub-Area CommuterLink Trips per Day Route Eastbound/Northbound Westbound/Southbound AM PM AM PM Alignment The alignment of routes in this sub-area is a result of the area s street patterns together with offcorridor development, which require many slow alignment deviations. The landscape of suburban developments has resulted in a lack of key transportation corridors and windy, curvy streets through residential areas that force bus routes along non-linear alignments. This has a negative impact on route productivity as non-linear alignments increase route travel time, exacerbated by travel through many long traffic signals. Routes 23 and 24 have very low productivities despite their moderate population and employment densities due to the circuitous nature of their route alignments. The COA needs to Page 94

95 rethink the value of traditional local fixed route transit in this environment and consider alternative mobility options that will result in a better outcome for customers, the public, and RTA. Another alignment characteristic of the Southwest sub-area is that service along I-215 and Highway 79 is duplicative between CommuterLink and local routes. Route 208 is paralleled by Route 61 and Route 217 is paralleled by Route 79. Riders traveling the full distance between communities will be more likely to use the CommuterLink routes during CommuterLink operation hours because service is faster and more direct, diverting Routes 61 and 79 ridership. The COA should provide options along both corridors that better balance access and fast travel time and result in significantly increased ridership. Matching Service to Demand The Southwest sub-area has the lowest population and employment densities and transit demand potential in the service area. Service runs through Winchester, Menifee, Sun City, and Meadowbrook, all cities with low residential densities and few employment opportunities. There is a limited market for transit, and there may not be enough demand to warrant the level of service provided by the nine local routes that serve this area. Alternative service options may be a viable solution to better match demand to supply. Page 95

96 Service Evaluation Key Findings Overall Findings The analysis conducted in the service evaluation has led to the determination of several key findings for the Riverside Transit Agency service area. The RTA service area is split into four sub-areas, each with a distinct role for transit to play. Variation in market conditions result in different mobility needs. The structure of transit service in one sub-area may not be the appropriate structure in another sub-area. The COA should consider a broad range of network structures and service options for meeting mobility needs. Wide ranges in market conditions result in wide ranges in route performance. Some markets are better-suited for successful transit than others, and RTA service performs stronger in areas with stronger markets for transit, particularly linear corridors with a mix of land uses. Every route serves a role in the service area, and some routes serve multiple functions. There are many sub-regional or regional routes that are intended to connect municipalities, but many passengers use these routes for intra-community travel. Improving service frequency is a crucial component to strengthening the network. Customer feedback indicates they want higher frequencies, and the lack of spontaneous-use frequencies, especially on major corridors, limits the success of the overall network. In general, routes with higher frequencies are more productive than routes with lower frequencies. Alignment greatly affects a route s productivity. More direct routes are more productive than routes with circuitous alignment or multiple deviations customers are less attracted to ride indirect service and it requires additional resources to operate. When service is duplicative between key destinations, riders take the route with the most direct alignment. RTA employs a hub-and-spoke network structure. The majority of boardings occur at transfer hub stops, which are also often key destinations. The fact that only 22 percent of riders transfer from one route to another suggests that riders may not be using the network structure to its full potential an impact of the hub-and-spoke design and the lack of service frequency. The concentration of ridership on just a few routes presents affordable opportunities for improvement one route (Route 1) carries one-quarter of system boardings and together with the next four carry half of total system patronage. RTA has already recognized this and has taken the first step in moving forward with frequent limited-stop service for the Route 1 University- Magnolia corridor. Page 96

97 Trade-Offs One of the roles of any transit agency is to evaluate how best to allocate resources to create the strongest network possible. In doing so, transit agencies, RTA included, face multiple trade-offs and important policy-making decisions. One trade-off is between providing productive service or broad coverage. Providing broad coverage gives more people access to the transit network. However, resources are spread across more routes to ensure complete network coverage, resulting in lower service frequencies. Productive service requires investment in key network corridors to increase service frequency and passenger experience, but can limit the population who has access to transit system-wide. Choosing between reaching more people with limited frequency or fewer people with greater frequency will greatly impact how resources are distributed and the total service that can be operated. 8 A second trade-off is between providing community-based or regional mobility for customers. Because RTA covers such an expansive network, customers rely on transit both for traveling within their community or sub-area for daily needs and for traveling between cities regionally for employment opportunities. In the COA Plan development RTA will need to consider which areas require more community-based or more regional connections in order to serve the area more effectively and efficiently. These decisions will also impact the allocation of resources, as regional routes tend to be more costly because they cover further distances and have less rider turnover, while community routes are less expensive to operate. 8 The investment in a frequent corridor network generates significantly more ridership, which generates significantly more fare revenue, which will pay for more service to be operated. Page 97

98 Appendix Map 24: Average Weekday System-Wide Scheduled Bus Speed by Route Segment Page 98

99 Map 25: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Local Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 99

100 Map 26: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Northwest Sub-Area Page 100

101 Map 27: Weekday Farebox Recovery for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 101

102 Map 28: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Moreno Valley/Perris Sub-Area Page 102

103 Map 29: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 103

104 Map 30: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass Area Sub-Area Page 104

105 Map 31: Weekday Farebox Recovery Ratio for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Page 105

106 Map 32: Average Weekday Scheduled Bus Speed for Route Segments within the Southwest Sub-Area Page 106