rtc transit Before and After Studies for RTC Transit Boulder highway UPWP TASK Before Conditions

Transcription

1 rtc transit Before and After Studies for RTC Transit UPWP TASK Before Conditions Report Boulder highway June 2011

2 Before and After Studies for RTC Transit BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE STUDY UPWP Task Prepared for: 600 S. Grand Central Parkway Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada Prepared by: 2080 E. Flamingo Road Suite 210 Las Vegas, Nevada June, 2011 KHA Project Number: Copyright 2011 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Before Conditions Report Boulder Highway (Fremont Street) Boulder Highway (Fremont Street) Transit Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project Data Elements TRANSIT ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-Time Performance by Year On-Time Performance by Week VEHICLE VOLUME DATA NDOT Volume Data UNLV Vehicle Volume Data VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Data Collection Methodology Data Summary RIDERSHIP VOLUME TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY STUDY Data Collection and Processing Summary Data RIDER SURVEY Survey Questions Sampling Methodology Sample Size SURVEY STATISTICS Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound Survey Question # RTC UPWP BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study i June 2011

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) Introduction Methodology Survey Responses Route 107 Boulder Highway Visual Representation of Survey Responses Visual Representation of Cross-Tabulated Survey Responses Visual Representation of Cross-Tabulated Survey Responses using Buffers CORRIDOR LAND USE List of Graphs Graph 1: Route 107 On-Time Performance by Year... 2 Graph 2: Route On-Time Performance by Week... 2 Graph 3: Route On-Time Performance by Week... 2 Graph 4: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Northbound and Southbound)... 3 Graph 5: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Southbound)... 4 Graph 6: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Northbound)... 4 Graph 7: Boulder Highway (Total) Percentage of Vehicles per Lane... 9 Graph 8: Boulder Highway/Lake Mead Boulevard Percentage of Vehicles per Lane... 9 Graph 9: Boulder Highway/Tropicana Avenue Percentage of Vehicles per Lane... 9 Graph 10: Boulder Highway/Sahara Avenue Percentage of Vehicles per Lane Graph 11: Route Average Daily Ridership by Month Graph 12: Route 107 Average Daily Ridership by Day of Week Graph 13: Route 107 Average Daily Ridership Volume by Day of Week Graph 14: Route Average Hourly Ridership Volume by Time of Day Graph 15: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Total Graph 16: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Northbound Graph 17: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Northbound Graph 18: Survey Question #5 Route Total Graph 19: Survey Question #5 Route Northbound Graph 20: Survey Question #5 Route Southbound Graph 21: Survey Question #7 Route Total Graph 22: Survey Question #7 Route Northbound Graph 23: Survey Question #7 Route Southbound Graph 24: Survey Question #8 Route Total Graph 25: Survey Question #8 Route Northbound Graph 26: Survey Question #8 Route Southbound Graph 27: Survey Question #9 Route Total Graph 28: Survey Question #9 Route Northbound Graph 29: Survey Question #9 Route Southbound Graph 30: Survey Question #10 Route Total Graph 31: Survey Question #10 Route Northbound Graph 32: Survey Question #10 Route Southbound Graph 33: Survey Question #11 Route Total Graph 34: Survey Question #11 Route Northbound Graph 35: Survey Question #11 Route Southbound RTC UPWP BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study ii June 2011

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Table 1: Route 107 On-Time Performance August through December... 2 Table 2: Boulder Highway/Russell Road UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane... 5 Table 3: Boulder Highway/Missouri Avenue UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane... 5 Table 4: Boulder Highway/Lake Mead Drive UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane... 5 Table 5: Boulder Highway Vehicle Occupancy Summary... 6 Table 6: Vehicle Occupancy Summary by Intersection... 7 Table 7: Boulder Highway Average Vehicle Occupancy by Intersection and Corridor... 8 Table 8: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Day of Week Table 9: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Day of Week Table 10: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Month Table 11: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Month Table 12: Travel Time and Delay Summary Statistics Table 13: Boulder Highway Route 107 Rider Survey Summary Table 14: Survey Question #1 Route Total Table 15: Survey Question #1 Route Northbound Table 16: Survey Question #1 Route Southbound Table 17: Survey Question #5 Route Total Table 18: Survey Question #5 Route Northbound Table 19: Survey Question #5 Route Southbound Table 20: Survey Question #7 Route Total Table 21: Survey Question #7 Route Northbound Table 22: Survey Question #7 Route Southbound Table 23: Survey Question #8 Route Total Table 24: Survey Question #8 Route Northbound Table 25: Survey Question #8 Route Southbound Table 26: Survey Question #9 Route Total Table 27: Survey Question #9 Route Northbound Table 28: Survey Question #9 Route Southbound Table 29: Survey Question #10 Route Total Table 30: Survey Question #10 Route Northbound Table 31: Survey Question #10 Route Southbound Table 32: Survey Question #11 Route Total Table 33: Survey Question #11 Route Northbound Table 34: Survey Question #11 Route Southbound Table 35: Quarter-Mile Land Use Summary Table 36: Half-Mile Land Use Summary List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Rider Survey English Version Exhibit 2: Rider Survey Spanish Version RTC UPWP BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study iii June 2011

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures Figure 1: Geocoded Point (Cross-Street Location) Alignment Figure 2: Geocoded Point (Cross-Street Location) Alignment with TAZ Boundary Figure 3: Survey Question #2 Trip Origins (Proportion of Total Origins by TAZ) Figure 4: Survey Question #2 Trip Origins (Origins per Square Mile) Figure 5: Survey Question #3 Trip Destinations (Proportion of Total Destinations by TAZ) Figure 6: Survey Question #3 Trip Destinations (Destinations per Square Mile) Figure 7: Survey Question #4 Boulder Highway Boardings (Proportion of Total Boardings by TAZ) Figure 8: Survey Question #6 Boulder Highway Alightings (Proportion of Total Alightings by TAZ) Figure 9: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Cyclists Figure 10: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Cyclists (Origins per Square Mile) Figure 11: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Walkers Figure 12: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Walkers (Origins per Square Mile) Figure 13: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #11 Origin of Riders without an Automobile Figure 14: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #11 Origin of Riders without Automobile (Origins per Square Mile) Figure 15: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #4 & #5 Boardings from Transfers Figure 16: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #6 & #7 Transfers after Alighting Figure 17: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #3 Trip Destinations from TAZ with the Highest Trip Origins Figure 18: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #4 & #6 Alighting Locations from TAZ with the Highest Boardings Figure 19: Survey Question #2 Proximity of all Originating Trips to the Corridor Figure 20: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Proximity of all Originating Bicycle Trips to the Corridor Figure 21: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Proximity of all Originating Walking Trips to the Corridor Figure 22: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #11 Proximity of all Originating Trips with no Automobile to the Corridor Figure 23: Boulder Highway Land Use Summary (1/4 Mile East and West of Corridor) Figure 24: Boulder Highway Land Use Summary (1/2 Mile East and West of Corridor) Appendices APPENDIX A RTC Route Map Route 107 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K Route 107 On-Time Performance Data NDOT Vehicle Volume Data UNLV Vehicle Volume Data and Summary Report Passenger Vehicle Occupancy Data Route 107 Ridership Data Vehicle Travel Time and Occupancy Data Rider Survey Summary Data Rider Survey Database for GIS Applications Rider Survey GIS Data Set Land Use Database RTC UPWP BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study iv June 2011

7 1. INTRODUCTION The expansion of the regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system is a key element of the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Recent trends have shown a gradual increase in the demand and usage of transit and other alternative transportation modes. However, recent trends are also showing a decrease in transportation funds. This study is funded through the UPWP program (Task ) and is intended to document and review trends in ridership and corridor operations before and after the implementation of BRT on the Boulder Highway corridor. The results of the study are intended to aid in future transit planning and investment decisions. 1.1 Before Conditions Report The RTC regularly monitors transit boardings, ridership, fare revenues and operational efficiency but it does not regularly maintain data on route-specific transit travel patterns. The Before Conditions Report is intended to document and summarize operating conditions along the Boulder Highway corridor prior to implementation of BRT service. 1.2 Boulder Highway (Fremont Street) Boulder Highway is a primary arterial that provides connectivity between the northern and southern portions of the Las Vegas Valley. The southern portion of Boulder Highway begins at the Nevada State Drive / Wagon Wheel Drive interchange with US 93/US95/I515. Boulder Highway extends in a northwesterly direction to its intersection with Sahara Avenue. At Sahara Avenue Boulder Highway becomes Fremont Street. Fremont Street continues into downtown Las Vegas and terminates at Las Vegas Boulevard. Approximately 16.8 miles of Boulder Highway and Fremont Street between the Nevada State Drive/Wagon Wheel Drive interchange and Eighth Street are maintained by the Nevada Department of Transportation as State Route 582. The remaining portion of Fremont Street (roughly ¼ mile) is owned and maintained by the City of Las Vegas. that extends from downtown Las Vegas to Henderson and offers additional transit options from Eighth Street to Horizon Drive. Construction on the Boulder Highway line began in 2009 and is anticipated to be completed in the fall of The Boulder Highway Rapid Transit system will feature dedicated curbside lanes from downtown Las Vegas to Tropicana Avenue and will continue to Horizon Drive in mixed-flow traffic. The new rapid transit stations will provide a comfortable and attractive place for riders to wait. There will be 23 transit stations that house amenities such as protection from the sun, generous lighting, level platform boarding, ticket vending machines, and displays announcing the next vehicle s arrival. In addition, six simplified transit stops will include a ticket vending machine and a transit route identifier. 1.3 Data Elements The Boulder Highway project was under construction when this study was initiated. The data collected as part of the Before Conditions Report is expected to reflect the influence of lane restrictions and delays associated with the construction activities. The Before Conditions Report includes discussion and summary analysis for the following data sets: Route 107 On-Time Performance Route 107 Ridership Route 107 Rider Survey Vehicle (General Traffic) Volume Data Vehicle (General Traffic) Occupancy Vehicle (General Traffic) Travel Time and Delay Boulder Highway (Fremont Street) Transit At the time the Before study was completed one transit route (Route 107) was operating along Boulder Highway and Fremont Street. The route extended from the Horizon Drive/Boulder Highway intersection in the City of Henderson to the Downtown Transportation Center on Stewart Avenue near Casino Center Boulevard in downtown Las Vegas. The Bonneville Transit Center (BTC) became operational in late 2010, replacing the DTC. A service change was initiated by the RTC during the study period that rerouted Route 107 from the DTC to the BTC. A copy of the then current route map for the Route 107 connection to the DTC is included in Appendix A Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project The Boulder Highway Rapid Transit Project will provide rapid transit service from downtown Las Vegas to Henderson. Boulder Highway bus rapid transit will travel a 15-mile corridor RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 1 June 2011

8 2. TRANSIT ON-TIME PERFORMANCE On-time transit vehicle performance data was provided by the RTC between February 2007 and December 2010 for Route 107. The data was only available as an aggregate of on-time performance for each week of the year and is provided in Appendix B. A number of data sets were unavailable due to specific technical difficulties during the requested time periods. The weekly performance data provided by the RTC was categorized using the 5-minute and 10-minute standards to measure on time performance for the months of August through December for years 2009 and The 5-minute and 10-minute standards are metrics used by the RTC to quantify on-time performance at time points along the route. The 5- minute standard includes any transit arrival that was on-time or up to five minutes late. The 10-minute standard includes any transit arrival that was on-time or up to ten minutes late at a give time-point. 2.1 On-Time Performance by Year Graph 2: Route On-Time Performance by Week 100% 95% % ON TIME 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% WEEK OF YEAR Minutes Minutes Graph 3: Route On-Time Performance by Week 100% A comparison of yearly on-time percentages using the 10- minute standard for the data made available from February 2007 through December 2010 indicates that on average 94.5 percent of the buses arrived on-time for Route 107. The year by year averages vary from a high of 96.5% in 2009 to a low of 92.4% in 2010 and are illustrated in Graph 1. Graph 1: Route 107 On-Time Performance by Year % ON TIME 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% % ON TIME 100% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 91% 90% 96.5% 95.1% 94.2% 92.4% YEAR 70% WEEK OF YEAR minutes Minutes Data for Week 40, which is the first week of October, was missing from both the 2009 and 2010 data sets. Also, the 2009 data represents a more consistent on-time performance than the 2010 data shows. The 2010 data is likely reflecting the impacts of construction activities on Boulder Highway. Table 1 illustrates the average on-time performance based on the weekly data for September through December of 2009 and On-Time Performance by Week The weekly on-time performance data for years 2009 and 2010 was compared using data from the last week of July (Week 30) through the second to last week of December (Week 51) for each year. This data set corresponded to the study data collection phase and also was the only time period that had consistent data for both the 10-minute and 5-minute standards. Graph 2 illustrates the on-time performance based on the 5- minute and 10-minute standards for 2009 data and Graph 3 illustrates the same for the 2010 data. Table 1: Route 107 On-Time Performance August through December Average On-Time Year Performance minute standard 88.5% 78.2% 10-minute standard 96.4% 90.8% This table demonstrates that average on-time performance was better in 2009 than The 5-minute standard on-time performance measure for 2009 was close to equaling the 10- minute standard on-time performance measure for RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 2 June 2011

9 3. VEHICLE VOLUME DATA 3.1 NDOT Volume Data Daily traffic volume data was obtained for ten (10) NDOT count stations along Boulder Highway. This volume data was obtained from NDOT s Traffic Information Access (TRINA) on-line database at The TRINA database generally included seven consecutive days of hourly bidirectional volume data for each NDOT count station. The then most current data available from NDOT was used, but collection dates varied by count station from April 2008 through June 2010 for Boulder Highway. The data collected from NDOT is included in Appendix C. The NDOT volume data was summarized graphically to illustrate general volume trends and peaking characteristics along the corridor. Graphs 4, 5 and 6 illustrate the directional and hourly volume variations during a 24-hour period for a typical weekday (average of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday). The data can be used to identify the AM and PM peak hours for each corridor and to illustrate the variations in individual count station data. Graph 4: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Northbound and Southbound) VOLUME (VEHICLES) TIME (24 HOUR) (N of Horizon) Southbound (N of Horizon) Northbound (S of Major) Southbound (S of Major) Northbound (S of Lake Mead) Southbound (S of Lake mead) Northbound (N of Gibson) Southbound (N of Gibson) Northbound (N of Tropicana) Southbound (N of Tropicana) Northbound (N of Nellis) Southbound (N of Nellis) Northbound (S of IR 515) Southbound (S of IR 515) Northbound (N of US 95) Southbound (N of US 95) Northbound (N of Sahara) Southbound (N of Sahara) Northbound (E of Bruce) Southbound (E of Bruce) Northbound RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 3 June 2011

10 Graph 5: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Southbound) VOLUME (VEHICLES) TIME (24 HOUR) (N of Horizon) Southbound (S of Major) Southbound (S of Lake Mead) Southbound (N of Gibson) Southbound (N of Tropicana) Southbound (N of Nellis) Southbound (S of IR 515) Southbound (N of US 95) Southbound (N of Sahara) Southbound (E of Bruce) Southbound Graph 6: Boulder Highway Directional Distribution of Traffic (Northbound) VOLUME (VEHICLES) TIME (24 HOUR) (N of Horizon) Northbound (S of Major) Northbound (S of Lake mead) Northbound (N of Gibson) Northbound (N of Tropicana) Northbound (N of Nellis) Northbound (S of IR 515) Northbound (N of US 95) Northbound (N of Sahara) Northbound (E of Bruce) Northbound RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 4 June 2011

11 3.2 UNLV Vehicle Volume Data As part of the Before study, the RTC coordinated with the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) to collect vehicle volume data by travel lane at a select number of intersections along the Boulder Highway corridor using video feeds from the Freeway and Arterial System of Traffic (FAST). A detailed report by UNLV summarizing their data collection and analysis methods is provided in Appendix D. Data was collected in May and June 2011 at three locations along the Boulder Highway corridor: Boulder Highway / Russell Road Boulder Highway / Missouri Avenue Boulder Highway / Lake Mead Drive The data is summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4 by location, direction of travel and time of day. Table 2: Boulder Highway/Russell Road UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane Table 3: Boulder Highway/Missouri Avenue UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane Table 4: Boulder Highway/Lake Mead Drive UNLV Vehicle Volume Data by Lane RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 5 June 2011

12 4. VEHICLE OCCUPANCY Vehicle Occupancy data was obtained from manual observations conducted between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 and Thursday, December 9, 2010 at the intersections of Boulder Highway with Lake Mead Parkway, Tropicana Avenue and Sahara Avenue. 4.1 Data Collection Methodology Occupancy data was collected by observing stopped vehicles at each of the three study intersections. The observer would wait on the sidewalk in the vicinity of the stop bar for the traffic signal indication to turn red. Once the signal turned red the observer would walk upstream along Boulder Highway from the stop bar recording the number of occupants per vehicle for each vehicle queued in a through travel lane. Data was collected until the signal indication turned green and the queue began to move. The observer would then return to the stop and wait for the signal to turn red and start the observation process again. The data collection form used for this study, along with the raw data, is provided in Appendix E. Data was not collected for vehicles in left or right turn lanes. 4.2 Data Summary Vehicle occupancy was recorded by through travel lane (inside, middle, and outside) as well as by direction. A total of 3,810 occupancy observations were made with 1,171 at Lake Mead Parkway, 1,398 at Tropicana Avenue and 1,241 at Sahara Avenue. Table 5 provides an overall summary of all data collected by lane and direction of travel. Seventy five percent of vehicles observed had only one occupant. Ninety eight percent of vehicles had an occupancy of two or less. Table 6 provides a summary of each intersection by lane and direction of travel. Table 7 summarizes illustrates the average vehicle occupancies for each intersection and the overall Boulder Highway corridor. Of the 3,810 vehicles observed along Boulder Highway, the average vehicle occupancy was 1.27 people per vehicle. The data indicates with 95 percent confidence that the interval between 1.25 and 1.29 people contains the true population average vehicle occupancy along the study segment of Boulder Highway. It appears that the outside lane may have a higher vehicle occupancy than the inside lane for the total of Boulder Highway; however these values aren t statistically significant since the upper limit for the inside lane (1.28) matches the lower limit of the inside lane (1.28). The construction occurring at Tropicana Avenue and Sahara Avenue limited the roadway to two through lanes in each direction and likely influenced lane choice. One difference that is statistically significant is that there is higher average vehicle occupancy along Boulder Highway at Lake Mead Parkway (1.28 to 1.34) as compared with Boulder Highway at Sahara Avenue (1.20 to 1.23) The vehicle occupancy data also provides a sampling of volume data by travel lane. Graphs were prepared to represent the proportion of vehicles using each lane. The overall totals from all three locations are shown in Graph 7. Graph 8 represents the percentage of vehicles in each lane at Lake Mead Parkway, Graph 9 represents the percentage of vehicles in each lane at Tropicana Avenue and Graph 10 represents the percentage of vehicles in each lane at Sahara Avenue. The data in these tables and graphs are influenced by construction and lane closures associated with the Boulder Highway Rapid Transit project. Due to the inside lane closure at Tropicana Avenue and outside lane closure at Sahara Avenue, the middle lane contains up to 71 percent of the overall traffic. Table 5: Boulder Highway Vehicle Occupancy Summary Lane Position* Direction Occupants Per Vehicle Total Observations NB Inside SB TOTAL NB Middle SB TOTAL 1, ,901 NB Outside SB TOTAL ,067 Total Corridor 2, , % 23.1% 1.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% * Construction limited Boulder Highway to two lanes at Tropicana Avenue with the inside lane closed and Sahara Avenue with the outside lane closed. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 6 June 2011

13 Table 6: Vehicle Occupancy Summary by Intersection Lane Position Direction Occupants Per Vehicle Total Observations Boulder Highway at Lake Mead Parkway NB Inside SB TOTAL NB Middle SB TOTAL NB Outside SB TOTAL Total Segment , % 26.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Boulder Highway at Tropicana Avenue NB Inside* SB TOTAL NB Middle SB TOTAL NB Outside SB TOTAL Total Segment 1, , % 22.8% 1.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0% Boulder Highway at Sahara Avenue NB Inside SB TOTAL NB Middle SB TOTAL NB Outside** SB TOTAL Total Segment , % 20.4% 1.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% * Construction limited Boulder Highway at Tropicana Avenue to two lanes with the inside lane closed. ** Construction limited Boulder Highway at Sahara Avenue to two lanes with the outside lane closed. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 7 June 2011

14 Table 7: Boulder Highway Average Vehicle Occupancy by Intersection and Corridor Lane Position Direction Average Occupancy Margin of Error (±) 95% Confidence Interval Boulder Highway at Lake Mead Parkway Northbound to 1.35 Inside Southbound to 1.35 Total both Directions to 1.33 Northbound to 1.38 Middle Southbound to 1.37 Total both Directions to 1.35 Northbound to 1.49 Outside Southbound to 1.30 Total both Directions to 1.40 Total Segment to 1.34 Boulder Highway at Tropicana Avenue Northbound to 1.28 Middle * Southbound to 1.26 Total both Directions to 1.25 Northbound to 1.39 Outside * Southbound to 1.33 Total both Directions to 1.34 Total Segment to 1.29 Boulder Highway at Sahara Avenue Northbound to 1.26 Inside ** Southbound to 1.28 Total both Directions to 1.26 Northbound to 1.30 Middle ** Southbound to 1.26 Total both Directions to 1.27 Total Segment to 1.23 Boulder Highway Total Northbound to 1.29 Inside Southbound to 1.29 Total both Directions to 1.28 Northbound to 1.29 Middle Southbound to 1.27 Total both Directions to 1.27 Northbound to 1.41 Outside Southbound to 1.31 Total both Directions to 1.34 Total Corridor to 1.29 * Construction limited Boulder Highway at Tropicana Avenue to two lanes with the inside lane closed. ** Construction limited Boulder Highway at Sahara Avenue to two lanes with the outside lane closed. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 8 June 2011

15 Graph 7: Boulder Highway (Total) Percentage of Vehicles per Lane NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 29% 18% 27% 26% 53% IN MID OUT 47% IN MID OUT Graph 8: Boulder Highway/Lake Mead Boulevard Percentage of Vehicles per Lane NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 27% 24% 34% 40% 39% 35% IN MID OUT IN MID OUT Graph 9: Boulder Highway/Tropicana Avenue Percentage of Vehicles per Lane NORTHBOUND 0% SOUTHBOUND 0% 48% 52% 55% 45% IN MID OUT IN MID OUT RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 9 June 2011

16 Graph 10: Boulder Highway/Sahara Avenue Percentage of Vehicles per Lane NORTHBOUND 0% SOUTHBOUND 0% 29% 42% 58% 71% IN MID OUT IN MID OUT RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 10 June 2011

17 5. RIDERSHIP VOLUME Ridership volume data for Route 107 was provided by the RTC for the five months of August through December for years 2009 and The ridership volume data is aggregated in hourly increments for each day within this five month time period. The ridership volume data provided by the RTC is included in Appendix F. The total number of riders from August through December on Route 107 was 1,049,484 in 2009 and 903,662 in These ridership volumes reflect an approximate 14 percent reduction in the overall ridership volume between years 2009 and The 2009 and 2010 average daily ridership by day of week and by month is shown in Tables 8 through 11. Table 8: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Day of Week Day of Week Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5 Month Daily Avg Daily Avg / Week Range of Riders Standard Deviation Sunday 5,671 5,463 5,620 5,226 4,994 5,395 11% Monday 6,703 6,673 6,304 6,970 6,447 6,620 14% Tuesday 7,524 7,433 7,019 7,420 6,872 7,254 15% Wednesday 6,318 7,599 7,510 7,475 6,934 7,167 15% 1, Thursday 7,238 6,859 7,199 6,374 6,572 6,848 14% Friday 8,104 9,260 7,953 7,328 6,932 7,915 16% 2, Saturday 6,229 7,300 7,690 6,707 6,188 6,823 14% 1, Table 9: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Day of Week Day of Week Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5 Month Daily Avg Daily Avg / Week Range of Riders Standard Deviation Sunday 4,580 4,907 4,452 4,190 4,657 4,557 11% Monday 5,975 5,673 6,383 6,458 5,351 5,968 14% 1, Tuesday 6,249 6,191 6,382 6,308 6,014 6,229 15% Wednesday 6,001 7,015 6,159 6,482 5,818 6,295 15% 1, Thursday 6,900 6,453 6,513 5,323 5,984 6,234 15% 1, Friday 6,915 7,127 7,513 6,204 6,013 6,754 16% 1, Saturday 5,494 5,819 5,917 4,740 4,075 5,209 13% 1, Table 10: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Month Month Average Daily Ridership Standard Deviation Minimum Daily Ridership Volume Maximum Daily Ridership Volume Range of Riders August ,766 1, ,876 9,362 4,486 September ,246 1, ,599 10,054 5,455 October ,097 1, ,793 8,885 5,092 November ,740 1, ,532 8,665 4,133 December ,456 1, ,861 8,282 4,421 5 Month Average 6,859 1, ,793 10,054 6,261 Table 11: Route Average Daily Ridership Summary by Month Month Average Daily Ridership Standard Deviation Minimum Daily Ridership Volume Maximum Daily Ridership Volume Range of Riders August , ,097 7,368 3,271 September , ,526 7,785 3,259 October ,166 1, ,528 8,197 4,669 November ,720 1, ,834 7,638 4,804 December ,467 1, ,674 7,114 4,440 5 Month Average 5,906 1, ,674 8,197 5,523 RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 11 June 2011

18 The highest daily ridership volume of the ten month data set was 10,054 riders and occurred on Friday, September 4, 2009, which was the Friday before the Labor Day holiday weekend. The highest daily ridership volume in the 2010 data set was 8,197 riders and occurred on Friday, October 15, The lowest daily ridership volume for the ten month data set was 2,674 riders and occurred on Monday, December 13, The lowest daily ridership volume in the 2009 data set was 3,793 riders and occurred on Monday, October 5, The average daily ridership per month is illustrated in Graph 11 for both 2009 and September was the month with the highest daily average ridership during both 2009 and December saw the lowest daily average ridership in both 2009 and September 2009 had the highest average daily ridership of 7,246 riders. December 2010 had the lowest average daily ridership of 5,467 riders. Average daily ridership by day of week is summarized in Graph 12 and shows the percentage of the average daily ridership volume that occurs on each day of the week during the fivemonth study period in both 2009 and The highest average daily ridership occurs on Fridays (16 percent of the overall volume), with the lowest volume occurring on Sundays (11 percent). The weekday percentages are fairly consistent and account for approximately three-fourths (75 percent in 2009 and 76 percent in 2010) of the overall weekly ridership. The weekday with the lowest average daily ridership in both 2009 and 210 was found to be Monday (14 percent). Graph 11: Route Average Daily Ridership by Month AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP VOLUME 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 August September October November December MONTH Graph 12: Route 107 Average Daily Ridership by Day of Week % 11% 13% 11% 16% 14% 16% 14% 15% 15% 14% 15% 15% Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 15% Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 12 June 2011

19 Graph 13 illustrates the average daily ridership by day of week for each month within the five-month study period for years 2009 and This graph illustrates the highest average daily ridership by day of the week within each month. The day of the week with the highest average daily ridership volume is Friday. Of specific note is the average daily ridership for the Fridays in September of This daily average is most affected by the ridership volume recorded on the Friday before Labor Day, which saw a significant increase in ridership volume over a typical Friday. Graph 13: Route 107 Average Daily Ridership Volume by Day of Week AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP VOLUME Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP VOLUME Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday DAY OF THE WEEK DAY OF THE WEEK Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5 Mo. A Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5 Mo. A Hourly ridership volumes for each day in the five-month data set for years 2009 and 2010 were used to determine the average hourly ridership distribution per day. The results are illustrated in Graph 14. The lowest ridership volume occurs at 2 am in 2009 and 2010, while the highest ridership volume occurs at 4 pm in 2009 and 3 pm in The volume for the twelve-hour period between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm represents roughly 69 percent of the average daily ridership volume in both 2009 and The volume for the six-hour period between 9:00 am and 3:00 pm represents roughly 35 percent of the average daily ridership volume in both 2009 and Graph 14: Route Average Hourly Ridership Volume by Time of Day AVERAGE HOURLY RIDERSHIP VOLUME TIME OF DAY (24 HOUR) RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 13 June 2011

20 6. TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY STUDY A travel time and delay study was performed by the Regional Transportation Commission on a portion of the Boulder Highway corridor between Lake Mead Parkway and Charleston Boulevard to quantity the operating characteristics of the corridor prior to implementation of the BRT system. 6.1 Data Collection and Processing Data was collected by the RTC using an automated process. The automated data collection process utilized a GPS enabled laptop computer with Jamar Technologies PC-Travel software. Prior to starting a travel time and delay run, the test vehicle was positioned downstream of the first intersection along the specified route. Each run started when the test vehicle traversed a common, identifiable point at the first intersection (typically the stop bar) and the technician initiated the PC-Travel software to record the initial intersection location and start the data collection process. The driver of the test vehicle maintained the speed of the platoon along the route and nodes were recorded using the PC-Travel software at the stop bar of all major intersections along the route. Each run was terminated after the final intersection node was recorded. Jamar Technologies PC-Travel software was used to process the data collected during the travel time and delay runs. The runs were separated according to the direction of travel and time of day. Once the data was separated, it was reviewed to make sure that each corresponding run had the same number or nodes, and the distance between nodes was consistent. Once the nodes for each run were verified, the data was processed for both directions of travel. The processed data can be summarized by the PC-Travel software in a series of reports detailing the findings. A number of reports are provided in Appendix G for the corridor that includes the following information: Study summary Overall output statistics Detailed statistics by run (Travel Time, Stops and Average Speed) The PC-Travel software defines the key summary statistics as follows: Number of Stops - A stop is defined as a one-second interval where the speed is less than 5 MPH for one second when the speed was greater than 5 MPH in the previous second 6.2 Summary Data This section of the report summarizes the study findings during the Before Conditions portion of the project. It is important to note that the Boulder Highway travel time and delay data was collected during active construction of the Boulder Highway BRT project. It is likely that travel time, speed and delay were impacted by lane closures, restrictions and general construction related activities. Seven runs were collected between October 26, 2010 and December 1, 2010 for both the southbound and northbound directions of travel in the AM peak hours. Seven runs and eight runs were collected between October 27, 2010 and December 1, 2010 for the southbound and northbound directions of travel, respectively, in the PM peak hours. The average AM travel time in the northbound direction was 1,320.3 seconds (22.0 minutes) with an average speed of 30.4 mph. The average AM travel time in the southbound direction was 1,274.9 seconds (21.2 minutes) with an average speed of 31.5 mph. The average PM travel time in the northbound direction was 1,531.4 seconds (25.5 minutes) with an average speed of 26.2 mph. The average PM travel time in the southbound direction was 1,529.1 seconds (25.5 minutes) with an average speed of 26.3 mph. Table 12 presents the summary statistics for the Boulder Highway corridor. Detailed reports are included in Appendix G. Table 12: Travel Time and Delay Summary Statistics Statistic AM PM NB SB NB SB No. of Nodes No. of Runs Travel Time (sec) 1, , , ,529.1 No. of Stops Avg Speed (mph) Total Delay (sec) Time <= 25 mph (sec) Time <= 35 mph (sec) Time <= 45 mph (sec) , ,194.6 Stops based on a stop speed of 5 MPH Total delay based on a normal speed of 45 MPH Run - A single collection of travel time data Node - The boundary between two segments of a run Travel Time - The elapsed time to travel between two points, in seconds Normal Speed - Ideal speed at which the traffic should travel on an arterial (assumed posted speed) Average Speed - The total distance covered divided by the elapsed time Total Delay - Difference between actual travel time and ideal travel time RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 14 June 2011

21 7. RIDER SURVEY A transit rider survey was developed through a cooperative effort with RTC planning and transit operations staff. The survey was designed to obtain information on trip purpose, starting and ending locations and other general rider characteristics. The survey was administered by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in November and December of 2010 on Route 107. The survey responses were entered into a spreadsheet that was used to develop summary statistics. The spreadsheet was also imported into a geocoded database for analysis of location based trends in ridership. The geocoded database and GIS applications are discussed in Section 9. A copy of the summary spreadsheet is provided in Appendix H. 7.1 Survey Questions The rider survey included 11 questions and also allowed the respondent the opportunity to provide general comments regarding the transit service along the route. The survey was prepared and administered in both English and Spanish. Examples of the survey instruments are provided as Exhibit 1 and 2. The 11 questions included on the survey are: 1. What are the starting point and final destination of THIS trip today? 2. Where did you start your trip today (provide the nearest cross streets from the starting point you identified in Question #1)? 3. Where are you going to (provide the nearest cross streets to the final destination you identified in Question #1)? 4. Where did you get ON this bus (Nearest cross street)? 5. How did you get to the bus stop for this bus today? 6. Where will you get OFF this bus (Nearest cross street)? 7. When you get off this bus will it be to transfer to a different bus or will you be at your final destination? percent confidence level, for the survey questions that yield percentages, at a margin of error of ±3 percent. To ensure maximum participation by transit riders the then current schedule for Route 107 was reviewed and a survey administration schedule was developed that covered all time points along the scheduled route at least once between the hours of 6 AM and 6 PM on either a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Covering all time periods provided the opportunity to capture the largest sampling of unique riders and was necessary to achieve the desired sample size. The survey was administered by one survey staffer per bus. The staffer would provide a clipboard, survey and pen to willing participants and be available to answer questions and collect the completed survey. Riders who had previously completed the survey were not asked to participate more than once. The staffers administering the survey were fluent in English and conversational Spanish and could assist participants in either language. 7.3 Sample Size A total of 1,174 surveys were collected on Boulder Highway Route 107. A breakdown of the number of completed surveys by route and direction of travel is provided in Table 13. Table 13: Boulder Highway Route 107 Rider Survey Summary Route Direction of Travel Total Surveys Completed Surveys Partially Completed Surveys 107 NB SB Total 1, A large portion of respondents did not provide an answer, or provided a partial answer, on one or more questions. These surveys were categorized as partially complete. In some cases, not providing an answer to one question impacted the ability to cross-tabulate responses in the geocoded database. However, the statistical analysis summarized in Section 8 is based on the total number of completed responses by question. 8. Where did you purchase your fare? 9. How often do you ride the bus (one-way trips)? 10. Why did you choose to ride the bus today? 11. Do you own an automobile? 7.2 Sampling Methodology It was the RTC s desire to obtain a representative sampling of transit riders on route 107. Budgetary and time constraints limited the sample size to roughly 1,100 rider surveys which allows for the development of confidence intervals, at the 95 RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 15 June 2011

22 Exhibit 1: Rider Survey English Version RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 16 June 2011

23 Exhibit 2: Rider Survey Spanish Version RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 17 June 2011

24 8. SURVEY STATISTICS A statistical analysis was completed for all questions that did not require the respondent to enter a specific intersection location. The statistical analysis includes Questions 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The responses to Questions 2, 3, 4 and 6, and their cross-tabulation with Questions 5 and 11 are discussed in Section Survey Question #1 Question number 1 asked riders What are the starting point and final destination of THIS trip today? The results of question number 1 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. Survey Question #1: What are the starting point and final destination of THIS trip today? Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 1 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 14 and Graph 15. Of the 1,117 riders surveyed, the starting location for 662 riders came from their home (59%), 134 riders came from work (12%), 25 riders came from some medical facility (2%), 115 riders came from an errand or shopping center (10%), 58 riders came from school (5%), 41 riders has just visited a friend or relative (4%) and 82 riders came from a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (7%). Of these same riders that were surveyed, the final destination for 336 riders was home (30%), 282 riders was work (25%), 52 riders was some medical facility (5%), 139 riders was an errand or shopping center (12%), 80 riders was school (7%), 87 riders was visiting a friend or relative (8%) and 141 riders were headed to a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (13%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 1, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all Route 107 riders. Table 14: Survey Question #1 Route Total Starting Point Final Destination Location # of Riders % of Riders Location # of Riders % of Riders Home (1) % Home (8) % Work (2) % Work (9) % Medical (3) 25 2% Medical (10) 52 5% Shopping/Errand (4) % Shopping/Errand (11) % School (5) 58 5% School (12) 80 7% Visiting Friend or Relative (6) 41 4% Visiting Friend or Relative (13) 87 8% Sports/Recreational/Other (7) 82 7% Sports/Recreational/Other (14) % Total 1, % Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Margin of Error 2.9% RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 18 June 2011

25 Graph 15: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Total STARTING POINT FINAL DESTINATION 8% 13% 4% 5% Results are ± 2.9% 8% 30% 10% 2% 12% 59% 7% 12% 5% 25% Home (1) Work (2) Medical (3) Shopping/Errand (4) School (5) Visiting Friend or Relative (6) Sports/Recreational/Other (7) Home (8) Work (9) Medical (10) Shopping/Errand (11) School (12) Visiting Friend or Relative (13) Sports/Recreational/Other (14) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound The survey results for question 1 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 15 and Graph 16. Of the 571 riders surveyed, the starting location for 347 riders came from their home (61%), 53 riders came from work (9%), 11 riders came from some medical facility (2%), 55 riders came from an errand or shopping center (10%), 42 riders came from school (7%), 26 riders has just visited a friend or relative (5%) and 37 riders came from a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (6%). Of these same riders that were surveyed, the final destination for 170 riders was home (30%), 165 riders was work (29%), 30 riders was some medical facility (5%), 68 riders was an errand or shopping center (12%), 29 riders was school (5%), 32 riders was visiting a friend or relative (6%) and 77 riders were headed to a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (13%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for northbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of the northbound Route 107 riders. Table 15: Survey Question #1 Route Northbound Starting Point Final Destination Location # of Riders % of Riders Location # of Riders % of Riders Home (1) % Home (8) % Work (2) 53 9% Work (9) % Medical (3) 11 2% Medical (10) 30 5% Shopping/Errand (4) 55 10% Shopping/Errand (11) 68 12% School (5) 42 7% School (12) 29 5% Visiting Friend or Relative (6) 26 5% Visiting Friend or Relative (13) 32 6% Sports/Recreational/Other (7) 37 6% Sports/Recreational/Other (14) 77 13% Total % Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Margin of Error 4.1% RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 19 June 2011

26 Graph 16: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Northbound STARTING POINT FINAL DESTINATION 6% 13% 5% 7% Results are ± 4.1% 6% 30% 10% 5% 2% 61% 12% 9% Home (1) Work (2) Medical (3) Shopping/Errand (4) School (5) Visiting Friend or Relative (6) Sports/Recreational/Other (7) 5% 29% Home (8) Work (9) Medical (10) Shopping/Errand (11) School (12) Visiting Friend or Relative (13) Sports/Recreational/Other (14) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 1 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 16 and Graph 17. Of the 546 riders surveyed, the starting location for 315 riders came from their home (58%), 81 riders came from work (15%), 14 riders came from some medical facility (3%), 60 riders came from an errand or shopping center (11%), 16 riders came from school (3%), 15 riders has just visited a friend or relative (3%) and 45 riders came from a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (8%). Of these same riders that were surveyed, the final destination for 166 riders was home (30%), 117 riders was work (21%), 22 riders was some medical facility (4%), 71 riders was an errand or shopping center (13%), 51 riders was school (9%), 55 riders was visiting a friend or relative (10%) and 64 riders were headed to a sport/recreation event/facility or some other location not provided as an option (12%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.2 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of the southbound Route 107 riders. Table 16: Survey Question #1 Route Southbound Starting Point Final Destination Location # of Riders % of Riders Location # of Riders % of Riders Home (1) % Home (8) % Work (2) 81 15% Work (9) % Medical (3) 14 3% Medical (10) 22 4% Shopping/Errand (4) 60 11% Shopping/Errand (11) 71 13% School (5) 16 3% School (12) 51 9% Visiting Friend or Relative (6) 15 3% Visiting Friend or Relative (13) 55 10% Sports/Recreational/Other (7) 45 8% Sports/Recreational/Other (14) 64 12% Total % Total % Margin of Error 4.2% Margin of Error 4.2% RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 20 June 2011

27 11% Graph 17: Survey Question #1 Route 107 Northbound STARTING POINT FINAL DESTINATION 3% 3% 8% 12% Results are ± 4.2% 10% 30% 2% 58% 9% 15% Home (1) Work (2) Medical (3) Shopping/Errand (4) School (5) Visiting Friend or Relative (6) Sports/Recreational/Other (7) 13% 22% 4% Home (8) Work (9) Medical (10) Shopping/Errand (11) School (12) Visiting Friend or Relative (13) Sports/Recreational/Other (14) RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 21 June 2011

28 8.2 Survey Question #5 Question number 5 asked riders How did you get to the bus stop for this bus today? The results of question number 5 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. Survey Question #5: How did you get to the bus stop for this bus today? Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 5 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 17 and Graph 18. Of the 1,172 riders surveyed, 211 riders transferred from another route (18%), 39 riders rode a bicycle (3%), 880 riders walked (75%) and 42 riders got a ride (4%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 5, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all Route 107 riders. The most common route that riders transferred from is Route 202. The average and median time that it took for riders to reach the bus stop traveling on a bicycle was 10.4 minutes (Confidence Interval ±2.4 minutes) and 10.0 minutes, respectively. The average walking time was 8.8 minutes (Confidence Interval ±0.5 minutes) and the median walking time was 6.0 minutes. Table 17: Survey Question #5 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Transferred From Other Route (1) % Bicycle (2) 39 3% Walked (3) % Got a Ride (4) 42 4% Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound The survey results for question 5 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 18 and Graph 19. Of the 600 riders surveyed, 75 riders transferred from another route (13%), 20 riders rode a bicycle (3%), 484 riders walked (81%) and 21 riders got a ride (4%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for northbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all northbound Route 107 riders. The most common route that riders transferred from is Route 202. The average and median time that it took for riders to reach the bus stop traveling on a bicycle was 10.4 minutes (Confidence Interval ±3.7 minutes) and 10.0 minutes, respectively. The average walking time was 9.1 minutes (Confidence Interval ±0.7 minutes) and median was 7.0 minutes. Table 18: Survey Question #5 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transferred From Other Route (1) 75 13% Bicycle (2) 20 3% Walked (3) % Got a Ride (4) 21 4% Total % Margin of Error 4.0% Graph 19: Survey Question #5 Route Northbound PASSENGER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO BUS STOP 4% 12% 3% Graph 18: Survey Question #5 Route Total PASSENGER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO BUS STOP 4% 18% 3% 81% Transferred From Other Route (1) Bicycle (2) Walked (3) Got a Ride (4) Results are ± 4.0% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound 75% Transferred From Other Route (1) Bicycle (2) Walked (3) Got a Ride (4) Results are ± 2.9% The survey results for question 5 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 19 and Graph 20. Of the 572 riders surveyed, 136 riders transferred from another route (24%), 19 riders rode a bicycle (3%), 396 riders walked (69%) and 21 riders got a ride (4%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all southbound Route 107 riders. The most common route that RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 22 June 2011

29 riders transferred from is Route 204. The average and median time that it took for riders to reach the bus stop traveling on a bicycle was 11.1 minutes (Confidence Interval ±3.2 minutes) and 10.0 minutes, respectively. The average walking time was 8.4 minutes (Confidence Interval ±0.7 minutes) and the median was 5.0 minutes. Table 19: Survey Question #5 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transferred From Other Route (1) % Bicycle (2) 19 3% Walked (3) % Got a Ride (4) 21 4% Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Graph 20: Survey Question #5 Route Southbound PASSENGER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO BUS STOP percentages, based on the number of survey responses to question 7, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all Route 107 riders. The most common route riders transferred to was Route 202. Table 20: Survey Question #7 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Transfer (1) % At Final Destination (2) % Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Graph 21: Survey Question #7 Route Total TRANSFER OR FINAL DESTINATION 34% 4% 24% 66% 3% Results are ± 2.9% Transfer (1) At Final Destination (2) 69% Results are ± 4.1% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound Transferred From Other Route (1) Bicycle (2) Walked (3) Got a Ride (4) 8.3 Survey Question #7 Question number 7 asked riders When you get off this bus will it be to transfer to a different bus or will you be at your final destination? The results of question 7 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. Survey Question #7: When you get off this bus will it be to transfer to a different bus or will you be at your final destination? The survey results for question 7 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 21 and Graph 22. Of the 598 riders surveyed, 259 riders transferred to a different route (43%) and 339 riders reached their final destination (57%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for northbound travel represent a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all northbound Route 107 riders. The most common route riders transferred to was Route 202. Table 21: Survey Question #7 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transfer (1) % At Final Destination (2) % Total % Margin of Error 4.0% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 7 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 20 and Graph 21. Of the 1,168 riders surveyed, 398 riders transferred to a different route (34%) and 770 riders reached their final destination (66%). These RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 23 June 2011

30 Graph 22: Survey Question #7 Route Northbound TRANSFER OR FINAL DESTINATION Survey Question #8: Where did you purchase your fare? 57% 43% Transfer (1) At Final Destination (2) Results are ± 4.0% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 7 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 22 and Graph 23. Of the 570 riders surveyed, 139 riders transferred to a different route (24%) and 431 riders reached their final destination (76%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all southbound Route 107 riders. The most common route riders transferred to was Route 201. Table 22: Survey Question #7 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transfer (1) % At Final Destination (2) % Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Graph 23: Survey Question #7 Route Southbound TRANSFER OR FINAL DESTINATION Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 8 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 23 and Graph 24. Of the 1,170 riders surveyed, 93 riders purchase their fare at the transit center/parkn-ride (8%), 273 riders at the grocery store (23%), 33 riders at the ticket vending machine (3%), 596 riders on the bus (51%) and 175 riders purchased their fare at another location (15%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 8, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses to the entire population of all Route 107 riders. Table 23: Survey Question #8 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Transit Center/Park-n-Ride (1) 93 8% Grocery Store (2) % Ticket Vending Machine (3) 33 3% On the Bus (4) % Other (5) % Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Graph 24: Survey Question #8 Route Total LOCATION OF FARE PURCHASE 15% 8% 23% 24% 3% 51% Results are ± 2.9% 76% Results are ± 4.1% Transit Center/Park n Ride (1) Grocery Store (2) Ticket Vending Machine (3) On the Bus (4) Other (5) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound 8.4 Survey Question #8 Transfer (1) At Final Destination (2) Question number 8 asked riders Where did you purchase your fare? The results of question 8 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. The survey results for question 8 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 24 and Graph 25. Of the 601 riders surveyed, 49 riders purchase their fare at the transit center/park-n-ride (8%), 123 riders at the grocery store (20%), 18 riders at the ticket vending machine (3%), 308 riders on the bus (51%) and 103 riders purchased their fare at another location (17%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for all northbound travel, represent RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 24 June 2011

31 a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all northbound Route 107 riders. Table 24: Survey Question #8 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transit Center/Park-n-Ride (1) 49 8% Grocery Store (2) % Ticket Vending Machine (3) 18 3% On the Bus (4) % Other (5) % Total % Margin of Error 4.0% Graph 26: Survey Question #8 Route Southbound LOCATION OF FARE PURCHASE 13% 8% 26% Graph 25: Survey Question #8 Route Northbound LOCATION OF FARE PURCHASE 50% 3% Results are ± 4.1% 17% 8% 21% Transit Center/Park n Ride (1) Grocery Store (2) Ticket Vending Machine (3) On the Bus (4) Other (5) 51% 3% Results are ± 4.0% 8.5 Survey Question #9 Question number 9 asked riders How often do you ride the bus (one-way trips)? The results of question 9 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. Transit Center/Park n Ride (1) Grocery Store (2) Ticket Vending Machine (3) On the Bus (4) Other (5) Survey Question #9: How often do you ride the bus (one-way trips)? Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 8 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 25 and Graph 26. Of the 569 riders surveyed, 44 riders purchase their fare at the transit center/park-n-ride (8%), 150 riders at the grocery store (26%), 15 riders at the ticket vending machine (3%), 288 riders on the bus (51%) and 72 riders purchased their fare at another location (13%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all southbound Route 107 riders. Table 25: Survey Question #8 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Transit Center/Park-n-Ride (1) 44 8% Grocery Store (2) % Ticket Vending Machine (3) 15 3% On the Bus (4) % Other (5) 72 13% Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 9 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 26 and Graph 27. Of the 1,173 riders surveyed, 64 riders ride the bus less than once a week (5%), 109 riders ride the bus 1-2 times per week (9%), 189 riders ride the bus 3-4 times per week (16%), 216 riders ride the bus 5-6 times per week (18%), 159 riders ride the bus 7-8 times per week (14%), 147 riders ride the bus 9-10 times per week (13%), 284 riders ride the bus 11 or more times per week (24%) and 5 riders were first time riders (0%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 9, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all Route 107 riders. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 25 June 2011

32 Table 26: Survey Question #9 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Less Than Once Per Week (1) 64 5% 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 109 9% 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) % 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) % 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) % 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) % 11 or More Times Per Week (7) % First Time Rider (8) 5 0% Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Table 27: Survey Question #9 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Less Than Once Per Week (1) 30 5% 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 61 10% 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) 99 16% 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) % 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) 68 11% 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) 72 12% 11 or More Times Per Week (7) % First Time Rider (8) 4 1% Total % Margin of Error 4.0% Graph 27: Survey Question #9 Route Total FREQUENCY OF BUS TRIPS (ONE WAY TRIPS) 0% 6% 9% 24% Graph 28: Survey Question #9 Route Northbound FREQUENCY OF BUS TRIPS (ONE WAY TRIPS) 1% 5% 10% 24% 16% 17% 13% 12% 14% 18% Results are ± 2.9% Less Than Once Per Week (1) 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) 11 or More Times Per Week (7) First Time Rider (8) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound The survey results for question 9 for riders on Route traveling northbound are shown in Table 27 and Graph 28. Of the 601 riders surveyed, 30 riders ride the bus less than once a week (5%), 61 riders ride the bus 1-2 times per week (10%), 99 riders ride the bus 3-4 times per week (16%), 123 riders ride the bus 5-6 times per week (20%), 68 riders ride the bus 7-8 times per week (11%), 72 riders ride the bus 9-10 times per week (12%), 144 riders ride the bus 11 or more times per week (24%) and 4 riders were first time riders (1%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for all northbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all northbound Route 107 riders. 11% 20% Results are ± 4.0% Less Than Once Per Week (1) 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) 11 or More Times Per Week (7) First Time Rider (8) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 9 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 28 and Graph 29. Of the 572 riders surveyed, 34 riders ride the bus less than once a week (6%), 48 riders ride the bus 1-2 times per week (8%), 90 riders ride the bus 3-4 times per week (16%), 93 riders ride the bus 5-6 times per week (16%), 91 riders ride the bus 7-8 times per week (16%), 75 riders ride the bus 9-10 times per week (13%), 140 riders ride the bus 11 or more times per week (24%) and 1 riders were first time riders (0%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all southbound Route 107 riders. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 26 June 2011

33 Table 28: Survey Question #9 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Less Than Once Per Week (1) 34 6% 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 48 8% 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) 90 16% 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) 93 16% 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) 91 16% 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) 75 13% 11 or More Times Per Week (7) % First Time Rider (8) 1 0% Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Graph 29: Survey Question #9 Route Southbound FREQUENCY OF BUS TRIPS (ONE WAY TRIPS) 0% 6% 8% 25% Table 29: Survey Question #10 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Only Transportation Option (1) % Less Expensive (2) 38 3% Prefer Not to Drive (3) 29 2% More Convenient (4) 47 4% Saves Time (5) 9 1% Other (6) 71 6% Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% Graph 30: Survey Question #10 Route Total REASON FOR RIDING BUS 6% 4%1% 3% 3% 16% 13% 16% 8.6 Survey Question #10 Question number 10 asked riders Why did you choose to ride the bus today? The results of question 10 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total 16% Results are ± 4.1% Less Than Once Per Week (1) 1 or 2 Times Per Week (2) 3 or 4 Times Per Week (3) 5 or 6 Times Per Week (4) 7 or 8 Times Per Week (5) 9 or 10 Times Per Week (6) 11 or More Times Per Week (7) First Time Rider (8) Survey Question #10: Why did you choose to ride the bus today? The survey results for question 10 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 29 and Graph 30. Of the 1,169 riders surveyed, the bus is the only transportation option for 975 riders (83%), the bus is less expensive for 38 riders (3%), 29 riders prefer not to drive (2%), the bus is more convenient for 47 riders (4%), the bus saves time for 9 riders (1%) and 71 riders rode the bus for a reason other than those listed (6%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 10, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all Route 107 riders. Results are ± 2.9% 83% Only Transportation Option (1) Less Expensive (2) Prefer Not to Drive (3) More Convenient (4) Saves Time (5) Other (6) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound The survey results for question 10 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 30 and Graph 31. Of the 598 riders surveyed, the bus is the only transportation option for 499 riders (83%), the bus is less expensive for 19 riders (3%), 14 riders prefer not to drive (2%), the bus is more convenient for 26 riders (4%), the bus saves time for 4 riders (1%) and 36 riders rode the bus for a reason other than those listed (6%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for all northbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all northbound Route 107 riders. Table 30: Survey Question #10 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Only Transportation Option (1) % Less Expensive (2) 19 3% Prefer Not to Drive (3) 14 2% More Convenient (4) 26 4% Saves Time (5) 4 1% Other (6) 36 6% Total % Margin of Error 4.0% RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 27 June 2011

34 Graph 31: Survey Question #10 Route Northbound REASON FOR RIDING BUS 6% 4%1% 2% 3% Graph 32: Survey Question #10 Route Southbound REASON FOR RIDING BUS 6% 4%1% 3% 3% Results are ± 4.0% 84% Results are ± 4.1% 83% Only Transportation Option (1) Less Expensive (2) Prefer Not to Drive (3) More Convenient (4) Saves Time (5) Other (6) Only Transportation Option (1) Less Expensive (2) Prefer Not to Drive (3) More Convenient (4) Saves Time (5) Other (6) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 10 for riders on Route 107 traveling southbound are shown in Table 31 and Graph 32. Of the 571 riders surveyed, the bus is the only transportation option for 476 riders (83%), the bus is less expensive for 19 riders (3%), 15 riders prefer not to drive (3%), the bus is more convenient for 21 riders (4%), the bus saves time for 5 riders (1%) and 35 riders rode the bus for a reason other than those listed (6%). These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all southbound Route 107 riders. Table 31: Survey Question #10 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Only Transportation Option (1) % Less Expensive (2) 19 3% Prefer Not to Drive (3) 15 3% More Convenient (4) 21 4% Saves Time (5) 5 1% Other (6) 35 6% Total % Margin of Error 4.1% 8.7 Survey Question #11 Question number 11 asked riders Do you own an automobile? The results of question 11 are described in the following sections, tables and graphs. Survey Question #11: Do you own an automobile? Route 107 Boulder Highway - Total The survey results for question 11 for all riders on Route 107 are shown in Table 32 and Graph 33. Of the 1,170 riders surveyed, only 16% of the riders (184 riders) own an automobile. These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for question 11, represent a confidence interval of ±2.9 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all Route 107 riders Table 32: Survey Question #11 Route Total Response # of Riders % of Riders Yes (1) % No (2) % Total 1, % Margin of Error 2.9% RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 28 June 2011

35 Graph 33: Survey Question #11 Route Total VEHICLE OWNERSHIP 16% Table 34: Survey Question #11 Route Southbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Yes (1) 94 16% No (2) % Total % Margin of Error 4.1% Graph 35: Survey Question #11 Route Southbound VEHICLE OWNERSHIP Results are ± 2.9% 16% 84% Yes (1) No (2) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Northbound The survey results for question 11 for riders on Route 107 traveling northbound are shown in Table 33 and Graph 34. Of the 599 riders surveyed, only 15% of the riders (90 riders) own an automobile. These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for all northbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.0 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all northbound Route 107 riders. 84% Yes (1) No (2) Results are ± 4.1% Table 33: Survey Question #11 Route Northbound Response # of Riders % of Riders Yes (1) 90 15% No (2) % Total % Margin of Error 4.0% Graph 34: Survey Question #11 Route Northbound VEHICLE OWNERSHIP 15% Results are ± 4.0% 85% Yes (1) No (2) Route 107 Boulder Highway - Southbound The survey results for question 11 for riders on Route 107 southbound are shown in Table 34 and Graph 35. Of the 571 riders surveyed, only 16% of the riders (94 riders) own an automobile. These percentages, based on the number of survey responses for southbound travel, represent a confidence interval of ±4.1 percent when applying the results of these survey responses of all southbound Route 107 riders. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 29 June 2011

36 9. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) A geographic information system (GIS) is a powerful tool used to visualize data. GIS was used as an integral component for documenting the Before conditions for this study. This technology includes numerous geoprocessing tools and analysis techniques that can be used to present interrelated data in a number of formats. It also provides a systematic methodology that can be replicated for the After conditions study. 9.1 Introduction The responses from the rider survey discussed in Section 7 were coded into a database and analyzed using a GIS component known as geocoding, a powerful geoprocessing tool. Geocoding refers to geographically identifying a specific location based on its description, which can be a pair of coordinates, an address, an intersection, or even a proper name. A robust example of geocoding is one of the many online mapping search engines that will locate a city, address or intersection anywhere in the United States or world. This concept, when associated with placing many locations simultaneously, is referred to as batch geocoding. ArcGIS provides a geoprocessing tool that performs geocoding for many locations at a time. This process involves using an address locator and an input database. The tool uses the parameters of the address locator to read an input database field. The tool produces an output shapefile that consists of geographically located points, with an attribute containing all of the fields from the original input database. This tool also includes an interface that allows users to evaluate unmatched and matched addresses. Unmatched addresses, such as those due to incomplete or misspelled input fields, can be manually added to the dataset. In addition, addresses with two matching locations can be evaluated. This can occur when a roadway has two directional designations, but the input address only includes the street name. 9.2 Methodology Survey Responses For this project, an address locator was built using the street centerline shapefile provided by the Clark County GIS Management Office (GISMO) as its reference data. For each roadway segment, this data contains the street name, street type, street direction (if applicable), as well as the address numbers at each end of the segment, for both approaches of the segment. This locator was built to detect intersections separated by an & symbol in the input field. The rider survey database (see Appendix I) was formatted to be compatible with ArcGIS software, and then used as the input to geocode the intersections representing origin, destination, boarding, and alighting locations. This process resulted in a total of 966 matched origin locations (question 2), 880 matched destination locations (question 3), 918 matched boarding locations (question 4), and 875 matched alighting locations (question 6) for riders on Route 107. The geocoded surveys have been stored in shapefile format as waypoints and contain attribute fields from the original survey instrument (see Appendix J). Summary metadata is also included with the dataset. The varying number of correctly geocoded points (origin, destination, boarding and alighting) reflects the nature of this study, in which the results are directly related to the quality of responses received. For example, a response was invalid if the two streets (location) provided by the respondent didn t cross or the location provided was a place instead of a cross-street (i.e. Gas Station), or the response was left blank or illegible. The output point file for each of these geocoded datasets served as the foundation for the evaluation of both corridors. Numerous analysis techniques were employed at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) and region levels to observe trends. Since geocoding carries over the fields from the input database, definition queries on the output point file were used to evaluate numerous characteristics including mode of transportation to and from the system, transfers, and automobile ownership. The evaluation of data at the TAZ level used the identity tool to associate the input point file with a corresponding TAZ. This tool was used, in conjunction with applicable definition queries, to quantify trends for Route 107. The resulting data was then coded into a single TAZ polygon shapefile with numerous fields representing the various trends. These trends were mapped using a layer symbology that differentiates the various quantities by graduated colors. This process is applicable for all figures in this report where trends are represented by TAZ s. There is a limitation that should be noted regarding the analysis at the TAZ level. The geocoded survey points (cross-street locations) were placed geographically based on the input street centerline shapefile. Points are located at the exact intersection of the two corresponding street segments. Although the TAZ boundaries for the Las Vegas valley are aligned with street centerlines, the TAZ file maintained by the RTC does not align with the street centerline files maintained by the Clark County GISMO. Since both files do not share exact edges, geocoded points are associated with only one TAZ. As illustrated in Figure 1, it appears as though the geocoded point is located at the exact boundary of four TAZ s. However, closer inspection illustrates that the point, which is associated with a street centerline intersection, is located fully within a single TAZ. This is illustrated in Figure 2. The RTC is recommended to work with Clark County GISMO staff to align both datasets. If the two datasets are aligned properly, for the example illustrated, the identity tool would associate the geocoded point to all four adjacent TAZ s. Although this limitation exists with the current dataset, the analysis completed at the TAZ level can still be used to identify trends along the corridor. The TAZ s adjacent to the TAZ identified as having the highest queried attribute should also be considered as influencing the trend in question. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 30 June 2011

37 Figure 1: Alignment Geocoded Point (Cross-Street Location) graduated colors. This process allows the evaluation of trends at varying distances from the Boulder Highway corridor. 9.3 Route 107 Boulder Highway Figure 2: Geocoded Point (Cross-Street Alignment with TAZ Boundary Geocoded Point Location) Visual Representation of Survey Responses The responses from survey questions 2, 3, 4 and 6 are displayedd visually in Figures 3 through 8. The dataset for each question (origin, destination, boarding, and alighting) was associated to the RTC TAZ file using the identity tool. This data was summarized and coded to the TAZ file, and then symbolized using graduated colors. The resulting figures illustrate TAZ s with the highest number of origins, destinations, boardings, and alightings, respectively. Note that the analysis at the TAZ level is limited due to misalignment of the street centerline and TAZ files as previously discussed. However, this analysis methodology can still be used to evaluate general trends along the corridors. Figures 4 and 6 use the origin and destinationn datasets (from questions 2 and 3, respectively) as the input datasets for the kernel density tool. These figures illustrate the density of origins and destinations per square mile and highlight areas with the highest number of origins or destinations. Note that this analysis technique is not applicable for boardings and alightings as the input points all occur along the corridor. This methodology can only be used to map a grid of input features. Street Centerline TAZ Boundary This report also includes figures that illustrate trends at the regional level. These figures are distinguished by two different analysis techniques: kernel density and multi-ring buffers. A kernel density, or more commonly known as a heat map, is a raster image created from an input database that illustrates hot spots of a particular characteristic. For this analysis, a series of kernel density maps have been created using the geocoded points. An input search radius was placed around each point in space, and the total number of input points within this boundary was counted. A Gaussian approximation function, a statistical method for evaluating density, was then used to approximate between points to createe a smooth grid. Multi-ring buffers were used to create a series of equidistant rings from each corridor. Similar to the TAZ analysis, the identity tool was used to associate the geocoded points to a corresponding ring. These rings were then symbolized using RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 31 June 2011

38 BUFFALO BERMUDA 5TH NELLIS RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA BRUCE Figure 3: Survey Question #2 Trip Origins (Proportion of Total Origins by TAZ) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE ANN ALLEN CAMINO ELDORADO LONE MOUNTAIN 142 TROPICAL 168 Downtown Las Vegas CRAIG 220 FORT APACHE RAMPART SAHARA VEGAS FLAMINGO Legend BUFFALO RAINBOW 405 SMOKE RANCH RANCHO SPRING MOUNTAIN Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Proportion of Total Origins by TAZ 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% 6.1% - 8% Greater than 8% (Max = 9%) CHEYENNE OWENS LOSEE DEAN MARTIN SIMMONS INDUSTRIAL WARM SPRINGS SILVERADO RANCH ST ROSE PEBBLE CIVIC CENTER SUNSET WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS SUN CITY ANTHEM TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY HORIZON RIDGE ANTHEM VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE 1028 GIBSON PASEO VERDE HOLLYWOOD BROADBENT BOULDER HWY HORIZON This figure illustrates the dispersion of rider origins throughout the Las Vegas Valley. The majority of origins occur in close proximity to the Boulder Highway corridor with the highest proportion of riders originating near Tropicana Avenue/Boulder Highway. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 32 June 2011

39 5TH BUFFALO GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 4: Survey Question #2 Trip Origins (Origins per Square Mile) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART 95 HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY BROADBENT WARM SPRINGS BOULDER HWY Legend Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Origins per Square Mile High : DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE BASIC HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR HORIZON Low : 0 ANTHEM SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the distribution of rider origins throughout the Las Vegas Valley and shows the majority of riders originating along or adjacent to the Boulder Highway corridor. The highest concentration of riders originated in the vicinity of Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road, with other high origin locations in Downtown Las Vegas and Henderson. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 33 June 2011

40 5TH BUFFALO BERMUDA NELLIS SIMMONS GREENWAY RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA BRUCE Figure 5: Survey Question #3 Trip Destinations (Proportion of Total Destinations by TAZ) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN 123 TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG CHEYENNE SMOKE RANCH LOSEE CIVIC CENTER FORT APACHE RAMPART SAHARA FLAMINGO Legend BUFFALO Route 107 RAINBOW Destination Location TAZ Boundary SPRING MOUNTAIN 1210 Proportion of Total Destinations by TAZ 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% 6.1% - 8% Greater than 8% (Max = 9.3%) RANCHO DEAN MARTIN VEGAS INDUSTRIAL This figure illustrates the dispersion of rider destinations throughout the Las Vegas Valley. The majority of destinations occur in close proximity to the Boulder Highway corridor with the highest proportion of destinations near Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road TROPICANA SUNSET SILVERADO RANCH ST ROSE PEBBLE OWENS WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS SUN CITY ANTHEM ANTHEM WARM SPRINGS GREEN VALLEY 633 VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON HOLLYWOOD 593 BROADBENT BOULDER HWY BASIC 1094 HORIZON HORIZON RIDGE RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 34 June 2011

41 5TH BUFFALO GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 6: Survey Question #3 Trip Destinations (Destinations per Square Mile) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART 95 HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY BROADBENT WARM SPRINGS BOULDER HWY Legend Destination Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Destinations per Square Mile High : DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE BASIC HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR HORIZON Low : 0 ANTHEM SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the distribution of rider s final destinations throughout the Las Vegas Valley and shows a similar trend to the origin location with the majority of final destinations along or adjacent to the Boulder Highway corridor. The highest concentration occurs in the vicinity of Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road with other high destinations locations in Downtown Las Vegas and Henderson. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 35 June 2011

42 BUFFALO 5TH GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 7: Survey Question #4 Boulder Highway Boardings (Proportion of Total Boardings by TAZ) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO FORT APACHE BUFFALO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR TROPICANA SUNSET 1527 GREEN VALLEY WARM SPRINGS BROADBENT BOULDER HWY Legend Boarding Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Proportion of Total Boardings by TAZ 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE 941 BASIC HORIZON RIDGE 1048 HORIZON MAJOR % - 8% ANTHEM Greater than 8% (Max = 11.6%) SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the proposition of total boardings by TAZ along the Boulder Highway corridor. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 36 June 2011

43 BUFFALO 5TH GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 8: Survey Question #6 Boulder Highway Alightings (Proportion of Total Alightings by TAZ) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO 575 ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY WARM SPRINGS BROADBENT BOULDER HWY Legend Alighting Location WIGWAM VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON MAJOR Route 107 TAZ Boundary Proportion of Total Alightings by TAZ 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS PASEO VERDE HORIZON RIDGE HORIZON % - 8% ANTHEM Greater than 8% (Max = 11.4%) SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the proposition of total alightings by TAZ along the Boulder Highway corridor. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 37 June 2011

44 9.3.2 Visual Representation of Cross-Tabulated Survey Responses The cross-tabulated responses from survey questions 2, 5, and 11 are displayed visually in Figures 9 through 18. These figures identify specific trends associated with rider trip origins (survey question 2). Using a definition query for each characteristic from survey question 5 (bicycle users and walkers) and survey question 11 (riders with and without automobiles), the origin distribution at both the TAZ and regional levels were identified. The dataset for each cross-tabulation was associated to the RTC TAZ file using the identity tool. This data was summarized and coded to the TAZ file, and then symbolized using graduated colors. The resulting figures illustrate TAZ s with the highest number of origins with the identified query. The analysis at the TAZ level is limited due to misalignment of the street centerline and TAZ files as discussed previously. However, this analysis methodology can still be used to evaluate general trends along the corridors. It is important to note that these figures were prepared by querying the responses to questions 5 and 11, and therefore are dependent on the response provided by the transit rider. Specifically, it appears that some riders may have misinterpreted question 5. As illustrated in Figures 9 through 11, there are a number of outliers that are located farther than what would be considered reasonable for walking of biking trips to the Boulder Highway corridor. Riders may have misinterpreted this question as asking whether they walked or biked during any portion of their trip. The intent of the question was to find out whether a rider walked, biked or transferred to the current trip leg on Route 107 Boulder Highway. symbolized using graduated colors in order to illustrate the distribution of destinations for all trips originating in the TAZ with the highest number of origins. The same methodology was used to evaluate the distribution of alightings from the TAZ with the highest number of boardings. Figures 10, 12 and 14 use the origin and queried datasets (from questions 2 and 5, respectively) as the input datasets for the kernel density tool. These figures illustrate the density of specific (walking, biking or no automobiles) origins per square mile and highlight areas with the highest number of crosstabulated origins. Figures 15 and 16 summarize responses from survey questions 4, 5, 6 and 7. These figures were created using the original geocoded datasets for boardings and alightings. A definition query was performed using the fields for survey questions 5 and 7, and the results were symbolized using graduated symbols and colors. The resulting set of figures illustrates the intersections with the highest number of transfers from another route to Route 107 Boulder Highway corridor (combination of questions 4 and 5) as well as transfers from Route 107 Boulder Highway corridor to another route (combination of questions 6 and 7). These figures also list the top ten locations for boarding and alighting transfers, respectively. Figures 17 and 18 summarize responses from survey questions 2, 3, 4 and 6. These figures illustrate origin-destination and boarding-alighting pairs. The TAZ with the highest number of origins was identified. All of the origins within this TAZ were then selected. The corresponding survey ID s in the destination dataset were selected and associated with the TAZ dataset using the identity tool. The resulting dataset was used and RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 38 June 2011

45 5TH BUFFALO GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 9: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Cyclists GRAND TETON 492 ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO 571 ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER 350 VEGAS OWENS RAMPART HOLLYWOOD 571 SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW 601 SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY WARM SPRINGS BROADBENT BOULDER HWY 939 Legend Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Proportion of Total Bicycle Users by TAZ 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE HORIZON HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR 6.1% - 8% ANTHEM Greater than 8% (Max = 17.6%) SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders who indicated they biked (Survey Question 5) to Route 107. The majority of riders who biked to Route 107 originated on or in very close proximity to the corridor. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 39 June 2011

46 BUFFALO 5TH GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 10: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Cyclists (Origins per Square Mile) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART 95 HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY BROADBENT WARM SPRINGS BOULDER HWY Legend Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Bicycle Origins per Square Mile High : DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE BASIC HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR HORIZON Low : 0 ANTHEM SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders who indicated they biked (Survey Question 5) to Route 107. The majority of riders who biked to Route 107 originated on or in very close proximity to the corridor, with the highest proportion of cyclists originating near Tropicana Avenue. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 40 June 2011

47 BUFFALO BERMUDA 5TH RACETRACK NELLIS BRUCE Figure 11: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Walkers GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL 168 Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG 290 SMOKE RANCH RANCHO CHEYENNE SIMMONS LOSEE 15 CIVIC CENTER RAMPART SAHARA 1288 FLAMINGO FORT APACHE BUFFALO Legend RAINBOW VEGAS SPRING MOUNTAIN Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Proportion of Total Walkers by TAZ 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% 6.1% - 8% Greater than 8% (Max = 9.2%) 686 OWENS DEAN MARTIN INDUSTRIAL SILVERADO RANCH WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR PEBBLE ST ROSE SUNSET TROPICANA WARM SPRINGS WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS SUN CITY ANTHEM GREEN VALLEY HORIZON RIDGE ANTHEM MOUNTAIN VISTA VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE HOLLYWOOD BROADBENT BOULDER HWY HORIZON This figure illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders who indicated they walked (Survey Question 5) to Route 107. A significant portion of origins are located beyond what would be expected for a walking trip to Route 107. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 41 June 2011

48 BUFFALO 5TH GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 12: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #5 Origin of Walkers (Origins per Square Mile) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART 95 HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY BROADBENT WARM SPRINGS BOULDER HWY Legend Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Walk Origins per Square Mile High : DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE BASIC HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR HORIZON Low : 0 ANTHEM SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders who indicated they walked (Survey Question 5) to Route 107. The figure shows the majority of riders who walked to Route 107 originated on or in very close proximity to the corridor. A significant number of origins are located beyond what would be expected for a walking trip to Route 107. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 42 June 2011

49 BUFFALO BERMUDA 5TH RACETRACK NELLIS BRUCE Figure 13: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #11 Origin of Riders without an Automobile GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN 1453 TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas ALLEN 135 LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG 220 FORT APACHE RAMPART SAHARA FLAMINGO Legend BUFFALO RAINBOW Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary 1137 SMOKE RANCH 350 VEGAS RANCHO SPRING MOUNTAIN CHEYENNE OWENS LOSEE DEAN MARTIN SIMMONS INDUSTRIAL WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR Proportion of Total Riders without Automobiles by TAZ Origin 2% or Less 2.1% - 4% 4.1% - 6% 6.1% - 8% Greater than 8% (Max = 9.1%) SILVERADO RANCH ST ROSE PEBBLE CIVIC CENTER SUNSET WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS SUN CITY ANTHEM 757 TROPICANA WARM SPRINGS HORIZON RIDGE ANTHEM MOUNTAIN VISTA VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE HOLLYWOOD BROADBENT BOULDER HWY HORIZON This figure illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders on Route 107 who indicated they did not own an automobile (Survey Question 11). RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 43 June 2011

50 BUFFALO 5TH GREENWAY BERMUDA RACETRACK MOUNTAIN VISTA FRANK SINATRA BRUCE NELLIS BRUCE Figure 14: Cross-tabulation of Survey Questions #2 & #11 Origin of Riders without Automobile (Origins per Square Mile) GRAND TETON ELKHORN ALIANTE CAMINO ELDORADO ANN ALLEN TROPICAL Downtown Las Vegas LONE MOUNTAIN CRAIG RANCHO CHEYENNE 15 SMOKE RANCH SIMMONS LOSEE CIVIC CENTER VEGAS OWENS RAMPART 95 HOLLYWOOD SAHARA FLAMINGO RAINBOW SPRING MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL FORT APACHE BUFFALO WAYNE NEWTON AIRPORT N CONNECTOR SUNSET TROPICANA GREEN VALLEY BROADBENT WARM SPRINGS BOULDER HWY Legend Origin Location Route 107 TAZ Boundary Riders without Automobiles per Square Mile High : DEAN MARTIN SILVERADO RANCH PEBBLE ST ROSE WIGWAM SUNRIDGE HEIGHTS VALLE VERDE STEPHANIE GIBSON PASEO VERDE BASIC HORIZON RIDGE MAJOR HORIZON Low : ANTHEM SUN CITY ANTHEM This figure also illustrates the starting point or origin (Survey Question 2) of riders who indicated they did not own an automobile (Survey Question 11). The figure shows the majority of riders without an automobile originated on or in very close proximity to the Boulder Highway corridor. RTC UPWP I BOULDER HIGHWAY BEFORE Study 44 June 2011