Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 81
81 Notes: cate a high degree of acceptance for a wide range of conditions. 1. Shelters with benches are counted twice--once as shelters, It is thought that passengers not satisfied with the service are once as benches. less likely to ride the buses and thus were undersampled in the 2. Coefficients adapted from Steer Davies Gleave, Bus pas- survey. Consequently, it was considered acceptable that the senger preferences. For London Transport buses. (1996) in proposed transit LOS model should predict poorer levels of Balcombe, R. (editor) . service than obtained in the on-board surveys. The scope of the TCQSM LOS model is quite a bit differ- ent than the urban street. The TCQSM is designed to repre- 6.3 Performance of Transit sent the entire trip, while this research is limited to transit LOS Model service on a given street. Also, the TCQSM provides six dif- Exhibit 90 compares the ability of the existing TCQSM ferent letter grade levels of service, depending on the geo- LOS models and the proposed transit LOS model to predict graphic scope and aggregation of the analysis. Only the worst the mean LOS response for each bus route obtained from the result is shown in the table. field surveys. Both the FDOT LOS model and the proposed transit LOS None of the models reproduce the mean levels of service model predict a range of LOS A to E for the transit routes sur- reported by passengers in the on-board surveys very well. Both veyed. All three LOS models, FDOT, TCQSM, and the pro- the FDOT LOS and proposed LOS model match the passen- posed transit LOS model, tend to agree that WMATA Route ger surveys about 21% of the time. Although a better match 2B and AC Transit Route 218 are LOS D/E, which passengers might have been desirable, the on-board survey results indi- rated as LOS A. Exhibit 90. Evaluation of Proposed Transit Model and TCQSM against Field Survey Results. Freq. Spd OTP Shelter Bench LF Ped Survey FDOT TCQSM Model Operator Rte (bus/h) (mph) % (%) (%) (p/seat) LOS CBD LOS LOS LOS LOS TriMet 14 8 11.8 75% 34% 47% 0.55 C No A A C A TriMet 44 4 14.8 76% 30% 41% 0.83 C No A B D A AC Transit 72R 5 15.7 66% 74% 75% 1.10 D No A B D B AC Transit 72 4 12.1 53% 39% 46% 1.10 D No A B D B WMATA 38B 4 10.1 46% 29% 26% 0.38 D No A C D B WMATA 2B 2 14.0 67% 13% 15% 1.10 D No A E D D AC Transit 218 1 15.1 72% 11% 15% 1.10 C No A E E E AC Transit 51 8 11.8 54% 28% 51% 1.10 D No B A C A SF Muni 14 10 9.2 57% 54% 56% 1.30 E Yes B A C C SF Muni 30 7 7.4 59% 44% 44% 1.30 E Yes B A C D SF Muni 1 20 8.8 63% 44% 44% 1.30 C Yes B A C A SF Muni 38 8 9.8 59% 68% 69% 1.30 F Yes B B C D SF Muni 38L 9 12.1 48% 84% 86% 1.10 F No B B C A Broward 18 4 13.6 65% 23% 75% 1.10 E No B C D B % Exact Match 100% 21% 0% 21% % Within 1 LOS 100% 86% 43% 71% Notes: 1. OTP = on time performance with 5 minutes late considered on-time. 2. LF = load factor 3. Shelter = percent of bus stops with shelters. 4. Bench = percent of bus stops with benches. 5. Survey = the mean level of service reported in the field survey. 6. FDOT = Florida Quality/Level of Service Handbook method. 7. TCQSM = Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. The TCQSM does not produce a single letter grade LOS for transit routes. The letter grade reported here is an average, a grade point average (GPA) of the numerous LOS ratings that the TCQSM reports for any given transit route. 8. Model LOS = the letter grade predicted by the recommended transit LOS model.