![](media/image1.png){width="8.506944444444445in"
height="10.998611111111112in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="2.464583333333333in"
height="1.3965277777777778in"}
![](media/image2.png){width="2.464583333333333in"
height="1.3854166666666667in"}

PROJECT #FTa-dc26-7248-2006.1

**2006 Evaluation of**

**the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Bus Rapid Transit
Project**

A&E Services

For Bus Rapid Transit Initiative

Contract No. DTFT60-02-D-00009

######## Task 2. Evaluation Assistance

Prepared by

Washington Group International, Inc

Wilbur Smith Associates

DECEMBER 1, 2006

###  {#section .unnumbered}

###  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-6 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-7 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-8 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-9 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-10 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-11 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-13 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-14 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-15 .unnumbered}

###  {#section-16 .unnumbered}

![](media/image3.wmf)

Foreword

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) is conducting a series of case study evaluations of the 17 Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) systems that comprise the National BRT Consortium.
The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) project is one of the 17
projects. This report documents the second evaluation of the Las Vegas
MAX BRT project to determine the full effects of its implementation as
the system matured. MAX BRT service was implemented with the goal of
providing faster, more reliable, and more accessible transit service in
Northern Las Vegas.

Washington Group International and Wilbur Smith Associates --
international planning and engineering firms - prepared the 2006
evaluation under contract to and with guidance from the FTA Office of
Mobility Innovation. The evaluation is based on the *Guidelines for the
Evaluation of BRT Demonstration Projects*, developed by the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center. The first evaluation, published
in 2005 shortly after MAX began operations, was a welcome success.

The FTA is evaluating each of the projects in the National BRT
Consortium to address the significant issues associated with the
implementation and operation of BRT service. Sharing of this information
with a broad audience of federal, state and local transportation
agencies and consultants will greatly assist planners as they look to
evaluate new transit options for their communities.

Table of Contents

##### 

##### **Executive Summary iii**

##### 

##### **MAX Project Fact Sheet vii**

**1.0 Introduction**

1.1 Evaluation Overview 1

1.2 MAX Evaluation Objectives 2

**2.0 Project Elements 3**

> 2.1 Project and Corridor Description 4
>
> 2.2 Running Ways 4
>
> 2.3 Stations 5
>
> 2.4 Vehicles 7
>
> 2.5 Fare Collection 10
>
> 2.6 ITS 12
>
> 2.7 Service and Operations Plans 12
>
> 2.8 Branding and Marketing 13

**3.0 System Costs 16**

> 3.1 Capital Costs 16
>
> 3.2 Operating Costs 18

**4.0 Planning, Design, and Implementation 20**

4.1 Planning and Design 20

> 4.2 Vehicle Service, Maintenance and Operations Plan 20

3.  Implementation and Management of the ITS Elements 23

4.  Branding and Public Acceptance of Service 30

**5.0 Evaluation of System Performance 33**

5.1 Travel Time 33

5.2 Reliability 42

5.3 Identity and Image 43

5.4 Safety and Security 52

5.5 Capacity 56

**6.0 System Benefits 57**

6.1 Ridership 57

6.2 Capital Cost Effectiveness 64

6.3 Operating Cost Efficiency 65

6.4 Land Use 68

6.5 Environmental Quality 71

**7.0 Conclusions- Observations and Lessons Learned 73**

7.1 MAX is a Success 73

7.2 What Works 74

7.3 Summary of Lessons Learned 75

##### **List of Exhibits 79**

#####  

**List of Acronyms 81**

**Appendix**

**BRT MAX Service Questionnaire (Driver Survey and Summary of Results)**

Executive Summary

**Project Context**

The introduction of the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) system in June 2004 heralded a new era for public
transportation in Las Vegas, Nevada. This express transit service,
introduced by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
(RTC), features enhanced passenger comfort, stylish new vehicles and
improved travel times. It was designed to complement existing Route 113
bus service in North Las Vegas, among the most heavily patronized bus
routes in the region.

MAX is one of 17 BRT projects that comprise the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) BRT Consortium. It initially distinguished itself
as a rapid transit system using exclusive running ways, a planned
optically guided station docking system and low floor vehicles offering
level boarding. It has a totally new off-line fare collection system and
uses rubber-tire 60-foot articulated vehicles with four wide doors to
facilitate passenger loading and unloading. In short, it introduces all
of the elements of BRT presented in FTA's *Characteristics of Bus Rapid
Transit for Decision Making* document published in August 2004.

**First Evaluation of MAX, 2005**

The first FTA-sponsored evaluation of the new MAX system was completed
in August 2005. It showed that implementation of MAX was a welcome
success. Ridership on the new system jumped nearly 25%, travel times in
many instances were cut by 50%, and customer satisfaction was hovering
around 96% (those who rated the service as good or excellent). That is
not to say that MAX was not without initial start-up difficulties. It
was the first project in the U.S. to select an overseas vehicle
manufacturer for the new system, which presented unique challenges, ones
RTC was quickly able to overcome. However, a key element of the system's
new technology -- the advanced optical guidance system -- proved
unsuccessful in the wind, heat and sands of the desert climate. The
optical guidance system was eventually discontinued as drivers quickly
learned to successfully dock vehicles manually.

**Update and Evaluation of the MAX System, 2006**

As MAX entered its second full year of operation, a follow-up evaluation
-- based on the Evaluation Guidelines for BRT Demonstration Projects --
was initiated in order to determine the full effects of its
implementation as the system matured. This report presents the findings
of the second evaluation. The tables following this executive summary
present the characteristics of the existing MAX BRT and overall facts of
the system, as well as a summary of the effectiveness of MAX (found in
Section 7, Conclusions).

These tables and statistics reflect our overall findings but are only
part of the results. Three key stakeholders in the MAX system - RTC
management and staff, MAX riders and the MAX drivers -- were key
participants in this evaluation. Their willingness to share their
experience, through interviews, surveys and frank discussion, provide
valuable insight into the MAX program from the management, operator and
user perspective. From these key players we have learned the following:

**RTC Management and Driver Observations**

The use of innovative and alternative technologies that are part of the
MAX BRT system, including ITS, vehicles and ticket vending machines,
required significant staff resources during start-up. However, RTC's
experience shows that the investments in human resources are worthwhile.
RTC worked with its operations contractor to find, retain and train the
best employees available and reward them with training, improved working
conditions and pay increases. They also fostered a team spirit creating
pride in their work. As a result, staff turnover has been low, and
performance and satisfaction high -- major factors that contribute to
MAX's success. Overall, RTC has energized its system with the MAX
program and has since introduced several exciting new follow-on projects
as a result.

**Results of Rider Surveys**

Riders overwhelmingly approve of MAX and confirm many of the concepts
presented in the Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision
Making document, citing significantly reduced travel times, improved
vehicle and station comfort, cleanliness and safety as reasons to use
the service. When asked to give an "all things considered" rating of the
service, nearly 97 percent of riders rated MAX as excellent or good.
This compares with a similar rating of around 60 percent among riders on
the standard CAT service.

Other surveys conducted among the wider Las Vegas community revealed
that slightly less than half (40%) of residents had heard of MAX. By
comparison, 90% of the population had heard of CAT, the transit agency.
The lack of awareness about MAX is likely due to its service corridor,
which is outside of the main business district and residential
communities. As BRT service expands in Las Vegas, awareness of the brand
should also increase.

**Lessons Learned**

-   **Ridership results** -- Overall Ridership is up nearly 40% since
    the start of the MAX service. Approximately 30% of MAX riders are
    new to transit and 10% of MAX riders previously drove to make their
    trip.

-   **Traffic Signal Priority (TSP)** -- The use of TSP at 10
    intersections did not lead to any significant travel time
    improvement for the MAX system. This is most likely explained by the
    fact that there is little traffic congestion in the corridor and
    travel times are fairly constant.

-   **Optical Guidance** - The added optical guidance costs were not
    necessary because highly trained drivers can dock the vehicles
    almost as precisely and the automated system proved ineffective in
    the Las Vegas climate.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Driver Training and Selection** - The MAX BRT drivers are a major
    asset to the system. Evidence for this can be shown not only in the
    public opinion of MAX service, but also the safe record of the
    drivers. Only one preventable accident occurred on MAX from the
    opening of service to November 2006. Although the exclusive bus
    lanes have some effect on the safety of the bus route, the drivers
    have had an even greater effect. The additional training, higher pay
    scale and extensive selection process for MAX drivers is a model
    that should be followed by other BRT systems.

-   **Branding and Public Acceptance of Service -** The MAX system can
    definitely be deemed a success in terms of rider opinion. 91.1% of
    MAX riders rated MAX "excellent" or "good" and 91.7% of CAT Route
    113 riders rated MAX "excellent" or "good". Although the MAX brand
    is beginning to be recognized, there is still work to be done. In
    benchmark surveys, 47.9% stated no preference between MAX and CAT.
    This large number of respondents with no preference indicates that
    most Las Vegas Valley residents do not perceive a substantial
    difference between MAX and regular CAT service. As the MAX service
    is extended to other areas, it is anticipated that this brand
    recognition will improve substantially.

-   **Operating Costs** - Operating costs for MAX were about 50% higher
    per vehicle hour than local CAT bus service, due to a number of
    factors, including additional attention to maintenance, use of more
    experienced drivers, and the higher cost of operating and
    maintaining a complex, foreign-made vehicle. However, since MAX
    operates at higher speeds, the difference in cost per vehicle
    service *mile* is not as great as the difference in cost per service
    *hour*. Most of the speed improvements are due to fewer stations and
    reduced dwell time.

> Dwell times on the MAX system were shorter for two reasons. First,
> MAX's skilled drivers took advantage of the center cab position during
> station docking, which reduced the gap at the platform. Second, and
> more significant, is MAX's proof-of-payment fare collection. This is
> evidenced by the fact that MAX's dwell time savings occur during
> boarding, not alighting. (There was a 59% reduction in dwell time
> during boarding versus a slight increase in dwell time when
> alighting). Thus it seems likely that a BRT system using more
> conventional vehicles could make a significant reduction in operating
> costs per vehicle service miles if it uses the proof of payment fare
> collection method and consolidation of station stops as a means of
> reducing travel time.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MAX BRT LAS VEGAS

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Running Way -- Total Length 7.5 miles

  Running Way Segregation -- 4.5 miles exclusive, 3 miles shared

  Running Way Marking -- pavement markings and signs

  Running Way Guidance -- initial optical guidance for docking
  discontinued

  Stations -- Number = 23

  Station Type -- covered waiting areas

  Platform Height -- level boarding areas

  Platform Layout -- average length of platform is 65 feet

  Passing Capability -- via normal traffic lanes

  Station Access -- ADA compliant

  Vehicles -- Number = 10

  Vehicle Configurations -- 60' articulated specializes BRT vehicle

  Aesthetic Enhancement -- Unique MAX logos, interior finishes, & climate
  control

  Passenger Circulation Enhancement -- low floor and 4 doors on right
  side

  Propulsion Systems -- diesel electric

  Fare Collection -- On board random proof of payment

  Fare Collection Process -- on board random inspection by roving
  uniformed personnel

  Fare Transaction Media -- tickets sold from TVM at stations

  Fare Structure -- flat fare with transfers available

  Intelligent Transportation Systems

  Vehicle Prioritization -- Traffic signal priority & queue jumper

  Driver Assist and Automation Technology -- initial optical guidance for
  docking discontinued

  Operations Management -- AVL/CAD and vehicle mechanical monitoring

  Passenger Information -- on board & to be implemented at stations

  Safety and Security Technology -- driver alarm

  Support Technologies - APC

  Service and Operating Plans

  Route Length -- 7.5 miles

  Route Structure -- single route with expansions planned

  Span of Service -- 7:00 AM -- 11:00 PM

  Frequency of Service -- 12 min. (peak) & 15 min. (off peak)

  Station Spacing -- average; 0.4 miles

  Capital and Operating Costs & Ridership

  Capital cost - \$20,162,430

  Operating cost - \$111 per hour

  Ridership -- 9800 per month Feb. 2006-July 2006
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

MAX Las Vegas, NV Project FACTS

**General Description:**

MAX Las Vegas Boulevard North is a 7.5-mile, limited-stop transit line
operating along Las Vegas Boulevard North between the Downtown
Transportation Center (DTC) in downtown Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force
Base at Craig Road. Prior to the start of MAX service on June 30, 2004,
RTC's Citizens Area Transit (CAT) system operated Route 113 along the
same corridor. MAX is an overlay express route that supplements, but
does not replace, the preexisting local bus service, Route 113, which,
prior to MAX was already one of the most heavily used routes in the CAT
system, operating on 15-minute headways. MAX runs in a transit-only lane
for 4.5 miles and in mixed traffic for about 3 miles.

-   **Running Way:** The Las Vegas Boulevard North route is 7.5 miles in
    length. The southern 3 miles are roadways with shared traffic and
    the northern 4.5 miles have curbside exclusive bus lanes. The lanes
    are shared with the Route 113 bus service and right turning traffic.

-   **Stations:** The major terminus is the Downtown Transportation
    Center (DTC). The DTC is a hub for many regular bus routes and has
    full passenger amenities including ticket office and TVMs,
    restrooms, inside waiting area and covered exterior. Along the MAX
    Route there are 23 stations that are exclusive to MAX. The 113 route
    has separate stops. Each station has a covered waiting area with
    TVM, soda/water vending machine, lighting, and passenger information
    signs are to be installed.

-   **Vehicles:** 10 vehicles were purchased, 6 plus 1 in reserve at the
    DTC are required to operate the scheduled service. The shop margin
    is estimated at 0.6 vehicles. The CIVIS vehicle by Irisbus was
    selected for its low floor, multiple doors (4), and optical guidance
    features. It is an articulated vehicle about 60 feet in length with
    a capacity of 120. The exterior is streamlined with a center driver
    position.

-   **Fare Collection:** Off-board random proof of fare. Uniformed armed
    security personnel under contract to RTC spot check fares using hand
    held electronic devices. Tickets are sold via ticket machines at
    each station and at a ticket window at the Downtown Transportation
    Center.

-   **ITS:** Traffic Signal Priority and Queue Jumper, Automatic
    Passenger Counters on each door of the vehicle, Computer Aided
    Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Location System, and on board passenger
    information display. The optical guidance system is not in use due
    to difficulties in maintaining contrast between markings and
    pavement.

-   **Service and Operating Plans:** MAX operates from 5 AM to 7 PM with
    12-minute headways and from 7 pm to 10 pm on 15-minute headways.

-   **Branding/Marketing:** RTC initiated a naming contest for the CIVIS
    vehicle and determined Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) would be the
    brand name for this BRT class of service. Numerous public outreach
    activities, including a "Meet MAX" campaign helped launch the
    system.

-   **Capital Cost:** The total costs of the system was \$20,162,430

-   **Operating Cost:** Contract operating costs were approximately
    \$75.52 per hour for MAX service (operated by Veolia Transportation)
    compared to \$52 per hour for CAT service. However, the basic total
    average vehicle operation costs for MAX were \$93 per hour as of the
    end of fiscal year ended June 2005, when all other RTC costs are
    included. The total average operating cost of MAX as of December
    2006 increased to approximately \$111 per hour.

-   **Ridership:** Total daily boardings increased from approximately
    7,000 per day in 2004 to a high of 10,000 per day in January 2006 --
    an increase of 42%. Ridership has now leveled at approximately 9,800
    per day, although problems with the Automated Passenger Counting
    (APC) is believed to have caused an undercount since early 2006.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

**1.1 Evaluation Overview**

This document presents an evaluation of the Metropolitan Area Express
(MAX) Las Vegas Boulevard North BRT project in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
MAX project was developed by the Regional Transportation Commission of
Southern Nevada (RTC) and is part of the Citizen's Area Transit (CAT)
system first established in 1992.

This evaluation is based on *Evaluation Guidelines for Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) Demonstration Projects* published by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) for FTA in February 2002. While
the *Guidelines* document establishes the methodology for evaluation,
the specific elements that are the focus of the MAX BRT evaluation come
from *Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision Making,*
published by the FTA in August 2004.[^1] The CBRT document, by
identifying and categorizing the major elements of BRT, their
relationship to BRT system performance and the resulting system
benefits, provides planners and decision makers the basic information
and data requirements necessary to successfully undertake an evaluation.

This report follows a previous report prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton,
*Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Demonstration Project*, FTA VA-26-7222-2005.1, that was completed in
August 2005 and evaluated the first six months of MAX operations. That
report was a first look at the early impacts of the MAX system. The
present evaluation expands on the initial effort by using the additional
data and operating experience and broadens several evaluation criteria
to reflect the institutional experience and system impacts that have
emerged with the additional experience that RTC has gained since it
first began operations and management of MAX BRT in June 2004.

Specific information that is the basis for this evaluation includes the
following:

-   APC and AVL Data from RTC

-   RTC's MAX and Route 113 Riders Surveys in April and October 2005

-   RTC's 2004 and 2005 Annual Resident Surveys

-   Interviews with RTC Staff

-   Survey of MAX Drivers, see Attachment A

**1.2 MAX Evaluation Objectives**

MAX BRT service was implemented with the goal of providing faster, more
reliable and more accessible transit service in Northern Las Vegas. The
overall objectives of this evaluation are to determine if RTC was
successful in achieving this, and focus on the following:

2.0 PROJECT ELEMENTS

Metropolitan Area Express or "MAX" is a new brand of express service
operating on an arterial roadway. RTC is planning to use the brand in
other corridors in Las Vegas. The MAX Las Vegas Boulevard North service
includes each of the elements of a BRT system, as described in the *CBRT
for Decision Making* document published by FTA in August 2004. Prior to
beginning the evaluation, this section of the report provides a project
and corridor description as well as a summary of each of the MAX BRT
elements, presented on the following pages.

![](media/image4.png){width="5.034027777777778in"
height="5.298611111111111in"}

**\
Figure 2-1: MAX system schematic map**

**2.1 Project and Corridor Description**

MAX Las Vegas Boulevard North is a 7.5-mile, limited-stop transit line
operating along Las Vegas Boulevard North between the Downtown
Transportation Center (DTC) in downtown Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force
Base at Craig Road. Prior to the start of MAX service on June 30, 2004,
RTC's Citizens Area Transit (CAT) operated Route 113 along the same
corridor. MAX is an overlay express route that enhances, but does not
replace, the preexisting local bus service, Route 113. Prior to the
introduction of MAX, Route 113 was one of the most heavily used routes
in the CAT system, operating on 15-minute headways. MAX runs in a
transit-only lane for 4.5 miles and in mixed traffic for about 3 miles.

MAX includes each of the major elements defined in *CBRT* report,
specifically:

-   Exclusive bus lanes

-   Stations with raised curbs and passenger amenities

-   Distinctive vehicles with low-floor boarding, multiple doors, and
    optical guidance

-   Off board fare payment

-   ITS

-   Frequent and rapid service

-   Branding and marketing

Most of the MAX project elements were implemented on opening day of the
service, although the bus-only lane had already been in use on Route 113
since Fall 2003. After opening day, however, RTC adjusted the service
somewhat, including an increase in MAX service frequency, a reduction in
Route 113 service frequency, and the addition of a pair of MAX stations
to facilitate transfers at Lake Mead Boulevard.

The Las Vegas Boulevard North corridor runs northeast from downtown Las
Vegas, with service beginning at the Downtown Transportation Center
(DTC). The right of way consists of a major arterial roadway, generally
with two lanes in each direction and turning lanes at major signalized
intersections. Land uses along the corridor primarily consist of strip
and box store-type development. Small lot, low-cost residential
neighborhoods are approximately one block away from the Boulevard. The
population along the corridor is largely transportation disadvantaged
with a high propensity for transit use.

**2.2 Running Ways**

MAX runs in an exclusive curbside bus lane for 4.5 miles of its 7.5 mile
route with the remainder of the route operating in mixed traffic. The
Nevada DOT converted a breakdown lane to a bus-only lane at the request
of RTC; this was completed as part of the Boulevard reconstruction
project. Stations are at the curb, except for the Downtown
Transportation Center. Bus route 113 has a similar, but not identical,
route, and uses the same curbside bus lane. There are 23 signalized
intersections along the route. There are also a number of commercial
driveways.![](media/image5.jpeg){width="4.333333333333333in"
height="3.25in"}

**Figure 2-2:\
More than half of MAX's 7.5 mile route is an exclusive curbside bus
lane**

**2.3 Stations**

MAX Las Vegas Boulevard North has 11 stations in each direction, plus
the southern terminus (Downtown Transportation Center). At the northern
terminus of the route, there is a drop-off only stop at the Walmart
store on Nellis Blvd. All MAX stations are ADA-compliant and were
designed to enhance customer comfort and convenience, promote system
identity, and attract ridership.  The station design features include
elevated boarding areas, ticket vending machines, soda vending machines,
sun and rain protection, benches and design treatments to facilitate
blind and wheelchair-using customers (see Figure 2-1).

RTC added north- and south-bound stations at the intersection of Lake
Mead and Las Vegas Boulevards in April 2005 to facilitate transfers to
and from Route 210. These two stations have a different, less expensive,
waiting area design compared to the original stations. Although some of
the design features of the other MAX stations were not retained, the
Lake Mead stations are equipped with similar passenger and ADA amenities
including TVM's. Other features such as a raised curb for level boarding
are more typical of a bus shelter (see Figure 2-3).

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="3.3875in" height="3.5083333333333333in"}

**Figure 2-3: Typical MAX station (Jerry's Nugget South)**

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="4.666666666666667in" height="3.5in"}

**Figure 2-4: Lake Mead station with MAX ticket vending machine**

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="4.666666666666667in" height="3.5in"}

**Figure 2-5: Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center**

**2.4 Vehicles**

The CIVIS vehicles represent the key technology used to meet the project
goals and to define the MAX brand; thus they are a major component of
the capital cost of the project. The procurement, use, and management of
CIVIS vehicles and related technology also contribute significantly to
RTC's lessons for future BRT systems implementation. The CIVIS vehicle
has special features, which individually and collectively contribute to
system operation, passenger satisfaction, and brand image. These
features include:

-   a diesel-electric propulsion system intended to provide smoother
    acceleration;

-   a center drive position for improved maneuverability;

-   22-year running life (compared to 12 years for standard buses);

-   a carrying capacity of 120 passengers;

-   continuous low-floor access;

-   four wide doorways, and

-   onboard bike racks.

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="5.26875in" height="3.4965277777777777in"}

**Figure 2-6: MAX CIVIS vehicle exterior**

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="5.222222222222222in"
height="3.502083333333333in"}

**Figure 2-7: Center Drive Position**

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="4.658333333333333in"
height="3.495138888888889in"}

**Figure 2-8a: MAX bus position with automatic docking**

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="2.5in" height="3.7493055555555554in"}

**Figure 2-8b: MAX bus position at station using manual docking**

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="4.661111111111111in"
height="3.495833333333333in"}

**Figure 2-9: Onboard Bike Rack**

**2.5 Fare Collection**

The fare structure on MAX is the same as the rest of the CAT system.
Monthly passes are valid for both classes of service. Unlike other CAT
routes, however, MAX uses off-board, "proof of payment" fare collection,
designed to reduce station dwell time and increase vehicle speed and
reliability. The off-board fare collection system requires passengers
who are not carrying a monthly pass to purchase tickets before boarding
the vehicle from ticket vending machines located at each station, at the
Downtown Transit Center, and in several off-route locations. Inspectors
conduct periodic checks for proof of payment, which can be either a
validated ticket or a pass. MAX is currently one of only two bus routes
in the USA using proof-of-payment fare collection.[^2]

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="2.040277777777778in"
height="3.7493055555555554in"}

**Figure 2-10: Ticket Vending Machine**

![](media/image15.jpeg){width="5.0in" height="3.75in"}

**Figure 2-11: Uniformed security officer checking for fare proof of
payment using Personal Digital Assistant**

**2.6 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)**

The MAX system also includes several Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) designed to ensure reliable operations and maintain a high quality
of service as scheduled. Specific ITS elements include:

-   Traffic Signal Priority (TSP), which seeks to reduce signal delay
    for transit vehicles, was implemented at 11 intersections along Las
    Vegas Boulevard North and one queue jumper priority treatment.

-   A precision docking optical guidance system (OGS) intended to guide
    the vehicle into a precise docking at station platforms;

-   Automated passenger counter (APC) sensors and Computer Aided
    Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) communications system
    designed to electronically communicate passenger boardings and
    vehicle locations;

-   On-board electronic passenger information display.

The operation of these features is discussed in Chapter 4.

**2.7 Service and Operations Plans**

For its first implementation of a new brand of express service, RTC
chose to overlay an existing local bus line (113), making only small
changes in the route in order to reduce travel time, particularly in the
portion closer to the Downtown Transportation Center. While MAX and 113
operate along the same basic route, they do not have common stops; thus
it is not possible to wait for the first of the two that arrives.

MAX and Route 113 are scheduled independently, not with a joint headway.
Prior to initiation of MAX, RTC operated Route 113 on 15 minutes
headways from 5 am to 7 pm and with 30 minutes service from 7 pm to 5
am. After MAX started and riders began to switch services, RTC adjusted
the 113 schedule to 30-minute headways all day.

As with other CAT service, Route 113 trips are scheduled to depart at
specific clock times. MAX, on the other hand, is designed to operate on
a headway-based schedule. Vehicles begin the trip at a set interval (the
headway) after the start of the previous trip, without reference to a
scheduled clock time. Service is frequent enough such that passengers
are not expected to schedule their arrivals at bus stops. Therefore
maintaining regular intervals between buses is the best way to reduce
waiting time. MAX initially operated on 15-minute headways throughout
its span of service (5 am to 10 pm) and as demand increased, the
headways were reduced to 12 minutes before 7 pm.

**2.8 Branding and Marketing**

RTC incorporated both branding and marketing techniques to improve
customer satisfaction and increase and retain ridership on the MAX
service. Branding efforts concentrated on shaping and defining the
product so that the customer would identify the product as a unique
service with distinct characteristics. In the case of MAX, RTC set out
to brand it as rapid transit service. Accordingly, the vehicles,
stations, operating characteristics and internal vehicle comfort were
designed to reflect rapid transit-type service. Marketing strategies, on
the other hand, focused on communicating the distinct elements of the
service to the general public and encouraging them to use it.

**Branding**

RTC viewed the branding of MAX as an essential step in the process of
designing, developing and delivering a successful BRT product. The
objectives of the exercise were to convey the MAX image as high quality,
rapid transit service distinct from regular CAT Service. Accordingly,
RTC gave the service an independent name with no connection to CAT and
designed all aspects of the service to convey their targeted values. The
vehicle was chosen specifically to reflect rapid transit characteristics
and thus looks like a rapid transit vehicle with a sleek exterior,
multiple doors openings, low-floor, automated passenger information and
seating pattern more similar to a train than bus. Bus stops are referred
to as "stations" and were likewise designed to be consistent with rapid
transit characteristics with level boardings, passenger seating and
lighting. The headway based operating plan and off-board fare collection
system are also elements of the MAX brand and are more typical of rapid
transit than regular bus service.

The branding of the MAX service has largely been successful. Members of
the general public and community leaders both view the service as a
distinct, higher quality and more desirable service as compared with
regular transit service. Evidence of this is seen both from customer
survey results and in frequent requests made to RTC specifically for
more MAX service. RTC intends to retain the MAX brand as it expands BRT
service to other parts of the region. In addition, RTC has since created
another new brand of service, namely the "Deuce" a double-decker bus
that provides service to the major casinos along the Las Vegas Strip.

As mentioned, marketing is a distinct strategy from branding. In some
cases, however, RTC employed strategies that branded the service, and at
the same time, increased public awareness for the new service. The main
example of these strategies is the naming contest that RTC initiated for
their BRT service in July 2001. The contest was publicized in RTC
newsletters, television as well as general media. RTC received more than
3,000 suggestions and awarded the winning entry \$500.

**Marketing**

When the key elements of the brand were defined, RTC initiated a public
outreach campaign to increase awareness and knowledge of the new BRT
service. RTC maintains an on-going contract with an advertising agency,
but also carried out a significant portion of the marketing of the MAX
service in-house. RTC estimates using one full time employee for the
course of a year to carry out all activities related to the launching of
MAX service.

RTC launched the MAX service on a variety of media, including the RTC
website, quarterly newsletter and bi-monthly television show, both
titled "On the Move." The agency also advertised MAX through a series of
community outreach plans. The primary goals of these plans were to "(1)
educate the community and youth along Las Vegas Boulevard North about
MAX, its services, facilities and impact on air quality and traffic
congestion (2) educate affected businesses about the project, milestones
and activities that will affect them directly and (3) as a secondary,
more long-term goal, this effort is also meant to educate individuals to
future options, specifically to bring awareness about MAX as their
commute choice." Other public outreach activities consisted of paid
advertising; employer, youth, community, association, and government
outreach, and a separate, website dedicated to MAX.

![](media/image16.jpeg){width="6.393055555555556in"
height="3.361111111111111in"}

**Figure 2-12: MAX marketing materials**

According to RTC, the most valuable part of the launch campaign were the
"meet MAX" events in February - March 2004 and May - June 2004. Event
locations included major stores, housing projects, and a swap meet. The
events were held twice due to the postponing of the launch date. A CIVIS
vehicle and a ticket vending machine were brought to each location to
demonstrate their use and generate excitement about the new look of
transit.

RTC also made substantial efforts to reach students and seniors. The
school program included a letter offering to give MAX presentations,
pass holders, activity pages for children, and RTC promotional
materials. RTC created a MAX brochure for direct mailings, a MAX poster
for display, and gave out free ride passes at various special events and
community fairs along the corridor. Most promotional materials were
produced in both English and Spanish.

Three media events were scheduled throughout the MAX implementation
process. On September 12, 2002, a CIVIS test vehicle was available to
the media for an initial look. A MAX Vehicle Media Day was scheduled
upon the arrival of the first official MAX vehicle on August 7, 2003.
RTC held a press conference for the launch of MAX, June 30, 2004. MAX
was dedicated to the residents along Las Vegas Boulevard North. The
event included a band and color guard to salute MAX.

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="5.0in" height="3.75in"}

**Figure 2-13: Opening Day Celebration**

**3.0 SYSTEM COSTS**

BRT systems are designed as premium services and thus typically have
higher costs as compared with standard bus services but lower costs as
compared with similar premium services such as light rail. A key element
of this evaluation, therefore, was to consider capital and operating
costs associated with the MAX system. The following section discusses
both the capital and operating costs of the project.

**3.1 Capital Costs**

The total capital costs associated with developing the MAX system is
\$20.2 million -- this would rank among the lowest startup costs for a
new BRT system in the U.S. As shown in Table 3-1, the majority of these
costs are associated with vehicle procurement (60 percent), station
design (27 percent) and the fare collection system (10 percent).

The following unit costs are provided for comparison to other systems:

-   The first 20 stations were \$230,680 per station for construction.

-   The additional Lake Mead stations were \$64,278 per station for
    construction.

-   All station planning, design and construction was \$247,923 per
    station.

-   The first 5 CIVIS buses were \$1,309,250 per bus.

-   The second 5 CIVIS buses were \$1,013,660 per bus.

-   All vehicle costs, including training and inspection were
    \$1,209,646 per bus.

**Table 3-1: Overview of Capital Costs associated with the MAX
service\***

  ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------
  **Item**                                   **Cost**                  **% of Total
                                                                       Cost**

  **[Shelters]{.underline}**                                           

  Design / Planning                          \$1,173,516               

  Construction of Initial Passenger Shelters \$4,152,232               

  Construction of 2 Additional Passenger     [\$128,566]{.underline}   
  Shelters                                                             

                                             \$5,454,304               27%

  **[Optical Guidance]{.underline}**                                   

  Pavement Markings                          \$43,197                  0.2%

                                                                       

  **[Vehicles\*\*]{.underline}**                                       

  Initial 5 CIVIS Buses                      \$6,546,250               

  Driver and Maintenance Training            \$141,150                 

  5 Additional CIVIS Buses                   \$5,068,300               

  Vehicle Manufacturing Inspection           [\$340,760]{.underline}   

                                             \$12,096,460              60%

  **[Signal Priority]{.underline}**                                    

  Planning, Implementation & Evaluation      \$138,028                 

  Hardware                                   [\$130,945]{.underline}   

                                             \$268,973                 1.3%

  **[Fare Collection]{.underline}**                                    

  Fare Collection System                     \$1,800,686               

  Ticket Vending Machine Service Design      [\$200,000]{.underline}   

                                             \$2,000,686               10%

  **[AVL]{.underline}**                                                

  Installation by Orbital                    \$298,810                 1.5%

                                                                       

  TOTAL                                      \$20,162,430              
  ------------------------------------------ ------------------------- -------------

**Notes on MAX Capital Costs**

\* The cost of purchasing the running ways (bus lane) is not included in
costs as Nevada DOT provided this at no charge to RTC.

\*\* The optical guidance costs in this chart are included in the cost
of each MAX bus. The separate cost of the guidance system was \$95,000
per bus, plus an initial \$500,000 to prepare a study to determine
location of pavement markings.

**3.2 Operating Costs**

**Vehicle Operation & Maintenance**

MAX service operation is performed under contract to Veolia
Transportation (formerly ATC). Basic vehicle operating costs are
included in the contract, which as of March 2006 was priced at \$75.52
per hour. For comparison, the contract price for standard CAT bus
service is \$52 per hour (also provided by Veolia Transportation). This
discrepancy is due to the lower costs of operating and maintaining
standard buses and the higher standards required for BRT service.
However, RTC pays some costs directly, such as fuel and tires. RTC's
finance office adds these costs plus allocated management, planning, and
overhead costs to arrive at a fully accounted cost.

For the Fiscal Year July 2004 to June 2005, the average total operating
cost of MAX was \$92 per hour (see Table 3-2). Operating cost per
service hour increased by 20% for the next Fiscal Year (July 2005 to
June 2006), to an average of \$111 per hour. This increase was primarily
due to added costs for station maintenance and fare checkers. As service
hours increased in the first year it became evident that better and more
frequent maintenance was needed to ensure that MAX service was viewed as
a higher class of transit service. With the current hourly rate, the
cost to provide MAX's current 35,000 service hours per month is \$3.9
million per year. By comparison, the fully accounted cost for Route 113
is about \$72 per vehicle hour. MAX thus costs 50% more than standard
bus service on a per hour basis. The premium is less on a per mile
basis, because of MAX's faster operating speed.

**Table 3-2: MAX Operating Costs, July 2004 to December 2005**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------
                          **July 04 - June 05**   **July 05 -- June 06**

  **Operating Cost**      \$3,127,300             \$3,874,047

  **Service Hours**       33,847                  34,923

  **Average cost/hr**     \$92.39                 \$110.93

  **Average cost/mi**     \$7.24                  \$9.04
  ----------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------

RTC has identified some of the separate components of MAX-related costs,
including the following:

-   *Station maintenance*: RTC expends about \$84,000 per year for
    regular station cleaning and maintenance, plus another \$25,000 for
    painting and repairs, for a total of \$109,000.

-   *Ticket vending machines*: Servicing costs are \$1,200 per ticket
    vending machine per year; repairs not covered under the warranty are
    another \$3,000 per machine per year. RTC expects this cost to
    increase by 55 to 60% when they are out of warranty. RTC has one
    technician dedicated to TVMs and another one who services TVMs in
    addition to other fare collection equipment. Thus annual TVM
    servicing for 23 machines is currently about \$97,000.

-   *Security officers*: For 2006 the contract amount for providing
    security officers was \$330,000 per year, including fare
    verification and security for cash-in-transit and fare box
    cash-in-transit. RTC estimates that the cost of the fare
    verification portion of the contract alone is \$270,000.

On-going operating costs associated with the MAX service consists
primarily of operating and maintaining the vehicles. Other on-going
costs include station and TVM maintenance plus costs associated with
enforcing the off-board fare collection system.

4.0 PLANNING, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

**4.1 Planning and Design**

RTC planned and designed the MAX BRT to provide high quality, rapid
transit service. These goals meant that the BRT service would deviate
significantly from existing operating procedures and that RTC would be
implementing new technology and systems. Recognizing that much of the
MAX service was ground-breaking, RTC developed a variety of techniques
to ensure success as they implemented, managed and developed the MAX
service.

In this section of the evaluation, we will review the implementation
strategies used by RTC and examine their effectiveness and efficiency in
terms of managing and developing a BRT service. Our analysis
concentrates on three aspects of the implementation plan:

-   Vehicle Service, Operations and Maintenance Plan;

-   Implementation and Management of ITS Systems; and,

-   Branding, Imaging and Public Acceptance of Service.

We will present our findings for each of these topics in terms of what
management strategies were employed as well as an assessment of how
effective the technique proved to be. We will also highlight key lessons
associated with the management plan.

**4.2 Vehicle Service, Maintenance and Operations Plan**

When RTC selected the CIVIS vehicles as the signature vehicle for the
MAX service, they understood that while the vehicle offered distinct
advantages, it also presented challenges. The CIVIS vehicle, for
example, is designed and manufactured in France and prior to this
project, had not been sold in the United States. MAX, therefore, was the
initial application of the vehicle technology to U.S. standards and
conditions. In addition, RTC also had to develop mechanisms to ensure
vehicles could be properly maintained and parts would be readily
available. Recognizing these challenges, RTC adopted a series of
management and implementation techniques to ensure vehicles would be
effectively maintained, serviced and operated.

**Vehicle Service Plan**

The first step for an effective maintenance and operations system is to
ensure the service plan works with the available number of vehicles.
Although the first trip starts at 5 a.m. and the last trip starts at 10
p.m., MAX vehicles are in operation from 4 a.m. to 11 p.m. -- 17 hours a
day. Between 5 a.m. and 7 p.m., a MAX vehicle departs from the Downtown
Transportation Center (DTC) every 12 minutes regardless of when the last
vehicle returned. The round-trip cycle takes approximately 60 minutes to
complete, thus requiring six vehicles to operate. To ensure no breaks in
this schedule, RTC positions a spare vehicle at the DTC; if a vehicle is
delayed or has problems, the schedule can be met. On average, 0.6
vehicles are not available for service on any given day.

RTC maintains 10 CIVIS vehicles; six vehicles are on the road and one is
positioned at the DTC for a swap. This leaves two vehicles as spares and
one vehicle (unofficially) available for special events. RTC and Veolia
estimated that to maintain a 12 minute service, 10 vehicles is adequate,
but maintenance requirements mean it would be difficult to operate a 10
minute service, which would require seven vehicles on the road plus one
at DTC.

**Vehicle Maintenance**

As discussed, the CIVIS vehicle design includes new vehicle technology
and systems not previously tested in the United States, such as an
electric drive system with a diesel-driven generator and electric
motors. Anticipating challenges associated with maintaining the
vehicles, RTC developed a multi-pronged management plan that included:

-   Identifying and selecting the best electronic technicians available;

-   Providing these staff with extensive hands-on training;

-   Requiring two-years of on-site after sales service to help with
    vehicle maintenance;

-   Setting up on-going internal meetings to discuss maintenance that
    included conference calls with vehicle manufactures;

-   Tracking parts usage to ensure frequently needed parts are in stock;
    and

-   Taking advantages of vehicle technology such as on-board diagnostic
    systems to be proactive about vehicle repairs and maintenance.

As they did with the vehicle operators, RTC and Veolia also selected the
best electronic technicians working for CAT and trained them
extensively, both locally in Las Vegas as well as in France where they
worked directly with the manufacturer. Technicians were also rewarded
with salary increases and an opportunity to work on cutting-edge
electronic systems. These strategies created a team spirit and fostered
a sense of pride. To date, of the four mechanics currently assigned to
MAX, three have been with the project since inception.

RTC also required a significant after-sales service component in their
contract with Irisbus, the manufacture of the CIVIS vehicle. After-sales
elements included a CIVIS vehicle expert with appropriate language
skills on-site in Las Vegas for two years. In addition, Irisbus promised
to have a technical expert at the plant available 24 hours a day, seven
days a week to troubleshoot when maintenance or operation problems
arose. The Las Vegas and Irisbus teams also had weekly conference calls.
RTC considered these services essential to their success. Irisbus and
RTC effectively became partners in the successful implementation of the
CIVIS vehicles, a relationship that greatly enhanced the success of
vehicle implementation.

The CIVIS vehicle maintenance team acknowledged that they have had parts
supply problems; early in the project they underestimated the time
required for spare parts to get from France to Las Vegas and the impact
of custom requirements on parts delivery. Most of these problems have
been overcome, primarily by identifying high usage items, typically
parts associated with the drive train system, and keeping these items in
stock.

Lastly, RTC and Veolia also recognized that with the CIVIS vehicles,
communication between drivers and technicians is more important as
compared with the CAT fleet. This is because the CIVIS vehicles have
on-board diagnostics that give drivers information about CIVIS vehicles,
including mechanical issues. They trained the drivers to understand the
diagnostic system and communicate this information to the maintenance
team. As a result, they have been able to identify problems earlier and
avoid others all together.

**Vehicle Operations**

RTC recognized that drivers are ambassadors for MAX and therefore viewed
them as an essential component of a successful service. In addition, RTC
acknowledged that as compared with CAT vehicles, operating the CIVIS
required increased skill and experience. As a result, RTC and Veolia
developed an operator service quality plan built around selecting the
most experienced and best performing drivers, providing them with
additional training, and establishing and fostering team spirit.

Veolia set a variety of criteria to determine which drivers would be
eligible to work on the MAX project, including having:

-   At least two years of driving experience;

-   An impeccable safety record-- operators with no preventable
    accidents in the past two years and not more than one preventable
    accident over the last six years;

-   Good attendance;

-   No unexplainable customer complaints.

In addition to meeting these criteria, drivers interested in MAX had to
be willing to make a one-year commitment to the project. In exchange,
Veolia offered potential MAX drivers pay increases and intensive
training. MAX drivers received 80 hours of training behind the wheel,
much more than provided for other services. As with the maintenance
team, Veolia also worked to create team spirit among the drivers,
whereby the MAX drivers recognize themselves as "the best of the best."

MAX operators have proven to be an integral element of the success of
the MAX service. To date, only two drivers have left MAX, both to drive
RTC's new double-deck bus service, the Deuce. Currently there are 26
active drivers on the MAX schedule, plus two inactive drivers and 11 on
the MAX waiting list. MAX operations also have an exemplary safety
record; between January 2005 and May 2006, MAX drivers went 514 days
without a preventable accident.

**Lessons Learned**

RTC developed a successful plan both with regard to initial
implementation of MAX and on-going operations. The Study Team identified
two key lessons that can be taken from RTC's experience maintaining and
operating CIVIS vehicles.

***After sales service is essential**.* After sales service is
especially critical when implementing new technology and in cases where
products are developed overseas. On-going open conversation with the
vehicle supplier meant RTC was able to solve problems quickly and
efficiently and avoid service disruptions.

***Investments in human resources are worthwhile***. RTC worked with its
contractor to find, retain and train the best employees available and
reward them with training, improved working conditions and pay
increases. They also fostered a team spirit creating pride in their
work. As a result, staff turnover has been low, and performance and
satisfaction high.

**4.3 Implementation and Management of the ITS Elements**

As noted previously, RTC implemented several intelligent transportation
system elements as part of the MAX service, several of which were highly
innovative and prior to MAX, had not been widely implemented in the
United States. Three of the most visible ITS elements used in MAX are:

-   Optical Guidance System and Precision Docking;

-   Traffic Signal Priority and Queue Jumper Technology; and,

-   Automatic Passenger Counters and AVL/CAD systems.

**Optical Guidance System and Precision Docking**

RTC considered precision docking an essential feature of MAX; docking
vehicles flush with the raised station platforms would reduce vehicle
dwell time by ensuring all passengers could enter from any one of the
vehicle's four doors. To make precision docking easier and more
reliable, RTC procured and installed an optical guidance system. The
system operates by installing pavement markings that are tracked by an
on-board video camera, allowing the system to dock vehicles without
operator effort, thereby improving the accuracy of the docking.

After installing the system, however, RTC discovered problems. Reading
the pavement markings required a sufficient amount of contrast between
the pavement and the markings. Las Vegas is extremely dry; consequently
roads accumulate dust and dirt and there is no rain to clean the
surface. The build up of dirt quickly resulted in insufficient contrast
between the markings and the roadway, making the system unreliable.

RTC tried a variety of techniques to resolve the problem, including
re-painting the pavement markings, and was ultimately able to provide
sufficient contrast with weekly power-washing of the pavement markings.
While this solved the problem, it was an expensive solution. At the same
time, drivers demonstrated that they were able to dock the vehicles
manually by following the pavement markings and taking advantage of the
center drive position. As a result, RTC determined that the optical
guidance system was not a cost-effective technology for the Las Vegas
region and they were able to meet the requirement with manual docking.

However, one could say that this was an expensive lesson. The cost for
optical equipment for each bus was \$95,000. In addition, the pavement
markings cost \$43,000, and there was a \$500,000 initial study
investment to accurately determine the proper location of markings. In
all, the optical system cost nearly \$1.5 million, or roughly 7% of the
entire system cost.

**Transit Signal Priority**

Transit signal priority (TSP) is one of the core MAX components,
intended to increase speed and reliability. Eleven signalized
intersections on the MAX route were equipped with TSP logic to reduce
signal delay. In addition, one intersection was equipped with a "queue
jumper" to reduce bus wait time at the intersection (see section 4.2.3).

There are several operating constraints designed into the TSP
programming logic in order prevent excessive delay to other traffic.
Once a vehicle is given priority, the signal controller must be back in
synch with surrounding signals within one cycle length. TSP functions
cannot be called in consecutive cycles due to the compounding effects on
synchronization and the disruption of traffic flow. No traffic
movements, including pedestrian movements, can be skipped in any one
cycle. Some of the potential TSP functions at certain intersections were
disabled because of software and hardware limitations that prevented
them from being implemented given the constraints listed above.[^3]

**TSP Effectiveness**

How effective is the transit signal priority system at reducing travel
delay? RTC provided us with automatic vehicle location data for MAX on
days with the Transit signal priority system enabled and disabled. A
comparison of these travel time data lets us determine the effect of TSP
on MAX's travel time.[^4]

The dataset contains door open and close time, passengers on, passengers
off, and scheduled trip start time. However, the AVL system did not
successfully record data for each stop. The Downtown Transportation
Center (DTC) stop is often missing from each trip record (RTC is aware
of this problem.) Therefore, it was impossible to compare end-to-end
trip times. We instead chose the longest segment for which complete
information was available for most trips. For southbound trips, almost
every trip departure from the Craig terminal was recorded. The trip end
time was taken as door open at Tonopah (Jerry's Nugget), the last stop
before the DTC. For northbound trips, the trip start time was taken as
door close at Tonopah (Jerry's Nugget), and the trip end time was taken
as door open at Cheyenne Avenue, which is five stops before the end of
the line. Using a further destination would have greatly reduced the
sample size because the number of observations recorded per stop dropped
off dramatically beyond Cheyenne, presumably due to technical problems.
Furthermore, Cheyenne Avenue is the northern-most traffic signal
equipped with TSP; looking at further stops is therefore unnecessary to
evaluate the effects of TSP.

**Southbound Trips**

There were 1,049 matched pairs of observations of southbound trips from
Craig Avenue to Tonopah; 389 of these were with TSP functioning. There
were two outliers in the dataset (trips of 53 and 92 minutes) which were
removed. All other trips were under 29 minutes. A regression model of
trip duration in minutes was estimated. The explanatory variables are:
trip using transit signal priority (TSP), day of the week, and peak or
non-peak; all of these are indicator variables having the value 0 or 1.
A "peak" trip was defined as one occurring between 7 am and 7 pm.
(Analysis of the data reveals that there is not much variation in mean
trip time during this long period.) As shown in Table 4-1, the first
model shows that the mean trip time was just over 18 minutes and was 1.4
minutes (1 min, 22 seconds) longer in the peak period and just over 1
minute shorter on Sundays. There were no other significant differences
by day of the week. The use of TSP was not statistically significant.
Perhaps TSP only makes a difference during the peak period, when there
is more traffic congestion. To test this, we estimated a second model
including a term representing the interaction between peak period and
TSP on. This model suggests that there was no effect of TSP in the peak,
contrary to our assumption. However, in the off peak, trips with TSP
functioning were 0.5 minutes (30 seconds) quicker (coefficient
significant at the 90% confidence level).

+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| 4 |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| 1 |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| : |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| R |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| g |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| f |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| A |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| X |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| v |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| m |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| w |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| w |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| S |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| g |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| P |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| y |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| S |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| p |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| \ |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| ( |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| D |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| p |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| V |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| : |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| v |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| m |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| ) |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   |                    | **coeff.** | **t**    | **       | **t**  |   |
|   |                    |            |          | coeff.** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Constant**       | **18.09**  | 94.59    | *        | 85.34  |   |
|   |                    |            |          | *18.22** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **TSP**            | -0.17      | -1.29    | *        | -1.80  |   |
|   |                    |            |          | *-0.49** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Sunday**         | **-1.07**  | -4.68    | *        | -4.69  |   |
|   |                    |            |          | *-1.07** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Monday**         | 0.11       | 0.46     | 0.12     | 0.48   |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Tuesday**        | 0.24       | 1.05     | 0.24     | 1.07   |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Wednesday**      | -0.04      | -0.16    | -0.04    | -0.14  |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Friday**         | 0.03       | 0.17     | 0.03     | 0.17   |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Saturday**       | -0.22      | -1.06    | -0.22    | -1.05  |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Peak**           | **1.38**   | 9.04     | **1.21** | 6.23   |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Peak\*tsp**      |            |          | 0.42     | 1.35   |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Adjusted R       | > 0.10     |          | > 0.10   |        |   |
|   | Square**           |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Std. Error of    | > 2.03     |          | > 2.03   |        |   |
|   | the Estimate**     |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Observations**   | > 1,047    |          | > 1,047  |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+

Table notes: Coefficients that are significant at the 90% confidence
level or higher are shown in bold. Peak" refers to 7 am to 7 pm.

**Northbound Trips**

There were 555 matched observations of northbound trips from Tonopah to
Cheyenne Avenue; 202 of these were with TSP functioning. The variables
used are the same as for southbound trips. The model results (Table 4-2)
show that peak trips average a bit over a minute longer than non-peak
trips and that Saturday trips are slightly shorter. The first model
shows that TSP actually made trips slightly longer, but by an
inconsequently amount (0.22 minutes, or 13 seconds). The second model
includes an interaction term for peak-period TSP trips. This model
reveals that peak period trips with TSP were not statistically different
from peak trips without TSP, but off-peak trips with TSP were about 30
seconds longer, contrary to expectations of improved travel time with
TSP. This result was significant at the 90% confidence interval.

+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| 4 |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| 2 |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| : |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| R |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| g |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| f |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| A |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| X |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| v |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| m |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| w |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| w |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| f |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| f |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| c |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| S |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| g |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| P |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| y |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| - |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| N |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| h |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| o |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| p |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| \ |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| * |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| ( |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| D |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| p |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| d |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| V |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| b |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| : |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| r |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| a |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| v |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| l |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| T |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| m |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| M |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| i |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| n |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| u |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| t |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| e |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| s |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
| ) |                    |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   |                    | >          | > **t**  | > **     | >      |   |
|   |                    | **coeff.** |          | coeff.** |  **t** |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Constant**       | >          | > 51.31  | > *      | >      |   |
|   |                    |  **10.81** |          | *10.65** |  41.71 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **TSP**            | > **0.22** | > 1.70   | >        | > 1.66 |   |
|   |                    |            |          | **0.54** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Sunday**         | > -0.12    | > -0.50  | > -0.12  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -0.49 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Monday**         | > -0.34    | > -1.44  | > -0.35  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -1.48 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Tuesday**        | > -0.32    | > -1.54  | > -0.32  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -1.56 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Wednesday**      | > -0.20    | > -0.83  | > -0.20  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -0.83 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Friday**         | > -0.03    | > -0.15  | > -0.02  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -0.10 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Saturday**       | >          | > -1.69  | > *      | >      |   |
|   |                    |  **-0.35** |          | *-0.34** |  -1.67 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Peak**           | > **1.19** | > 6.76   | >        | > 5.70 |   |
|   |                    |            |          | **1.37** |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | **Peak\*tsp**      | > \-       | > \-     | > -0.38  | >      |   |
|   |                    |            |          |          |  -1.08 |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | > **Adjusted R**   | > 0.07     |          | > 0.07   |        |   |
|   | >                  |            |          |          |        |   |
|   | > **Square**       |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | > **Std. Error of  | > 1.45     |          | > 1.45   |        |   |
|   | > the Estimate**   |            |          |          |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+
|   | > **Observations** | > 555      |          | > 555    |        |   |
+---+--------------------+------------+----------+----------+--------+---+

Table notes: Coefficients that are significant at the 90% confidence
level or higher are shown in bold. "Peak" refers to 7 am to 7pm.

**Discussion of Results**

These results show that TSP hastened southbound off-peak trips by about
30 seconds, but *slowed* northbound off-peak trips by about the same
amount. Recall that off-peak in this case means 5 am to 7 am or 7 pm to
10 pm. These findings were statistically significant. However, they
represent only a 3% decrease in travel time southbound and a 5% increase
northbound. Based on these results, we conclude that there is little or
no benefit from the TSP installation in this case.

Why did we fail to find an effect of TSP? One possibility is the
limitations of the data provided. Due to gaps in the recording of AVL
data by stop, the trips analyzed do not include the Tonopah to DTC
segment in either direction, and therefore do not take into account the
effects of TSP on Owens and on Main Street. Also, the northbound data
only go as far as Cheyenne, although this is the northernmost
intersection equipped with TSP. Unless traffic congestion is much more
severe at the two TSP-equipped intersections not included in this
analysis, complete data would be unlikely to change the conclusions,
since we have included 8 of the 10 TSP intersections.

A more likely explanation for the failure to find a travel time benefit
from TSP is simply that there is insufficient traffic congestion in this
corridor to generate significant signal delays during most times of the
day. Travel times are fairly constant throughout the day. Southbound
trips between 5 and 6 am average 17.3 minutes (the fastest hour of the
day); trips between 4 and 5 pm average 20.0 minutes (the slowest hour).
The difference is only 16%, and most of this is probably due to the
greater number of passengers boarding and alighting at the later hour.

**Queue Jumper**

The single "queue jumper" in the system is located at Jerry's Nugget
southbound station where Las Vegas Boulevard North crosses Tonapah. A
request to "jump queue" is triggered when the induction loops in the
right-turn only lane sense a vehicle and the vehicle transmits an
Opticom infrared signal. A request, therefore, will only be triggered
when a vehicle is waiting at a red light. Upon receiving the request,
the traffic signal controller displays a special white bar signal,
indicating a bus-only green. This signal lets the driver continue
straight from the right-turn only lane, before other traffic is
released. The Jerry's Nugget southbound station is an excellent location
for the technology because the road drops from three to two lanes,
creating the potential to delay a transit vehicle waiting to merge out
of a station.

RTC has experienced minimal problems with the technical functions of the
queue jumper system; in some cases members of the public who do not
understand the system have called the police, reporting a vehicle
running a red light. RTC used the technology strategically to ensure the
service met its operating criteria.

The deficiencies in the AVL data, as discussed in the previous section,
mean that we have no travel time data that includes the queue jumper; it
may have an effect on travel time, but we were unable to measure it.
However, 95% of bus operators surveyed believe that it helps to speed
service (see section 5.2).

**Off-Board Proof of Payment Fare Collection System**

RTC implemented the off-board fare collection system to reduce vehicle
dwell time at stations; off-board fare payment is also consistent with
the characteristics of rapid transit services. An off-board proof of
payment fare collection system means that passengers buy their tickets
from automated ticket vending machines (TVMs) before they board the
vehicle. Tickets are periodically checked by "fare checkers" who board
buses at random and ask passengers to show valid fare media. MAX was the
first experience with both off-board proof of payment systems and using
automated ticket vending machines in the Las Vegas valley.

Wackenhut Security has a contract with RTC to provide fare verification
and security on the MAX system. Although the fare checkers are security
personnel, their responsibility on MAX is to collect fares. Drivers are
still responsible for enforcing service rules. Two Wackenhut officers
ride MAX at all times; they never board vehicles together and typically
ride in opposite directions. When they board the vehicle, they ask all
passengers on the vehicle to show proof of payment. With two officers
riding MAX at all times, Wackenhut is able to check approximately 20
percent of passengers, meaning a commuter can expect to be checked an
average of once a week. RTC believes this level of checking is
sufficient to create a perception that a ticket inspection is likely.

When a passenger is caught without valid fare, the security officer will
ask the individual to get off at the next stop and purchase a ticket. At
this time, the officer will also explain how the system works. Officers
are able to check fare evaders against a list of previous offenders that
is updated daily and available via hand held personal digital assistants
(PDA) carried by the officers. In 2005, Wackenhut filed about 500
reports per month, a number that has increased in proportion to MAX
ridership. About three-quarters of the reports are related to fare
enforcement, and most of the rest are for loitering. Almost all (98%) of
the fare-related reports are warnings for no ticket, expired ticket, or
no valid ID. In 2005, about 10 summonses were given per month for fare
evasion. That number is up to 40 to 50 summons in lieu of arrest (SILA)
packages per month for 2006. Fare evaders are given two warnings before
receiving a SILA. RTC considers the current number of summonses
manageable.

RTC's experience with off-board fare collection is positive. Passengers
have adapted to both using the TVMs and purchasing their tickets before
they board MAX. Taking fare collection away from the drivers has reduced
vehicle dwell time. The officers also provide an increased sense of
security both on board the vehicles and at the stations, a service that
is well appreciated by drivers and passengers. Officers also help RTC in
other ways, such as reducing station loitering and reporting vandalism.

**Lessons Learned**

RTC identified a series of intelligent transportation systems deemed
essential to creating a rapid transit service. In some cases new systems
were implemented easily and in others less so but in every case,
installing and operating new technologies required considerable staff
resources. Because staff was able to spend time on implementation and
adjust systems on the ground, however, they were able to use the
technology effectively and improve the quality of the transit service.

Experience with the MAX ITS systems also created opportunity for
transferability of technologies from MAX to the wider transit network.
An excellent example of technology transfers is the TVMs. After
installing TVMs at the MAX stations and DTC, RTC expanded use of the
machines to other locations; many of these TVMs are among the most
productive machines in the RTC transit network.

**4.4 Branding and Public Acceptance of Service**

As discussed, when planning and designing MAX, RTC branded the service
so that it would be distinct from existing CAT services and attract a
higher portion of "choice" riders. The branding exercise was successful;
after one year of operations, MAX ridership increased by nearly 40
percent, from 7,000 daily riders to 9,800, and survey results show a
majority of people identify MAX as providing faster and more reliable
services (see Chapter 6).

As the Study Team examined the impact of the MAX brand, it became
apparent that the experience with MAX has also played an important role
in shaping the perception and expectation for transit service delivery.
Indeed, the successful implementation of MAX on Las Vegas Boulevard is
leading to expansion of the service to other parts of the RTC service
area. In addition, our research suggests that experience implementing
MAX has been at least partially responsible for both RTC staff's
willingness to experiment with additional innovative transit services
and the community's willingness to accept them.

**Additional MAX Routes**

After successfully implementing a premier rapid transit service, RTC was
able to obtain the cooperation of local governments to expand the MAX
service into a broader system of BRT services. The City of Las Vegas,
for example, has agreed to use existing right-of-way to create a
center-running exclusive busway through Downtown and on Grand Central
Parkway. This new route will be branded as MAX with the same colors and
look as the existing MAX. The station designs will be context-sensitive
and reflect the cultural resources of the surrounding community.

In 2005, RTC released an RFP seeking to purchase 50 vehicles similar to
those used on the first MAX route, to be used on in the summer of 2008
for the Boulder Highway MAX and the Downtown Connector MAX. Seven
manufacturers responded to the RFP. In June 2006, RTC announced a deal
with the Wright Group of Northern Ireland, UK to procure 50 StreetCar
BRT vehicles, which have rail-like styling, in the manner of the CIVIS
(see Figure 4-1). Unlike the CIVIS, the StreetCar does not have optical
guidance. ISE Corporation of San Diego will provide hybrid diesel
electric engines.

![](media/image18.png){width="5.0in" height="3.2159722222222222in"}

**Figure 4-1: An illustration of one of the 50 new BRT vehicles to be
added to the MAX fleet. This vehicle is being manufactured by the Wright
Group of Northern Ireland. It will resemble the CIVIS but will not have
optical guidance.**

**Regional Fixed Guideway**

The MAX experience has also influenced other regional transportation
projects. Las Vegas has been examining the potential of using BRT
technology for the proposed regional fixed guideway, a 33-mile
long-distance transit service bisecting the Las Vegas Valley, since
2002. During this time, the community has been considering both bus and
rail technologies. After considerable debate and after MAX was
successfully implemented, the RTC Board voted in April 2006 to designate
rubber-tire rapid transit technology such as MAX, as the Locally
Preferred Alternative for further consideration in an environmental
impact statement and alternatives analysis. The Downtown Connector MAX
would effectively be the first stage of the RFG.

**New Transit Services and Products**

RTC also launched a new double decker bus service, the "Deuce",
operating along the Las Vegas strip (see Figure 4-2). The service
commenced in late October 2005 and was designed to accommodate larger
volumes of passengers; up to 97 people can fit on each bus. Although the
Deuce operation plan is more consistent with regular CAT service, it
provides another example of the RTC implementing innovative services.

![](media/image19.jpeg){width="3.2in" height="2.3875in"}

**Figure 4-2: Deuce, RTC\'s new double decker bus, operates on the
heavily traveled Las Vegas strip.**

**Lessons Learned**

RTC successfully used the MAX experiment to develop an appreciation for
and understanding of the potential of alternative rapid transit
technologies. They also demonstrated an ability to implement alternative
services, innovative technology, and new ideas. Two new features of the
system -- the center drive position on MAX vehicles and pavement
markings -- were deemed very important by a majority of drivers for
docking the vehicles, and for making precise stops (See Table 4-3). The
Optical Guidance system, originally implemented for this same purpose,
was deemed "not important at all" by a majority of MAX drivers. Success
with these projects has effectively increased community support for RTC
sponsored initiatives and ideas. RTC, in turn, has built on this support
to promote other services.

**Table 4-3:\
Importance of MAX features in docking the vehicle for precise stops\***

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.4270833333333335in"}

**\*** See MAX BRT Service Questionnaire (Driver Survey) in Appendix.

5.0 EVALUATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

The MAX BRT system introduced a number of key performance attributes
aimed at improving the pre-existing CAT conventional bus service in Las
Vegas. Our evaluation of system performance is presented in this section
and covers a number of the MAX system attributes that have been
identified in FTA's CBRT document for decision making. These include:

-   Travel Time (both actual and perceived)

-   Reliability (actual on-time performance as well in terms of
    passenger and driver perceptions);

-   Identity and Image (based on surveys and media)

-   Safety and Security (actual crime, passenger perceptions and traffic
    issues)

-   Capacity (vehicle capacity and passengers per hour per direction)

Each of these attributes is discussed below.

**5.1 Travel Time**

End-to-end travel time on MAX would be expected to be faster than Route
113 because of the following factors:

-   Fewer stations means that there is less travel time loss due to
    acceleration and deceleration, and potentially less variability
    among runs that make many stops compared to those that make few
    stops.

-   Proof-of-payment fare collection eliminates the need to pay while
    boarding and permits boarding passengers to use all four doors. This
    policy, plus the additional, wider doors and the level boarding (no
    steps) are expected to significantly reduce dwell times at stops
    compared to Route 113.

-   The traffic signal priority requests and the single queue jumper may
    also help reduce travel time, or at least its variability.

-   The exclusive bus lane may also have reduced travel time.

In fact, the end-to-end travel time on MAX was found to be faster than
Route 113. Based on the data presented in this section, fewer stations
and proof-of-payment are factors. However, the traffic signal priority
has not significantly changed travel time. Although the exclusive bus
lane is believed to have an effect, we have no data on Route 113 travel
time prior to its deployment.

**AVL Travel Time Data**

The AVL system provides on time performance (OTP) reports showing
departure times at each the terminus and at pre-assigned time points.
For both MAX and 113, there are 5 time points including the DTC. The
time points for the two routes are not in the same places, except at
each end. The data provided by RTC had many missing observations for the
DTC time point. According to DTC, the AVL system is not consistently
measuring the time at which the bus leaves the Downtown Transportation
Center. We followed their advice in measuring travel time from the
subsequent timepoint, adding in the scheduled travel time from the DTC
to the first time point (and from the last time point to the DTC in the
southbound direction) to produce estimates for the entire route. [^5]

We summarized a week's worth of OTP data using a regression model with
minutes of travel time as the dependent variable and indicators for day
of the week and peak starting time as independent variables.[^6] The
peak period was defined as 7 am to 7 pm, every day of the week. Route
113 serves trips from 10 pm to 5 am that are not served by MAX. These
Route 113 overnight trips were coded with an indicator variable so they
could be accounted for separately.

The results for northbound and southbound trips are shown in Tables 5-1
and 5-2. The intercept in each of these ordinary least squares models
can be interpreted as the average travel time, in minutes, for a
baseline trip. In our case, a baseline trip is an off-peak trip on a
Thursday (and that is not an overnight trip, in the case of Route 113).
The independent variables tell us how travel times varies by peak, off
peak, and overnight periods, and by day of the week. The t-statistic,
which is the coefficient divided by its standard error, tells us if the
difference is statistically significant. If the t-statistic is greater
than 1.65, we can be 90% confident that the coefficient is not zero (in
other words, for 9 out of 10 sample data sets we will be right); if it
is greater than 1.96, we can be 95% confident (in other words, we will
be right for 19 out of 20 samples).

**Table 5-1: Regression Model of MAX and 113 Travel Time, Northbound**\
(coefficients in bold type are statistically significant at the 90%
level or higher)

+----------------------------------------------------------------+-----+
|   ---------------                                              |     |
| --- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----- ------ ------ |     |
|   * *                                                          |     |
|           **MAX**             **113**                          |     |
|                                                                |     |
|                                                                |     |
|           *coeff.*   *t Stat* *coeff.*   *t                    |     |
|                                                                |     |
|                                          Stat*                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Interce                                                    |     |
| pt**      **29.2**   33.96    **39.2**   29.96                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Peak**                                                     |     |
|           **2.7**    4.23     **4.9**    5.05                  |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Fri**                                                      |     |
|           -1.2       -1.27    -0.4       -0.30                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Sat**                                                      |     |
|           **-1.8**   -1.86    0.1        0.05                  |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Sun**                                                      |     |
|           -1.4       -1.48    -2.2       -1.54                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Mon**                                                      |     |
|           0.1        0.13     -1.7       -1.22                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Tues**                                                     |     |
|           0.5        0.48     -1.0       -0.75                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Wed**                                                      |     |
|           0.1        0.06     -1.3       -0.93                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Overnig                                                    |     |
| ht**      \-         \-       **-3.5**   -3.23                 |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Adjuste                                                    |     |
| d R       0.04                0.28                             |     |
|   Square**                                                     |     |
|                                                                |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Standar                                                    |     |
| d Error** 5.77                5.89                             |     |
|                                                                |     |
|   **Observa                                                    |     |
| tions**   506                 269                              |     |
|   ---------------                                              |     |
| --- ---------- -------- ---------- ------- ----- ------ ------ |     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+-----+

**Table 5-2: Travel Time and Speed Differences by Time Period,\
MAX and 113, Northbound** (using estimates from Table 5-1)

  -------------------- --------- --------- ------- --------- --------- ----------- ---------
                       **MAX**                     **113**             **Time      
                                                                       Savings**   

  **Time Period**      **Min**   **MPH**   ** **   **Min**   **MPH**   **Min**     ***%***

  **Peak**             31.9      14.3              44.1      10.4      12.2        28%

  **Off peak**         29.2      15.7              39.2      11.7      10.0        26%

  **Overnight**        \-        \-                35.6      12.9      \-          \-

  **Peak vs.           9%        -9%               13%       11%                   
  off-peak**                                                                       

  **Route Miles**      7.619                       7.667                           
  -------------------- --------- --------- ------- --------- --------- ----------- ---------

The model reveals that the average Route 113 trip time northbound is
more than 39 minutes in the off-peak and more than 44 minutes in the
peak (recall that the peak is here defined as 7 am to 7 pm). By
contrast, MAX northbound averages 29 minutes in the off-peak and less
than 32 minutes in the peak. This translates into a 28% reduction in
end-to-end travel time in the peak and 26% in the off peak (see Table
5-2). The findings for southbound trips (Tables 5-3 and 5-4) are
similar: 33% reduction in travel time due to MAX in the peak and 26% in
the off-peak.[^7]

Overall, the variability of travel time is less for MAX than for 113.
The difference between peak and off-peak travel time is 14% for 113
northbound and 13% for 113 southbound, but 9% for MAX northbound and
only 3% southbound (see Peak vs. Off Peak, Tables 5-2 and 5-4). Compared
to all the other days of the week, MAX was a bit faster on weekends (1.8
minutes faster Saturday, northbound only; 1.4 to 1.9 minutes faster on
Sunday).

**Table 5-3: Regression Model of MAX and 113 Travel Time, Southbound**\
(coefficients in bold type are statistically significant at the 90%
level or higher)

  -------------------------- -------------- --------- -------------- --------- -- -- --
  *** ***                    **MAX**                  **113**                        

                             ***coeff.***   ***t      ***coeff.***   ***t            
                                            Stat***                  Stat***         

  **Intercept**              **27.3**       64.87     **37.1**       23.68           

  **Peak**                   **0.9**        2.88      **5.0**        4.09            

  **Fri**                    -0.5           -1.07     0.9            0.55            

  **Sat**                    -0.7           -1.43     0.8            0.49            

  **Sun**                    **-1.9**       -4.05     0.6            0.41            

  **Mon**                    -0.4           -0.80     2.3            1.49            

  **Tues**                   0.5            1.10      **3.5**        2.24            

  **Wed**                    0.7            1.47      **4.9**        3.07            

  **Overnight**              \-             \-        **-6.5**       -4.86           

  **Adjusted R Square**      0.07                     0.37                           

  **Standard Error**         2.88                     6.75                           

  **Observations**           532                      272                            
  -------------------------- -------------- --------- -------------- --------- -- -- --

**Table 5-4:\
Travel Time and Speed Differences by Time Period,\
MAX and 113, Southbound\
**(using estimates from Table 5-3)

  ---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----------- --------
                         **MAX**             **113**             **Time      
                                                                 Savings**   

  **Time Period**        **Min**   **MPH**   **Min**   **MPH**   **Min**     **%**

  **Peak**               28.2      15.2      42.2      10.2      14.0        33%

  **Off-peak**           27.3      15.7      37.1      11.5      9.8         26%

  **Overnight**          \-        \-        30.6      14.0      \-          \-

  **Peak vs. Off-peak**  3%        -3%       14%       12%                   

  **Route Miles**        7.131               7.136                           
  ---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----------- --------

The sources of the travel time savings for MAX will be explored below.
However, we should point out that these trips were measured on
essentially the same route at the same level of traffic congestion, and
that both routes use the bus lane where it is available. Therefore, the
differences observed are not due to differences in traffic congestion,
nor to the bus lane (although the bus lane might have an effect compared
to not having it). Further, the slowing of Route 113 peak service,
compared to off-peak or overnight, is not primarily due to increased
traffic congestion in the peak, because if that were the source, MAX
would be equally effected (although somewhat mitigated by the
availability of traffic signal priority at some signalized intersections
for MAX only). Longer dwell time and more frequent stops due to more
stop requests is more likely to be the source of the peak-period delay
on 113. MAX travel time is less sensitive to the number of passengers,
based on this comparison of peak and off-peak travel time.

**Perceived Travel Time**

Perceived travel time is a key factor in the decision to take public
transit. In an April 2005 survey of MAX riders, more than 90% of
respondents indicated that their travel time had decreased since riding
MAX, and two thirds indicated it had decreased by 11 minutes or
more.[^8] In an October 2005 survey the responses were very similar: 88%
said their travel time had decreased, and 61% said it had decreased by
11 minutes or more. The travel time savings was similar for different
trip purposes (work, errands, leisure or family/friend visits). Table
5-5 and Figure 5-1 show the responses to the travel time change
question.

**Table 5-5: Has your travel time changed since riding MAX?**

  ------------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------
                            **April 2005**                   **October       
                                                             2005**          

  **Response**              **Frequency**   **Percentage**   **Frequency**   **Percentage**

  **Yes, 1-5 minutes        16              7.1%             20              9.0%
  faster**                                                                   

  **Yes, 6-10 minutes       38              16.9%            39              17.5%
  faster**                                                                   

  **Yes, 11-15 minutes      60              26.7%            54              24.2%
  faster**                                                                   

  **Yes, More than 15       90              40.0%            82              36.8%
  minutes faster**                                                           

  **No, about the same**    19              8.4%             23              10.3%

  **Yes, slower**           2               0.9%             5               2.2%

  **Total**                 225             100.0%           223             100.0%
  ------------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------

**Figure 5-1:\
Has your travel time changed since riding MAX? (October 2005)**

![](media/image21.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.4854166666666666in"}

MAX riders were asked the main reason they prefer to ride MAX. In April
2005, 72.4% listed faster travel time among the main reasons for
choosing MAX. In October 2005, this figure declined to 64.3%.

In both April and October, 69.3% of respondents rated the speed of MAX
travel as excellent. In comparison, only 5.8% and 12% of CAT riders
rated the speed as excellent (see Table 5-6).

**Table 5-6: Rate the speed of travel on MAX and CAT**

  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                               **April               **October   
                               2005**                2005**      

                               **MAX**    **CAT      **MAX**     **CAT
                                          113**                  113**

  **Excellent**                69.3%      5.8%       69.3%       12.0%

  **Good**                     28.4%      47.6%      29.8%       44.0%

  **Fair**                     2.2%       31.6%      0.9%        34.7%

  **Poor**                     0.0%       14.7%      0.0%        8.9%
  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

**Wait and Transfer Time**

The majority of MAX riders transferring from other routes (52.8%)
indicated that their wait at the transfer point was between 1 and 5
minutes; only 11% waited 16 minutes or more. Route 113 riders were much
more likely to have a longer wait: only 26.6% waited 1 to 5 minutes and
34% waited more than 16 minutes. Table 5-7 shows the responses to this
wait time inquiry.

**Table 5-7: For riders transferring from other CAT/MAX routes,\
how long did you wait at the location you transferred? (October 2005)**

  ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------
                         **MAX**                          **CAT 113**     

  **Response**           **Frequency**   **Percentage**   **Frequency**   **Percentage**

  **1-5 minutes**        38              52.8%            25              26.6%

  **6-10 minutes**       12              16.7%            22              23.4%

  **11-15 minutes**      14              19.4%            15              16.0%

  **16-20 minutes**      2               2.8%             12              12.7%

  **More than 20         6               8.3%             20              21.3%
  minutes**                                                               

  **Total**              72              100.0%           94              100.0%
  ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------

In both April and October, 60% of respondents rated MAX wait time as
excellent (see Table 5-8). In comparison, only 3% to 7% rated Route 113
wait time as excellent. More than one quarter of respondents said that
Route 113 wait time was poor, but not a single person said that MAX wait
time was poor.

**Table 5-8: Rate the Wait Time at MAX and CAT Stations**

  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                               **April               **October   
                               2005**                2005**      

                               **MAX**    **CAT      **MAX**     **CAT
                                          113**                  113**

  **Excellent**                59.6%      2.7%       60.4%       6.7%

  **Good**                     36.9%      32.9%      38.2%       32.4%

  **Fair**                     3.6%       35.1%      1.3%        35.6%

  **Poor**                     0.0%       29.3%      0.0%        25.3%
  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

**Station Dwell Time**

The combination of level boarding, proof-of-payment fare collection, and
multiple doors should reduce dwell time. Dwell time is also directly
affected by the number of people boarding, the number alighting, and
crowding on the vehicle. Because Route 113 and MAX may have different
amounts of activity per stop, we cannot directly compare dwell time per
stop. Therefore we estimated a regression model of dwell time for both
MAX and 113 as a function of ons and offs (data on total load on the
vehicle were not available).

The AVL data were cleaned by eliminating stops at the termini where
every observation had unreasonably high dwell time. RTC believes that
these readings are the result of the inability of the AVL system to
distinguish between the end of one trip and the beginning of the next at
the terminus. There were also some unrealistically high dwell times at
other stops. Therefore, we capped the dwell time for all observations at
100 seconds. With the data cleaning, we were still able to use 91% of
the observations for 113 and 97% for MAX.

The results of regression models for Route 113 and MAX are shown in
Table 5-9. On average boarding time is faster by more than 2 seconds per
person on MAX compared to 113. The model suggests that alighting time
per person is slightly slower on MAX on average. However, because the
constant term (which can be interpreted as the estimated delay with no
people boarding) is lower on MAX, the estimated delay *per stop* is
lower for MAX unless there are more than 15 people alighting and no one
boarding. The average dwell time per stop is graphed in Figure 5-2
assuming that the number of people alighting per stop is fixed at five
and the number boarding varies. With as few as 10 people boarding per
stop, MAX has an advantage of 30 seconds lower dwell time per stop than
Rt. 113. This advantage increases as the number of boardings per stop
increases.

**Table 5-9: Dwell Time Model Results**

  -------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------
                                   **Rt. 113**         **MAX**

  **Constant (sec)**               16.5                9.0

  **On (sec)**                     3.9                 1.6

  **Off (sec)**                    1.0                 1.5

  **n used**                       2,471               43,748

  **Total n**                      2,711               45,273

  **% used**                       91%                 97%
  -------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------

Table notes: Dwell time capped at 100 seconds. Excluding the Walmart
stop (#1281) for route 113 and excluding the DTC stop (#4269) for MAX.
The complete 113 model is (standard errors in parentheses):

Dwell time = 16.5 + 3.9 (0.36) ON + 1.0 (0.15) OFF

adj. R-sq = 0.256

For MAX:

Dwell time = 9.0 + 1.6 (0.023) ON + 1.5 (0.011) OFF

adj. R-sq = 0.334

**Figure 5-2: Estimated Station Dwell Time\
**assuming 5 passengers alighting

![](media/image22.wmf){width="4.5152777777777775in"
height="2.6368055555555556in"}

**5.2 Reliability**

In theory, MAX service may be more reliable than Route 113 for the
following reasons:

-   Traffic signal priority and queue jumper reduce the variation in
    delay at signalized intersections.

-   Proof of payment fare collection (with use of multiple doors)
    reduces the difference in dwell time at times of lower or higher
    demand and thus reduces variability in trip times.

-   Fewer stops may also lead to less of a difference in delay due to
    the number of stops made between high-demand and low-demand times of
    day.

-   MAX is operated on a headway-based schedule.

-   Our analysis of AVL running time data showed that MAX travel time
    varies less between the peak and off-peak than route 113, and also
    less between different days of the week, although the latter result
    is based on limited data. In addition, there is more variation among
    trip times for Route 113. The standard deviation of running time
    (for a week's worth of data) is 7.5 minutes for Route 113 southbound
    and 6.8 Route 113 northbound but only 5.9 minutes for MAX northbound
    and 3.0 minutes for MAX southbound.[^9]

Passengers may also perceive MAX to be more reliable than Route 113
because it has a higher scheduled service frequency and is much less
likely to be overcrowded. MAX is seen as more reliable than Route 113:
96% of MAX riders surveyed gave a positive rating (excellent or good)
for reliability (see Table 5-10). In contrast, only 50% to 54% gave a
positive rating for Route 113.

**Table 5-10: Rate the Dependability of MAX and CAT**

  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------
                          **April                   **October   
                          2005**                    2005**      

                          **MAX**      **CAT 113**  **MAX**     **CAT
                                                                113**

  **Excellent**           59.6%        7.1%         66.2%       19.6%

  **Good**                37.3%        42.2%        30.2%       34.2%

  **Fair**                2.2%         24.9%        3.1%        28.4%

  **Poor**                0.9%         25.8%        0.4%        17.3%
  ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------

**Driver Assessment of Reliability and Speed**

In addition to passenger surveys, the evaluation team conducted a driver
survey that asked drivers to rate various MAX features for their
contribution to route speed and service reliability as compared to the
standard CAT vehicle. Almost all (95%) felt that multiple doors for
entry and exit, off-board fare collection, and the queue jump improved
speed and reliability. Most (86%) felt that signal priority at
intersections improved speed and reliability and one driver (5%) felt
this had no effect. 18 of the drivers (82%) felt that ADA passenger
accessibility improved speed and reliability, two drivers (9%) felt this
had no effect and one driver (5%) felt the ADA passenger accessibility
reduced the speed and reliability on MAX compared to CAT service. 17 of
the drivers (77%) felt that passenger accessibility improved speed and
reliability and three drivers (14%) felt this had no effect. These
results are summarized in Figure 5-3 below.

**Figure 5-3: Driver Assessment of MAX features for route speed and
reliability compared to CAT**

![](media/image23.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.6791666666666667in"}

**5.3 Identity and Image**

Image and branding are considered key components of BRT, as they help
distinguish BRT from conventional bus operations and contribute to
attracting riders who might otherwise not use the conventional bus
service (in this case, the CAT service). Image, as noted in the
Characteristics of BRT document, relates to 'style, aesthetics and
compatibility' of MAX's physical elements. Branding refers to the
system's identity. We have three primary tools to evaluate public
perception of the MAX image and branding. These are:

-   Results from two surveys conducted among MAX and Route 113 riders;

-   RTC's semi-annual benchmark survey of residents conducted with the
    general public

-   News articles collected from regional media**.**

Based on these results, we have been able to determine that image of the
MAX service by its riders is generally perceived in a very positive way,
with the vast majority of users having a very positive image of the
system. Note the following:

-   91% of passengers surveyed rated MAX station appearance as excellent
    or good

-   98% of passengers surveyed rated MAX vehicle appearance as excellent
    or good

-   When all things are considered, 91-97% of passengers surveyed
    overall rated MAX as excellent or good -- a very strong endorsement
    of the identity and image

-   Outside of the users, however, MAX's identity is relatively unknown.
    A majority (97%) of Las Vegas area residents surveyed in RTC's
    annual benchmark surveys have never ridden MAX and only 40% have
    ever heard of it. This reflects both the location of the service and
    the overall usage of transit in an automobile driven urban
    environment.

The following sections present a breakdown of the rider and benchmark
surveys as well as the media coverage related to MAX image and branding.

**Passenger Opinion Surveys**

The passenger survey provides insight into how transit riders view
attributes of service that shape its identity and image. Among the many
service attributes that MAX and 113 riders were asked to rate are
appearance, design, cleanliness, and safety of the vehicles and
shelters, and the quality of information provided at stops. The
passenger ratings for these routes for both MAX and Route 113 are shown
in Table 5-11. Almost all MAX riders (88% or more) gave positive ratings
(excellent or good) for all of these attributes. CAT riders were much
more likely to give negative ratings. The positive rating share for MAX
was 22 to 57 percentage points higher than for CAT.

**Table 5-11: Passenger Rating of Vehicles and Shelters,\
**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>MAX</strong></td>
<td><strong>Aggreg.</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>CAT</strong></td>
<td><strong>Aggreg.</strong></td>
<td><strong>Diff. MAX-</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Excel</strong></td>
<td><strong>Good</strong></td>
<td><strong>Fair</strong></td>
<td><strong>Poor</strong></td>
<td><strong>Positive</strong></td>
<td><strong>Excel</strong></td>
<td><strong>Good</strong></td>
<td><strong>Fair</strong></td>
<td><strong>Poor</strong></td>
<td><strong>Positive</strong></td>
<td><strong>CAT</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cleanliness</strong></p>
<p><strong>of</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vehicle</strong></p></td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>29.3</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td><strong>99.1</strong></td>
<td>15.6</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>34.7</td>
<td>11.6</td>
<td><strong>53.4</strong></td>
<td><strong>45.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Cleanliness</strong></p>
<p><strong>of</strong></p>
<p><strong>Station</strong></p></td>
<td>52.9</td>
<td>35.6</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td><strong>88.5</strong></td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>26.7</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>30.7</td>
<td><strong>31.6</strong></td>
<td><strong>56.9</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Safety of</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vehicle</strong></p></td>
<td>64.9</td>
<td>31.1</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td><strong>96.0</strong></td>
<td>21.3</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>7.0</td>
<td><strong>68.4</strong></td>
<td><strong>27.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Safety of</strong></p>
<p><strong>stations</strong></p></td>
<td>50.2</td>
<td>40.9</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td><strong>91.1</strong></td>
<td>13.8</td>
<td>34.7</td>
<td>23.0</td>
<td>19.1</td>
<td><strong>48.5</strong></td>
<td><strong>42.6</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Quality of</strong></p>
<p><strong>Info at stops</strong></p></td>
<td>46.2</td>
<td>41.8</td>
<td>8.9</td>
<td>2.2</td>
<td><strong>88.0</strong></td>
<td>20.9</td>
<td>44.4</td>
<td>23.6</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td><strong>65.3</strong></td>
<td><strong>22.7</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Quality/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Condition</strong></p>
<p><strong>Shelters</strong></p></td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>41.3</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td><strong>92.4</strong></td>
<td>10.2</td>
<td>36.4</td>
<td>31.1</td>
<td>21.3</td>
<td><strong>46.6</strong></td>
<td><strong>45.8</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Appearance/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Design</strong></p>
<p><strong>Shelters</strong></p></td>
<td>48.9</td>
<td>41.8</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td><strong>90.7</strong></td>
<td>13.8</td>
<td>37.8</td>
<td>28.9</td>
<td>18.7</td>
<td><strong>51.6</strong></td>
<td><strong>39.1</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Appearance/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Design</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vehicle</strong></p></td>
<td>62.2</td>
<td>36.4</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td><strong>98.6</strong></td>
<td>19.1</td>
<td>49.8</td>
<td>23.6</td>
<td>7.6</td>
<td><strong>68.9</strong></td>
<td><strong>29.7</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**MAX and CAT riders**

Passengers were also asked to give an "all things considered" rating of
MAX and CAT route 113 services. MAX was rated considerably higher than
CAT, with 96.9% of MAX riders rating the service as "excellent" or
"good" in April and 91.1% "excellent" or "good" in October (see Table
5-12 and Figure 5-4). This aggregate positive rating was only 62.2% in
April and 56.9% in October for the CAT service, with most positive
responses in the "good" category rather than in the "excellent"
category.

**Table 5-12:\
All things considered rating of MAX and CAT by riders of the service**

  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------
                               **April               **October   
                               2005**                2005**      

  **Response**                 **MAX**    **CAT**    **MAX**     **CAT**

  **Excellent**                66.7%      12.9%      57.8%       18.2%

  **Good**                     30.2%      49.3%      33.3%       38.7%

  **Fair**                     3.1%       26.2%      7.1%        32.4%

  **Poor**                     0.0%       11.6%      1.8%        10.7%
  ---------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------

**Figure 5-4: Overall Rating of MAX / CAT Service (October 2005)**

![](media/image24.wmf){width="3.1840277777777777in" height="3.5in"}

**Passengers Survey of Opinion of Alternative Mode**

Opinions of riders on the service they are using is one way to gauge the
performance of the service; however to truly measure the identity and
image, it is more useful to look at responses by riders of the
alternative mode. In other words, what opinions do CAT Route 113 riders
hold about MAX and vice versa. Transit riders on both CAT and MAX were
asked whether they have ever ridden the alternative mode of transit
offered in the study corridor. As expected, the overwhelming majority of
MAX riders indicated they had ridden CAT (99.1% in April and 97.3% in
October). As shown in Figure 5-5, the percentage of CAT riders who had
ridden MAX increased by a statistically significant amount from the
April to the October survey (from 56% to 70%), indicating that CAT
riders were becoming increasingly agreeable to try MAX.

**Figure 5-5: Survey of CAT riders, "Have you ever ridden MAX?"**

![](media/image26.wmf){width="3.0416666666666665in"
height="3.3472222222222223in"}

[]{.mark}

Riders on both CAT and MAX who had ridden the alternative mode of
transit were then asked their opinion of the overall rating of that
alternative mode. In other words, CAT riders who had ridden MAX were
asked to rate their experience on MAX, and MAX riders who had ridden CAT
were asked to rate their experience riding CAT. Table 5-13 and Figure
5-6 show the results of this inquiry.

**Table 5-13:\
Overall rating of MAX service by CAT riders and CAT service by MAX
riders**

  --------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------
                  **April                       **October    
                  2005**                        2005**       

  **Response**    **MAX        **CAT 113        **MAX        **CAT 113
                  rating**     rating**         rating**     rating**

  **Excellent**   54.0%        12.6%            54.8%        15.1%

  **Good**        38.1%        29.6%            36.9%        29.2%

  **Fair**        4.8%         34.1%            5.7%         37.0%

  **Poor**        3.2%         23.8%            2.5%         17.8%

  **No Answer**   0.0%         0.0%             0.0%         0.9%
  --------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------

Clearly, the MAX service is deemed "excellent" or "good" not only by MAX
riders, but also by CAT riders. The aggregate positive score given to
overall MAX service by CAT riders was 92.1% in April and 91.7% in
October as compared to an aggregate positive score of 42.2% for CAT
Route 113 amongst MAX riders in April and 44.3% in October.

As a follow-up question, riders on both modes of transit in the study
corridor were asked whether they prefer to ride CAT or MAX. As shown in
Figure 5-6, a statistically significant increase in riders who preferred
MAX to CAT Route 113 occurred from April to October. In April 2005, more
CAT respondents selected CAT as the preferred mode (51.1%) to MAX
(47.6%). In October 2005, the opinion had shifted to favor MAX (56.9%)
over CAT (42.2%) amongst CAT riders. MAX riders consistently preferred
MAX to CAT, with 96.9% of MAX riders preferring MAX in April and 92.0%
of MAX riders preferring MAX in October.

**Figure 5-6: Survey of CAT riders, "Do you prefer to ride CAT or
MAX?"**

![](media/image28.wmf){width="2.401388888888889in"
height="2.6277777777777778in"}

![](media/image29.wmf){width="2.3569444444444443in"
height="2.5027777777777778in"}

Although the majority of CAT riders preferred MAX, they had still chosen
not to ride the service on the day of the survey. Respondents were
therefore asked the main reason why they chose not to ride MAX.
Responses were:

-   MAX does not stop close to my destination (17.8%)

-   MAX is inconvenient for my trip (17.3%)

-   MAX does not have enough stops to choose from (13.3%)

**Resident Surveys**

RTC conducts yearly benchmark surveys of 600 Las Vegas Valley adult
residents.[^10] In the 2004 and 2005 surveys, respondents were asked
questions about name recognition, familiarity, use, and opinion of the
Metropolitan Area Express (MAX).

Respondents were asked if they had heard of the Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC) or the various modes of public transit service offered
by the RTC: Citizen's Area Transit (CAT), Metropolitan Area Express
(MAX), and in 2005, the Deuce Double-Deck bus system. Only a minority
(41.5% in 2004 and 39.1% in 2005) had ever heard of MAX. By comparison,
90% (2004) to 95% (2005) had heard of the CAT system. This discrepancy
shows that MAX could be better publicized. However, it should be borne
in mind that the Las Vegas Boulevard corridor, the only one with MAX
service in 2004-2005, represents a small portion of the Las Vegas
Valley.

Of those who heard of both CAT and MAX in 2004, about half (50.4%)
preferred to ride MAX transit if given a choice, less than one third
(29.6%) preferred to ride CAT transit, and 20% did not indicate a
preference. In 2005, 19.2% preferred MAX, 28.9% preferred CAT, and 47.9%
gave no preference. This large number of respondents with no preference
suggests that most Las Vegas Valley residents do not perceive a
substantial difference between MAX and regular CAT service, probably
because many of them have never ridden MAX or CAT, even if they have
heard of these services.

Respondents were subsequently asked why they preferred to ride one
service over the other. In 2004, the primary reasons for MAX preference
were:

-   Faster travel (30.6%)

-   More modern/new (25.6%)

-   More reliable / on time (12.4%)

Primary reasons for CAT preference were:

-   More accessible/closer (38.0%)

-   More route service (23.9%)

-   More familiar with CAT service (18.3%)

In 2005, the majority of respondents showing a preference for MAX stated
the primary reason was the service was faster (52%). Primary reasons for
CAT preference were bigger service area / more routes (19%), familiarity
with CAT (16.4%) and availability (12.3%)

In 2005, respondents were asked if their opinion of various RTC services
were favorable or unfavorable. On the whole, respondents had the most
favorable opinion of the Deuce double deck bus service (76.3%), followed
closely by MAX (75.2%).

In addition to awareness and perception of MAX, respondents were asked
if they had ridden the system and reasons for riding or not. In 2004,
97% of respondents indicated they had never ridden MAX. The top three
reasons for not riding were:

-   No MAX service near my home (41.2%)

-   Never heard of MAX transit (26.1%)

-   Prefer to drive my car (18.2%).

In 2005, the percentage of respondents who had never ridden MAX
decreased to 88% of the respondents reporting that they had never ridden
MAX. Reasons were similar to the 2004 study, with the most frequently
cited reason for not riding MAX being private ownership of a vehicle
(29.8%). The next most commonly cited reason was the absence of the MAX
system in their area (14.5%) and no need for MAX (14.4%).

[]{.mark}

**Media Coverage**

Articles were published in the *Las Vegas Review-Journal* and *Las Vegas
SUN* in May and June 2004 anticipating the service, in February 2004 at
the time of the "Meet MAX" events, in Sept 2002 along with the testing
of the CIVIS vehicle, in August 2001 when the MAX name was announced and
occasionally throughout the implementation process. Articles also
appeared in the New York Times, Construction Connection, Henderson Home
News, Las Vegas Business Press, and various transit industry
publications. The articles focused on MAX as a part of the transit
package RTC is planning to offer, discussed the concept of bus rapid
transit and explained the details of the line.

There was coverage of the start of service in the Las *Vegas
Review-Journal*, *Las Vegas SUN,* and *CITYLIFE* on July 1, 2004. The
articles discussed the opening ceremonies and the service in general.
The *Review-Journal* article said the system has drawn praise from the
Sierra Club and that other agencies are watching MAX's performance. The
SUN article included positive comments from a resident of North Las
Vegas and the Sierra Club. However, Nevadans for Equal Access complained
about the lack of sidewalk access at some stations. The *Las Vegas
Mercury* of July 8, 2004 also covered the MAX opening: "Is the hype
justified? Pretty much. A spot-check that involved riding the route on a
weekday finds that the buses are clean, well-run and nicely
air-conditioned. Of course, it's too early to tell if MAX will succumb
to those most frequent of riders' complaints -- breakdowns and tardiness
-- but an informal survey of MAXers reveals they're pleased, with only a
few minor peeves." The author claimed the center drive position blocks
the view of upcoming stops and appreciated the presence of security
guards.

**Customer Comments**

RTC indicates that overall customers have been very satisfied with the
MAX system. Investigation of the customer comment records indicates that
comments have been fairly steady since the inception of MAX. Early
comments about the need for a bus stop at Walmart were answered with a
stop to unload passengers, although no boarding stop could be added due
to the absence of a fare machine. Failures with some of the automated
fare machines that occurred in the beginning have been rectified. Many
of the MAX comments revolve around complaints about Wackenhut security
or fare policies, which is to be expected, as this is the first fare
collection system of this type in Las Vegas. Other comments included
complaints about operators passing people up due to the focus on speed
of travel on this route.

**5.4 Safety and Security**

*Crime*

The creation of new, high quality, well-maintained MAX stations, and the
presence of security personnel, may improve the sense of safety and
security for transit users while waiting and riding the service. The
evaluation team investigated passenger survey data, crime statistics,
and CAT incident reports and interviewed key personnel to determine if
there has been an impact on community safety, or perceptions of safety.

The Wackenhut security personnel add to the sense of security on the
buses and in stations. Wackenhut reports indicate that only a few
security incidents (injuries, assault, burglary, drug activity) occur
each month. RTC has a policy against loitering that is enforced by
Wackenhut security officers. If a bus arrives and the passenger fails to
board, an officer will ask the passenger why he or she is at the
station. Waiting for someone is an acceptable response, but otherwise if
a person does not have an intention to use transit, the officer will ask
him or her to leave the station. This policy is intended to keep
vagrants out of stations. Approximately 20% of incidents reported by
Wackenhut concern loitering.

Wackenhut officers do not enforce RTC rules such as prohibitions on
eating or carrying open containers: this enforcement is the
responsibility of the bus driver. RTC reports that for the most part
drivers and Wackenhut employees have a good relationship, watching out
for each other and helping one another. Drivers on the CAT system have
indicated that they would like security officers on their buses too. The
only negative aspects of having Wackenhut security personnel on board
have been comments from passengers regarding where they stand and how
they ride the vehicle. Some passengers say they are intimidated by their
presence.

The hypothesis of the evaluation study team is that MAX's high quality;
well-maintained stations and the presence of security personnel have
improved both the actual and perceived safety both at stops and on
board. Tables 5-14 and 5-15 and Figure 5-7 and 5-8 give riders' ratings
of MAX and CAT Route 113 in terms of vehicle safety and station safety.

**Table 5-14:**

**Rate the Safety of MAX / CAT Vehicle**

  ------------------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
                           **April                  **October   
                           2005**                   2005**      

  **Response**             **MAX**      **CAT 113** **MAX**     **CAT 113**

  **Excellent**            68.9%        12.0%       64.9%       21.3%

  **Good**                 29.8%        62.2%       31.1%       47.1%

  **Fair**                 1.3%         20.0%       2.2%        24.0%

  **Poor**                 0.0%         5.8%        1.3%        7.6%

  **No Answer**            0.0%         0.0%        0.4%        0.0%
  ------------------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

**Figure 5-7:**

**Rate the Safety of MAX / CAT Vehicle (October 2005)**

![](media/image30.wmf){width="2.370833333333333in" height="2.625in"}

**Table 5-15:**

**Rate the Safety of MAX Stations / CAT Stops**

  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------
                             **April                **October   
                             2005**                 2005**      

  **Response**               **MAX**    **CAT 113** **MAX**     **CAT
                                                                113**

  **Excellent**              53.8%      3.1%        50.2%       13.8%

  **Good**                   38.7%      54.2%       40.9%       34.7%

  **Fair**                   6.7%       32.4%       7.1%        32.0%

  **Poor**                   0.9%       10.2%       1.8%        19.1%

  **No Answer**              0.0%       0.0%        0.0%        0.4%
  -------------------------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------

**Figure 5-8:**

**Rate the Safety of MAX Stations / CAT Stops (October 2005)**

![](media/image32.wmf){width="3.0131944444444443in"
height="3.3159722222222223in"}

As shown in the tables above, MAX riders considered their vehicles much
safer than CAT riders considered their vehicles. MAX was given an
aggregate positive score (excellent and good) of 98.7% in April and
96.0% in October for vehicles, while CAT\'s aggregate positive score was
74.2% in April and 68.4% in October. The biggest difference however is
in the number of riders giving the vehicles an "excellent" rating with
only 12% and 21.3% giving CAT an "excellent", but the majority of MAX
riders (68.9% and 64.9%) giving MAX an "excellent" rating. Scores for
stations and stops were similar to those for vehicles, with 92.5%
aggregate positive ratings in April and 91.1% in October for MAX
stations compared to 54.3% in April and 48.5% in October for CAT stops.
Only 3.1% of riders gave CAT Route 113 an "excellent" rating for
station/stop safety in April and 13.8% in October. Clearly, riders
consider the MAX service much safer than CAT Route 113.

In addition to survey data, interviews with the transit agency and
corridor communities indicate an enhanced feeling of safety and security
along the corridor with the implementation of MAX. Prior to MAX, CAT
Route 113 was known as a route with a higher potential for crime.
Generally, the route served a rough crowd. There is a lot of anecdotal
evidence that having the Wackenhut officers on-board is helping crime.
The officers assist in reporting graffiti and other incidents. Evidence
in an enhanced sense of security in the corridor includes merchants and
shopkeepers reporting that are keeping their stores open for longer
hours.

The evaluation team investigated crime in the corridor using incident
summaries for Las Vegas Boulevard from January 2000 to April 2006
provided by the North Las Vegas Police Department. Although anecdotally
the corridor may "feel" safer, there is no evidence to suggest that
crime rates overall or in any specific incident category have decreased
measurably due to the presence of the MAX service or the additional
Wackenhut fare evasion security personnel in the corridor.

**Traffic Safety**

Using revenue fleet miles and vehicle accidents for the entire RTC
system, Route 113 and MAX Las Vegas Boulevard North, the number of
accidents per 100,000 revenue vehicle miles was calculated. Based on
this calculation, 40.6% fewer accidents occur on MAX than on the RTC
system as a whole. 56.5% fewer accidents occur on MAX than on Route 113,
indicating that MAX is twice as safe. Injury rates remain similar to the
RTC system as a whole.

In addition to having lower accident rates on MAX, the preventable
accident rates on MAX are substantially lower than on the system as a
whole. Since the opening of MAX, only 4% of the accidents have been
preventable, compared to an RTC system average of 25% of accidents being
preventable. Only one preventable accident occurred on MAX since the
opening of service. Since January 2005, they have gone over 17 months
without preventable accidents.

Two elements contribute to this safe record on the MAX system, the
exclusive bus lanes and the drivers. In order to determine which has
more effect, the number of preventable accidents in the corridor on
Route 113 before the exclusive lanes was compared to the number of
preventable accidents after the lanes were put in place. The preventable
accident rate decreased to almost 1/3 of the rate prior to
implementation of the exclusive lanes. However, the preventable accident
rate on MAX is 1/20 of that on Route 113 today. Therefore, although the
exclusive bus lanes have some effect on the safety of the bus route, the
drivers have even more effect. The additional training, higher pay scale
and extensive selection process for MAX drivers is a model that should
be followed by other BRT systems.

**5.5 Capacity**

The CIVIS vehicle has a maximum capacity of 120 passengers, including
standees. The MAX LVBN service operates at a maximum frequency of 5
trips per hour (12 minute headway). Thus the maximum number of
passengers per hour per direction is 600 (5 x 120). Given the current
vehicle supply of 10 vehicles, frequency could be increased to 6 trips
per hour (10 minute headway). This would increase capacity to 720
passengers per hour per direction.

6.0 SYSTEM BENEFITS

The primary benefits associated with implementation of BRT are
identified in the Characteristics of BRT documents as follows:

-   Higher Ridership

-   Cost Effectiveness

-   Operating Efficiency

-   Community Benefits

-   Transit Supportive Land Development

-   Environmental Quality

This section of our evaluation examines each of these potential benefits
as they relate to the implementation of the MAX BRT.

**6.1 Ridership**

*Change in Riders*

Ridership on MAX increased steadily from the start of service in July
2004 to January 2006, and was level through July 2006 (see Figure 6-1).
Total corridor ridership grew from about 7,000 boardings per day in May
2004 to a high of 10,000 in January 2006. RTC believes that problems
with the Automatic Passenger Counting system led to undercounting of
ridership following January 2006. The reported figures show average
daily ridership in the corridor of 9,600 to 9,800 between February and
July 2006, except for March, which showed an unusual drop in MAX
ridership that is almost certainly due to an error in the counting
system.

The share of the transit market in the Las Vegas Blvd. North corridor
that was using MAX increased from 21% in the first month of operation to
a high of 65% in April 2006, and has remained roughly constant since
(see Figure 6-2). Most of the gain in market share happened within the
first year of operation.

How does the gain in the LVBN corridor compare to changes in ridership
in the CAT system? We compared average daily boardings, converted to an
index with January 2004 equal to 100 (Figure 6-3). As of July 2006, more
than two years after the start of MAX service, system ridership had
increased 24% and LVBN corridor ridership had increased 38%. (Note that
the March 2006 data appear to be incorrect, as explained above.) Most of
the faster growth in corridor ridership compared to CAT occurred between
June and October 2004---the first few months of MAX service.

**Figure 6-1:\
Average Boardings per Day, MAX and 113, January 2004 to July 2006**

![](media/image34.wmf){width="6.057638888888889in"
height="3.8027777777777776in"}

Figure 6-2:\
MAX share of Las Vegas Blvd. North Public Transit Market

![](media/image35.wmf){width="6.446527777777778in" height="3.38125in"}

x

**Figure 6-3:\
Index of Changes in Boardings, LVBN Corridor and Systemwide**

![](media/image36.wmf){width="5.136805555555555in"
height="3.2583333333333333in"}

*Source of New Riders*

Some MAX riders were previously using Route 113, but others were newly
making the trip by transit. Passenger surveys in April 2005 and October
2005 provide data on how passengers previously made the trip (see Table
6-1 and Figure 6-4).

**Table 6-1: Previous mode of MAX riders**

  ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------
                           **April 2005**                   **October       
                                                            2005**          

  **Response**             **Frequency**   **Percentage**   **Frequency**   **Percentage**

  **Drove myself**         21              9.3%             25              11.1%

  **Got a ride from        6               2.7%             7               3.1%
  someone**                                                                 

  **Bicycle**              1               0.4%             7               3.1%

  **Walked**               13              5.8%             12              5.3%

  **Paratransit**          1               0.4%             3               1.3%

  **Didn't make trip**     12              5.3%             14              6.2%

  **CAT bus route 113**    165             73.3%            151             67.1%

  **Other CAT bus route**  6               2.7%             4               1.8%

  **No answer**            0               0.0%             2               0.9%

  **Total**                225             100.0%           225             100.0%
  ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- --------------- ----------------

**Figure 6-4: Previous mode of MAX riders (October 2005)**

![](media/image37.wmf){width="5.430555555555555in"
height="2.9256944444444444in"}

The majority of MAX riders (approximately 70%) were previously using CAT
Route 113. Another 3% were previously using other CAT routes (3%). The
remaining 30% are new transit riders. Of those riders new to transit,
the largest group previously drove a car (10% of all riders). The next
largest group, 6% of the total, did not make the trip previously. The
remaining categories were walked (5%), bicycled (3%) and got a ride
(3%), and paratransit (1%).

*Demographics of Riders*

It is also useful to compare the characteristics of riders new to
transit to the characteristics of those who previously used Route 113 or
another CAT route. These new riders were not attracted to Route 113, but
with the new MAX service in place, they are now willing to take transit.
This comparison allows us to understand the type of people that are
attracted to BRT service.

Those who previously used another mode as a whole group are similar to
previous CAT Route 113 riders in terms of trip purpose, trip frequency,
race, and gender. They are however more likely to be employed full-time
and more likely to be younger riders than previous CAT Route 113 riders.
MAX riders who previously drove a car to make the trip differ from MAX
riders as a whole in many ways however. These previous auto users are:

-   More likely traveling to and from work (80% versus 64% for all MAX
    riders);

-   More likely employed full-time (84% versus 70% for all MAX riders);

-   More likely male (68% versus 55% for all MAX riders);

-   More likely African American (40% versus 30% for all MAX riders);

-   Less likely white (20% versus 27% for all MAX riders); and

-   Less likely to use MAX every day for their trip (40% versus 61% for
    all MAX riders).

It is also useful to compare new MAX riders to those previously using
Route 113 in terms of socioeconomic status, use of the CAT system, and
other factors. This comparison can be made using the passenger survey
data. This analysis will assist in understanding which people are
attracted to ride BRT and if BRT can influence perceptions of transit.

In order to provide a demographic profile of MAX riders several surveys
were consulted. First, in April 2002, RTC conducted an
Origin-Destination Survey of the entire CAT system. This document
provided a demographic profile of CAT riders in comparison with the Las
Vegas Valley from the 2002 Las Vegas Perspectives document. These riders
and resident profiles were compared to the 2005 MAX and CAT Route 113
surveys to determine how the demographics of typical BRT and non-BRT
riders compare to the system in general. The four categories that were
compared were ethnicity, age, employment status and gender. Table 6-2
and Figure 6-5 show the ethnicity of riders on MAX, CAT Route 113, the
CAT system and Las Vegas.

**Table 6-2: Rider ethnicity**

  -------------------------------- --------- ---------- --------- ------------
  **Response**                     **MAX**   **Rte      **All     **Las
                                             113**      CAT**     Vegas**

  **White**                        26.7      33.3       47.5      62.8

  **Hispanic\                      32.9      33.3       18.3      21.9
  (Non-English speaking)**                                        

  **Hispanic (English-speaking)**  6.2       6.7                  

  **Asian / Pacific Islander**     1.8       2.7        5.0       7.2

  **African American**             30.2      21.8       22.5      7.4

  **Native American**              2.2       2.2        3.4       0.7

  **Other / No answer**            0.0       0.0        3.3       0.0
  -------------------------------- --------- ---------- --------- ------------

**Figure 6-5: Rider ethnicity**

![](media/image38.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.511111111111111in"}

The ethnicity of riders on MAX differs somewhat from that of Route 113,
the CAT system in general and the Las Vegas valley region. MAX riders
are more likely to be African American and are less likely to be White
than Rte 113 riders. Both MAX and Rte 113 riders are less likely to be
White than CAT services and Las Vegas in general. Both Rte 113 and MAX
have a greater proportion of Hispanic riders than the CAT system and Las
Vegas. Table 6-3 and Figure 6-6 show the age of riders on MAX, CAT Route
113, the CAT system and Las Vegas.

**Table 6-3: Rider age**

  ----------------------------- --------- ----------- ---------- -------------
  **Response**                  **MAX**   **Rte 113** **All      **Las Vegas**
                                                      CAT**      

  **17 years old and under**    N/A       N/A         6.7        N/A

  **18-24 years old**           18.2      19.1        19.3       8.3

  **25-34 years old**           25.8      16.4        25.6       17.6

  **35-44 years old**           14.7      22.7        21.4       20.6

  **45-54 years old**           24.9      22.2        15.3       19.4

  **55-64 years old**           13.8      15.6        7.4        15.9

  **65 years old or older**     2.2       2.7         4.3        18.2

  **No answer**                 0.4       1.3         0.0        0.0
  ----------------------------- --------- ----------- ---------- -------------

**Figure 6-6: Rider age**

![](media/image39.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.4138888888888888in"}

The age of MAX riders is similar to that of Rte 113 riders and CAT
services in general. MAX, Rte 113 and all CAT services tend to serve the
younger portions of the Las Vegas valley population. The employment
status of MAX and CAT Route 113 was asked on the MAX/CAT corridor
surveys; however comparable data is not available for the CAT system or
the Las Vegas valley. Table 6-4 and Figure 6-7 show the employment
status of riders on MAX and CAT Route 113.

**Table 6-4: Employment status**

  ------------------------------------------------ --------- -------------
  **Response**                                     **MAX**   **Rte 113**

  **Employed full time**                           70.2      46.7

  **Employed part time**                           9.3       12.9

  **Self-employed**                                3.1       5.8

  **Retired**                                      6.2       9.3

  **Not employed / student**                       3.1       5.8

  **Unemployed / Searching for job**               4.4       9.8

  **Disabled**                                     2.7       7.6

  **Full time parent**                             0.4       0.4

  **No answer**                                    0.4       1.8
  ------------------------------------------------ --------- -------------

**Figure 6-7: Employment status**

![](media/image40.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="2.7506944444444446in"}

In comparing MAX riders to Rte 113, MAX tends to have substantially more
full-time employees. These riders would presumably have a higher value
of time and therefore place more importance on a quick trip. Table 6-5
shows the gender of riders on MAX, CAT Route 113, the CAT system and Las
Vegas.

**Table 6-5: Rider gender**

  ------------------ --------- ------------- ------------ -----------------
  **Response**       **MAX**   **Rte 113**   **All CAT**  **Las Vegas**

  **Female**         45.3      44.4          46.9         52.7

  **Male**           54.7      55.6          53.1         47.3

  **No answer**      0.0       0.0           0.0          0.0
  ------------------ --------- ------------- ------------ -----------------

The gender of MAX riders is similar to that of Rte 113 riders and CAT
services in general. MAX, Rte 113 and all CAT services tend to serve
more males than the proportion of Las Vegas valley residents.

**6.2 Capital Cost Effectiveness**

The total capital cost of the project, including vehicles but excluding
the bus lane, was \$20.1 million. Given 7.5 route miles, the unit cost
is \$2.7 million per route mile. Excluding vehicle acquisition, the cost
is \$1.1 million per route mile. This figure is considerably less than
the cost of the Orange Line (Los Angeles) exclusive busway, and less
than the cost of the Silver Line (Phase I) per mile. However, it is
considerably more than the San Pablo Rapid (see Table 6-6).

The vehicle cost amounts to \$1.2 million per vehicle, comparable to the
articulated dual mode buses used for Boston's Silver Line phase II, but
twice the price of the articulated CNG buses used on the Los Angeles
Orange Line.

**Table 6-6: Comparison of BRT Project Capital Costs\
**(millions of dollars, unless otherwise indicated)

  ----------- --------------- ----------- --------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -----------
  **Project   **Running way** **Length    **Total   **Total     **Total      **Infra-\   **Vehicle
  Name**                      (Miles)**   Vehicle   Infra-\     Capital      structure   Cost per
                                          Cost**    structure   (Vehicle +   Cost per    Vehicle**
                                                    Cost**      Infra)       Mile**      
                                                                Cost**                   

  **San Pablo mixed traffic   14          4.2       3.2         7.4          0.2         0.3
  Rapid**                                                                                

  **Las Vegas curb bus lane   7.5         12.1      8.1         20.2         1.1         1.2
  MAX -- Las  (4.5 mi)                                                                   
  Vegas Blvd                                                                             
  N**                                                                                    

  **Boston    curb bus lane   2.3         13.0      14.3        27.3         6.2         0.8
  Silver Line (2 mi)                                                                     
  Phase I**                                                                              

  **Boston    busway tunnel   1           42.0      566.9       608.9        566.9       1.3
  Silver Line (1 mi)                                                                     
  Phase II**                                                                             

  **Los       busway with     14          19.0      304.0       323.0        21.7        0.6
  Angeles     at-grade                                                                   
  Orange      intersections                                                              
  Line**      (14 mi)                                                                    
  ----------- --------------- ----------- --------- ----------- ------------ ----------- -----------

**6.3 Operating Cost Efficiency**

Operating cost efficiency is best measured by operating cost per
passenger. This measure can be decomposed into two components: vehicle
unit cost (cost per service hour), and intensity of use (passengers per
vehicle service hour). The first component reflects the cost of
producing a unit of transit service; the second reflects the efficiency
with which that unit is deployed in terms of producing passenger
boardings.

Figure 6-8 graphs the first component, passengers per vehicle service
hour, for MAX, Route 113 and the corridor average. Initially MAX had low
utilization. Its introduction attracted some riders from Route 113,
thereby lowering that route's intensity of use, at least until service
was reduced to compensate for the ridership switch. By December 2004,
the two routes had the same average intensity of use, although this
represented a 20% reduction from the level prior to MAX, dropping from
58 to 46 people per vehicle hour. Between December 2004 and October
2005, the intensity of use of MAX increased steadily, from 46 people per
vehicle hour to 66. This figure has held roughly constant since then
(the apparent decline of March 2006 is due to a data recording problem).
However, the intensity of use of Route 113 declined during this period,
as more riders shifted to MAX. Thus the overall corridor average
passenger boardings per vehicle service hour remains lower in July 2006
than it was before MAX was introduced (52 passengers per vehicle service
hour compared to 58, a decline of 10%).

**Figure 6-8: Intensity of Use, MAX compared to 113**

![](media/image41.wmf){width="5.801388888888889in"
height="3.497916666666667in"}

**Figure 6-9: MAX Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour**

![](media/image42.wmf){width="5.905555555555556in"
height="3.504166666666667in"}

The second component is operating cost per vehicle hour. The full
overhead cost for MAX averaged \$92 per hour between the July 2004
opening and July 2005 (see Figure 6-9). The average cost from August to
December 2005 was \$111, a 21% increase.

The product of these two components, vehicle operating cost and
intensity of use, gives operating cost per passenger boarding. This
measure declined steadily from start of service to July 2005 as
intensity of use increased, as shown in Figure 6-10. However, with the
increase in unit costs beginning in August 2005, total cost per boarding
has increased. The Figure also shows net cost per boarding. This is
simply cost per passenger boarding less revenue per passenger boarding,
which has hovered around \$0.50 consistently since the start of
service.[^11]

**Figure 6-10: MAX Operating Cost per Boarding**

![](media/image43.wmf){width="5.98125in" height="3.6083333333333334in"}

**6.4 Land Use**

Land use regulations and policies are controlled largely by local
governments in the Las Vegas region. The MAX BRT service along Las Vegas
Boulevard North crosses three political jurisdictions: the City of Las
Vegas, the City of North Las Vegas, and an unincorporated area of Clark
County known as Sunrise Manor. Approximately 1.5 miles of the route are
located in the City of Las Vegas, between the Downtown Transportation
Center (DTC) and Owens Avenue. The three-mile segment of the route
between Owens Avenue and North Pecos Road is located in the City of
North Las Vegas. The remaining three miles between North Pecos and Craig
Road are in Sunrise Manor (Clark County). This section describes
existing land uses and land use policies with regard to
transit-supportive development in each of these three jurisdictions.

***City of Las Vegas***

In the City of Las Vegas the MAX corridor is mostly commercial with some
residential uses on adjacent streets. The Cashman Field sports and
convention complex is also along the route. The southern-most portion of
the corridor lies with the Downtown Redevelopment Area, where new
commercial and residential redevelopment projects are planned. However,
most City of Las Vegas development projects are further to the south in
the core downtown area. The majority of land use immediately surrounding
the DTC is of medium to high density and therefore supportive of
transit.

***City of North Las Vegas***

The majority of the MAX corridor along Las Vegas Boulevard North in the
City of North Las Vegas is zoned for commercial use. Adjacent land use
is predominantly single-family residential. Other land uses within the
corridor include casino-hotel-entertainment uses and public uses,
including the City Hall Complex.

The City's development and redevelopment efforts are focused primarily
along the 5^th^ Street Corridor in anticipation of the Regional Fixed
Guideway, a regional transit project that is currently proposed for that
corridor. The 5^th^ Street Corridor Plan is an extensive land
development and transit improvement plan emphasizing Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) and covering the area from Owens Avenue north to the
Las Vegas Beltway.

As of this writing, there have not been any significant new development
projects along the MAX corridor in North Las Vegas since the start of
service. However, the City of North Las Vegas has identified several
redevelopment areas along the corridor. These areas are primarily of a
general commercial, retail nature, with some limited opportunities for
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The locations identified as
redevelopment opportunities are shown in Figure 6-11.

![](media/image44.jpeg){width="6.164583333333334in"
height="7.076388888888889in"}

**Figure 6-11: Opportunities for Redevelopment: North Las Vegas**

The 5^th^ Street and Las Vegas Boulevard North corridors intersect in
the area between Lake Mead Boulevard and Owens Avenue, known as the
"Gateway Area". This site is shown in Figure 6-11 and identified as
Location #2. The city has identified this site as a focus area for
redevelopment. Specifically, it has been identified as a strong
candidate for high-density office and commercial development. The level
of density along with the proximity to Interstate 15 ramps and to both
the 5^th^ Street and MAX corridors make this area a candidate for TOD.
Property acquisition in this area is programmed in the City's 2006-2010
Capital Improvement Program.

Redevelopment of the government complex adjacent to the Civic Center
Drive station is also planned. This project will include pedestrian and
landscaping improvements, with the potential to improve access on foot
from the Civic Center Drive MAX station.

The City of North Las Vegas has proposed an ordinance that will allow
mixed-use and transit-oriented development under various residential and
commercial land use scenarios. Under the proposal, any mixed-use
development must meet at least one of several criteria. Along the MAX
corridor these criteria include; amount of infill development;
contribution to revitalization of a redevelopment area; and location
within ¼ mile of a BRT or LRT stop. There has also been discussion about
reduced parking requirements within ¼ mile of BRT/LRT stations. Further
consideration, however, has been tabled primarily because many of the
planned transit improvements, other than MAX, are several years away,
and the City does not want to permit high-density, mixed-use development
with reduced parking before the transit infrastructure arrives. The City
is also developing a new Comprehensive Master Plan to be completed in
2007. The draft plan calls for mixed-use zones along Las Vegas Boulevard
North, due to its proximity to BRT.

*Clark County/Sunrise Manor*

The northern segment of the MAX corridor is located in Sunrise Manor, an
unincorporated area administered by Clark County. The majority of the
corridor is zoned as general highway frontage, in some cases specifying
commercial or residential uses. The zoning has recently been changed to
permit mixed uses at higher densities and to encourage pedestrian- and
transit-oriented elements.

**6.5 Environmental Quality**

According to the passenger survey of October 2005, about 11% of MAX's
6,150 average daily riders in that month previously drove alone, and
another 3% got a ride. Thus, MAX displaced 14% x 6,150, or 861 auto
trips, providing some air quality benefits.

The CIVIS buses used for MAX are as low-polluting as other new buses in
the CAT fleet, and considerably cleaner than the oldest buses. They thus
have a net positive impact on reducing fleetwide emissions.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS --\
OBSERVATIONS and LESSONS LEARNED

**7.1 MAX IS A SUCCESS**

The MAX BRT project on Las Vegas Boulevard North can be termed a transit
success story. Ridership in the corridor increased by 38%, rider
satisfaction is high, and extensions are planned and being implemented.

As noted in the introduction to this Evaluation Report, the project
incorporates all of the major elements of BRT as described in the
*Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making (CBRT)*. That
is: running way, stations, vehicles, fare collection, intelligent
transportation systems, and service and operating plans. Within this
report, we have provided for each of these major elements the following:

-   Description

-   Capital cost

-   Operating cost

-   System performance

-   System Benefits

Figure 7-1, MAX -- BRT Effectiveness Summary, provides an overview of
the positive impact each of the major BRT elements has had on the
overall system's success. The table summarizes the following BRT
elements:

1.  Exclusive running way

2.  Pavement markings at stations for vehicle guidance

3.  Stations

4.  Vehicles

5.  Proof of payment fare system

6.  Ticket Vending machines (TVMs)

7.  Traffic Signal priority and Queue jump

8.  Automatic Vehicle locator/Computer aided dispatching (AVL/CAD)

9.  Frequency of service/headway

10. Hours of operation

Each element is presented in terms of the following measures:

-   Quantity of the element; length, each, or system

-   Capital cost

-   Operating cost

-   Assessment of the degree of positive impact that the element
    contributes to the overall success or acceptance of the MAX project.
    The CBRT document includes travel time and reliability as factors to
    be used in evaluating a BRT project's performance. We have added
    passenger acceptance. For a qualitative analysis we have rated each
    BRT element as high, medium, or low.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Comments focus on the particular component or part of the BRT
    element that contributes to the positive impact.

**7.2 What Works**

MAX drivers were asked to rank the features of the system that
contribute most to its overall success. The three features the drivers
identified were multiple doors for entry and exit (20 drivers chose),
off-board fare collection (20 drivers chose) and the queue jump (14
drivers chose). Only 4 drivers chose the center drive position (although
drivers did consider center position important for precision docking); 3
drivers chose the signal priority; and 3 drivers chose the passenger
features. No driver chose the communications equipment as being a major
factor in MAX success.

Our study confirms that off-board fare collection, combined with
multiple-door and level boarding, is a key factor in reducing travel
time and thus increasing ridership. The dwell times on MAX are much
lower than on standard service, and do not increase as rapidly with
increases in passenger boardings. The importance of this effect can be
seen when comparing peak vs. off-peak times on MAX and its parallel
Route 113 service. Travel time increases on average by 5 minutes during
the peak on 113, but by only 1 to 3 minutes on MAX.

The total travel time saving in the peak period was 12 minutes
southbound and 14 minutes northbound. How much of this is attributable
to reduced dwell time? We estimated the number of seconds of time
savings per boarding, alighting, and per stop using a regression model.
Data from the APC system show that there are about 75 ons and 75 offs
per trip in the peak period on both MAX and route 113. Table 7-1
combines these data with the regression results to estimate the time
savings *per trip* due to reduced dwell time. As shown in line 3 of
Table 7-1, we calculate that 13 minutes of the Rt. 113 travel time, but
only 5.7 minutes of MAX travel time, is the result of boarding delay
during the 7 am to 7 pm period. Thus MAX saves 7.6 minutes per trip
solely because of faster boarding and alighting. In line 4 we compare
this time savings to the total time savings per trip estimated in
Section 5.1. The conclusion is that speedier dwell time accounts for
more than half the total travel time savings.

Table 7-1: Calculation of Time Savings per Trip due to Dwell Time
Reduction during Peak (7 am to 7 pm)

  ------------------- --------------- --------------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------
                      **Pas-sengers   **Pas-sengers   **Stops**   **Total**   **% Due   
                      Boarding**      Alighting**                             to        
                                                                              Reduced   
                                                                              Dwell**   

  **1. Activities per                                                                   
  Trip**                                                                                

  113                 75              75              26          \-                    

  MAX                 75              75              12          \-                    

  **2. Seconds per                                                                      
  Activity**                                                                            

  113                 3.9             1.0             16.5        \-                    

  MAX                 1.6             1.5             9.0         \-                    

  **3. Minutes per                                                                      
  Trip**                                                                                

  113                 4.9             1.3             7.2         13.3                  

  MAX                 2.0             1.9             1.8         5.7                   

  difference          2.9             -0.6            5.4         7.6                   

  **4. Total Time                                                                       
  Savings per Trip                                                                      
  (from all                                                                             
  sources)**                                                                            

  Southbound                                                      14.0        54%       

  Northbound                                                      12.2        62%       

  Sources: 1.                                                                           
  Estimated from APC                                                                    
  data on average                                                                       
  boardings and                                                                         
  alightings at each                                                                    
  stop during 7 am to                                                                   
  7 pm peak.                                                                            

  2\. From Table 5-9.                                                                   
  3. Product of lines                                                                   
  1 and 2, divided by                                                                   
  60.                                                                                   

  4\. Difference                                                                        
  shown in line 3                                                                       
  compared to travel                                                                    
  time savings from                                                                     
  Tables 5-2 and 5-4.                                                                   
  ------------------- --------------- --------------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------

Where does the rest of the travel time savings come from? Since we
conclude that TSP had little effect, the time savings must be due
principally to a reduction in the number of stops. Fewer stops means
less time lost to acceleration and deceleration, and probably less
signal delay because the bus is better able to keep up with traffic
signal progression.

**7.3 Summary of Lessons Learned**

In addition to the conclusions cited above, several lessons learned are
worthy of mention as a result of our evaluation of the MAX system. These
are:

**Vehicle Procurement**

After sales service for vehicles is an essential feature, and
particularly critical when vehicles use new technology or are developed
overseas -- both of which added complications in this case. Ongoing,
frequent conversation with the vehicle supplier meant RTC was able to
solve problems quickly and efficiently and avoid service disruptions

**Overall Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)**

Installation and operation of new technologies requires considerable
staff resources. The ability to spend time on implementation and adjust
systems on the ground enabled staff to use the technology effectively
and improve the quality of the transit service. Experience with the MAX
ITS systems also created the opportunity for transferability of
technologies from MAX to the wider transit network.

An excellent example of technology transfer are the ticket vending
machines installed for MAX. After installing TVMs at MAX stations and
the Downtown Transportation Center, RTC expanded use of the machines to
other locations; many of these TVMs are among the most productive in the
RTC transit network.

While the automatic optical guidance system proved ineffective in Las
Vegas, RTC adapted to manual guidance. This was accomplished by training
drivers to use the long tangents approaching each station and special
pavement markings to keep to the preferred vehicle path and to dock
close to the curb.

**ITS: Traffic Signal Priority and Queue Jumper Technology**

The use of Traffic Signal Priority at ten intersections did not lead to
any significant travel time improvement for the MAX system. This is a
significant finding, considering the expected results of TSP and
promotion of this technology at BRT systems around the country. There
are several possible explanations for this result. One possibility is
the limitations of the data that prevented us from examining end-to-end
running time and thus did include two of the ten intersections with TSP
and did not include the single queue jumper. However, since traffic
congestion is not more severe at the two TSP-equipped intersections not
included in this analysis, complete data would be unlikely to change the
conclusions.

A more likely explanation for the failure to find a travel time benefit
from TSP is simply that there is insufficient traffic congestion in this
corridor to generate significant signal delay during most times of the
day. Travel times are fairly constant throughout the day. Southbound
trips between 5 and 6 am average 17.3 minutes (the fastest hour of the
day); trips between 4 and 5 pm average 20.0 minutes (the slowest hour).
The difference is only 16%, and most of this is probably due to the
greater number of passengers boarding and alighting at the later hour.

**Figure 7-1: MAX - BRT Effectiveness Summary**

+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
|           |          | * |     | D |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     | e |   |    |                      |
|           |          | C |     | g |   |    |                      |
|           |          | o |     | r |   |    |                      |
|           |          | s |     | e |   |    |                      |
|           |          | t |     | e |   |    |                      |
|           |          | D |     | o |   |    |                      |
|           |          | a |     | f |   |    |                      |
|           |          | t |     | P |   |    |                      |
|           |          | a |     | o |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     | s |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     | i |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | t |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | i |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | v |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | e |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | I |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | m |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | p |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | a |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | c |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | t |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | o |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | n |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| **BRT**   | **Descr  | * | *   | * | * | *  | **Comments**         |
|           | iption** | * | *Op | * | * | *P |                      |
| **        |          | C | era | T | R | as |                      |
| Element** |          | a | tin | r | e | se |                      |
|           |          | p | g** | a | l | ng |                      |
|           |          | i |     | v | i | er |                      |
|           |          | t | **  | e | a | ** |                      |
|           |          | a | (\$ | l | b |    |                      |
|           |          | l | )** | * | i | ** |                      |
|           |          | * |     | * | l | Ac |                      |
|           |          | * |     |   | i | ce |                      |
|           |          |   |     | * | t | pt |                      |
|           |          | * |     | * | y | an |                      |
|           |          | * |     | T | * | ce |                      |
|           |          | ( |     | i | * | ** |                      |
|           |          | \ |     | m |   |    |                      |
|           |          | $ |     | e |   |    |                      |
|           |          | ) |     | * |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     | * |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
|           |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Running   | 7.5 mi   | N | N/A | \ | N | ** | Costs part of N. Las |
| Way       | (4.5 mi) | / |     | _ | o | \_ | Vegas Boulevard      |
| (e        |          | A |     |   | t | ** | reconstruction, paid |
| xclusive) |          |   |     |   | R |    | by NVDOT.            |
|           |          |   |     |   | a |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     |   | t |    | Curbside bus lane    |
|           |          |   |     |   | e |    | shared by MAX & 113. |
|           |          |   |     |   | d |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Pavement  | At each  | 4 | N/A | M | M | ** | While OGS proved to  |
| Markings  | station; | 3 |     | e | e | \_ | be inappropriate     |
| at        | i        | , |     | d | d | ** | technology for Las   |
| Stations  | nstalled | 0 |     | i | i |    | Vegas, pavement      |
| for       | for      | 0 |     | u | u |    | markings have been   |
| vehicle   | optical  | 0 |     | m | m |    | useful to drivers    |
| guidance  | guidance |   |     |   |   |    | when they dock       |
|           |          |   |     |   |   |    | vehicles.            |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Stations  | 22       | 5 | 10  | M | M | Hi | Raised curbs provide |
|           |          | . | 0,0 | e | e | gh | level boarding,      |
|           |          | 4 | 00- | d | d |    | improving service    |
|           |          | 5 | 115 | i | i |    | speed, service       |
|           |          | m | ,00 | u | u |    | reliability, and     |
|           |          | i | 0/y | m | m |    | passenger comfort.   |
|           |          | l | ear |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Vehicles  | 10       | 1 | N/A | H | H | Hi | Vehicle design is an |
|           |          | 0 |     | i | i | gh | essential element of |
|           |          | . |     | g | g |    | service speed        |
|           |          | 6 |     | h | h |    | (multiple doors),    |
|           |          | 5 |     |   |   |    | service reliability, |
|           |          | m |     |   |   |    | and passenger        |
|           |          | i |     |   |   |    | comfort.             |
|           |          | l |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Fare      |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
| C         |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
| ollection |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
| System    |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Proof of  | On       | N | 270 | H | H | Hi | Allows free flow     |
| Payment   | board,   | / | ,00 | i | i | gh | boarding at multiple |
| Fare      | random   | A | 0/y | g | g |    | doors that reduces   |
| C         | checking |   | ear | h | h |    | dwell time           |
| ollection |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
| System    |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Ticket    | 23       | 2 | 1   | H | H | Hi | TVMs at each station |
| Vending   | m        | . | 00, | i | i | gh | eliminates the need  |
| Machine   | achines; | 0 | 000 | g | g |    | to sell tickets on   |
| (TVM)     | 1 at     | m |     | h | h |    | board                |
|           | each     | i |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | station  | l |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | plus DTC |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| ITS       |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| TSP       | 11       | 2 | N/A | L | L | ** | No significant       |
|           |          | 7 |     | o | o | \_ | change in travel     |
|           |          | 0 |     | w | w | ** | time.                |
|           |          | , |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Queue     | 1        | N | N/A |   |   |    | No data.             |
| Jumper    |          | / |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           |          | A |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| AVL/CAD   | On each  | 2 | N/A | * | M | ** |                      |
|           | vehicle  | 9 |     | * | e | \_ |                      |
|           |          | 9 |     | \ | d | ** |                      |
|           |          | , |     | _ | i |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     | * | u |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     | * | m |    |                      |
|           |          | 0 |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Passenger | On each  | N | N/A | * | * | ** | No data. Service     |
| In        | vehicle  | / |     | * | * | \_ | Information Signs    |
| formation | and at   | A |     | \ | \ | ** | are to be installed  |
|           | each     |   |     | _ | _ |    | at each station      |
|           | station  |   |     | * | * |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     | * | * |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Optical   | 10       | 1 | N/A | * | * | N  | OGS proved to be     |
| Guidance  | vehicles | . |     | * | * | /A | inappropriate        |
| (OGS)     |          | 4 |     | \ | \ |    | technology for Las   |
|           |          | 5 |     | _ | _ |    | Vegas; also drivers  |
|           |          | m |     | * | * |    | able to dock         |
|           |          | i |     | * | * |    | vehicles manually.   |
|           |          | l |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| **Service |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
| Plan**    |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Service   | 5:00 am  | * | 92  | * | * | Hi | In October 2005,     |
| Hours     | to 10:00 | * | --  | * | * | gh | survey 96% of riders |
|           | pm       | \ | 111 | \ | \ |    | rated the            |
|           |          | _ | /   | _ | _ |    | dependability of MAX |
|           |          | * | hr  | * | * |    | good or excellent.   |
|           |          | * |     | * | * |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Service   | Headw    | * | **\ | * | H | Hi | Same as above, high  |
| Frequency | ay-based | * | _** | * | i | gh | grades from riders   |
|           | schedule | \ |     | \ | g |    |                      |
|           |          | _ |     | _ | h |    |                      |
|           | 12 min   | * |     | * |   |    |                      |
|           | peak     | * |     | * |   |    |                      |
|           |          |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | 15 min   |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | off-peak |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Station   | 0.7 mi.  | * | **\ | H | H | Me | Passengers request   |
| spacing   | avg.     | * | _** | i | i | di | for more stations.   |
|           |          | \ |     | g | g | um |                      |
|           |          | _ |     | h | h |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           |          | * |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+
| Branding/ | Unique   | * | N/A | * | * | Hi | Surveys show         |
| Marketing | MAX      | * |     | * | * | gh | increased public     |
|           | brand,   | \ |     | \ | \ |    | awareness of MAX     |
|           | rapid    | _ |     | _ | _ |    |                      |
|           | transit  | * |     | * | * |    |                      |
|           | e        | * |     | * | * |    |                      |
|           | lements, |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | p        |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | ublicity |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
|           | events   |   |     |   |   |    |                      |
+-----------+----------+---+-----+---+---+----+----------------------+

**Operating Costs**

Operating costs for MAX were about 50% higher per vehicle hour than
local bus service. Some of this difference is due to additional
attention to maintenance and use of more experienced drivers, and some
is due to the higher cost of operating and maintaining a complex,
foreign-made vehicle. Because MAX's service conditions permit higher
speeds, the difference in cost per vehicle service *mile* is not as
great as the difference in cost per service *hour*. Most of the speed
improvements are due to fewer stations and reduced dwell time. Dwell
times were shorter for two reasons. First, MAX's skilled drivers took
advantage of the center cab position during station docking, which
reduced the gap at the platform and helped speed boarding. Second, and
more significant, is MAX's proof-of-payment fare collection. This is
evidenced by the fact that time savings occur during boarding, not
alighting. Thus it can be concluded that a BRT system using more
conventional vehicles could make a significant reduction in operating
costs per vehicle service miles if it used proof of payment and
consolidation of station stops as a means of reducing travel time.

**Branding, Imaging and Public Acceptance of Service**

RTC branded the new BRT service as MAX - separate and distinct from
other existing CAT service. Survey results showed a majority of people
identified MAX as providing faster and more reliable services than local
bus. Moreover, despite the potential for longer walk time due to
increased station spacing, MAX's share of corridor ridership increased
gradually from 21% in the first month of service to 65% in less than two
years. Transit riders are certainly satisfied: more than 91% rated MAX
"excellent" or "good".

Although the MAX brand is beginning to be recognized, recognition has
been limited, since the Las Vegas Boulevard North route represents a
pilot project in only one part of a large region. In a survey of Las
Vegas region residents, 48% did not have a preference between MAX and
local bus service, suggesting that most Las Vegas Valley residents do
not yet appreciate the substantial difference between MAX and standard
CAT service. As MAX service is extended to other areas, brand
recognition should improve substantially.

**Driver Training and Selection**

MAX drivers are a significant asset to the system, as shown by the high
ratings given to MAX service quality and the nearly spotless safety
record of its drivers. Only one preventable accident occurred on MAX
from the opening of service to November 2006. Although the exclusive bus
lanes have some effect on the safety of the bus route, the drivers have
had an even greater effect. The additional training, higher pay scale
and extensive selection process for MAX drivers is a model that should
be followed by other BRT systems.

List of EXHIBITS

FIGURES

Figure 2-1: MAX system schematic map

Figure 2-2: More than half of MAX's 7.5 mile route is an exclusive
curbside bus lane

Figure 2-3: Typical MAX station (Jerry's Nugget South)

Figure 2-4: Lake Mead station with MAX ticket vending machine

Figure 2-5: Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center

Figure 2-6: MAX CIVIS vehicle exterior

Figure 2-7: Center Drive Position

Figure 2-8a: MAX bus position with automatic docking

Figure 2-8b: MAX bus position at station using manual docking

Figure 2-9: Onboard Bike Rack

Figure 2-10: Ticket Vending Machine

Figure 2-11: Uniformed security officer on-board MAX

Figure 2-12 MAX Marketing Material

Figure 2-13 Opening Day Celebration

Figure 4-1: An illustration of one of the 50 new BRT vehicles to be
added to the MAX fleet. This vehicle is being manufactured by the Wright
Group of Northern Ireland. It will resemble the CIVIS but will not have
optical guidance.

Figure 4-2: Deuce, RTC\'s new double decker bus, operates on the heavily
traveled Las Vegas strip.

Figure 5-1: Has your travel time changed since riding MAX? (October
2005)

Figure 5-2: Estimated Station Dwell Time

Figure 5-3: Driver Assessment of MAX features for route speed and
reliability compared to CAT

Figure 5-4: Overall Rating of MAX / CAT Service (October 2005)

Figure 5-5: Survey of CAT riders, "Have you ever ridden MAX?"

Figure 5-6: Survey of CAT riders, "Do you prefer to ride CAT or MAX?"

Figure 5-7: Rate the Safety of MAX / CAT Vehicle (October 2005)

Figure 5-8: Rate the Safety of MAX Stations / CAT Stops (October 2005)

Figure 6-1: Average Boardings per Day, MAX and 113, January 2004 to July
2006

Figure 6-2: MAX share of Las Vegas Blvd. North Public Transit Market

Figure 6-3: Index of Changes in Boardings, LVBN Corridor and Systemwide

Figure 6-4: Previous mode of MAX riders (October 2005)

Figure 6-5: Rider ethnicity

Figure 6-6: Rider age

Figure 6-7: Employment status

Figure 6.8: Intensity of Use, MAX compared to 113

Figure 6.9: MAX Operating Cost per Vehicle Hour

Figure 6-10: MAX Operating Cost per Boarding

Figure 6-11: Opportunities for Redevelopment: North Las Vegas

Figure 7-1: MAX - BRT Effectiveness Summary

TABLES

Table 3-1: Overview of Capital Costs associated with the MAX service

Table 3-2: MAX Operating Costs, July 2004 to December 2005

Table 4-1: MAX Southbound

Table 4-2: MAX Northbound

Table 4-3: Importance of MAX features in docking the vehicle for precise
stops

Table 5-1: Regression Model of MAX and 113 Travel Time, Northbound

Table 5-2: Travel Time and Speed Differences by Time Period,\
MAX and 113, Northbound

Table 5-3: Regression Model of MAX and 113 Travel Time, Southbound

Table 5-4: Travel Time and Speed Differences by Time Period,\
MAX and 113, Southbound

Table 5-5: Has your travel time changed since riding MAX?

Table 5-6: Rate the speed of travel on MAX and CAT

Table 5-7: For riders transferring from other CAT/MAX routes,\
how long did you wait at the location you transferred? (October 2005)

Table 5-8: Rate the Wait Time at MAX and CAT Stations

Table 5-9: Dwell Time Model Results

Table 5-10: Rate the Dependability of MAX and CAT

Table 5-11: Passenger Rating of Vehicles and Shelters,\
MAX and CAT riders

Table 5-12: All things considered rating of MAX and CAT by riders of the
service

Table 5-13: Overall rating of MAX service by CAT riders and CAT service
by MAX riders

Table 5-14: Rate the Safety of MAX / CAT Vehicle

Table 5-15: Rate the Safety of MAX Stations / CAT Stops

Table 6-1: Previous mode of MAX riders

Table 6-2: Rider ethnicity

Table 6-3: Rider age

Table 6-4: Employment status

Table 6-5: Rider gender

Table 6-6: Comparison of BRT Project Capital Costs

List of Acronyms

**APC** -- Automatic Passenger Counter

**ATC Vancom** -- Now Veolia, the company that operates MAX and CAT for
RTC

**BRT** -- Bus Rapid Transit

**CAD/AVL** -- Computer Aided Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Location system

**CAT** -- Citizen's Area Transit, the transit agency for Southern
Nevada,\
a division of RTC

**CBRT** -- Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making,
August 2004

**CIVIS** -- Specialized BRT Vehicle built by Irisbus

**DTC** -- Downtown Transportation Center (Las Vegas)

**FTA** -- Federal Transit Administration

**ITS** -- Intelligent Transportation System

**LVBN** -- Las Vegas Boulevard North

**MAX** -- Metropolitan Area Express, BRT System in Las Vegas, NV

**MPO** -- Metropolitan Planning Organization (RTC is an MPO)

**NVDOT** -- Nevada Department of Transportation

**PDA** -- Personal Digital Assistant

**RTC** -- Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

**TSP** -- Traffic Signal Priority (also called Transit Signal Priority)

**TVM** -- Ticket Vending Machine

**Veolia** -- MAX service operation is performed under contract to
Veolia\
Transportation (formerly ATC)

**BRT MAX Service Questionnaire**

*Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. We are part of a
research team conducting an evaluation of the MAX service for the
Federal Transit Administration. We value your opinions and appreciate
your assistance with our evaluation.*

**1. Did you drive vehicles for CAT prior to driving on the MAX route?**

􀂉 Yes

􀂉 No -- I'm a new driver

􀂉 No -- I worked for another ATC operation in another part of the
country

**2. How long have you been driving for CAT?**

􀂉 Less than 1 year 􀂉 Between 1 year and 3 years

􀂉 Between 3 and 5 years 􀂉 Between 5 and 10 years

􀂉 More than 10 years

**3. How long have you been driving the CIVIS vehicle on the MAX
route?**

􀂉 Since service began -- about 2 years

􀂉 Less than 2 years but more than 1 year

􀂉 Less than 1 year

**4. Do you still sometimes drive CAT routes?**

􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No

**5. Generally speaking, do you prefer driving the CIVIS over CAT
vehicles?**

􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No 􀂉 Other:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**6. Please rate how the CIVIS compares with standard CAT vehicles for
the following features:**

> **Better Neutral Worse**

Driver Comfort/Ride 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Passenger Comfort 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Vehicle Handling/ Maneuverability 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Safety -- on road performance 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Driver sense of security & safety 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Overall Vehicle Performance 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

**7. The CIVIS vehicle has a center drive position. Based on your
experience driving from the center position CIVIS vehicle as compared
with driving from the left hand position with CAT vehicles, how do the
following features rate:**

> **Better Neutral Worse**

Forward visibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Left Side visibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Right side visibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Rear visibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Lining up with curb/platform 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

General operations 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

**8. How difficult it is to make a stop close to the curb and at the
designated door locations?**

> **Very Difficult Neutral Not**
>
> **Difficult at**
>
> **All**

Challenge of docking vehicle 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

**9. How important are the following features are helping you dock the
vehicle and make precision stops?**

> **Very Not**
>
> **Important Neutral Important**
>
> **at All**

Driver training & experience 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Center drive position 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Pavement markings 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Optical Guidance System 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

**10. How does each of the following MAX features services contribute to
route speed and service reliability as compared with standard CAT
service:**

> **Improves Reduces**
>
> **Speed No Speed &**
>
> **Reliability Effect Reliability**

Multiple doors for entry/exit 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Off-board fare collection 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Passenger accessibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

ADA passenger accessibility 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Signal priority at intersections 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

Queue jump 􀂉 􀂉 􀂉

**11. Taking into consideration the entire service, including passenger
comfort, vehicle maneuverability and route speed/service reliability,
please identify the top three system features you feel contribute most
to the success of MAX.**

> **Ranking**

Multiple doors for entry/exit \_\_\_\_

Off-board fare collection \_\_\_\_

Center drive position \_\_\_\_

Passenger features \_\_\_\_

Communications equipment \_\_\_\_

Signal priority \_\_\_\_

Queue jump \_\_\_\_

![](media/image45.wmf)

![](media/image46.wmf)

![](media/image47.wmf)

![](media/image48.wmf)

![](media/image49.wmf)

![](media/image50.wmf)

**COMPARISON GRAPH**

![](media/image51.wmf)

**VISIBILITY GRAPH**

![](media/image52.wmf)

**DOCKING GRAPH**

![](media/image53.wmf){width="6.552777777777778in" height="4.0in"}

**SPEED COMPONENT GRAPH**

![](media/image54.wmf){width="5.898611111111111in"
height="3.7472222222222222in"}

[^1]: The Evaluation Guidelines for BRT Demonstration Projects can be
    found at
    <http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13831.html>

    CBRT report is available at
    *<http://www.gobrt.org/CBRT-DecisionMaking.pdf>*

[^2]: The other bus system using proof of payment is the Los Angeles
    Metro Orange Line, which opened in October 2005. Proof of payment is
    used on many bus systems around the world and on every new light
    rail system in the U.S. and Canada. It is also used on the
    Transitway portion of the Ottawa bus system.

[^3]: See RTC, FAST. Transit Signal Priority Implementation Summary
    Report. June 15, 2005.

[^4]: The data for MAX with TSP off were from Thursday, September 15,
    2005 to Saturday, September 24, 2005 (10 days). The data for MAX
    with TSP in operation were from Tuesday, September 27, 2005 to
    Monday, October 1, 2005 (7 days).

[^5]: Following the Route 113 schedule for July 2006, we added 7 minutes
    to the southbound trips to account for the Washington Street to DTC
    segment, except in the overnight (10 pm to 5 am) period, where we
    added 6 minutes. For northbound 113 trips, we added 9 minutes for
    the DTC to Washington segment during the 7 am to 7 pm period, 7
    minutes during the overnight period, and 8 minutes at other times.
    For MAX, following trip data prepared for the October 2006 schedule,
    we added 9 minutes to account for the DTC to Jerry's Nugget segment
    northbound and 8 minutes to account for the same segment southbound,
    at all times. Note that for both MAX and 113 the south and north
    routings are different, hence the different travel times. Schedule
    data were provided by Jacob Simmons of RTC.

[^6]: The week of data was for August 25 to 31, 2006.

[^7]: The previous evaluation of MAX produced for FTA showed travel time
    savings of 38%- 42% during several time periods. One explanation for
    the somewhat lower time savings documented here is that the previous
    study compared MAX to Route 113 prior to MAX service. Many 113
    riders changed to MAX when the service became available, and the
    lower ridership on MAX has possibly resulted in lower dwell times
    and faster service.

[^8]: RTC conducted on-board passenger surveys in both April and October
    of 2005. The second survey was conducted to ask additional
    questions, gauge changes in opinion, and verify the validity of
    responses to the first survey. Each round of surveys targeted 225
    MAX passengers and 225 Route 113 passengers.

[^9]: The calculation of standard deviation of trip times excludes Route
    113 trips starting at times when MAX does not operate, namely 10 pm
    to 5 am.

[^10]: The 2004 benchmark survey had 599 valid respondents interviewed
    from December 5-17, 2004. The 2005 benchmark survey had a total
    sample size of 600 Las Vegas Valley residents interviewed from
    January 16-23, 2006.

[^11]: RTC estimates MAX operating revenues by crediting to MAX all TVM
    sales of one-ride tickets except those sold at TVMs located on the
    Strip and by allocating pass revenues based on the percentage of
    pass usage, as estimated based on the fare payment control counts. 
    As of June 2006, RTC was waiting for a software change to the PDAs
    used to check fares. RTC expects the change will produce better
    estimates of use of different fare media.