( November 1973 The Interim Report H Shirley

Highway

Express-Bus-on

Freeway

Demonstration Project/

Second Ysar Results

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20591
m
I NBS-n4A (MEV. 7-731

I U.S. UhPT. Of- CO^'M. BIBLIOGHAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. JH ni.u A ric).\ c)K Ki.i'OR r .no. Report D0T/UT4TA 4

2. (lov 't Accession

No.

3. Kc c ipient's Accession

4. Tin.l-. A.\D .-^L It i 1 i i.i; The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-On-Freeway

Demonstration Project - Second Year Results

5. Publication Date January 1974

6. Performing Organization Ccit

7. AU rilOR(S)

J, T. McQueen, R. F. Yates, and G'. K. Miller

8. Performing Ori;ap(^ R epoV: No. NBSIR 7W-h6k 1 9. in:RFOR.V.].\t, OKC,A.\lZATIO.\ .\AMl-; AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Proiect. Task I'.VLk L>{1: Xo. 4314552

^—

11/" ' r \T 11. Contract ' tirant No.

12. SponsoriQi; Org.in izat ion Name and Complete Address (Street, City, Slate, ZIP)

Urban Mass Transportation U.S. DOT

13. Type of Report f^eriod Covered Interin Hep

for 1/72 to //7?

14. Sponsoring .\i;Lncy Ccje

15. SLPPLl-I.MFNTARV NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si^ificant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This report contains :

' •

a) A review of the performance of the Shirley Highway ExpressBus-On-Freeway Demonstration Project between 1969 and 1973.

b) A description of the methodology and data use to estimate

project measures of effectiveness.

c) A discussion of factors considered in commuter mode choice

decision making.

17. KF.Y UORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

Bus transit; busway operations; commuter travel behavior;

express bus-on-freeway operations; project evaluation; transit operations.

18. AVAILABILITY [X Unlimited

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

r ' OrJc F.'om Sup. of Doc, U.S. G.ivorr.ncnt Printing Office

'i^ ashm^ton, D.C 2U-,02. SD ( a:. ( H

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, \'irpinia 22151

19. SFCURH Y CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF P.\G£i

81

20. SH(X'i-;iTv n.ASs

(THIS PAGL)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

u SCOMM. DC i ; : _

Report DOT/UMTA h

THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY EXPRESS-BUS-ON FREEWAY

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - SECOND YEAR RESULTS

James T. McQueen, Richard F. Technical Analysis Division

National Bureau of Standards

U.S. Department of Commerce

Yates and Gerald K. Miller

November, 1973

Interim Report h

Prepared for

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION

Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20591

PREFACE

The authors vish to acknowledge the major technical and editorial contributions of

Mr. Ralph E. Schofer of the Technical Analysis Division. His guidance and patience were

invaluable in this effort. Major credit goes to Mrs, Carol Harrison who coordinated the

preparation of the final draft. She was ably assisted by Mrs, Janet Stamper in the

production of the report.

\
ABSTRACT

The purpose of the Shirley Highway Express Bus on Exclusive Freeway Lane Demonstration

Project is to determine the effectiveness of this technology in easing urban traffic

congestion and improving the urban environment. This project, jointly sponsored by the

Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and the Federal Highway Administration of the

Department of Transportation, is comprised of three elements: exclusive bus lanes, new

feature buses, and fringe parking lots coordinated with the express bus service.

As compared with the situation in 1969 prior to implementation, this demonstration

project in the Shirley Highway Corridor has resulted in:

1. A shift of approximately 8300 auto commuters to the bus service.

2. An improvement in vehicle utilization which has reduced by IT the number of buses

required to maintain the March 19T3 headways.

3. A diversion of approximately 5000 autos from daily peak period Corridor traffic

streams and the removal of all buses from the auto lanes of the Shirley Highway.

k. A substantial improvement in the people moving efficiency of the Shirley Highway.

5. A reduction in peak period auto emissions and gasoline usage.

6. A reduction in travel times for motorists and bus riders.

7. An improvement in the reliability of the transit system.

The Technical Analysis Division of the National Bureau of Standards is evaluating this

demonstration project for UMTA by monitoring performance in terms of attaining the project

objectives, and by determining the contributions of particular project features to increases

in the percentage of commuter trips by bus.

This report presents the results of the evaluation at the end of June 1973, highlighting

the period between July 1972 and June 1973 of the multi-year demonstration project which

is scheduled for completion in 1975.

Other reports on the evaluation of the Shirley Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration

Project are listed below:

1. "The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project-Project

Description, Interim Report l" (Report DOT /UMTA l), August 1971. Available from

Technical Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 2023^

2. "The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project/First Year Results,

Interim Report 2" (Report DOT/UMTA 2)', November 1972. Available from NTIS,

Springfield, Virginia, PB-211+333.

3. "The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project-Users' Reactions

to Innovative Features, Interim Report 3," prepared for Urban Mass Transportation

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, June 1973. Available from

NTIS,- Springfield, Virginia, COM 73-11^^53.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Section

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 3

2.1 Introduction 3

2.2 Evaluation Plan U 2.3 Project and. Corridor Descriptions 6

3. ATTAINMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 13

3.1 Multiple Purpose Data , 13

3.2 Increase in Bus Market Share , 21

3.3 Impact of the Demonstration Project on the Transit Operator 2h

3.U Reduction in A.M. Peak Period Auto Volumes 35

3.5 Increase in A.M. Peak Period People-Moving Productivity Per Lane on Shirley Highway 37

3.6 Peak Period Reduction in Auto Generated Air Pollution and Auto Gasoline

Consumption 38

3.T Changes in Peak Period Bus and Auto Travel Times k2

3.8 Changes in Peak Period Bus Service Schedule Reliability . . ^5

U. EXAMINATION OF COMMUTER MODE CHOICE DECISIONS

U.l Introduction ^7

U.2 Survey of Users' Reactions to Innovative Bus Features U7

U.3 Survey of Reactions of Users of Park and Ride Service to Selected

Bus Features U9

U.U Findings 53

Appendix

A. Screenline Data 55

B. Trends in Busway Bus Assignments and Patronage Growth 6l

C. Cost Allocation Study 63

D. Procedure for Estimating Reduction in Auto Usage g8

E. Details of Air Pollution Reduction Computations 71

F. Inventory of Project Bus Mileages and Travel Times 77

Figures

1. Shirley Highway Busway Entrances 7

2. Shirley Highway Corridor Area 9

3. Screenline Location lU

U. Traffic Volumes on Shirley Highway l6

5. Trends in Corridor Auto Occupancy 17

6. Project Development and Trends in Patronage Growth 19

7. Trends in Busway Patronage 20

8. Trends in Corridor Bus Market Share 22

9. Trends in Busway Passengers Per Bus ^ 27

10. Trends in Passengers Per Bus for Routes 7> 8, 17 and l8 28

11. A.M. Peak Hour Person Throughput Per Lane on Shirley Highway 39

12. Distribution By Vehicle Age of Vehicle Miles Traveled Within the Washington

Metropolitan Area 75
Tables

Page

1 Corridor Census Tracts 8

2 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Shirley Highway Corridor and

Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA 10

3 Corridor Demographic Characteristics 11

h A.M. Peak Period Auto Occupancy on lUth Street Bridge , 15

5 A.M. Peak Period Auto Occupancy Rates for the District of Columbia IT

6 Estimates of Corridor Bus Market Share for October 1971, October 1972,

June 1973 23

7 Sensitivity Analysis of Bus Market Share Estimates 23

8 Trends in Patronage for Routes Entering Busway South of Shirlington Circle. . 26

9 Trends in Base Day Patronage During 1972 29

10 Project Operating Expenses and Revenue by Route ' 30

11 Project Operating Statistics - Last Half 1971 31

12 Project Operating Statistics - First Half 1972 32

13 Project Operating Statistics - Last Half 1972 33

lU Expansion of Peak Period Project Bus Service 3^

15 Summary of Auto Reduction Estimates and Computations • 36

16 Estimates of Daily Reductions in Air Pollution Emissions Ul

17 Estimates of Yearly Reductions in Air Pollution Emissions Ul

18 Comparison of Line Haul Travel Times With and Without the Busway for

Selected Project Bus Routes h3

19 A.M. Peak Period Auto Travel Times and Speeds on Shirley Highway hk

20 Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway Bus Trips at First

Stop in D.C U6

21 Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway Bus Trips at Last

Stop in D.C U6

22 Commuter Satisfaction Rankings for Bus Interior Features h9

23 Commuter Importance Rankings for Bus Interior & Service Related Features . . 50

2h Current Auto Users and Former Auto Users at Park and Ride Lots 51

25 Commuter Satisfaction Rankings for Bus Service Features 52

26 Commuter Importance Rankings for Bus Service Features 53

27 Siimmary of Corridor Screenline Counts 56

28 Corridor Screenline Counts by Station 57

29 Distributions of Corridor . Auto OccutJancy 59

30 Summary of Screenline Count Variability Analysis 60

31 Trends in Busway Bus Assignments and Patronage Growth 62

32 Operating and Maintenance Expense Accounts 65

33 Percentage Contributions to Variations in Transit Expenses

'

66

3^ Comparison of Project Bus Cost Allocations- Last Half 1971 With Last

Half 1972 67

35 Bus Patronage on Shirley Highway Routes 69

36 Former Auto Users and Diverted Autos 70

37 Unadjusted Air Pollution Emission Rates by Vehicle Model Year 73

38 Deterioration Factors for Exhaust Pollution Control Devices 73

39 "Adjusted" Air Pollution Emission Rates 7^

ho "Typical" Vehicle (Weighted) Air Pollution Emission Rates 7^

hi Distributions of Corridor Peak Period Speeds and Volumes 76

h2 Corridor Peak Period Auto Emission Rates 76

k3 Revenue Trip Distances for Project Bus Routes 79

hh Schedule Travel Times for Project Bus Routes 80

U5 Average Speeds for Project Bus Routes 8I
SECTION 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction

The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project, scheduled for com- pletion in December 19TU, entered its fourth year of service as of July 1973. This report

documents project achievements up to that date, with primary emphasis on activity "between

July 1972 and June 1973.

Evaluation of the demonstration project is aimed at measuring performance in terms of

attaining project objectives, and at estimating the contributions of particular features to

increases in the percentage of commuter trips by bus. This latter information will subsequently facilitate the evaluation of future bus-on- freeway projects.

Objectives of the demonstration project are: (l) to divert auto commuters to the bus

service; (2) to promote the economic viability of transit operations; (3) to reduce traffic

congestion during peak periods; (U) to increase the people-moving efficiency of Shirley

Highway; (5) to reduce auto air pollution emissions and gasoline consumption; (6) to reduce

travel time for motorists and transit users; and (7) to improve the reliability of bus

service

The preliminary achievements discussed in this report have not as yet been related to

the costs of providing the service. Determining who benefits, in what ways, and by how

much, and relating these benefits to the costs of providing them is an on-going evaluation

task, the results of which will be described in a final report.

1.2. Attainment of Objectives

The Corridor-wide percentage of person-trips which are potentially bus trips and which

are made by bus has been designated the primary measure of project effectiveness; this percentage is called the bus market share and is directly related to the achievement of

Objectives 1, 3, 5, and 6. The June 1973 peak period Corridor bus market share estimate

(based on 1971 commuter surveys and 1973 traffic and bus passenger data) of hO percent is

essentially unchanged since October of 1972; however, an additional 69OO persons are using

Corridor transportation facilities, and Corridor bus service attracted 280O additional bus

riders between June 1972 and June 1973. Since the inauguration of the project in I969,

daily bus ridership has increased by 7500 passengers (to 20,000) and bus market share increased from 27 percent (prior to project implementation) to the present UO percent.

A concern of the evaluation is whether the increase in bus passengers was at the expense

of Corridor auto occupancy. Between July 1972 and June 1973 peak period Corridor auto

occupancy averaged about 1.3^ persons/auto, not significantly different from I.36 persons/

auto during the previous 12 month period; Corridor auto occupancy averaged l.kk persons/auto

between April 1970 and December 1970 (initial Corridor traffic data collections). This

decline, however, cannot properly be attributed to the demonstration project, since (l) auto

occupancy in the Corridor (and in the whole Washington Metropolitan area as well) had been

declining prior to the implementation of the project and has continued to decline at only a slightly higher rate during the life of the demonstration project; and (2) a majority of

the former auto users had driven alone prior to riding the bus.

Former auto users riding the demonstration project buses have indicated that service and

comfort features (as opposed to interior bus features) have been the primary determinants of

their decisions to change from automobile to bus. The service features include the reliability of bus service and the convenience of bus arrival and departure times; adequate air

conditioning and heating were the most important of the comfort features (Objective l).

As a consequence of the shift of automobile commuters to the bus service, approximately

5000 automobiles were removed from the daily peak period traffic streams on the major

Corridor highways, with approximately 8OO autos being removed since October 1972; however,

it appears that newly opened portions of the reconstructed Shirley Highway have been more

responsible for reducing congestion and automobile travel times than the diverted automobiles. Nonetheless, had these large numbers of express bus riders not been diverted from

auto travel, the highway system would have been more congested and all auto users would

have been subjected to additional delays and longer travel times (Objective 3).

Other consequences of the removal of automobiles from Corridor highways are reductions

in automobile air pollution and gasoline consumption. Between October 1972 and June 1973,

the reduction in auto air pollution emissions was approximately 700 tons of carbon monoxide,

100 tons of hydrocarbons and 50 tons of nitrogen oxides; during the same period approximately
850,000 gallons of gasoline were saved. The estimated total reduction in air pollution

emissions since June I969 was 1950 tons of carbon monoxide, 300 tons of hydrocarbons and

150 tons of nitrogen oxides; total gasoline conservation was approximately 2 million

gallons (Objective 5).

During the A.M. peak period in June 1973, the Shirley Highway (with three auto lanes) was carrying approximately 28,100 persons (11,900 bus riders and l6,200 auto persons).

This is 11,600 persons more than in April 1970 when the Shirley Highway had two auto lanes.

During the June 1973 peak hour (the hour with the maximum observed person trip volume), 7700

bus passengers were observed on the buslane and 7100 auto person trips were observed on the

three auto lanes of the Shirley Highway (Objective U).

The busway continues to contribute to the reduction of bus travel time and the improvement of bus schedule reliability by providing a high speed, congestion-free line haul route.

Unfortunately, the extent to which the downtown bus-priority lanes have been effective in

reducing bus travel times and improving scheudle reliability has been difficult to measure

because of interference from the construction of the Washington (Metro) subway system

(Objective 7)

The busway has had a generally positive impact on the bus operation. Utilization of

vehicles and labor has ' improved on routes that use the busway. Time savings on these routes

allow the same number of buses and drivers to make more trips than would be possible without a busway. Increased utilization, however, has not been enough to accommodate growth in

patronage, and additional buses have been put into service. To maintain present bus headways if the busway did not exist, would require approximately 17 additional buses and would

cost the operator an estimated additional $26,000 per month (Objective 2).

Although peak period service was expanded substantially during the last half of 1972,

net operating revenues for peak period service exceeded those of the corresponding period

in 1971. In addition, during the last half of 1972, net project operating revenue (peak

and off-peak) was positive for the first time ever. Many of the elements of this demonstration project have been implemented in the past

with varying results. This demonstration project is different in the simultaneous implementation of project elements, the aggressive expansion of bus service (as opposed to

the reduction of service as with most transit operations) by the project administrator, and

the continued provision of timely and highly reliable bus service.
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

2.1. Introduction

The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Pro.lect began in April 19^9 > and the Technical Analysis Division (TAD) of the National Bureau of Standards began monitoring the pro,1 act's performance in January 19T1- This multi-year demonstration, scheduled

for completion in December 197^, is a joint effort of the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and involves the cooperation

of many participating state, regional and local agencies.

1

The current state of project development, with emphasis on performance from July 1972

through June 1973, is the subject of this report. Section 2 will acq^uaint the reader with

the purpose and organization of the report, and describe the demonstration project and the

travel corridor which it impacts.

2.1.1. Background of Report

Since 1971, three interim reports have been published describing various results of the

UMTA evaluation program for the Shirley Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project. The

first report described the project in detail, including its background and location as well

as major elements and their operation. 2 The second report presented interim results from

monitoring the seven project objectives through July 1972, and included bus and auto commuter

profiles based upon the 1971 surveys .

3

Interim Report 3 presented the results of a survey of user reactions to the special

interior bus features.^ Other reports to be published in this series include (l) an analysis

of the results of a survey of commuters at project park-and-ride lots; (2) an analysis of

project benefits and costs; and (3) a documentation of coimnuter mode choice behavior based

upon results from the 1971 survey of auto and bus commuters (including modal choice models for

allocating Corridor peak-period travel demand).

2.1.2. Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to document the monitoring and evaluation results and

describe project developments during the period July 1972 to July 1973. Specifically

written for urban transportation planning professionals with an interest in the application

of bus-on-freeway technology, this report should be of value to transportation administrators

as an indication of the impact of various project elements. In addition, our procedures for

data collection and analysis, and parameter estimation might also be of interest to transportation analysts.

2.1.3. Scope of Report

Each objective within the UMTA evaluation plan was investigated, and (as in Interim

Report 2) project performance is discussed. The investigations were based primarily upon

the Corridor travel information obtained from roadside observations and commuter surveys.

While the roadside observations have been continued since the project began in 1969

commuter surveys were only conducted in 1971; however, two special surveys were conducted

'Participating agencies include the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Virginia

Department of Highways, District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic, Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission.

>""The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demosntration Project - Project Description,

Interim Report l" (Report DOT/UMTA l), August 1971. Available from the Technical Analysis

Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C. 2023U.

'"The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway Demonstraion Project/First Year Results,

Interim Report 2" (Report DOT/UMTA 2), November 1972. Available from NTIS, Springfield,

Virginia, PB 21^333.

"The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project-Users' Reactions to

Innovative Features, Interim Report 3", prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, June 1973. Available from NTIS, Springfield,

Virginia, COM 73-11^53.
during 1912. One focused on "bus commuter responses to the special "bus interior features

of the project buses, and the other on hus commuters using the fringe park-and-ride lots,

the other on bus commuters using the fringe park-and-ride lots.

An extensive analysis of commuter mode choice behavior based on the 1971 surveys was

also undertaken. The detailed analyses and findings will be presented in Interim Report 5^

2.I.U. Report Contents

The report is divided ihto four sections. An executive summary of the entire report is

found in the first section. The remainder of Section 2 reviews the evaluation program, and

describes the project elements and the travel Corridor. The third section presents information pertaining to the attainment or status of each major project objective. The fourth

section summarizes the analyses of commuter mode choice behavior based on results of a park-and-ride survey and a survey of users' reactions to special interior bus featixres.

2.2. Evaluation Plan

The purpose of the UMTA evaluation program for the Shirley Highway Express-Bus-onFreeway Demonstration Project is to assess the degree to which the project's objectives are being attained, i.e., to estimate measures of effectiveness for each of the project's

objectives. There are seven major objectives of the evaulation program:

1. Determine the magnitude of the modal shift (auto-to-bus) in the Shirley Highway

Corridor. Determine the relative influence of the following transit service features or characteristics on mode choice decisions:

_ a. the exclusive busway (time advantage)

:v , b . the fare

•. , c. the access convenience (e.g., the time and effort required to go from one's

door to the bus stop)

d. the egress convenience

e. the number of transfers required

f. the park-and-ride facilities

g. . the qualities and characteristics of vehicles (e.g., air conditioning, rider

comfort, seat width)

h. the non-fare costs (e.g., parking fees).

2. Determine the impact of the improved and additional peak-period service on the bus

operator.

3. Determine the reduction in peak-period auto volumes due to the mode changes

(auto to bus )

.

h. Measure the increase in the volume of people moved on the freeway during the peak

period.

5- Determine gasoline savings and the reduction in vehicle air pollution emissions.

6. Determine the reduction in total trip time for both bus and auto users in the

Corridor.

• 7- Determine the improvement in schedule reliability of peak-period transit service.

The evaluative information should be useful from two perspectives, the national view

and the regional one. In the national interest, UMTA seeks to make the results and forecasting procedures developed in conjunction with the Shirley Project available to those

considering, designing, or implementing similar systems in other cities. Information re- lated to the attainment of project objectives will permit better-informed, more judicious

implementation of similar concepts elsewhere. Where possible, the various features of the

Shirley bus system will be characterized with respect to their contributions to patronage.

Knowledge concerning the effects of the enlarged market share on the bus operator. Corridor

highway congestion, trip or travel times, efficiency of freeway lane utilization, air

pollution, gasoline usage and bus schedule reliability will be useful for making decisions

about bus-on-freeway operations in other cities.
The regional perspective concerns relating project achievements to local bus and auto

travelers, "bus operators, and the local communities. It is hoped that many corridor groups

will benefit from the public transportation improvements engendered by this demonstration

project. (For example, reductions in auto traffic volumes and commuter times are of value

to both auto and bus users.) These benefits vill be identified, related to the incident

group or groups, and considered jointly with costs in a benefit-cost evaluation to be performed at the conclusion of the project. Such assessments will aid the regional agencies

as they evaluate the impact of the demonstration project on their respective constituencies.

2.2.1. First and Second Year Evaluation Activities

In the first year of the project evaluation, July 19T1 to June 1972, the busway and the

priority lanes in downtown Washington were put into service, sixty new-feature buses were

placed into operation, and two fringe parking lots in shopping centers were opened. During

this period, the major thrust of the evaluation effort was to develop the evaluation plan,

to test various data-gathering procedures, and to aid the regional agencies in implementing

the project. Basic measurements of traffic volumes, travel times, and bus patronage were made before the entire busway opened in April 19T1, and have been repeated during 19Tlj 1972,

and 1973. These data, together with surveys of bus and auto users conducted in October

1971, provided the primary information used in assessing project Objectives 1 through 7 for

the period June I969 to July 1972. The results are presented in the First Year Results

Report (Interim Report 2).

The evaluation activities from July 1972 to June 1973 consisted of two major tasks'- . (l)

refinement of existing analytical procedures for estimating project measures of effectiveness (e.g., bus market share, peak-period automobile reduction, etc.), and (2) data collection activities for providing information on peak-period travel conditions within the

corridor. Parameters derived from the resultant analytical procedures were applied to the

appropriate data to estimate project measures of effectiveness. Project measures of effectiveness will be summarized as benefits and costs at the end of the demonstration.

The analytical procediires used in estimating project measures of effectiveness are described in Section 3. An overview of data collection activities is presented in paragraph

2.2.2., and an in-depth discussion of the primary project evaluation data is presented in

paragraph 3.1-

2.2.2. Data Collection Activities

Measiarement of the attainment of project objectives is being accomplished by the monitoring of several types of data. The two primary types are: (l) periodic counts of vehicles

and persons in vehicles (both buses and autos) crossing an eight-station screenline which

intercepts the main arterials emanating from Washington, D.C. into the Corridor (see

discussion in paragraph 3-1), and (2) in-depth mailback surveys of auto and bus commuters

crossing the screenline. The screenline counts began in April 1970, and have been continued

during the second year of project evaluation. A survey of bus and auto commuters was con- ducted in October 1971- Since that time, there have been no major commuter surveys (a

major bus commuter survey was conducted in November 1973; unfortunately, the processing of

those data will not be completed until January 197^); however, two special surveys of bus

commuters were conducted during this second year: (l) a survey of users' reactions to

special bus interior features and (2) a survey of factors influencing the use of bus service

at park-and-ride lots.

The traveler interviews were held in October 1971- Bus questionnaires were distributed

by bus drivers to approximately 25 percent of the riders. Over 2,U00 completed forms were

returned by mail (a 55 percent response rate). Surveying auto travelers was a more complex

process. A sample (l in 5) of licenses was taken from all autos crossing the screenline.

The Virginia license numbers were matched with Virginia Motor Vehicle registration files,

and owners' addresses were retrieved. Mail-back survey forms were then sent to about

^,900 addresses of registered owners. A driver's form and three passenger forms, for car pool passengers, were included. Over 3,100 complete forms were returned. (This represented

55 percent and U5 percent response rates for auto drivers and auto passengers respectively.)

Other data are utilized in monitoring the project objectives. The Washington

Metropolitan Transit makes monthly visual roadside counts of all passengers on buses using
the busway during the two daily peak periods. 5 Tabulations of aggregate system costs,

revenues, and operating statistics are prepared quarterly (some statistics are available

on a monthly basis). Bus and auto travel time measurements (time checks between points) and

bus schedule adherence data are collected periodically.

2.3- Project and Corridor Descriptions

The Shirley Highway-Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project was designed to provided

Corridor commuters with fast and reliable peak-period bus service to three major employment

centers: (l) Downtown Washington, D.C., and (2) Pentagon and (3) Crystal City Complex i in the Northern Virginia suburbs. o Bus travel times have been reduced by the following pro- ; ject features: (l) more direct routing in suburban and downtown collection and distribution;;

(2) expanded and more frequent bus service; and (3) preferential treatment on streets in

downtown Washington, D.C., and the exclusive use of the busway with its high operating speeds

Bus schedule reliability has also been improved by this preferential treatment accorded the , buses because the buses have been removed from the primary flow of traffic and are less vulnerable to delays caused by automobile congestion and accidents.

The demonstration project is being operated in the Shirley Highway Corridor of the

Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., one of the most affluent areas in the Country.^

In 19T0 the median family income in the area was about $15,000 per year, about 28 percent more than the national median for suburban areas and about 15 percent more than the median

income of the Washington, D.C. SMSA. (The SMSA median family income of $12,993 was the third

highest in the nationT.

)

., 2.3.1. Major Project Elements

., , Three major elements comprise the project: (l) the busway, including the exclusive

lane on Shirley Highway and the bus-priority lanes in Washington, D.C; (2) a bus transit

operation, involving new buses (with special features) operating on new routes and schedules;

and (3) residential fringe parking facilities for bus riders, located in shopping centers

and newly constructed lots.

The busway (first project element) is provided as a part of the reconstruction of

Shirley Highway into an eight lane road (two three-lane directional roadways separated by a two-lane reversible express roadway). Figure 1 depicts the Shirley Highway, showing both

the temporary and the completed permanent portions of the busway. Also shown are the permanent and temporary bus access points. The completed busway will be approximately 11 miles

long and will end at the southern end of the lUth Street Bridge on the Potomac River,

After traveling on the busway, inbound buses cross the Potomac River on the lUth

Street Center Bridge and merge with regular District of Columbia traffic. Within the

District, peak period bus lanes and turn advantages give the buses some priority over autos

.

Bus transit operations (second project element) include the transit service operated by

the Alexandria Division of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) prior to

the demonstration project and the new service which WMATA operates for the Northern Virginia

Transportation Commission (NVTC) as a part of this demonstration project. 8 WMATA vehicles

served the pre-existent bus routes; however, the new project service is being provided with

90 new-feature buses purchased by NVTC with a part of the demonstration grant funding.

Transit vehicles and patrons are not tallied for the busway as part of the screenline

counting program; special busway counts are used as estimates of buses and bus passengers

in place of the screenline counts for the Shirley Highway.

The Northern Virginia Suburbs are defined as the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and

Fairfax; and Arlington and Fairfax Counties.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Statistical Abstract, 19T2 . 'wMATA acquired the AB&W Transit Company, a private firm, on February U, 1973, as part of

the regional bus system. It now operates the former AB&W buses as well as the NVTC service.

The service offered by the Alexandria Division of WMATA is substantially the same as that of

its predecessor.
Figure 1. Shirley Highway Busway Entrances

The 90 new-feature project buses were piirchased incrementally. The first 30 were

placed into service in June 1971; the second 20 began operation in February 1972, Ten more

were in operation in June 1972. Sixteen buses were placed into service in September 1972

and the final ih began operation in February 1973. The last 30 buses were not used to ex- pand the project service area by developing new routes; rather, they were added to established routes to relieve overcrowding and to improve the level of service by reducing headways (time between bus departures) on established routes (see paragraph 3.6 for detailed

travel time and distance descriptions for each of the project routes). In addition, three reverse commuter routes (from downtown to the residential portion of the Coir-ridor) were

initiated in February 1973. These routes will be examined in a subsequent report.

The new buses have special features (relative to typical urban transit buses) which en- hance passenger comfort and increase service reliability. Special bus features designed to

increase passenger comfort include: air conditioning, wider seats and aisles, and smooth

line interiors (no advertising racks) with colorful plastic wall coverings. Two-way radios

have been provided to enable dispatchers to communicate with drivers in the event of breakdowns or accidents, and to direct route changes where warranted by traffic conditions. In

addition to the above features, all of the buses are equipped with anit-pollution devices to

reduce exhaust emissions, and some are powered by more powerful eight-cylinder engines (typical urban transit buses have six-cylinder engines).

The third project element (the fringe parking lots) is coordinated with the new bus

service for park-and-ride patrons. In June 1971 the NVTC obtained permission from two

shopping centers (Springfield Plaza and Shirlington Plaza) to designate portions of their

lots for all-day free parking for bus riders. Other shopping centers are also used for

parking by daily bus riders, but are not officially part of this demonstration project.

7
A permanent fringe park- and-ride lot was opened in October 1972 at Backlick Road near

the Capital Beltway. This lot, the location of a future subway station, was leased "by the

NVTC for the duration of the demonstration project. The five acre, lighted lot has hOO

parking spaces, an area for passenger boarding and alighting, and a kiss-and-ride staging

zone as well as a bike rack. t As separate entities, each of the three demonstration project elements has been

attempted in the past with varying degrees of success; however, this project is significant

in that a coordinated attempt is being made to improve transit service at several levels

simultaneously. Herein lies much of the reason for the increases in bus ridership at a time when bus patronage is declining throughout both the Metropolitan area and the Nation

(see paragraph 3.2).

, 2.3.2. Corridor Definition

The Corridor was defined according to the expected influence of the demonstration project on urban radially oriented (as differentiated from inter-city) travel in the Northern

Virginia suburbs. If travelers from a particular area might use the project buses, the area was included as a part of the Corridor. After analyzing the 1971 commuter survey data,

the Corridor area indicated in Figure 2 was selected. Some commuter travel highlights are listed below:

a. Approximately 550,000 people live within this I50 square-mile area. At the northeast end of the Corridor are major employment centers including the Pentagon, the rapidly

growing Crystal City Complex in Virginia, and Downtown Washington, D.C. (See Figure 2.)

b. Corridor motorists commuting into the three employment centers travel on the

Shirley Highway and six radial arterials: (l) Arlington Boulevard, (2) Columbia Pike, (3)

Army-Navy Drive, (U) Jefferson Davis Highway^ (5) George Washington Memorial Parkway and (6)

Mount Vernon Drive. (See Figure 3, page 1^') All are congested during peak commuting period

c. Corridor bus commuters use the more than twenty bus routes (pre-existent and

project routes) which enter the three employment centers.

2.3.3. Corridor Demographic Characteristics

The 1970 Census data provide a demographic description of the Corridor before the

entire busway opened in 1971- The 1970 Census tracts within the Corridor boundary were

used for the tabulation of selected demographic characteristics . 9 Figure 2 indicates the

Corridor boundaries and the enclosed Census tracts. (The tract numbers are also listed in

Table 1.) The Corridor is divided into four groups of tracts. The first group consists of

those tracts within one mile of the busway; the second is those between one and two miles

(see Figure 2). The remaining- groups are those tracts in the East and West regions along

the outer Corridor boundaries.

Table 1 Corridor Census Tracts

1 MILE 2 MILE WEST EAST

1029 4014 9005 1026 4021 1021 4032 4052 4073 2007 4002 4017

1030 4020 9006 1027 4033 1022 4037 4056 4074 2013 4003 4018

1031 4035 9007 1028 4034 1023 4038 4057 4075 2014 4004 4019

1038 4036 2005 4039 3108 4045 4058 2015 4005 4022

2001 4040 2006 4042 3109 4046 4059 2016 4006 4024

2002 4043 2008 4053 3110 4047 4060 2017 4007 4025

2003 9001 2009 4054 3111 4048 4061 2018 4008 4027

2004 9002 2012 4055 3112 4049 4062 2019 4009

2010 9003 4015 4064 4030 4050 4063 2020 4010

2011 9004 4016 4031 4051 4065 4001 4011

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing

1970 Census Tracts PHC (l)-226» Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA, May 1972.
9
Table 2

Selected Demographic Characteristics of

Shirley Highway Corridor and Washington, D.C. Md - Va. SMSA

1970 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS TOTAL CORRIDOR TOTAL SMSA WASHINGTON

,

D.C.

rppjrn A T TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT

POPULATION

Total U96,l+70 2,861,123 756,510

Negro j2 , 3 f9 7

( 763, UU5 25 537,712 71

Number Families ID ( , >D4 898,1196 162,656

AREA .

^ Square Miles 152.6 2,399 61

Population Density per sq. jnile 3,253 1,193 12,390

YEAR MOVED INTO HOUSING

1968 - 1970 (March) 73,871 hi 367,995 1+1 96,118 37

1905 - 190

35 »14

00 206,136 59,71+3 23

i960 - 196U 0)1 111 -L? 139,366 15 1+0,229 15

1950 - 1959 1 1 ?92<i XX1 n 128,366 II+ 1+1,226 15

19^9 or earlier 5 ? 1

1, 4 d2 ,u?y 7

1 xu

1970 FAMILY INCOME"^

Median cpl5 5 000 $12,993 $9,583

CLASS OF WORKER

Private inn -LXU , ODD 52 665,596 57 179,830 51+ Government 9;?,uou 44 1+60,779 39 11+1,163 1+2 Self-employed D , ( C)0 3 50,419 4 13 , 5IU ), 4 Total 212,53^4 1,176,791+ 33U,503

AUTOS AVAILABLE

1 7^ ,497 44 1+05,179 1+5 113,671 70

2 dU,0U4 3d 277,330 31 28,380 17

3 or more y , DOU tr5 1+9,713 5 l+,379 2 Total (Autos) 223, 545 1,108,978 183,568

Average (Autos /family -L . j4- 1.23 1.13

None 5-1- 1 y

1 07 li iDD ,2(4 19 lU

MEANS TRAESPORTATION TO WORK

Driver 1 ) I V 0 c; ft 14 ( ,950 09 71+8,801 60 125,1+15 37

Passenger Q ri 1 ft^ X4 163,922 13 39,21+6 12

Total ±1 7ft 1 Lli

I 0 , XM-M- ft^ 03 912,723 73 l6l+,66l ^9

Bus ^±

,

9Ud lU 190,187 15 119,021 36

Walked to Work 1 5905 4 78 . 50l+ 6 33.7I+5 10

Worked at Home 3,352 2 2l+,019 2 6,880 2 Other ^,107 2 33,022 3 11,039 3

WORK PLACE

' D.C. Central Business District 20,095 9 128,^53 12 1+8, U67 18

D.C. Remainder 38,259 18 363,813 33 171,925 63

Arlington Uo,iiU 19 103,655 10 11,590 1+ Virginia 88,81+7 Ul 183,811 17 7,181 3 Other 28,2Ul 13 308,9^8 28 3^,298 12

"The Corridor median annual family income of $15,000 is an approximation based on the mean

of the median family incomes of the jurisdictions within the Corridor. (75 percent of the

Corridor commuters live in Fairfax, Coiinty where the median annual family income was $15,700

in 1969. ) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing

1970 Census Tracts PHC (l)-226, Washineton, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA, May 1972.

10
Table 3

Corridor Demographic Characteristics'

TOTAL CORRIDOR WITHIN 1 MILE BETWEEN 18(2 MILES WEST REMAINDER EAST REMAINDER

TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCENT

POPULATION

Total 496,470 100 132,945 26 93,861 18 149,607 30 120,057 24 Negro 32,379 7 10,919 8 5,536 5 1,916 2 14,008 12 Number Families 167,564 47,832 32,079 46,389 41,264

.AREA Square Miles 152.6 42.6 30.3 49.5 30.1

Population Density per Sq. Mile 3,253 3,120 3,097 3,022 3,988

YEAR NfOVED INTO HOUSING

1968-1970 73,871 47 24 725 56 13,392 45 19,668 45 16,086 42 196S-1967 35,147 22 9,' 786 22 6,687 22 10,178 23 8,496 22 1960-1964 24,117 15 5,575 13 4,320 14 7,933 18 6,287 16 1950-1959 17,922 11 3,378 7 4,201 14 5,171 12 5,172 14 1949 or earlier 5,764 4 1,011 2 1,304 4 1,145 2 2,304 6

CLASS OF WORKER

Private 110,666 52 30,282 51 21,621 53 30,926 50 27,837 55 Government 78,708 37 23,260 39 15,038 37 23,139 38 17,271 34 Local Government 16,372 7 4,370 7 2,721 7 5,264 9 4,017 8 Self-employed 6,788 3 1,417 2 1,189 3 2,340 3 1,842 3 Total 212,534 100 59,329 28 40,569 19 61,669 29 50,967 24

AUTOS AVAILABLE

1 74,497 44 25,000 53 14,327 44 17,569 37 17,601 41

2 60,004 36 14,488 30 10,963 34 21,261 46 13,292 32

3 or more 9,680 5 1,947 4 1,851 6 3,607 7 2,275 5 Total (Autos) 223,545 60,617 39,955 10,912 51,010

Average (Autos/ family) 1.34 1.27 1.25 1.53 1.24

None 25,179 15 6,291 13 4,518 14 4,815 10 9,555 22

MEANS TRANSPORTATION TO WORK

Driver 147,958 69 41 186 68 27,647 66 44,972 73 34,153 67 Passenger 30,186 14 8^763 14 6,155 15 8,164 13 7,104 14 Total Autos 178,144 49,949 33,802 53,136 41,257

Bus 21,906 10 6,633 11 5,096 12 4,448 7 5,729 11 Walked to work 7,965 4 2,070 3 1,334 3 2,079 3 2,482 5 Worked at home 3,352 2 881 1 622 1 1,059 2 790 1 Other 4,107 2 1,092 2 844 2 1,113 2 1,018 2

lORK PLACE

D.C. -Central Business District 20,095 9 5,973 10 3,967 10 5,920 9 4,235 8 D.C. Remainder 38,259 18 11,536 19 8,079 19 10,331 17 8,313 16 Arlington 40,114 19 11,569 19 8,844 21 13,168 21 6,533 13 Virginia Remainder 88,847 41 23,885 39 15,935 38 24,624 40 24,403 48 Other 28,241 13 7,688 13 4,924 12 7,812 13 7,817 15 Total 215,556 100 60,651 28 41,749 19 61,855 29 51,301 24

fer to Figure 2 in paragraph 2.3.3.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing:

1970 Census Tracts PHC (l)-226, Washinsrton, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA, May 1972.

11
Table 2 compares the Corridor totals for selected 1970 demographic characteristics with

data obtained for the District of Columbia and the entire Washington, D.C. SMSA. The same statistics for each of the four Corridor Segments are presented in Table 3. From these tables, the following demographic statistics can be highlighted:

a. Seven percent of the Corridor population were Negro compared to 25 percent for the

entire SMSA.

b. The mobility of the Corridor residents appears quite high, with i+T percent of the

people moving into their homes within a 27 month period (March I968 to. 1970) compared to

only kl percent of the SMSA residents and 37 percent of the District residents having moved

during this same period. Within the one mile segment, 56 percent of the residents moved

into their homes during 1968-1970.

c . About hk percent of the Corridor workers are government employees , compared to 39 and

h2 percent for the SMSA and the District respectively.

d. On the average, 1.3k automobiles per family are available throughout the Corridor,

and l|l percent have 2 or more cars. For the SMSA, the average number of cars per family is

1.23, with 36 percent having two or more cars. The District average is 1.13 with only I9

percent having two or more cars available.

e. In 1970 about 83 percent of all work trips originating inside the Corridor were

made by auto; the corresponding figure for the SMSA was 73 percent; in the District,

only h9 percent of the workers commuted by automobile.

f. Of all Corridor workers, 60 percent were employed in Virginia and 27 percent in

the District; of this 27 percent, only one-third were employed in the central business

district .

^

• 2.3.^. Population Growth

During the I96O-I97O decade the rate of population growth in the Northern Virginia

suburbs was among the highest in the Nation. During this period, population in the area increased about 50 percent, from 523,700 to 783,000 persons. For the same period population in the Washington, D.C. SMSA and the Nation's suburban areas increased about 38 and

39 percent respectively.-'-^

Since 1970, the rate of population growth in the Northern Virginia subiirbs has

declined substantially. Of the five jurisdictions in the area, only one, Fairfax

County, did not experience a decline in population between 1970 and x972. In Fairfax

County, where three out of every five Corridor residents live, population increased about

5.9 percent between I97O and 1972, from ^55,070 to H82,100 persons -H,

TO

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing,

PHC(l)-226, Washington, D.C. -Md.-Va. SMSA, May 1972.

11

U.S. Department of Commerce Current Population Reports: Federal-State Cooperative Program

For Population Estimates Series P-26, No. 39 (Washington, D.C, Govt. Printing Office,

June 1973).

12
SECTION 3. ATTAINMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

This section describes the degree of attainment of the seven major evaluation objectives

disucssed in paragraph 2.1. The first part (paragraph 3.1) describes multiple purpose data

collection activities and various types of information used to monitor and analyze the status

of the project objectives, and the next seven major paragraphs (3-2-3.8) address each project

objective individually. The second part of Objective 1, relating to the importance of transit

features in mode choice decisions, is treated in Section k. Since Section 3 primarily updates

and revises earlier findings, its organization parallels that of the First Year Results

report .

-'-

3.1. Multiple Purpose Data

The monitoring of project objectives attainment has relied on various types of information collected prior to and since the project began, some of which form the basis for more

than one project impact analysis. The screenline passenger and vehicle count data, the

busway passenger count data,, and the October 1971 auto and bus commuter survey results are used for a variety of purposes. This section identifies the different uses of these data,

reports the statistics, and presents a general discussion of each data collection method.

Other data used for singular purposes are presented in the appropriate sections.

3.1.1. Screenline Data

In 1970, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) began a monthly

counting program to monitor person and vehicular volumes in the Shirley Highway Corridor.

A screenline was established which intercepts the major radial traffic arteries in the

Corridor. Counting stations were established on (l) Arlington Boulevard (Route 50) at

Highland Street; (2) Columbia Pike (Route 2hk) at Walter Reed Drive; (3) Shirley Highway

(1-95) just north of Glebe Road; (k) Army-Navy Drive at 28th Street; (5) Arlington Ridge

Road just north of Glebe Road (Route 120); (6) Jefferson Davis Highway (Route l) at Glebe

Road; and (7) George Washington Parkway at Four Mile Run. An eighth station on the northbound ramp connecting the- Woodrow Wilson Bridge with the Anacostia Freeway (1-295) was

added in 1971- Figure 3 shows the locations of the counting stations.

Roadside counts of all inbound buses and passengers were made at each station from

6:30 to 9:00 A.M. . During the same period, visual counts were made and recorded for auto

vehicles and auto persons at 30 minute intervals. Each station's counts were made on the same day of the week, to minimize the effect of day-of-the-week variation; counts were not made

during inclement weather or other unusual conditions (i.e., accidents, holidays, etc.). Counts

(at each station) were made during one morning peak period of each month from March through

November 1970. During 1971 counts were made for one morning peak period during March,

June, and October. In 1972 and 1973 the counting schedules were identical to those for

1971.

Counts of all persons and vehicles crossing the screenline on the eight major highways

within the Corridor provided data on travel volumes. A complete listing of all A.M. peak

period traffic data for each screenline data is presented in Appendix A. For each count,

the following data were collected: auto persons, autos, auto occupancy, bus passengers, and

buses

.

3.1.1.1. Traffic Flows Across the Screenline

By monitoring the traffic flows across the screenline, changes in mode utilization,

auto traffic volumes, and auto occupancy, as well as variations in utilization of major

Corridor roadways, can be observed. In April 1970, approximately H8,280 auto person trips

"The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project/First Year Results,

Interim Report 2."

'Bus passenger data for the Shirley Highway are gathered by the transit operator as part of

the busway counting program, discussed later in 3.1; see page l8.

13
1-295

Figure 3. Screenline Location

crossed the seven-station screenline during the A.M. peak period. In October 19T1? this

volume had fallen to ^2,900 trips. During June 1973, the number of auto person trips re- gained its earlier level of U8,250.

During the same period. Corridor bus person trips increased hh percent, from 13,800

in April 1970 to l6,U00 in October 1971, to 19,900 in June 1973. Also, the "bus percentage"

of the total person trips crossing the screenline increased, rising from about 22 percent

in April 1970 to over 29 percent in June 1973.

Since June 1972 the number of total person trips crossing the seven station screenline

(1-295 not included) has shown steady growth. Highlighting this development is the June 1973

count, which shows the greatest number of persons (total) crossing the screenline since the

counting program was initiated (68,200). Although the number of June 1973 auto person

trips crossing the screenline was high, it was not the highest ever observed, however, the

June 1973 bus and total person trips crossing the screenline were maximums.
Wliile aggregate statistics disclose interesting developments, information for auto

volumes on the Shirley Highway and six other major radial roadways (1-295 is not included)

accents dramatic changes. The number of autos observed on the Shirley Highway from 6:30 - 9:00 A.M. (inbound) in June 1973 (ll,UOO) had swelled to nearly twice the March 1973 figure

(6,U00) and was about 2,000 vehicles greater than ever before observed. This sharp increase

was effected primarily by a sizeable shift of autos from the other six major arterials to the

Shirley Highway, induced by the opening of a new section (with 3 to i+ lanes for autos)

which prior to May 1973 was under construction (with 2 to 3 lanes open for autos). Attending

this remarkable growth in auto volume on the Shirley Highway were record lows for auto volumes

on Arlington Boulevard, Columbia Pike, and Mount Vernon Drive, and auto vol\imes on each of

the three remaining routes were below those observed in March 1973.

As a result of this increase in auto volume, the once dominant person trips by bus on the busway assumed a subordinate position to Shirley Highway auto person trips in June

1973, after maintaining the lead for nearly l8 months as shown in Figure h. Despite

the decline in bus person trips relative to those by auto, the absolute number of bus

persons on the Shirley Highway continues to mount.

3.1.1.2. Auto Occupancy Trends

Corridor-wide auto occupancy rates have shown a downward trend since 1970, going

from an average of l.hk between April 1970 and December 1970 (at the beginning of the

screenline counts) to 1.3^ persons/auto between July 1972 and June 1973- (Similar data for

the lUth Street Bridge crossings (see Table ^4 ) also show a decline in auto occupancy rates

between 1970 and 1972 for District of Columbia bound Northern Virginia commuters.) In

addition to annual auto occupancy rates (Corridor-wide averages), rates are also compared

by season, since auto occupancy appears to be dependent on the time of the year. As shown

in Figure 5 5 the seasonal auto occupancy rates (also Corridor averages) also show steady

declines. Detailed seasonal auto occupancy data are also presented in Appendix A. If the declines in auto occupancy rates had been caused primarily by auto passengers

(as opposed to auto drivers) switching to the bus service, some of the benefits of the bus

will be much less, particularly the reduction of auto air pollution emissions and

the conservation of gasoline. This does not appear to be the case for the demonstration

project, since l) auto occupancy was already declining at the time the project began (the

project began in April 1971 and the May 1971 occupancy rate of 1.53 represented a h percent

decline from May of 1970)^2) as Table 5 shows, auto occupancy had been declining throughout

the metropolitan area and not only in the Corridor where this major transit improvement was implemented (although the Corridor (Potomac) bridges had the largest decline in auto

occupancy rates, going from 1.59 in May 1970 to 1. in May 1972); and 3) the October 1971

survey showed that of the bus passengers switching from auto, more than half had formerly

driven alone.

3

Table u A.M. Peak Period Auto Occupancy on lUth Street Bridge*

PASSENGERS NO. OF AUTOS AT 7:00 A.M. NO. OF AUTOS AT 8:00 A.M.

PER

AUTO 1970 1971 1972 1970 1971 1972

1 4,071 4,201 4,344 3,574 4,012 4,144

2 1,731 1,740 1,373 1,693 1,778 1,310

3 457 431 386 34:^ 486 294

4 265 254 250 224 215 170

5 162 151 54 125 120 39

6 23 36 71 41 28 72

TOTALS 6,709 6,813 6,478 6,004 6,639 6,029

Occupants 10,912 10,961 9,944 9,768 10,654 8,953

Auto Occupancy 1.63 1.61 1.54 1.63 1.60 1.48

'Data were collected on a single day in May of each year. Source: D.C. Department of

Highways and Traffic, "D.C. Cordon Traffic Survey, 1970, I971 and 1972."

"Shirley Highway Express Bus on Freeway Demonstration Project/First Year Results," page 70.

15
- 0

- </l

- <

SdlUi NOSUBd

16
1.50

< I.40--

€0

Z

o

CO

a:

UJ

a.

1.30 +

1.00

1—I—

r

+

1970 1972

SPRING

T\—I—

r

f970 1972

SUMMER

T—

r

+ +

1970 1972

FALL

Figure 5- Trends in Corridor Auto Occupancy (inbound A.M. Peak Period),

Table 5 A.M. Peak Period Auto Occupancy Rates for the District of Columbia^ (inbound A.M. Peak Period]

May May May

1970 1971 1972

Potomac River Bridge 1.59 1.53 l.hh

Western Avenue l.k2 1.37 1.35

Eastern Avenue i.hg 1.^3 1.39

Southern Avenue l.kG 1.39 l.lil

\)ata were collected on a single day in

May of each year. Source: See Table h.

3.1.1.3. Screenline Bus and Auto Volume Variability

As noted earlier, screenline bus and auto volume counts are ordinarily made three times

a year (one day in March, June and September or October ) at each of the eight sites. To examine the reliability of these single counts, observations were performed one day in three successive weeks at the four major stations (Columbia Pike, Shirley Highway (auto traffic only), Jefferson Davis Highway, and George Washington Parkway) for the October 1972 and March 1973 counting periods. Appendix A shows these observations and presents a variabilitv analysis.

17
The analysis for October 1972 (Table 30, Appendix A) indicates stability for the

multiple counts recorded at Columbia Pike (all statistics — auto persons, vehicles and

occupancy rate, and bus passengers), the Shirley Highway (all statistics except auto occupancy) and Jefferson Davis Highway (all statistics). The observed levels of auto passengers and vehicles, bus passengers, and total persons for each of the stations ranges within

5 percent of the mean value.

The data taken at the George Washington Parkway site indicate wide deviation from the means (of the multiple observations), especially with respect to auto persons and vehicles,

auto occupancy, and total persons. Two of these counts show auto persons varying in excess of 10 percent from the average figure. A fourth count taken at this site in November 1972

indicated continued fluctuation in traffic on the Parkway.

As Table 30 indicates, the March multiple coiint auto passenger and vehicle statistics on each of these major arterials exhibited a greater stability; for each of the three counts,

deviation from the mean is less than 5 percent (including the George Washington Parkway).

Unfortunately auto occupancy continues to vary on all routes except the Jefferson Davis Highway.

The mean of the multiple counts at the respective screenline sites will be used as estimates for October 1972 and March 1973 in all subsequent analyses. The mean of the four counts

will be used as the October 1972 estimate on the George Washington Parkway, although statistics

for that date will be regarded as less reliable than those for other stations.

3.1.1. H. Potential Screenline "Leaks"

As described earlier, there are eight screenline counting stations on the major radial

traffic arteries in the Northern Virginia Corridor (see Figure 3, Page ih) . These sites were established to intercept the Corridor-wide A.M. peak period bus and auto person, and

vehicle volumes. All of the buses are counted at these locations, but there are a few

secondary streets which represent potential "leaks" for auto trips through the screenline.

An inspection revealed that there are eight such streets, but that each is unlikely as a portion of Corridor commute trips. All are- narrow and wind through residential areas with

frequent stops at intersections; also some are routed over hills.

In March 1972, vehicle counts were made at four of the major "leak" locations: Second

and Eighth Streets between screenline stations 1 and 2; Ridge Road extending to Glebe Road

between stations U and 5; and Eads Street between stations 5 and 6. There were about 2500

auto vehicles observed at these four sites. It is likely that most commuters will be un- willing to include these circuitous routes as parts of their commuting trips, and that most

of the 2500 autos are for trips destined for Internal locations and as such are properly

excluded from the screenline count total. Nonetheless, even if all of these autos were involved in Corridor commuting trips (see paragraph 2.3), they would represent only about 9 percent of the potentially affected autos crossing the screenline (George Washington Parkway

is not likely to be affected).

3.1.2. Busway Passenger Counts

One of the most important aspects of the Shirley Highway Demonstration Project is the

improvement of bus transit service with an exclusive busway. In order to monitor the impact

of this innovation on patronage, visual roadside counts of passengers riding on the Shirley

busway during the A.M. peak period were begun in September, I969 (at the opening of the

first section of busway). P.M. counts were initiated in September 1970.

The busway became operational incrementally, beginning with the southern portions and

proceeding northward to the l^th Street Bridge. The counting program developed in a parallel manner. The first A.M. peak period counts (in September I969) were taken at

entrances south of Shirlington (routes entering here were the first to offer busway service).

While monthly counts continued for points south of Shirlington, a new leg of the busway was

opened, offering access to Shirlington Circle area buses, and corresponding counts were

instituted. 5 Counts on routes which enter the busway in the Pentagon region began in

April 1971 (both A. M. and P.. M. peak period operations) to accompany the opening of the

Because of the many counting locations, the passenger counts are made over a two or three

day period with no specific days for any location. They are, however, summarized and

presented as if collected on one day.

'Both A.M. and P.M. peak period counts were initiated for Shirlington Area buses in September 1970. P.M. counts for the south of Shirlington routes were also begun at this time.
last temporary section of the busway. Milestones in the development of the demonstration

project are presented in Figure 6, along with corresponding trends in patronage development.

Appendix B summarizes the A.M. peak period passenger and bus assignment trends for

TO4ATA and NVTC bus operations over the entire busway,''' and stratified into three main

classifications: buses entering the busway south of Shirlington Circle, at Shirlington

Circle, and north of Shirlington Circle in the vicinity of the Pentagon. "Passengers-perbus" statistics are also included.

1973 May

Apr Mar

Fc b

1Q79 Nov

Oc t Sep

Aug

Ju 1

May

Apr Mar

Fe b

Nov

Oc t Sep

Aiig Jul

May

Apr Mar

Fe b Jan

Nov

Oct Sep

Aug- Jul Jun May

Apr Mar

Feb Jan

1969 Dec

Nov

Oct Sen

14 NEW PROJECT BUSES

NEW PARK-RIDE LOT OPENED

16 NEW PROJECT BUSES

10 NEW PROJECT BUSES

20 NEW PROJECT BUSES

Z I»RK-RIDE LOTS OPENED

30 NEW PROJECT BUSES

ENTIRE BUSWAY OPENED

AB W FARE INCREASED

2nd SECTION BUSWAY OPENED

1st SECTION BUSWAY OPENED

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

NUMBER OF PASSENGERS

8000 9000 10000

Figure 6. Project Development and Trends in Patronage Growth (Routes Entering Busway South of Shirlington),

7

After September 1971 these counts have not been made regularly; however, routes entering the busway here experience only a nominal time savings and patronage has remained at or below, the April I971 level.

Information for the P.M. peak period passengers and buses is available, but for sojnplicity is omitted from this report since the A.M. and P.M. peak period data reflect the same trends.

19
Figure 7 highlights the passenger trends, showing that all of the busway patronage

growth since April 1971 is attributable to the routes which enter south of Shirlington ^ in

contrast with the relatively static condit'ions of the other busway routes. (The large

increases in September 1970 and April 1971 do not indicate growth, but rather signify the

incorporation of Shirlington and Pentagon area buses, respectively, into the total busway

figure.) The total A.M. rush period busway patronage has peaked at slightly over lU,000

persons (April 1973), and patronage for the Shirlington and south of Shirlington area

routes combined was nearly 12,000 persons for the 2-1/2 hour morning rush period during

June 1973-9 Most of this growth has occurred since September 1970, when the second section

of busway, which bypassed a highly congested area on the Shirley Highway, was opened.

10000

mIto 1971 1972 1973

Figure 7. Trends in Busway Patronage (inbound A.M. Peak Period).

The greatest time savings are experienced by persons using these routes.

Total figures are not available for months when Pentagon area counts were omitted. This

includes October 1971, March and April 1972, June through November 1972, January through

March 1973, and May and June 1973; also, the busway passenger counts do not include patronage on "Other" buses; see paragraph 3.2.

20
3.2. Increase in Bus Market Share

A primary measure of effectiveness of the Shirley Highway Bus-on-Freeway Project is bus

market share, the percentage of total project trips that are made by bus. A "project trip"

is defined as a person trip by auto or bus, beginning and ending in the project area and

crossing the screenline during the A.M. peak period, 6:30 to 9:00 A.M. The project area

corresponds to the region where commuters represent potential users of buses. This area has a residential portion where trips originate, and an employment portion where the

trips end. Hence, in order to estimate bus market share, estimates both of potential bus

trips (i.e., the bus market) and of trips actually made by bus are required.

The bus trips include persons on all buses originating in the Corridor, specifically

NVTC ("project buses") and all WMATA (non-project) buses operating on the busway; buses

within the Corridor but not on the busway; and "other buses," commuter buses operated on the

busway by companies such as Greyhound, Colonial Transit, and Trailways. "Bus market share"

is defined as the share determined by all of these buses.

3.2.1. Estimating Bus Market Share

The percent of person trips by bus crossing the seven station screenline increased from

about 22^ in April 1970 to over 29^ in June 1973."'-'^ If all the auto and bus person trips

counted at the screenline actually began in the Corridor and ended in the destination areas,

these percentages would equal the respective bus market shares. The person trips crossing the

screenline do not, however, all begin and end within the project areas. Removing from the

screenline counts those auto trips that co\ild not possibly have been made by bus assures that

the remaining auto flow represents the potential additional market for bus. (However, this

ignores the need of some persons for a car during their work day.)

3.2.2. Adjusting Screenline Counts Using the October 1971 Commuter Survey Results

Some persons crossing the screenline do not begin their trips in the Corridor. These

are primarily automobile through-trips beginning in the southern counties of Virginia or Maryland, or in other states; also, some bus person trips originate outside the Corridor.

Primarily these are bus commuters living in the vicinity of the Crystal City and Pentagon

employment centers, both outside of the residential portion of the Corridor. In order to

estimate the number of project person (automobile and bus) trips, it is necessary to remove

those trips which originate outside of the residential portion of the Corridor (i.e. the

non-project trips).

Since detailed data on Corridor commuting patterns for 1972 and 1973 were not available,

estimates of non-project trips for these years were obtained by assuming a percentage for

"through-trips" for (l) automobiles based on the license plate sample of auto screenline

crossings in the October 1971 auto commuter survey; and (2) hus riders based on residences

as reported in the October 1971 bus commuter survey. The percentages were then applied to the

1972 and 1973 screenline counts to obtain estimates of non-project trips. Obtaining the bus

percentage was quite straightforward since it is the ratio of the number of bus commuters

whose destinations lie outside the three employment centers to the number of bus commuters;

however, obtaining the auto percentage was much more involved.

To estimate the percentage of autos with Virginia tags that represent trips beginning

in the Corridor, a sample of all Virginia tags crossing the screenline were recorded and

these tag numbers were matched against the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles records of

registered owners' addresses in the counties of Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince William, and

in the cities of Fairfax, Alexandria, and Falls Church. The percentage of licenses that did

not match the addresses in these nearby counties and cities is an estimate of the Virginia

trips that do not begin in the area influenced by the busway. In general, such trips originated in the southern and western portions of the state.

"other buses" are not counted at the screenline.

21
3.2. 3- Bus Market Share Estimates

A relationship was established "between the screenline person trip counts and the

estimated number of project trips. The October 1971 commuter survey indicated that, of the

trips crossing the screenline, approximately 5^.7 percent of the auto person trips and 88.8

percent of the bus person trips were project trips. Estimates of project trips in October

1972 and June 1973 were developed from their respective screenline counts and adjusted using

the October 1971 ratios. (The stability of these ratios will be investigated after analyzing

the data from Fall 1973 Bus Siirvev.)

Table '6, Columns 2 and k, presents the screenline person trip totals for October 1971

October 1972 and June 1973. Columns 3 and 5 present estimates of the project trips based

upon the non-project trip percentages obtained from the October 1971 counts. The resultant

market-share estimates a^j^j shown in column 6. Figure 8 illustrates (estimated) bus market

share trends since 1963.'

50

40

30

SO

10

1968 OCT 70 CX3T 71 OCT 72 JUN 73

Figure 8. Trends in Corridor Bus Market Share (inbound A.M. Peak Period]

11

The computations for the I968 and October 1970 bus market share estimates appear in the

First Year Results Report, pages 21 and 22.
Table 6

Estimates of Corridor Bus Market Share for October 1971, October 1972, June 1973

DATE AtlTO PERSONS

AT SCREENLINE

PROJECT

AUTO

PERSON

TRIPS

BUS PERSONS

AT SCREENLINE

PROJECT

BUS

PERSON

TRIPS

TOTAL

PROJECT

PERSON

TRIPS

BUS

MARKET

SHARE

ESTIMATES

( PERCENT

)

Oct 1971

8 Stations 1+8,008 26,260 17,567^ 15,599 Ul,859 37.3

Oct 1972

8 Stations U8,336 26,UH0 20,050^ 17,801+ U1+,2U1+ 1+0.2

Jun 1973

8 Stations 52,671 28,811 22,lUl+"^ 19,66U U8,l+75 1+0.6

Includes estimates of patronage on the "Other" buses.

The slight increase in bus market share from October 1972 (1+0.2^) to June 1973 (1+0.6^)

masks the substantial growth in the number of persons observed crossing the screenline by

bus in June 1973. While the niimber of bus persons continued to mount, the large increase in

auto persons i„ore than offset the June increase in bus passengers.

The effects on market share estimates of assuming the stability of the percentage

ratios of project trips to screenline counts can be examined by varying both the auto and

bus total screenline ratios (in October 1971 these were 5^.7^ for auto persons and 68.8^

for bus persons). Varying both^gf these ratios by +_ 5^ or +_ 10^ produces the market share

estimates displayed in Table 7. Estimates of market share for the Fall of 1973' will utilize

the November 1973 commuter survey responses.

Table 7

Sensitivity Analysis of Bus Mar^^.et Share Estimates

RATIOS VARY BY OCT 72

(PERCENT)

JUN 73

' (PERCENT)

0% Auto 0% Bus UO.2 1+0.6

- 3% Auto + 3% Bus 1+3.9 U1+.2

+ Auto - 5/» Bus 36.8 37.1

-10% Auto +10% Bus 1+7.8 U8.2

+10% Auto -10% Bus 33.6 33.9

Screenline counts variations were within a 5 percent range (see paragraph 3.1.1.2).
3.3- Impact of the Demonstration Project on the Transit Operator

3. 3.1. Introduction

One of the most important incentives for providing transit system improvements, such as

a "busway, is to promote the economic viability of the operator. Since World War II most bus

transit operations have engaged in a continuing reduction of bus service in hopes of reducing

costs and increasing net income; however, these reductions have contributed to accelerated \ patronage losses and have not brought about increased financial solvency among bus transit

operations . -L3 The busway and other project elements represent attempts to reverse this trend i by attracting new bus passengers through an upgrading and expansion of transit service, and

by increasing the efficiency of transit operations.

This section focuses on three areas of impact of the Shirley experiment on the

Alexandria Division of WMA.TA (formerly the AB&W Transit Company):

1. Patronage - The increase in bus passengers attributable to the busway is highlighted.

2. Productivity - Operating cost savings attributable to the busway are estimated.

3. Financial status - Operating costs and revenues for project bus operations are explored and the demand response to bus service expansion is

investigated.

The following distinctions were made in Corridor bus operations for the analysis of the

impacts of the demonstration project on the Alexandria Division of WMATA: l) Buses used in

WMATA busway operations which are administered by NVTC are referred to as "project" or NVTC ! buses; 2) Other buses used in WMATA managed busway operations are referred to as "non-pro- ; ject" or WMATA buses; 3) Buses used in WMATA non-busway operations which are administered by . NVTC are referred to as NVTC base day buses; and U) Buses used in WMATA managed non-busway

peak-period operations are referred to as non-busway buses. . |

: .

' 3.3.2. Impact on Patronage

j The Alexandria Division of WMATA provides bus service during three general time periods { each weekday: (l) A.M. and P.M. peak periods, (2) mid-day period, and (3) evening period.

Although an increase in bus ridership during any period would be welcomed, the demonstration

project focuses on peak periods because of mounting problems of congestion and air pollution. 1

3.3.2.1. Peak Period Patronage

While patronage remains stable or declines on all non-busway routes , an increasing

number of peak period commuters are switching from autos to buses using the busway. (The

evolution of busway operations and attendant patronage gains are presented in paragraph 3- Is page 13. ) These increases for the busway routes have offset passenger losses for the re- mainder of the system and established a positive patronage trend for the entire Wl^IATA Alexandria Division. This is occurring primarily because the reserved lanes guarantee speedy,

reliable trips for bus users by allowing higher operating speeds and improving schedule ad- | herence during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods,!^ while in contrast, autos may experience i major delays due to congestion effects on the regular lanes of the Shirley Highway and the

other major Northern Virginia arterials radiating from Downtown Washington, D.C.

Periodic (busway) passenger counts, discussed in paragraph 3.1, indicate substantial

peak period patronage increases on those WMATA routes which benefit most by the use of the

"Historical Overview of the Decline of the Transit Industry" by A. Saltzman and R.J.

Solomon, Highway Research Record #^17? Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C, 1972;

"Economic Characteristics of the Urban Public Transportation Industry," Institute for

Defense Analyses, done for the Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C, February

1972, Chapter II, part B and Chapter III.

^Travel time changes resultant from the busway are analyzed by a "before" and "after" com-

| parison in the First Year Results Report, section 3.6 , pages 55 and 56. Recent results i of travel time field checks for the line haul portion of the bus trip (from the last stop

before a bus enters the busway to lUth & C Streets, to the first stop after buses exit

from the busway) are summarized in paragraph 3.7 of this report. Paragraph 3.8 summarizes

the results of schedule adherence checks.
busway. Some of this growth began with the opening of the initial portion of the busway

prior to the introduction of project service in June 1971, and the rate has accelerated,

since then. During the same p^^iod, transit patronage was declining throughout the

Washington Metropolitan area. Buses entering the busway south of Shirlington experience the greatest time advantage

and have yielded the largest increases in patronage. Table 8 presents the history of growth

on these routes. Patronage declines for Routes T, 8 and IT from December 1972 to March 1973

reflect a smaller number of buses counted for these routes on those dates. The large

increases in June 1971 attend the initiation of project service and the incorporation of 30

additional buses. Passenger statistics for Route 6, and those variants of Routes 7 and 8

which enter the busway at Shirlington Circle are available; but, as Figure 7, page 21 reveals,

these routes exhibit stable patronage and so are not spotlighted. (A detailed discussion of

routes using the busway is presented in Appendix F.)

Average bus occupancy is highlighted in Figures 9 and 10. Note that although bus service

has been continuously expanded, buses operate at, or above, seated capacity (the dotted

horizontal line represents the seated capacity of these buses). The dip in passengers per

bus around June 1971 signifies the lag in market adjustment to the increased capacity

afforded by the 30 additional buses being placed into service. Thus, it appears that the

number of buses in service in a particular time has acted as a constraint on patronage, and

as bus fleet size has been expanded peak period patronage has increased.

Although peak period patronage has grown quite rapidly, off-peak patronage has not.

Special passenger counts for WVTC off-peak operations conducted during 1972 revealed low

stable patronage levels for all routes except the 17 ' s and l8's (see table 9)- Routes 17

and l8 exhibit gradual growth trends, but are operating at levels far below capacity.

(Service was initiated on Route h on September 5, 1972, and Route 26G was discontinued

September 5? 1972, because of low ridership. ) Reliable patronage information by route for

non-NVTC operations is not available. 1^

3.3.2.2. Peak Relative to Total Daily Patronage

Peak period bus riders are a subset of total daily ridership. A large peak period

ridership relative to total daily ridership is Important because it impacts heavily on

resoiirce inventory and allocation. Most transit operations experience sharp peak demands

which are of limited duration. Therefore recovery of operating and capital costs is

difficult because the operator is forced to hire drivers and purchase equipment for the

peak periods in numbers which greatly exceed his needs for the remainder of the day,

NVTC administered operations include mid-day (base day) service as well as peak period

service. In December 1972, daily peak period riders represented approximately 91-5 percent

of NVTC daily ridership, 10075 of IO98I riders. The 906 base day ridership figure was taken

from passenger counts on NVTC base day bus service (see Table 9).

Because of this sharp peaking phenomenon, two developments would have extremely beneficial impacts on the bus operator: (l) increased off-peak patronage, and (2) more

efficient utilization of drivers (and vehicles) during the peak period. Increased off-peak

patronage would result in increased revenue at low marginal costs. Strategies for increasing off-peak patronage (and revenues) are being sought in an on-going investigation by

WTC. Increases in productivity resultant from the use of the busway have permitted the

bus operator to perform additional trips during the peak periods without a corresponding

increase in resources.

See Appendix C, p. 38 and Appendix D, p. 39 Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Reports of the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission for the periods July 1, 1970 to June 30,

1971 and July 1, I97I to June 30, 1972, respectively.

"'"^Statistics for these operations were presented in the First Year Results Report for May

and October of 1970 and 1971? based upon driver manifest counts. A follow-up investigation

of these procedures revealed the unreliability of driver manifests for estimates of

passengers carried.
Ta"ble 8

Trends in Patronage for Routes Entering Busway South of

Shirlington Circle (inbound A.M. Peak Period)

MUlNln

Ur

PASSENGERS

LUUINl Rt 8 Xv 0 • X I Rt 1

Rts IQ 27

28 &29

bep oy 78Q / oy 91 8 juo

Oct ftm 1 ot 998

Nov 0 / D O^D ft9 C 91 A 791

Dec 9';n LJ\J

Jan /U 00 J Of847/ j44 7AA

. reb 87Q o / y 001 SRI 9An j04

Mar son OOO 9Afi Apr IUjX Of8A11

9A'^ OfU ^An

May QQ4 891; Z^O 998 7fit; Jun 079 Q99 y^^ 9A8 ^40 '^^^l Till Jul QQ9 8 (^Q ODy 9^^A ^D4 7';9 OD/S

Aug Q1yxfA SAR oto O / D Sep Q81 yo± 8AX OfJ 976 ADA 4U0

UCt 1 m Q99 414 Al A Nov ±U / L QA7 yo / '?'?A OOO /I /I 7 44o

Dec luyo QA7 yo / 04 O AA7 44 / reb 11 1 9 (;7 1 nx/1 77Q o/ y bUO

Apr 1 1 nc yl4ZU9n boZ

May 1 79Q 1 1 9 1: jy J

[;7 c b / b

Jun 1 7n7 1Z14 c 7n 700 / zy 907 zy / Jul loZU 1134 r o r 525 '7 O 7 723 70A 396

Aug Ibo/ llZb co^ 594 857 515

Sep 1 ACQ 1 91 Q IZlO AQA oyo OA^ yo4 CQ1 bol

Oct 1 7 0 T l/oo 10/10 lZ4o /3b 1 AO A 1086 Ann 699

Nov lyui 1 0*70 iz/y O O 7 oZ3 1132 ^71 A 714

Jan 72 loyo 1441 0 nA oyo lion lloy oUl o m

Feb 1 on A 1 1 1341 0 c n obO 1 O A O IZoZ 878

Mar 1 n A /I iyo4 T >1 1 C 141d O "7 A 0/6 1 "7 A A 1366 1 1 07 1103

Apr 1 noA lyzo 1 TAV 130/ nTn y3y 1 T A ^ 1364 1 1 A >l 1164

May ZUZo 1 /I "Z o 143Z y44 1 ^ 1 o 1412 1176

Jun 1942 1407 921 1369 1298

Jul "1 n "7 o 1938 1407 850 1436 1443

Aug 1994 1554 1019 1552 1603

Sep 1981 1357 1185 1540 1578

Oct 2081 1485 1332 1868 1731

Nov 2042 1442 1363 1898 1885

Dec 2137 1510 1483 1911 1988

Jan 73 1843 1509 1360 1912 1954

Mar 1800 1392 1393 2210 2464

Apr 1695 1195 1301 2246 2377

Nky 1806 1338 1581 2265 2483

Jun 1914 1407 1583 2278 2547

Source: Unpublished "busway patronage data from the Washington Metropolitan Transit

Authority.

26

Figure 10. Trends in Passengers Per Bus for Routes 7, 8, 17 and l8, (inbound A.M. Peak Period).

28
Table 9

Trends in Base Day Patronage During 1972

ROUTE FEBRUARY

PASSENGERS PASSENGERS

PER BUS

APRIL

PASSENGERS PASSENGERS

PER BUS

AUGUST

PASSENGERS PASSENGERS

PER BUS

DECEMBER

PASSENGERS PASSENGERS

PER BUS

1A,-B

3A

hL

17G,H

i8g,h

26g

Total

97 6

69 9

68 3 113 ^ 30 1 367 5

233 15

58 7

139 5 171 6 39 1 6hO 7

213 13

63 8

175 6 251 9 20 1 722 7

233 15

79 10

108 6 226 7 260 9

906 9

3/3. 3. Impact on Operator Productivity

Operator productivity concerns the utilization of resouces in providing Corridor bus

service. Inforiration used to gauge operator productivity should be stratified by route

and by peak and off-peak operations, and should include the following statistics; (l) operating hours, (2) vehicle miles, (3) required vehicles and {k) frequency'of service.. With

these statistics, changes in productivity can be estimated for various changes in

transit operations, in this case the introduction of the busway.

The data required for comparison of busway and non-busway- operations were not available,

and therefore a direct analysis of operator productivity was not possible; however, the staff

at WMATA was able to provide estimates of required vehicles with and without the higher

operating speeds possible with the busway.

To maintain the March 1973 peak period headways without the busway would require

approximately 17 additional buses. This represents monthly savings of approximately $26,600

in both capital and operating costs. (It should be noted that without the busway time

advantage, these headways would probably not be required since the passenger demand would

not require this capacity.

)

3.3.^. Impact on Financial Status: Results of the Cost Allocation Study

In order to explore in more detail the economic impacts of the project service,

monthly operating costs and revenues were allocated by line and by type of service (peak

or off-peak). 17 The procedures used to allocate costs are discussed in Appendix C. Note

that this algorithm weights peak-period operations more than off-peak operations due to the

higher peak-period vehicle and operator requirements. About hO percent of the total

operating cost is allocated to peak period service alone; the remaining 60 percent is

distributed between peak and off-peak operations so that approximately 80 percent of total

costs are attributed to peak period service.

Estimated costs of providing project bus service by line and by peak and off-peak

periods are summarized in Table 10. Costs are provided for the second half of 1971 » the

first half of 1972, and the second half of 1972. Corresponding estimates of revenues and

net income are also included. Revenues by line were estimated using average peak and offpeak fares developed by the NVTC.

The term 'line" as used here, is equivalent to major route designation (e.g. Route 7»8,

etc.). Hereafter, these terms will be used interchangeably.

29
Table 10

Project Operating Expenses and Revenue by Route

ROUTES LAST HALF 1971 FIRST HALF 1972 LAST HALF 1972

EXPENSES REVENUES INCOME 1—l"^rT~lT—1T\T T—1 <~l EXPENSES T~»Tm rTm\TT ttho REVENUES X T\T /^t /TTT" INCOME EXPENSES KEVENUEb INCOME

Peak

2G i+0,199. 30,65^. ( 9,5U5. ) 50,317. U5,526. ( U,791.) 60,039. 68,653. 8,6lU.

3G 2,389. l,6Uii. ( 7U5.) 27,185. 18,267. ( 8,918. )

k 3U,651. i+3,276. 8,625. 91,319. 90,723 ( 596.) 137,132. li+8,297. 11,165.

6 2U,595. 26,U31. 1,836. 29,901. 30,515. 61U. 27,316. 32, 67^+. 5,358.

7 i+9,306. 63,7^+7. lU,UUl. 63,233. 79,161. 15,928. 70,511. 95,290. 2U,779.

8 29,338. 25,507. ( 3,831. ) 37, 79^+. 33,682. ( k,112) 36,237. khMh. 8,227.

IT U2,908. W,55U. 5,6U6. 80,601. 77,789. ( 2,812.) 121, UT9. 138, lUo. 16,661.

18 hl,6Qh. 6U,7Uo. 17,056. 101, 52U. 110,1^9. 8,625. 152, 18U. 170, 2U0. 18,056.

19 23,189. 21,163. ( 2,026. ) 32,513. 31,238. ( 1,275.) 35,737. ko,29h. U,557.

S Total

Base

. lA

291,870.

28,183.

32U,072.

3,971.

32,202.

(2U,212. )

i+89,591.

32,728.

500, U27.

10,267.

10,836.

(22,U6l.)

667,820.

3l,0U6.

756,319.

11,788.

88,U99.

(19,258.

3A •' - 6,lil8. 3,755. 2,663.) 7,831. 3,625. ( U,206. )

kL 15,6U7. 5,5^5. (10,102. )

17 20,731. 5,95U. (1U,777. ) 30,U85. 9,608. (20,877.

)

36,697. lU,o6U. (22,633. )

18 21,36U. 11,196. (10,168. ) 37,959 12,7U3. (25,216.

)

39,52U. 19,790. (19,752. )

26 16,561. 2,016. (li+,5U5.) 8,U30. 1,322. ( 7,108. )

S Total 70,279. 21,123. (^9,157. ) 12U,151. 38,389. (85,762.) 139,193. 56,13U. (83,059. )

G Total 362,1119. (16,955. ) 613,7^2. 538,816. (7^,926.) 807,013. 812, U53. 5,UU0.

Revenue figures were computed using a weighted average of fares based on the fare zones and the passengers boarding in each zone.

Source: Unpublished data from the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, 1971 and 1972.

As bus service was expanded during the 18 month period (July 1971 through December 1972),

operating costs increased accordingly. Total peak period miles traveled increased 1U5 percent, and peak period revenue trips increased 127 percent. During the same period, peak

period operating costs increased 129 percent.

Route U, which experienced a 330 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled during this

period, had a 303 percent increase in operating costs; and Routes 17 and I8, which experienced

increases in vehicle miles traveled of 200 and 212 percent respectively, had operating cost

increases of l82 and 223 percent respectively.
&H

CO

pqomwo

•H

-p

to •H%

-pCO

bOcH

+J

cS

a;Ph o

-po

(I) o

rH CO K O W M o Ph s:LTxf-CJN-d- LAOJCMO ChOCMrHrHOOOOJrH rH rH iH rH S

rHo

rH

C\J LA

LA ^ ^ s

CO

REVENUE

PER

mileI rO-d-OOaDOCMrHOD

f— OnOOJ-OC3NrHC\J

r-i r-i ^ rH rH

rH

rH

1^- 00 LA O H CM LA

rH

REVENUE

PER

PASSENGER OOOOCMOOOLTN "o

H CMH

-d- f- tr- SrH

PASSENGERS

PER

TRIP

0\rH t—

W CD

H C7\_d- ot—oo. -a-^r— 00 OOLTvJ-^ OOJ-J-_J ; rH J00 J- OO LA LA

-d- OO

CO

LA

PASSENGERS

PER

mileI

OrHOf— t--t-C7\t- OONOOC\JMDrHOOO\

rHrHC\JC\JrHrHrHrH o

VO

rH

f— CO LA

rH rH 00 ^OOCM

RUNNING

SPEED (MPH)^

rH OODOOVD t— UACO

on LTwo LACJNt— oo t~-0\-^V£i LAO C^OO HHrHrHHCMrHrH sH

CTn CM lA

CM V£) LA H rH H

VO

J-H

DAILY

PASSENGERS O-d-OJJ-OrHf—O

OLrNCO-:t C7NJ-M3

00_cr OOt^oOJ-MD CM

OOo

00

LA CO f—

t--VD CM

rH

Eh

O

f—

CvJ

DAILY

REVENUE TRIPS3 OMDMDOO OVD LAO

rHCOCOLAOOOOVO

rH rH rH rH rH

H

OO

OOO

LA LA

H rH rH

EHO

VD

REVENUE

TRIP

DISTANCE (MILES) 2

COJ-J- CTNLAaO C^co COLAOrHrHOO\00

Hi-\<-ir-i,HC\ir-^r-{

26.1 23.2 22.1

TOTAL DAILY MILESl COCO m^cncDO\(M

OOLALAJ- OCMMDOO OOCMHonCM^J-rH

EH

CM

iH00

CM

H LA CM OO V£> VO

-d- 00 OO

EHON

LA

rH

rH

ROUTES

>H

X

cdOc5C300c500

a)CM-:i-VDt~-cOt— OOC^

Ph r-\

H r-i

Base lA, B

ITG, H

18G

CM

T3

ON

rH

(U

in

u o U G

•H <u Oj CO iaO +J

CQC tn •H

sse TP o nJ 0) u Ph c Ph O o

•H

-P ^

03O

HJ •H

!^ Ph Td O OJ Ph O TJ

tn P •H

cl >

ai 01

H

Jh HJ en (1) 13 -P -P O

cd ;3 !-. +J •H o O 73 C u Jh cd O

•H

W) <D cd tn

Sh Xi 0) •H P C tn > d O hJ o to > G

PhO

CD tn

O

^! OJ +J -P Ph

-P

H tn

O

U •H tn +> O e tn :^ tn

f=i tn ,Q -P

Oj tn P 03 -P o

as

H

^3

H > t:!

O fl 0)G

(U t3

G 03

>•

G

O

HJ ^ tn -P 1 tn •H

-r) no ^

•H

Ch

'd ChG

OJ

d 0) ^ a tn (D

tn cS ^ •H >

•H -P -P H OJ Ph OJ ,^ ;3 C •H rQ c (D U

<D -P & > > s

(U -P •H

H !h 0) hJ

oja ,^

G

-P Ch i) rH O OJ <D O tn >

-PO 0) >

Sh

H o3 1 1 irs ti

•H

O

g EH

Eh COr

H CM OO

31
CO i-q own O PL, S > K W W M

ffi Ph S

CO Oh

<;M

K Cl, Oh EH

0?a

CO

M

W ffi <d w

M

Oh PM S

C5

P5 CO

Oh

>H CO M h^I <; M

COo

CVJCOOO t-— t— CM LTNIJ^ HOJ-HC\JC7\Ch-3-

CM t^- iH t-- J- Ch-d- CJN OOU-N^ HCO om H O rH H

mc\j ^/^^Doooooo c3\

VOCMCMOOOt-OoO J-LrNLACMCT\H-*0

HHCMCMHHHOl

VDCMCM^-Ir-rOHM3

HHrHHrHCMOJrH

CMM^O-^^CMU-^CM^-

OOOOOVDOOOMD

HHC3\COCMCOJ-t— H CM H H H OJ

VD Ch

H CJN

OO 00

H

HH CM CMH

g

ONos

C3N CM

J- So

CM

H

O CM on t— LTN LTN LTN

C7\ rH LfN rH _=f M

H

O

CM LA 00 OO VO ^ -=f M3 MD H C7\-d- LA H

LA CM LA 00

-a- ON CM CM rH s

J-OOH

EhCOVD

lA

EH00

CMCM

OrHODCvJCMLAOOMD

LAVO LACM OOCO OOt-- OOVO H-a- CMVOCO H

>H

X

C5c50c5cac5c5c5

0) CM_^VO t>-00 [— OO CT\

PL4

H rHH

Eh

LA

00 ^ ON CM LA CM

rH rH ^ CO t—

CM VD VD LA J- ^ H ^ r-\ r-]

00 LA ^ t~- iH CO VD rH J- 00 O VD CO VD O

VO VD LA VD 00 H CM CM CM

00 VO 00 CM 00 ^ CO OO O ir— CM H CM O rH CJ\ OO -cf rH t— C— -d- J- _a- LA CM

m ^ ^ c5

O c5

pq t— OO VD

CM

LA

LA

VD

CMLA sVD

LA

EHLALA

EH

OO

CTn

EH S ouco

•H

+J

oJ 4JUO

Pim

c:

nj

^1 EH 0) p

ce

•rH o C !h •H

(30 (D

^^ ^

•H -P > C

CI o

;w

0) (0 X! (U -P H U •H O s a w

?3 -p

0)da

<u>n

03

u

-P 1 oJ a

t:! oa

t:!0) t:)

;ci CI w nJ •HH 0) -§ c

Ph

CI o oo d

CO

Q)oo

COfto

-p

to

C!

-P

I/] d

nJ -Pwu

•H

tH

-P

CI<U

01

|5 -P

<u

to

0)

COu

(DC

0)

CO

CO

cd

Pi< Pk

A!o

CO

0)

COu

(U

HJ

COcf>

C!

0)

(L>

cda

ft

•H

!h -P

0)G

OJu

•p

CO •Ho

,CI

0) -p

;=i ou

<D PCO

fto

-p

CO p

COa

cS 4J

CO

^^

•rH «H

ci

0)>

-p

(1)

(U •S

-p

(1)

EH

32
O

M

Oh S

rH > KW M K CL, Wos

CQ

WW < K O, d,

CQOa

CQ

CQ

K < W

fl. Oh

CL,

CQ

CQ

W

CQ

K < W

M

a, o, s

C3M

Q s w jr:

P3

m ^

CQ

[x] o

CQ

H CQ < <

>H

a

J

W

M > M < W K Q CC Eh W PL, > OS CQ Eh

CQ

M

W

K

M S K Eh Q

CQ

eno

LTNH CjNiH LTNJ- t^LTNCh O CM OiJ- O O t— CO CM

rHrHt— C7^CM^-cOLr^MD

OJOD OV£)-^ CMOO ON-^

OCOHO^OVD-d-fChv£) O CM O O O Lr\ ON ON H CM Lr\ J- C3N LTNCM-it^ ^ ^ ^

mOHOOVOOOVDCTNCO

t— -d- LfNOD iH

H iH CM iH rHrHHCMCMCVIrHnHCM

OCOVOt^cOiHCMOOON O CM CM CMVD t~-LfNM3VO

CO LTNCh-^VD-d- CM iH-d- rHHrHiHnHrHCMCMrH

f-VDcO CM onCM t— OCO

cjNirNCJN-a- t— o ^-t— oo

t— OJVD-:* HV£)-=t-CO-^

iH rH iH

H

MDOVOOOf^mcOCO

u^OJ- CTNOOJ- CM rH OS H rH on CM H m J- O CM cn\D ONLTNMD rH. c— ctnvd cjno C3NO cy\ cn

rH rH rH CM rH rH

OCMt-MDCMCMrHCTNOO

VDCO rH LTN-ZtCO t^-=)- CM -d-rHrHrHUACMCM-J-CM X >H

nscnoocjocjcjoa OCMon^vrjt— cot— oOCTn

PL, r-i r-{ ^

EhroO

CO

oo

EhCOVD

ro CTn -d- \D LA VD MD J- -d- -:t VD

on rH LA ^- ro o

CM 00 rH rH CM rH

CM -d- 00 LA

O LA

J- -d- V£3 ^ Jon o\ CM rH CO CO

cy\H r-\ o\ o\-^

oo OO LA t— CM

LA rH -J- oo CM LA t- CM CM 00 CM

CM OO t~- t~- CO 00

C7\ VO

O VO CM

H

rHO CO CO CO J- ^ ^ r-i <-{ r-i

CM LA ON oo VO rH

CM VO VD 00 CM

CM rH CM O O OO 00 VD

O ^ CO H C3N ONVO

rH rH CVJ CM CM

rH CO C—

oo

O VO rH rH

CM rH rH CM CM

CJN CM LA LA\0 ^ CJN CT\ oo VD ON O

oo CM VD VD rH

0) «- " *

u3 <; <; c5 cil o

nJ rH 00 J- t— CO VD m H H CM

VD

LA

CM VD

VD

VD

EhVD

CO

CM

CM

HO 0) -p S

CMtC7N

Hi Ha cn o o !h c

•H 0) o3 CO bO HJ

[Q

C to •Hi

sse TP

o3 tLi ft -p

ft

O o U

cvi •Hp

ON' ' rta pic rD

fl 1 o

sp

T^O id

C|_, c > 1—1

o3 <U •H

Td

rl Eh :^o <U

o3u -P

CO •H o

03C 03 o 1 1 •HM ct3 CO ^ <-] (U tu •H to si > O

(D

Q CO c ^ ft o M O U

-P si Z) -p ft

to -p rH CO o

•H to o a to CO < w 4J

:^ o3 CO ;a ,D o3

a -p CO

u rH

03 (U o3 e rH > Td

I>1 o a

O fl

H

C o3 > a O

o3 4J

03 CO Ch -P 1 -p 5-1 O o3 to 01 •H

t3 o Ch

m

a •H 03 xi t3 tM 6 fl -p t3 tu n ^ c (D to o CO o3 •H > S rl 4J

rH 0) ft tu •H ,D

0) cu p ft 0) -P 0)

03C > s

-P •H

<u 4^

ft ^ o (D rH

(D o CO > tu >^ O OJ t> H rH o3

•rl Jh

O o g < EH * CQ rH CM OO J33
Operating cost increases were accompanied by revenue increases. Although total project

(NVTC) revenues exceeded project operating costs for the last six months of 1972, total project operating costs exceeded project revenues by $70,000 for all of 1972. Off-peak service

with a net loss of $l69,000 (for the year) was the reason for the deficit.

Costs and revenues for project service on a per mile basis, and other statistics com- puted using the financial and operating characteristic data, are presented for the last half

of 1971, the first half of 1972, and last half of 1972 in Tables, 11, 12 and 13, respectively- During the last half of 1972, peak period operating costs averaged $.95 per mile, down

from $1.01 per mile for the corresponding period in 1971;-^^ for the same two time periods,

base day costs averaged $.56 per mile and $.U8 per mile respectively. Net operating income

for peak period project service averaged $.13 per mile during the last half of 1972, as compared with $.11 per mile during the last half of 1971- Also during the same six month

period in 1972, only one peak period route had a negative net operating income (Route 3G,

with a deficit of $.30 per mile, began operating in June 1972; since that time patronage

has grown steadily) as compared with three with negative net incomes during the last half of

1971.

: . 3.3.5. Demand Response to Bus Service Expansion

Increases in bus patronage, highlighted in paragraph 3.3. 1, represented demand responses

to bus service expansion. During 1972, bus service (in terms of vehicle miles traveled) and

patronage expanded at approximately equal rates (see Table ih) ; during the same period

operating costs of the expanded service were exceeded by the increased passenger revenues. Similar responses to service expansion on some individual routes can also be detected.

During the I8 month period from July 1971 to December 1972, scheduled miles more than

tripled on Routes 17 and I8. Nonetheless on both routes, the passengers per bus and

passengers per^ mile statistics were only slightly lower during the last half of 1972 than

they were during the last half of 1971 prior to the expansion of service.

' Table ik

Expansion of Peak Period Project Bus Service

LAST HALF I97I FIRST HALF 1972 LAST HALF 1972

NUMBER NUMBER PERCENT

CHANGE

FROM

LH 1971

NUMBER PERCENT

CHANGE

FROM

FH 1972

Daily Passengers 3708 56i+8 52 8803 56

Daily Vehicle Miles 2312 3517 53 5682 61

Daily Revenue Trips 8U 122 ^5 190 56

Source: Unpublished NVTC passenger and operations data, 1971 and 1972.

Base day service has also been expanded during the I8 month period from July 1971 to

December 1972, and although it remains quite low, base day ridership increased during this

period. Base day service was expanded from k6 daily revenue trips during the last half of

1971 to 120 daily revenue trips during the last half of 1972, and from 1159 to 22lil total

daily operating miles during the same periods. Base day passengers per mile and passengers

per bus statistics were slightly higher during the last half of 1972 then they were during

the last half of 1971, .36 versus .23 passengers per mile and 6.5 versus 5-9 passengers per

bus

.

Collectively, these statistics depict the interaction of service expansion and demand

adjustment. The effect of the demonstration project in this area has been to foster a healthy environment- of service enlargement with subsequent and commensurate increases in

patronage. It also appears to have improved the financial position of the transit operator.

18

Because the timings of some indirect operating expenditures vary, only like time periods

are compared.

3h
Net operator income was positive for the first time since the project began during the last

half of 19T2.

3.3.6. Summary of Findings on Project Impact on the Transit Operator

(1) The busway has stimulated substantial patronage growth (almost 8,000 persons for

the A.M. peak-period, since September I969) for those routes experiencing the greatest time

savings. The number of persons per bus for these routes meets or exceeds seated capacity

despite substantial increases in the number of buses being utilized.

(2) The percentage of the daily ridership served during the peak period is extremely

high for both NVTC and WMATA routes, 80 percent for WMATA routes and 91 percent for NVTC

routes. This peaking translates into labor costs for the operator which are difficult to

offset.

(3) Preliminary estimates by the WMATA staff indicate a more efficient utilization of resources during the peak periods. To maintain present headways without the busway would

require approximately IT additional buses and drivers during the peak periods. This is

equivalent to a monthly cost saving of approximately $26,000.

(U) From July 1971 to December 1972 peak period service operated in the black.

Peak period income was low in the first half of 1972, corresponding to additional expenses

accompanying the expansion of service but without compensating increases in revenue. By

the latter half of 1972 patronage grew to absorb the increased capacity and peak-period

revenue reached a record high. Off-peak service continues to Ipse money, but in the last

half of 1972 for the first time (half year interval), peak-period income more than offset

off-peak loses.

(5) The Demonstration Project has effected a departure from the historical transit

service cutback-fare hike syndrome by providing an expanding and attractive service which

generates complementary increases in patronage, and stimulates an improved financial situ-_

at ion for the operator.

3.^. Reduction in A.M. Peak Period Auto Volumes

3.U.I. Introduction

An investigation of the assumptions underlying each of the methods used to estimate

auto volume reduction in Interim Report 2, led to a modification of the procedure. 19 As

a result of that investigation ,the screenline count approach to estimating auto usage re- duction was replaced by an approach using the October 1971 bus commuter survey responses

and the busway passenger counts.

Interim Report 2 presents auto reduction estimates based on screenline data. The

critical assumption of this analysis was that auto occupancy on the Shirley Highway and

other Northern Virginia arterials would have remained constant if no busway existed;

however, paragraph 3.1 , Auto Occupancy Trends, substantiates that auto occupancy has not

been constant, but rather has exhibited slight but steady declines since 1970. Since the

assumption is not valid for traffic in the Corridor, the method based on screenline data has

been abandoned.

3.n.2. Estimating Reduction in Autos Using Bus Survey Data and Busway Count s^*^

For this report, the estimate of auto usage reduction attributable to the demonstration

project was obtained by adjusting the latest screenline counts with information about

commuting modes prior to using bus extracted from October 1971 bus commuter survey. This

information coupled with data on increased bus ridership from the busway counts (see paragraph 3.1 , Busway Counts) was used to produce auto reduction estimates.

The bus riders surveyed in October 1971 included persons (l) who formerly had not

made the trip (from their present home to present job), (2) who had commuted by auto, or

(3) who had commuted on a bus which did not use the busway. Those persons who previously

"The Shirley Highway Express Bus on Freeway Demonstration Project First Year Resiilts,

Interim Report 2,*' paragraph 3-3.

Busway data collection procedures are reviewed in paragraph 3.1.1 of this report.
commuted, by bus may have done so on VMATA Alexandria buses which were routed on the Shirley

Highway (now part of the busway buses) 21, on WMATA Alexandria buses which used other Northern

Virginia arterials (non-busway buses) 22 or on "Other" buses which traveled via the Shirley

highway (i.e.. Colonial Transit, Continental Trailways, Greyhound, or WMATA Arlington

Division) and now use the busway.

Most of the growth on the busway routes has been the result of persons transferring

from the auto to the bus mode, although some portion was attributable to the diversion of

non-busway bus passengers to the busway routes. An analysis of bus riders' responses to

the "previous mode" question in the 1971 bus commuter survey yielded estimates of diversion of

riders from non-busway routes and of auto commuters diverted onto busway buses.

Of the riders on busway routes since April 1969? it is estimated that a) U3T0 (3920 on NVTC and WMATA buses and U50 on "Other" buses) were riders on 'bus routes which had used the

Shirley Highway prior to the opening of the busway and b) lOJO have diverted from WMATA non- busway routes. The remainder have diverted from auto, and for every five auto commuters

diverting to the busway service, it is estimated that three autos are no longer used for

daily commuting. (For the derivation of these estimates, see Appendix D.

)

Estimates for the number of autos not using the highways due to the demonstration project were computed for October 1971, October 1972, and June 1973. To obtain an estimate of

auto diversion using the busway counts, it was necessary to remove from the counts all

riders who had commuted by bus prior to using the busway buses. This was accomplished by

subtracting diverted non-Shirley Highway bus users (1070 riders) and former Shirley Highway

bus users {kSlO riders) from each busway count. The estimate of autos removed from the

highways was obtained by multiplying the the resultant estimates of former auto users from

each busway count by ,6 (the ratio of auto diversion to auto person diversion). The computations and estimates are summarized in Table 15-

. '. .vl Table 15

Summary of Auto Reduction Estimates and Computations

OCTOBER 1971 OCTOBER 1972 JUNE 1973

WMATA OTHER WMATA OTHER WMATA OTHER

Total Daily Busway Users 7,980 1,250 10,770 1,700 11,870 1,900

Users Diverted from Non-Shirley Highway Buses 1,070 1,070 1,070

Users of Shirley Highway Buses Prior to

Busway Opening

3,920 U5O 3,920 ^50 3,920 k^O

Former Auto Users 2,990 800 5,780 1,250 6,880 1,^50

Diverted Autos 1,79U U8O 3,U68 750 U,128 870

3.U.3. Increase in Bus Ridership Attributable to the Demonstration Project

Two of the assumptions employed in estimating the reduction in auto volumes are used in

estimating the increase in bus ridership attributable to the demonstration project. One,

the sample (October 1971 survey) former mode characteristics san be imputed to the entire

"Prior to February 1973 WMATA Alexandria buses were operated by the AB&W Transit Company.

The service provided by the new authority (WMATA) is substantially the same as that of

its predecessor. For simplicity, sole reference will be made to WMATA

>'Some of these buses were admitted to the busway in the Pentagon area beginning in April

1971 (e.g. , Routes 12 and 16). Because they achieve 'only a nominal time saving and their

patronage has remained about constant (see paragraph 3.1., Busway Counts), they are included here with the non-busway buses.
Corridor bus population, and two, bus patronage would have remained static if the transit

service improvements .had not been implemented. 23

Under these assumptions the estimated increases in bus persons spurred by the demonstration project are shown in Table 15 as estimated former auto users. Including WMATA

buses and "other" buses, these increases are 3700, 7030, and 8330 passengers for October

1971, October 1972 and June 1973, respectively.

3.U.U. Future Surveys

At this time, it is believed that the best possible estimate for auto usage reduction

induced by the demonstration project would be obtained by surveying a sample of new bus users and ascribing their former mode behavior to the entire bus population, 2^ Unfortunately, the absence of information pertaining to the users of the busway service since

October 1971 forces reliance on the results of the earlier survey to assess their former

mode characteristics. Hence, the estimates for auto volume reduction presented in this

section are tentative, pending confirmation by figures based on a bus commuter survey con- ducted in November 1973.

3.^.5- Summary

Since April I969, bus ridership increases of 3700, 7030 and 8330 peak period passengers

for October 1971, October 1972 and June 1973 respectively have resulted in estimated peak

period auto diversions of 22'jk , k2lQ and U998 respectively (as compared to what they would

have been without the demonstration project). These statistics will be verified or revised

using new information to be developed from the November 1973 bus survey.

3.5. Increase in A.M. Peak Period People-Moving

Productivity Per Lane on Shirley Highway

One of the impacts of the busway is an increase in the volume of person trips accom^

modated on the Shirley Highway. By monitoring the operations of the bus lane and auto

roadway during the A.M. peak period, the people-moving productivity per lane can bfe determined.

Ideally, the busway and automobile lanes should be monitored without the interference

of construction activities. Since completion of the improvements on the Shirley Highway is

not scheduled until Spring 197^, this has not been possible. The findings presented are therefore preliminary in nature, and reflect the influence of the construction with its

resultant capacity restraints for both bus and auto lanes.

As of June 1973, much of the Shirley Highway reconstruction has been completed

(temporary lanes have been routed through the construction zones of the northern reaches),

thereby furnishing a minimum of three lanes in each direction. The busway consists of two

lanes (except in the construction area where it narrows to one lane); however, the buses

will generally use only one lane during normal operations.

With the increase in the number of autos observed on the Shirley Highway in June 1973,

the number of bus riders on the busway, although continuing to mount, fell behind the

n-umber of auto persons after maintaining the lead for 18 months. During the A.M. peak

period in June 1973, nearly 12,000 busway passengers were observed while, in contrast,

slightly more than l6,000 auto persons were observed in the three northbound lanes of the

Shirley Highway.

This assumption is supported by the fact that ridership has declined on every transit operation in the Washington Metropolitan area except the busway service, and if anything,

the assumption overstates what bus ridership would have been without the demonstration

project. In addition, project bus control counts have been stable over the life of the

project. Statistics taken from bus control counts for November 1971 (II6 buses),

October 1972 (ll2 buses) and June 1973 (llU buses) indicated stable ridership with 27.7

25 and 27 passengers per bus respectively.

Were still is a problem of estimating what the former mode would have been for new Northern Virginia residents who began commuting immediately via the busway. How they

would have commuted if no busway existed has yet to be determined.
The volume of person trips on the bus lane is actually greater because this figure includes

only people riding on WMATA and NVTC buses; people on the buses of Continental Trailways

,

Colonial Transit and other suburban comiDuter bus companies (i.e., "other buses") were not

counted at the screenline. Information about these ridership levels is obtained from

company records and estimates. The best estimate of daily A.M. peak period passenger levels

for the "other" buses on the Shirley Highway is 1,250 during October 1971, 1,700 during

October 1972, and 1,900 during June 1973. No information is available for ridership levels

by time interval within the peak period for these buses.

During the peak hour (the single hour with the maxim\m observed person trip volime) in

June 1973, 1^4,800 person trips (7100 by auto and 770 0 by bus) were observed on the Shirley

Highway. Figure 11 shows the number of persons per lane during the peak hour on the busway

and the main roadway. The wide divergence of the curves for bus and auto person trips per

lane per (peak) hour reflects the high productivity of the busway lane relative to that of

the auto lanes. Peak hour person trips by auto per lane per hour averaged about 2,800 until

November 1970. The ensuing decline, to a low of about 1,800 person trips per lane per

(peak) hour in October 1971, and the gradual upswing, to nearly 2,1+00 person trips per lane

per (peak) hour in June 1973, are attributable to changes in the construction zones along

the highway. By contrast, since November 1970 peak hour bus person trips per lane have

steadily increased, going from about 2800 in November 1970 to over 7700 in June 1973.

The busway continues to contribute to the increased people moving capability of

the Shirley Highway. Although the June 1973 count of l6,000 auto person trips on the main

roadway was the highest ever observed during the demonstration project, the single lane

used by busway buses still carried more persons than all three lanes devoted to auto during

that morning's peak hour. ;

3.6. Peak Period Reduction in Auto Generated Air Pollution

and Auto Gasoline Cons-umption

The demonstration project has had an impact on the amount of automobile air pollution

emissions and the amount of gasoline consumed by automobiles during the peak periods. In

this section estimates for decreased vehicle air pollution emissions and gasoline usage are

computed, based primarily on the auto vehicle trip reduction estimates obtained in paragraph

3.h.

3.6.1. Factors Affecting Air Pollution and Gas < Consumption

Both air pollution emissions and gasoline usage are affected by several characteristics

of highway operations. The most important factors are:

- 1) Volume of traffic (number of vehicles)

,. 2) Composition of traffic stream (mix of autos, buses, trucks, etc.)

3) Age and condition of vehicle engines

k) VJhether the vehicles are run from hot or cold starts^^

5) Vehicle speeds

Changes in only three of these factors can be attributed to the demonstration project.

One, the diversion of auto travelers to buses has altered the vol-ume of traffic by diverting

autos from peak period Corridor traffic streams. Two, the composition of peak period

Corridor traffic streams has been altered by the diversion of autos and the removal of

buses from the main roadway of the Shirley Highway. 2''' Finally, attainable vehicle speeds

have been increased because of changes in the two previous factors.

"Cold Start" refers to a vehicle that has not been operated for a number of hours prior to

its current use. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specifies 12 hours, but a car left overnight (or all day after the morning work trip) may be regarded as being driven

from a cold start

.

27Although autos left at home may be driven and thus contribute to air pollution and gasoline usage, except for noting such a possibility no further analyses were performed.

Likewise, although buses consume some diesel fuel (they are fitted with emission re- duction devices ), this consumption is not included in the gasoline conservation estimates.

It will be included in later project reports.
39
3.6.2. Air Pollution Analysis

Daily air pollution reduction estimates have been prepared for October 1971, October

1972, and June 1973. These results can be averaged to produce figures for total air pollution emissions abatement over the life of the demonstration project. Computation details

of the analysis are presented in Appendix E, and the procedure is outlined below:

1) For each model year, estimates of auto exhaust emission rates of carbon monoxide

(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), oxides of nitrogen (WO^), and auto crankcase-evaporative

hydrocarbons (HC°) are presented in Table 37.

2) The effectiveness of CO, HC, and NOx exhaust emission control devices diminishes

over time, and deterioration factors for each pollutant type (listed in Table 38) are applied to the exhaust emission rates of each model year. "Adjusted" exhaust

.. emission rates are presented in Table 39-

3) "Adjusted" emission factors for each model year are then weighted by the estimated

percent of annual travel contributed by that model year ' s . vehicles (distribution

. shown in Figure 12). .

k) Air pollution emissions for the "typical" vehicle in use are obtained by summing

the weighted emission factors (for CO, HC, NOx, and HC° ) over the distribution of

model years (see Table hO)

.

5) Auto carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon (HC), and nitrogen oxide (NOx) exhaust

emissions are dependent on vehicle operating speed. It was assumed that the

traffic volumes distribute themselves over the Shirley Highway and other Corridor

arterials so that the average travel speeds on all of these roadways are approximately equal, 28 and speeds observed during half hour intervals from 6:30-9:00 A.M.

(inbound) on the Shirley Highway (between Route 7 and the Virginia side of the lUth

. ; Street Bridge) are chosen as representative of rush period velocities for all project

commuters. 29 Weighted by the percent volume of traffic observed during each halfhour interval within the 2-1/2 hour A.M. peak period, these vehicle speeds specify

emissions adjustment factors applicable to the situation on the Shirley Highway.^

CO, HC, and NOx (exhaust) emissions for the "typical" auto are corrected for operating speed by using the adjustment factors suggested by the Shirley Highway data.

• By summing over the five half- hour intervals (the entire peak period), average peak

'- period CO, HC and NOx (exhaust) emissions for a "typical" vehicle are estimated

(see Table U2). Average peak period HC° ( evaporative-crankcase ) emissions for the

"typical" auto are taken directly from Step k, since they are relatively independent

of speed.

6) The amount of air pollution reduction resulting from the demonstration project is

obtained by assuming an average roundtrip commute distance of I9.8 miles31 and auto

vehicle reduction estimates of 227^; for October 1971, i+2l8 for October 1972, and

U998 for June 1973 (from paragraph 3.h.). The product of these figures and

28

In "Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research," Institute of Civil Engineers Road

Pager #36, London, England, 1952, Wardrop's first principle of flow distribution states

that travel times on all paths used by traffic flow between a particular origin destination pair are equal.

29See Figure 1, paragraph 3.1; the Shirley Highway is 1-95.

30The speeds and volumes used for October 1971? October 1972, and June 1973 are the averages

of speeds and volumes presented in Table UO for March 1971 and March 1972; and March 1972

and March 1973; and March 1973 and May 1973, respectively. Table h2 shows pollution estimates adjusted for speed and weighted by the auto volume distributions.

31"First Year Results Report," Appendix E, p. II6; this implicitly assumes that speed

volume conditions prevalent during the A.M. peak-period also apply to the P.M. peakperiod.

ho
average peak period pollution emission rates for the "typical" auto represents the

estimated (CO, NO, HC (exhaust), and HC° ( evaporative-crankcase ) ) reduction in air

pollution for one day during each of these months (presented in Table lu ) . 32

T) The pollution reductions for the years October 1970 to October 1971, October 1971

to October 1972 and the period October 1972 to June 1973 (see Table 17) are obtained

by averaging the estimates for a day in October 1970 (zero pollution reduction is

assumed), October 1971, October 1972, and June 1973, based upon a 200 day working

year

Table i6

Estimates of Daily Reductions in Air Pollution Emissions (Pounds)^

DAILY OCT 71 OCT 72 JUN 73

Carbon Monoxide

Hydrocarbons (Exhaust)

Nitrogen Oxide

Hydrocarbons (Evaporative)

6895

715

530

326

12320

1260

900

440

11765

nil

714

377

Table IT

Estimates of Yearly Reductions in Air Pollution Emissions (Tons)^

Carbon Monoxide

Hydrocarbons (Exhaust)

Nitrogen Oxide

Hydrocarbons (Evaporative)

OCT 70-OCT 71 OCT 71 -OCT 72 OCT 72-JUN 73 OCT 70-JUN 73

380

39

27

16

986

101

81

38

738

78

54

27

2104

218

152

81

^he estimates do not currently account for bus emissions or possible use of diverted autos.

3.6.3. Gasoline Consumption Analysis

Gasoline savings, estimated for October 1971, October 1972 and June 1973 are calculated

as a function of l) auto mix and associated gasoline consumption rates and 2) the average

roundtrip distance of a project commuting trip (l9.8 miles ).33 These estimates are then

averaged to produce figures for total gasoline savings over the life of the demonstration

project. The details of the approximation procedure are presented below:

"Unpublished data from the Washington Council of Governments estimate 1972 daily peak period

emissions at 867-8, U3.3 and 32 tons for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons (HG° and HC) and

nitrogen oxides respectively, for the entire Washington Metropolitan Area.

^Where traffic volumes are particularly high (equal to or approaching capacity), such as often occurs on high volume expressways near busy access-exit points, vehicles may be slowed

to a stop or even to a series of stops of uncertain duration, with a corresponding increase

in the running costs associated with stops and slowdowns, i.e., fuel and oil consumption,

tire wear, and maintenance. The present techniques for estimating auto gasoline consumption

do not adequately account for the effects of congestion, and therefore, they co^ild not be' used and speed could hot be included as a variable in the calculation of auto gasoline savings. So'orces consulted include: 1)EPA, "Fuel Economy and Emission Control," EPA, Office of

Air and Wat er Programs, VJashington, D.C. , November 1972 j 2) NCHRP Report 1, "Running Costs

of Motor Vehicles as Affected by Road Design and Traffic," Highway Research Board ,Washington, D.C, 1971; 3) NCHRP Report 133, "Procedures for Estimating Highway Use Costs, Air

Pollution, and Noise Effects," Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C, 1972; U) Winfrey,

Robley, Economic Analyses for Highways , International Textbooks, Scranton, Penna.,1969.
1. Corridor autos are assumed to fall into two categories, small and large gasoline cons\imption rates of 20 and 13 miles per gallon are adopted for small and large auto categories respectively . 35

2. Twenty-five percent of Corridor commuting miles were assigned to the small car category.

(Unpublished data from the I968 Washington Metropolitan Area Home Interview estimate that

11 percent of the vehicles in the area were small cars. In addition, a I969 survey estimated that 10 percent of the autos in the U.S. were small cars, and that nationwide,

small cars accounted for 25 percent of new car purchases in 1969)- The use of a 25

percent share for small cars will produce a conservative estimate for gasoline savings.

3. The gasoline consumption rates are applied to the estimate of small and large car mileages to estimate daily gasoline savings. Estimates of daily gasoline savings attributable to the project are 3^33 gallons for October 1971, 6209 gallons for October 1972

and 7350 gallons for June 1973.

h. Estimated gasoline savings for the years October 1970 to October 19715 October 1971 to

October 1972, and the period October 1972 to June 1973 are 306,000; 892,000; and 856,000

gallons, respectively. Total gasoline savings between October 1970 and June 1973 are

• estimated at 2,05^,000 gallons.

3.6.U. SuTTiTTiary of Findings on Air Pollution Reduction and Gasoline

Consumption Attributable to the Demonstration Project

Based on the auto vehicle volume reductions of paragraph 3.^., the estimated air

pollution abatement resulting from the demonstration project between October 1970 and

June 1973, is as follows: 2103 tons of carbon monoxide, 2l8 tons of exhaust hydrocarbons,

151 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 8I tons of evaporative crank-case hydrocarbons. During the

same period an estimated 2,05^,000 gallons of gasoline were saved because of the reduction

in Corridor auto vehicle volumes.

3.7- Changes in Peak Period Bus and Auto Travel Times

Several aspects of the demonstration project contribute to improved travel times and

increased schedule reliability for bus users. These include: the use of an exclusive bus

lane, the availability of bus priority lanes in downtown Washington, and the incorporation

of project routes which feature a more direct routing than that of regular WMATA buses from

the suburban collection and distribution points to the busway entrances.

Paragraph 3.7 will present information regarding the status of travel times for autos

and for buses on the line ha,ul (busway) segment of their journey. Route distances and

travel times, taken from published schedules, for each portion of the bus trip (suburban

collection and distribution, line haul, and downtown collection and distribution) along

several project routes are listed in Appendix F. Auto travel speed data collected on the

Shirley Highway before and after the recent opening of the new lanes in the vicinity of the

Pentagon are exhibited in Table 19.37

3hThe small car category was defined to include cars with engine sizes of about I50 cubic

inches or smaller, and large cars 'engine sizes range from about I50 cubic inches to the

largest engines made.

35A recent report to the U.S. Department of Transportation, "Highway Travel Forecasts Related

to Energy Requirements" (Dec. 1972), reported fuel consumption rates of 22.2 and 13.1^

miles per gallon for small and standard sizes respectively. In "Fuel Economy and Emission

Control", the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nov. 1972) reported fuel consumption

rates ranging from 11.9 to 23.9 miles per gallon.

36Schedule reliability is discussed in paragraph 3.8 of this report.

37Changes in the Shirley Highway re-construction are identified in Section 2.
3.7.1. Line Haul Travel Timeg and Speeds

Table l8 displays the observed and scheduled line haul travel times and speeds for

various Farragut Square bound project buses during a typical morning rush period in

November 197??" Also listed are estimated travel times for comparable trips without the

use of the busway, extracted from Table 3.6-1 of the First Year Results Report.

Table l8

Comparison of Line Haul Travel Times With and Without the Busway For Selected Project Bus Routes

ROUTE NUMBERl

OF BUSES

OBSERVED

MEAN

TRAVEL

TIME

(MIN.)

OBSERVED

TRAVEL

TIME

STANDARD

DEVIATION

(MIN.

)

SCHEDULED

TRAVEL

TIME

(MIN.

)

ESTIMATED2

TIME W/0

BUSWAY

(MIN.

)

DISTANCE

(.MILES

;

7G 12 12.6 1.3 Ih 32 6.5

19G 5 10.8 1.3 Ih 3 32^ 6.5

kE 5 15.

U

2.0 16

3

35 7.1

UH 10 lU.6 2.5 16 35^ 8,5

18G 10 20.7 2.0 22 UO 12.1

17G 5 22.8 2.3 25 37 lU.O

17H ii 21,3 1.0 25 37 li+.O

Observations were made in November 1972.

2Taken from the First Year Results Report, Table 3.6-1. These buses now travel via lUth Street Bridge; in the absence of a busway they

would use Memorial Bridge; times are estimated assuming Memorial

Bridge crossings.

3

Routes 19G and UG,H were not included in Table 3.6-1 (First Year Results). The estimated time without the busway for Route 19G was assumed "to be the same as for Route 7G which enters at the same point.

Travel times for Routes UG,H are taken to be equal to the average of

times for Routes 17G,H and 7G since the entrance for Routes UG,H is

located midway between the access points for these routes.

On the average, observed travel times are less than scheduled travel times which, in

turn, are significantly lower than estimated travel times before the busway. The standard

deviations for the mean observed times reflect only a slight degree of variability among

the buses whose times were recorded (all standard deviations are within 15 percent of the mean value )

.

38

Measurements were taken by two observers, one stationed at the last stop before the bus

enters the busway and the other at lUth & C Streets, S.W. (the first stop after the bus

exits from the busway). Several routes differ in line haul times and speeds because they

access the busway at different points.

39 Schedule reliability is discussed in greater detail in section 3.8.
to

to

to

to

to

cn

(Nl CMoJ-l

to

(NJ

00

(^ oo to cn

00 00 o I-H

I-H

v£5 00 \0 LO 00

to 00 vO \o to 1—1 1—1

(N]

to to 00 I—1

\o (Nl (Nl

to

cn

to

(^

to

00

(Nl OO

(Nl oto

CTl

(Nl

(Nl CM

LO to

I-H \o CT> LO cn to

un

(^ i-H LO (Nl r—1

>—1

I-H

cr> rH

rH rH

00

rH CM

vO

rH o O to (T> o vO -Ti- O 1—1

(Nl to

I-H

(NJ I-H to

rH

(Nl

1—1

(Nl 1—1(Nl

1-1 to

iH

to

(NJ vO

to rH

to LO OO I—1

CT> to o to

to to(Nl I-H to

rH

1—1

1—1 to1—1 (NJ rH oto

to (Nl

(NJ

LO\0

LO OO cno6 o LO

00 OO o (Nl LO

(Nl

(Nl o O to LO (Nl cn LO orH

torH rH o(NJ

(Nl

(NJ (Nl rH(Nl

CNl

(NJ toiH cn

rH

rH to

O rH LO cn (Nl r-. OO CNJ rH

00rHcn

rH

O(Nl rH

(Nl o(Nl cn

rH orH

LO

rH

to to

O o LO o (Nl o

rH rH oorH

to

CNl rH o(Nl OO vO

rH oto

LO

O LOrH oto LO

Oo

LO

rH oto

LO

CSJ

\0 I>- 00 00 00 OO

AVE!

-6tt/) Ido

lA • +-» to d

•H cn O rH a

a-'

CD CTJ P >>

(A

<D ?H oo _Td ^ u

<D »0 e cn

•P

(Ud

•H

4-> •H

(/I o

•HmMh

+->

MH

(D 00 gCM CD

(U rC

p o o

•H ^ •H

rH ^ % o

+-> B

m t/5 O CD (/) CDbO

CD CD 03

51CD •H ••>

?-( (Nl ^

4-> rH ^ CD

(D •> • H ^ to 03 +J CM P

trt

tfl 03

CD

03

X P

rH to ^ b

U

(D^

ci3 • 

03 rH

<+-! O cn CD rH H '^l- • H H CM

CM
3.7 .2. Auto Vehicle Travel Times and Speeds on the Shirley HighwayTable 19 shows that auto travel times decreased radicgilly from March 1973 to

May 1973. This is the result of increased capacity on the Shirley Highway attending the

opening of new lanes in the Pentagon region. ^0 The March 1973 figures, which are consistent

with the data for March 1971 and 1972, mirror conditions of construction-reduced capacity

which predated this development

.

The May 1973 observations were conducted shortly after the new lanes were opened, and

perhaps before Corridor-wide auto users adjusted to the additional capacity by shifting to

the Shirley Highway from other Northern Virginia arterials.^2 Future auto speed checks will

be performed to determine if this was the case.

3.8. Changes in Peak Period Bus Service Schedule Reliability

One of the anticipated impacts of an exclusive bus lane is improved bus schedule

reliability during the p^ak period. That reliable bus service is an important aspect of

increasing bus patronage is becoming more evident. The findings of a market survey for the

"new look" buses, summarized in Section l+,^3 substantiate that commuters consider schedule

reliability to be one of the most important factors in bus transit service.

In order to monitor schedule reliability, a data collection program was established

whereby the arrival and departure times for the buses at the first and last bus stops in

the District of Columbia were observed, and compared with the corresponding sched\iled

times (hereafter referred to as schedule adherence checks). These data indicate how well

the buses are able to meet the published schedule times.

3.8.1. A.M. Peak Period Schedule Adherence '

Tables 20 and 21 summarize results of schedule adherence checks for WMATA and NVTC

buses as witnessed on 6 separate occasions. Sched\ile reliability tests at the first

stop (Table 20) seek to measure the effect of the busway on schedule adherence; tests at

the second stop (Table 21) attempt to measure the effect of bus priority features within

the District on schedule adherence. Arrival times were recorded at the first bus stop in

the District (shortly after buses leave the busway) for each bus during the A.M. peak period

(6:30-9:00 A.M.). The values in Table 20 show the percentage of buses out of the total

number observed on a given day, which arrived early, on time, or late.

The late category is further subdivided into: a) 1-6 minutes late, b) 7-15 minutes

late, and c) more than 15 minutes late. Similarly, the arrival times for buses at the

last stop in the District during the A.M. rush period were noted and compared to scheduled

times. Table 21 displays the findings in the format described above. Late or early at

the last stop signifies observed versus scheduled performance in traveling from the first

to the last stop, since minutes late or early at the first stop have been discounted in

obtaining figures for the last stop.

kO 1 Speed checks on Shirley Highway are taken from Virginia Route 7 to the l4th Street Bridge

during the morning rush period (6!30-9:00 A.M.). The mixing bowl is located between these

landmarks

,

^"'"Auto travel times indicate a slight increasing trend from March 1971 to March 1973?

1+2Auto volumes observed on the Shirley Highway and other Northern Virginia arterials are discussed in parag:)raph 3.1. j Screenline Counts. A comparison of data for June 1973 with

earlier screenline counts reveals a sizeable shift of autos to the Shirley Highway from

the other roadways. A spot travel time check made on the Shirley Highway on the day (June

1973) screenline courits were conducted showed auto travel times much greater than those

observed in May 1973.

'Tte Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project - Users' Reactions to

Innovative Features, Interim Report 3."

hk

Schedule adherence checks were conducted on two mornings during each of the Fall tests

and one morning on each of the Spring tests. Consequently the Fall tests included

aboi^^^^^a^m^i^obse^^rt^n^a^th^^^^^^^^^^^
Table 20

Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway

Bus Trips at First Stop in D.C.

WHEN NUMBER OF PERCENT OF BUS TRIPS

r\DCCD\/CT\ UBohKVtU UdolKVA I LUvio CADI V tAKL Y ON TIME MINUTES LATE

1-6 7-15 OVER 15

Fall 71 216 36.3 7.5 35.3 15.5 5. 4

Spring 72 91 41.7 13.2 41.8 3.3 0

Fall 72 296 40.5 11.5 41.5 6.2 3

Spring 73 169 50.9 11.8 31.4 5.9 o'

Table 21

Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway

Bus Trips at Last Stop in D.C.

WHEN

OBSERVED

NUMBER OF

OBSERVATIONS

PERCENT OF BUS TRIPS

EARLY ON TIME MINUTES LATE^

1-6 7-15 OVER 15

Fall 71 216 19.2 8.6 64.0 8.2 0.

Spring 72 91 4.4 5.5 64.8 25.3 0.

Fall 72 296 4.7 6.0 73.7 14.9 .7

Spring 73 169 4.5 8.9 58.6 24.8 7.1

^Minutes early (or late) are as compared to scheduled time to travel

from first to last stop, not with respect to scheduled time for

arrival at last stop. Thus, minutes early (or late) at first stop

have been added to (deducted from) the difference between scheduled

and observed arrival time at last stop.

:

'

. y\ 3.8.2. Factors Affecting Schedule Reliability

Bus sched\ile reliability is affected by several factors, including (l) the busway (2)

the bus priority lanes in downtown Washington and (3) the subway construction in downtown

Washington. Some control can be exercised over the first two factors, but little can be

done about the construction related problems.

The effects of the busway on schedule reliability can be seen in Table 20. Generally,

buses arrive at the first stop within six minutes of the scheduled time. Although bus

schedule adherence In 1973 continues well above that of I971 just after the busway was

opened, it is essentially unchanged since 19T2.

The effects of bus priority lanes (see Table 21) in the District on schedule reliability are not as discernable as the effects of the busway. A primary reason for this is

the disruptive effects of subway construction on traffic movements in downtown Washington.
SECTION h. EXAMINATION OF COMMUTER MODE CHOICE DECISIONS

U.l. Introduction

Section h summarizes the results of two s\irveys of riders' reactions to selected

bus features: l) a suryey of users' reactions to interior bus features is discussed in

paragraph U.2, and 2) a survey of park and rider lot users' reactions to bus service

features is discussed in paragraph U.3. Using the results of these surveys, the section

presents evidence on the contribution of selected bus features to the increase in Corridor

bus ridership.

Responses to queries on the importance of and satisfaction with each of the following

selected bus features were assessed to determine their relative influence on riders'

decisions to switch from auto to bus.

Service Features

a. Travel time and cost (door-to-door) differences

b. Bus shelters

c. Security of bus service

d. Reliability of bus service

e. Convenience of bus arrival and departure times

f. Access and egress convenience

g. Waiting time

Interior Features

a. Availability of a peat

b. Air-conditioning and heating

c

.

Seat size

d. Leg room

e

.

Noise level

f

.

Interior design

g- Lighting

h. Advertising

i

.

Floor covering

The. first survey solicited commuter reactions to innovative approaches in interior

vehicle design. The second survey solicited commuter perceptions of the bus features

responsible for their switching to the park and ride bus service. With each survey,

commuters were requested to rank the importance of each bus feature and also to evaluate

the performance of the bus system with respect to each feature. Inferences for mode

choice decision-making were drawn from summaries of the responses in the siorveys . These

summaries are the basis for the analysis found in this section.

U.2. Survey of Users' Reactions to Innovative Bus Features''"

The objectives of the investigation of user reactions to innovative bus features were

1. To determine commuters' relative satisfaction with the special interior bus

features

;

2. To determine the importance commuters place on the interior features relative to

service features; and

3. To determine the relative influence of each of the features on commuter mode

choice decisions.

U . 2 . 1 . Survey Approach

During the week of July 5j 1972, a survey was conducted on a sample from the twelve

project peak period bus routes.^

"''Paragraph U.2 is a summary of the report "The Shirley Highway Express Bus-on-Freeway

Demonstration Project - Interim Report 3."

2The project routes are designated 2G, 3G, UG, UH, 6G, TG, 8G, ITG, IJM, 18G, 18M, and 19G
- , One bus on each route was selected, and the first ^7 "boarding passengers were given

a questionnaire by a survey distributor . 3 The riders were requested to complete and

return the form before getting off the bus. Of the 590 forms distributed, 551 were re- turned, a 95 percent response rate. The form consisted of a brief introductory segment

which was followed by three main sections. Section 1 solicited users' perceived satisfaction

with the various special interior bus features. This was accomplished by asking the bus

patrons to complete the following for each of the 12 innovative interior comfort and

aesthetic bus features listed:

CONSIDERING EACH FEATURE BY ITSELF, PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF THIS BUS BY PLACING AN "X"

IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

Very

Poor Poor Fair Good

Very

Good

FEATURES

The second section of the survey form (on the page opposite the above question) re- quested bus users to consider 15 bus interior and service related features and assign

each of them an importance rating:

/ PLEASE RATE

THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING

FEATURES OF BUS TRANSIT BY PLACING AN "X"

^ IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX

Not

At Only

All Slightly Somewhat Quite Extremely

Would You Be Willing To

Do Without This Feature

For A 5 Cent Reduction

Ih Fare?

Yes No

FEATURES

The "Yes-No" questions, asking the respondent if he would do without the feature for

a reduction in fare, were designed to provide another measure of importance to check for

consistency. While the sedond section of the survey requested importance ratings for 15

service and interior features, section one asked for satisfaction ratings for only interior

features

.

\ " U.2.2. Findings

Analysis of satisfaction and importance assessments reveals that bus commuters con- sider the innovative interior features satisfactory although less important than service

oriented features. Table 22 presents the features ordered with respect to satisfaction.

As can be seen in the last column, the overwhelming majority of the features (10 out of 12) were rated as "Very Good" or "Good" by TT percent or more of those responding. In fact, no feature received less than 60 percent of the responses in one of these two categories.

In contrast to the satisfaction responses, bus riders' assessments of importance for

the interior bus features do not all cluster in a single high rated group, but are stratified along several levels of perceived importance. Table 2.3 presents three general

'The seating capacity of the buses is UT; in some cases standees volunteered to complete

the questionnaires and were allowed to do so, up to a limit of 3 per bus. Very few

passengers refused to complete the questionnaire.
levels into which the importance responses are grouped.^ All of the service oriented

features ("Constant, Reliable Sched-jles ; Ass^orance of Getting a Seat"; and "Less Time

Between Buses") fall into the highest level (l). Also included in the high importance

level are "Air Condi uioning/Heating" and "Reduction in Exhaust Iiiiissions'.'5" It should he

noted that even within Level I,"Constant, Reliable Schedules" was rated somewhat higher

than the other features.

Of the features for which satisfaction and importance responses were solicited,

only the air condii:ioning and heating feature was highly rated in both categories. The

implication of the simultaneous consideration of user satisfaction and importance

responses is examined in paragraph h.'^. A.ttention is also given to service features

which users rated high in importance (ho satisfaction responses were solicited for these

features) and for which there vere inprovements in the level of sevzlce.

Table 22

Coinmuter Satisfaction Rankings for Bus Interior Feat'jres

FEATURES ?a:^k PERCEZTT

RA.TING

FLAIURE FLATL'RL

"Ver;>^ CJood" "Ver\- Good"

or "Good"

l^o Interior Advertising / 90

Seat Comfort U9 2 92

Floor Covering 3 92

Total Interior Design ll 90

Seat Width u-5* 83

Leg Room 38 6 82

Interior Lighting Level 33 92

Air Conditioning/Heating 33 7-6* 80

Interior Scjud Level 25 9 77

Riding Stability 23 10 80

Aisle Width 21 71

Acceleration Ability 12 60

Tie in ranging.

U.3. Survey of Reactions of Users of Park and Ride Service to Selected Bus reat

The objective of the survey of ccmute

(PR) lots was to examine the factors vr.ich

bus service at the lots. Selected features

determine their relative importance in the

extent to which ccriinuters are satisfied vit

"^es

rs using the bus service at the tark and ride

influenced auto and bus commuters to switch to

cf bus service at the PR lots are examined to

iecision to use bus ser'vice at the lots and th

h each of the features

.

Based on a comparison of the overall responses patterns , as veil as the rankings ana

other data (particularly the sums of the percentages), three groupings of features were

defined and labeled Levels I, II and III. These groupings are intended to provide a general classification and means for discussion.

'The high importance placed on air conditioning is very understandable since the sixrwey v

cond^octed during the summer in the Washington Area where the weather is ver;;,^ hot and

humid.
Table 23

Commuter Importance Rankings for Bus Interior & Service Related Features

FEATURES PERCENT NOT WILLING PERCENT OF RESPONSES

iU UU WlinUul in±o

r jCjAlUnili r Un A y<p

Level I Constant Reliable Schedule 87 77

Air Conditioning/Heating 85 56

A CT" T T V* n VI 1-^ "f /-V -J 1- T /-T* O /-I 4- 1 Assurance oi LjebX.ing a beat/ "7 "3

1 J p J. Reduction in Exhaust Emissions 68 U3

Less Time Between Buses-'- TO 38

Level II

Shelters at Bus Stops h2 21

Level III

Leg Room ' .

' 39 9

Seat Width ko 8

Interior Sound Level ^ 36 9 . Total Interior Design 37 6

Acceleration Ability 3h 7

Aisle Width 28 7

Interior Lighting : 30 5 Wo Interior Advertising , .21 - 10

Floor Covering 2k h

Service Feature

' U.3.1. Survey Approach

During the week of January 28, 1973, a survey was conducted at two project PR lots.

Within the morning peak periods, 3hk commuters were contacted; 277 of those contacted re- turned their forms, for an 80 percent response rate.

The two PR lots are quite different in the quality of service which they provide.

One (the Backlick lot) was designed as a park and ride lot. It is a secluded lot with a UOO auto capacity, a kiss and ride drop-off area, a bicycle rack and a telephone. By

contrast, the other (the Springfield lot) is located in a shopping center (a designated

portion for the bus service). Bus riders at the shopping center lot were at a disadvantage

with respect to seat availability because the bus collected riders in the surrounding

neighborhoods before stopping at the lot.

This survey of bus riders at the PR lots focused on a specific market, and therefore

the results are not necessarily generalizable to all Corridor commuters. That is, features

which attracted these former auto users to the bus service at the PR lots will not necessarily attract other auto commuters. Nonetheless, it is encouraging that the demographic

characteristics of the former auto users at the PR lots are quite similar to those observed

for Corridor-wide auto users during the October 1971 survey (Table 2h) . Former auto users

at the PR lots had more autos per household than the 1971 auto commuters and more of them

drove alone when commuting to work (56 and 5^ percent respectively).

Except for the fact that all of the features considered in this survey concerned the

quality of service of the bus system, the questionnaire and method of analysis were quite

similar to the other. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. After an introductory segment. Section One solicited users 'reactions on the importance of 12 features of
the bus service to their decision to use the hus service at the PR lots. Section 2

solicited bus riders' perceived satisfaction with the service features and Section 3

requested demographic information.

Table 2h

Current Auto Users and Former Auto Users at Park and Ride Lots

DEMOGRAPHIC AUTO USERS^ FORMER 1. V./ X Li. l-LJ J. V CHARACTERISTICS AUTO USERS

Annual Household Income

0 - 5,000 0.3 0

?7 Q 1 7

? 1 • ? 67w 1 over 30.000 IU.3 16

Total 100.0^ 100^

Age (years)

under 21 1.1 1

21-3Q kh 0 52

uo-65 53.

T

U6 over 65 1.2 1

Total 100.0^ 1007.

Sex

Mq Too (J.J. 7S

26 Q 2S

Total 100.0^ 100^

Autos per Household

"0 1.5 0

1 37. i+ 20

2 50.

U

67

3 8.9 10

k or more 1.8 3

Total 100.0^ 100^

October 1971 Auto Commuter Survey

'January 1973 Park and Ride Survey

U.3.2. Survey Analysis

The survey analysis focuses on three groups of commuters: l) former auto users at

the Backlick and 2) Springfield lots, and 3) former bus users at the Backlick lot. 6 The

results suggest that all commuters were generally satisfied with two of the three feature

ranked as most important in their mode choice decisions; however, they were less satisfie

with the third, the convenience of arrival and departure times. Since that time nine

Only three former bus riders were surveyed at the Springfield lot.
additional bus trips have been added in each peak period. It seems quite likely

that the inclusion of these additional trips has increased the level of satisfaction with

bus scheduled times. The remainder of paragraph U.3.2 will examine the responses of each

of the three individual groups of commuters.

, U. 3.2.1. Satisfaction

The satisfaction responses of the various commuter groups at the PR lots (see Table 25)

exhibit materially different ratings. This is especially true of ratings for parking

convenience, convenience of arrival and departure times, seat availability, and walking

distance to the boarding point.

>

. : ^ , - ' Table 25

Commuter Satisfaction Rankings for Bus Service Features

FEATURE PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SATISFIED"

BACKLICK SPRINGFIELD

FORMER AUTO USERS FORMER BUS USERS FORMER AUTO USERS

Stress and Frustration 68 hi 1+6 Parking Convenience 50 28 65

Travel Time 50 37 38

Convenience of Bus Arrival and V ' 38 29

Departure Times . . , Schedule Reliability kk - 38 1+7 Seat Availability 55 3

Evening Bus Service '

' 30 . 30 3h

Seciirity at Lot 25 35 22

Commuting Cost 20 Ik 9

Walking Distance to Boarding , 16 11 50

Bus Shelter '7 6 3

If differences in level of service at the PR lots and assumptions about user expectation based on previous commuting experiences are considered, some of the differences in user

satisfaction rankings can be explained.

With regard to the differences in the satisfaction responses of former auto users at

Backlick and Springfield, there is a distinct difference in the level of service provided

at the two areas. Moreover, the level of service differences are consistent with the

satisfaction rankings;

1. The buses collect riders in the surrounding neighborhoods before proceeding to the

Springfield lot and at times there are no vacant seats when they arrive at Springfield.

2. Riders at Backlick must walk an average of about 60 yards to the boarding pointy

a longer distance than at Springfield.

With these facts in mind the differences in the satisfaction rating of the "seat

availability" and "required walking distance to boarding point" features are more understandable . Explanations of the differences in satisfaction ratings of the former bus and former

auto users at Backlick are less definitive; however, a plausible explanation involves

differences in expectations occasioned by different experiences with their past modes.

Foniier bus users (accustomed to crowded buses) are likely to have lower expectations for

seat availability and higher expectations for parking facilities. By similar reasoning,

former auto users accustomed to crowded streets and scarce parking are likely to have lower

expectations for parking facilities and higher expectations for seating after leaving the

comfort of the private automobile. If these presumptions are valid the differences are rendered more understandable.

52
k.3'2.2. Importance

Unlike the satisfaction responses, the rankings of the group importance responses are

similar. As Table 26 shows, the users generally indicated that the most important bus

features in the decision to use bus service at the PR lots were the convenience of bus

arrival and departure times, relief from the stress and frustration of commuting, and

reliable and dependable bus service. Bus shelters, the walk from the lot to the boarding

point and, to a lesser extent, cost were least important in the decision to use bus service

at the PR lots.

Table 26

Commuter Importance Rankings for Bus Service Features

FEATURE PERCENT RESPONDING "OF HIGHEST IMPORTANCES

BACKLIGK SPRINGFIELD

FORMER AUTO USERS FORMER BUS USERS p ORMKK AU iU UbiijKo

Stress and Frustration 61 U5 57

Schedule Reliability h6 k2 29

Convenience of Arrival and ho U5 3i^ Departure Times

Travel Time 3h 27 23

Seat Availability 28 38 18

Parking Convenience 2k 16 21

Security at Lot 20 10 21

Evening Bus Service 19 2k 17

Commuting Cost i6 Ik 21

Walking Distance to Boarding 13 10 6

Bus Shelter 11 6 3

Of the features rated highly important, commuters were generally less satisfied with

"convenience of bus arrival and departure times"; however, additional bus service has been

added, and currently service is more frequent from the PR lots.

k,k. Findings

U.U.I. Conclusions

The results of these two surveys suggest that the service features of the buses have

been primary factors in the diversion of auto commuters to the bus service. The

reliability of bus service, reduction in the level of stress and frustration and the

convenience of bus arrival and departure times (all service features) are identified as the bus features most likely to have been responsible for the large diversion of auto

commuters to the bus system. By contrast, the analysis indicates that although the

commuters are generally satisfied with the innovative interior features, the latter, have not

been very prominent in commuter mode choice decisions. Of all features considered,

interior features (except for air conditioning and heating) were considered least important

in commuter mode choice decision making. Air conditioning and heating, characterized as comfort features to distinguish them from appearance features, were considered only slightly

less important than reliable bus service.
h.h.2. Implications of Survey Findings

The implications of these survey findings are many; however, two areas are of immediate

concern - patronage predictions and marketing. To date, the method for predicting transit

diversion from auto is the modal choice model. Previous models and the ones being developed

in conjunction with this evaluation of the demonstration project include only the components

of travel time and travel costs as transportation variables. Nonetheless, the survey results

demonstrate that travel time and cost do not seem to be the primary factors in the mode choice

decisions of these commuters; therefore, it will be difficult to accurately predict diversion

using models which ignore convenience and stress and frustration conditions.

Likewise, if transit is to be successfully marketed to the public, the features to be

highlighted are not just travel time and travel cost. According to the results of these

surveys, it will be necessary to focus upon l) reducing the frustration of commuting through

transit usage, 2) eliminating the unreliability label often attributed to transit service

and 3) providing operating schedules that are convenient for the riders, as well as providing

travel times that are comparable with those of auto.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A

Table 27

Summary of Corridor Screenline Counts (W/0 1-295)

(Inbound A.M. Peak Period)

UAlc TCYT A T PERSON TRIPS W/SHIRLEY HIGHWAY W/0 SHIRLEY HIGHWAY

Ur AIITAC AUlUb AUTO BUS TOTAL PERCENT AUTO PERCENT AUTO

oUKVhi BUS

TRIPS

OCCUPANCY BUS

TRIPS

OCCUPANCY

Apr 70 ,y /y 48,272 13,791 62,063 22.22 1.46 21,61 1.40

May 70 33,990 48,441 15,147 63,588 23.82 1.43 23.06 1.39

47,566 13,900 61,466 22.61 1.42 21.07 1.39

Jul 70 35,725 53,076 14,087 67,163 20.97 1.49 20.60 1.41

Aug 70 33,254 48,044 14,004 62,048 22.57 1.44 22.09 1.41

Sep 70 36,081 53,296 14,514 67,810 21.40 1.48 20.88 1.43

Oct 70 35,734 50,573 14,248 64,821 21.98 1.42 20.50 1.43

Nov 70 33,135 46,249 14,885 61,134 24.35 1.40 22.96 1.40

Mar 71 33,598 46,371 14,837 61,208 24.24 1.38 20.73 1.37

Jun 71 32,676 45,852 15,149 61,001 24.83 1.40 19.18 1.41

Oct 71 31,740 42,927 16,377 59,304 27.62 1.35 19.34 1.36

Mar 72 33,267 45,255 17,489 62,744 27.87 1.36 18.25 1.36

Jun 72 33,133 45,064 16,845 61,909 27.21 1.36 17.45 1.34

Oct 72 33,510 44,172 18,299 62,472 29.29 1.32 18.05 1.31

Mar 73 34,181 45,992 18,936 64,929 29.16 1.35 17.12 1.33

Jun 73 35,491 48,250 19,944 68,194 29.25 1.36 20.14 1.33
APPENDIX A

Table 28

Corridor Screenline Counts By Station (Inbound A.M. Peak Period 6:30-9:00)

SURVEY AUTO TOTAL AUTO BUS TOTAL BUS PASSENGERS

DATE PERSONS AUTOS OCCUPANCY PASSENGERS PERSONS PERCENT PER BUS

ARLINGTON BLVD.

Apr 70 7578 5720 1 32 1619 9197 17 6 34.4 May 70 7742 5843 1 33 1701 9443 18 0 36.2 Jun 70 7630 5711 1 34 1424 9054 15 .7 31.0 Jul 70 7928 5870 1 35 1462 9390 15 .6 31.8 Aug 70 7772 5784 1 34 1384 9156 15 .1 30.1

Sep 70 7624 5739 1 33 1407 9031 15 .6 30.6 Oct 70 7943 5878 1 35 1438 9381 15 3 33.4 Nov 70 7864 5862 1 34 1362 9226 14 8 31.7 Mar 71 8324 6335 1 31 1421 9745 14 6 34.7 Jun 71 8182 6057 1 35 1211 9393 12 9 36.7 Oct 71 7485 5761 1 30 1204 8689 13 9 34.4 Mar 72 7543 5935 1 27 1253 8796 14 2 36.9 Jun 72 7949 6021 1 32 1246 9195 13 6 35.6

Oct 72 7990 6320 1 26 1101 9091 12 1 32.4 Mar 73 8031 6302 1 27 1143 9174 12 5 32.7 Jun 73 6775 5532 1 22 1010 7785 13 0 28.9 COLUMBIA PIKE Apr 70 4889 3687 1 33 3684 8573 43 0 38.4 May 70 5138 3856 1 33 4425 9563 46 3 46.1 Jun 70 5116 3799 1 35 3563 8673 41 1 36.4

Jul 70 5263 3893 1 35 3476 8739 39 8 35.5 Aug 70 5553 3993 1 39 3628 9181 39 5 37.0 Sep 70 5612 4053 1 38 3798 9410 40 4 38.8 Oct 70 6218 4421 1 41 3807 10025 38 0 39.2 Nov 70 5145 3830 1 34 3812 8957 42 6 40.1 Mar 71 4291 3207 1 34 3274 7565 43 3 40.9 Jun 71 4345 3139 1 38 3324 7669 43 3 38.2 Oct 71 4339 3187 1 36 2984 7323 40 7 36.8 Mar 72 4468 3233 1 38 2865 7333 39 1 36.3 Jun 72 4456 3383 1 32 2473 6929 35 7 30.5 Oct 72 4910 3762 1 31 2910 7820 37 2 34.4 Mar 73 4865 3781 1 29 2493 7358 33 9 30.7 Jun 73 4123 2916 1 41 3016 7139 42 2 36.8 SHIRLEY HIGHWAY Apr 70 12529 7420 1 69 3937 16466 23 9 41.0 May 70 12261 7937 1 54 4304 16565 25 9 44.8 Jun 70 11942 8029 1 49 4392 16334 26 9 43.9

Jul 70 15327 8934 1 72 4293 19620 21 9 42.1 Aug 70 13121 8413 1 56 4104 17225 23 8 41.5 Sep 70 14941 9276 1 61 4390 19331 22 7 44.8

Oct 70 12210 8916 1 37 4353 16563 26 3 45.3 Nov 70 11356 8226 1 38 4483 15839 28 3 44.8 Mar 71 10260 7262 1 41 5394 15654 34 5 49.0 Jun 71 8778 6295 1 39 6348 15126 42 0 40.7

Oct 71 7554 5662 1 33 7893 15447 51 1 47.5 Mar 72 7768 5604 1 39 9121 16889 54 0 48.5 Jun 72 8539 5941 1 44 9126 17665 51 6 44.0 Oct 72 8100 5897 1 37 10355 18455 56 1 45.4 Mar 73 9054 6419 1 41 11305 20359 55 5 44.7 Ju l 73 16223 11392 1 42 11869 28092 42 2 46.5 ARMY-NAVY DRIVE Apr 70 1949 1337 1 46 490 2439 20 1 32.7 May 70 1243 962 1 29 452 1695 26 7 30.1 Jun 70 1356 1032 1 31 409 1765 23 2 29.2 Jul 70 1447 1064 1 36 502 1949 25 8 33.5 Aug 70 1449 1066 1 36 414 186 22 2 27.6 Sep 70 1508 1102 1 37 450 1958 23 0 30.0 Oct 70 1526 1121 1 36 390 1916 20 4 26.0 Nov 70 1630 1161 1 40 443 2073 21 4 31.6 Mar 71 1954 1295 1 51 394 2348 16 8 28.1 Jun 71 2549 1721 1 48 334 2883 11 6 23.9 Oct 71 2599 1757 1 48 386 2985 12 9 27.6 Mar 72 2593 1898 1 37 306 2899 10 6 21.9 Jun 72 2450 1805 1 36 303 2753 11 0 21.6 Oct 72 2660 1952 1 36 333 2993 11 1 22.2 Mar 73 2822 2145 1 32 373 3195 11 7 28.7 Jun 73 1827 1405 1 30 322 2149 15 0 24.8

5T
APPENDIX A

Table 28 Continued

Corridor Screenllne Counts By Station (Inbound A.M. Peak Period 6:30-9:00)

SURVEY AUTO TOTAL AUTO BUS TOTAL BUS PASSENGERS

DATE PERSONS AUTOS OCCUPANCY PASSENGERS PERSONS PERCENT PER BUS

MT. VERNON DRIVE

Apr 70 3628 2426 1.50 1633 5261 31.0 34.0

May 70 3468 2339 1.48 1617 5086 31.8 29.9

Jun 70 3505 2331 1.50 1560 5065 30.8 29.4

Jul 70 3596 2385 1.51 1636 5232 31.3 31.5

Aug 70 3723 2430 1.53 1616 5338 30.3 31.1

Sep 70 3584 2373 1.51 1763 5347 33.0 33.9

Oct 70 4104 2671 1.54 1708 5812 29.4 34.9

Nov 70 3484 2335 1.49 1697 5181 32.8 35.4

Mar 71 3678 2531 1.45 1429 5107 28.0 33.2

Jun 71 4265 2930 1.46 1291 5556 23.2 30.0

Oct 71 3658 2649 1.38 1274 4932 25.8 29.0

Mar 71 3655 2737 1.34 1360 5015 27.1 28.9

Jun 72 3494 2537 1.38 1127 4621 24.4 26.2

Oct 72 3832 2830 1.35 1156 4988 23.2 26.9

Mar 73 3696 2719 1.36 1181 4877 24,2 27.5

Jun 73 2647 2055 1.29 1034 3681 28.1 25.9

JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY

Apr 70 6868 4756 1.44 727 7595 9.6 23.5

May 70 6798 4796 1.42 750 7548 9.9 26.8

Jun 70 6923 4880 1.42 894 7817 11.4 34.4

Jul 70 7038 4941 1.42 970 8008 12.1 29.4

Aug 70 6719 4466 1.50 1101 7820 14.1 34.4

Sep 70 8539 5397 1.58 987 9526 10.4 31.8

Oct 70 7762 5039 1.54 1003 8765 11.4 33.4

Nov 70 6918 4545 1.52 1148 8066 14.2 37.0

Mar 71 7075 4986 1.42 911 7986 11.4 27.6

Jun 71 6821 4649 1.47 793 7614 10.4 29.4

Oct 71 6993 4971 1.41 930 7923 11.7 38.7

Mar 72 8179 5660 1.45 967 9146 10.6 31.2

Jun 72 7616 5385 1.41 951 8567 11.1 • 32.8

Oct 72 7644 5472 1.40 829 8473 9.7 28.0

Mar 73 6841 4898 1.40 801 7643 10.5 26.7

Jun 73 6279 4646 1.35 888 7167 12.4 29.6

GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKWAY

Apr 70 10831 7633 1.42 1701 12532 13.6 40.5

May 70 11791 8207 1.44 1898 13689 13.9 41.3

Jun 70 11094 7797 1.42 1658 12752 13.0 36.8

Jul 70 12477 8638 1.44 1748 14225 12.3 38.8

Aug 70 9708 7102 1.37 1757 11465 15.3 39.0

Sep 70 11488 8141 1.41 1719 13207 13.0 39.1

Oct 70 10810 7688 1.41 1549 12359 12.5 39.7

Nov 70 9853 7176 1.37 1940 11793 16.5 44.1

Mar 71 10789 7982 1.35 2014 12803 15.7 42.0

Jun 71 10912 7885 1.38 1848 12760 14.5 39.3

Oct 71 10299 7753 1.33 1706 12005 14.2 36.3

Mar 72 11049 8200 1.35 1617 12666 12.8 35.2

Jun 72 10560 8061 1.31 1619 12179 13.3 33.7

Oct 72 9035 7276 1.24 1615 10650 15.2 34.4

Mar 73 10682 7916 1.35 1639 12322 13.3 34.9

Jun 73 10376 7545 1.38 1805 12181 14.8 37.6

1-295 (WILSON BRIDGE)

Mar 71 5403 4396 1.23 0 5403 0 0 Jun 71 5481 4282 1.28 0 5481 0 0 Oct 71 5081 4274 1.19 0 5081 0 0 Mar 72 5039 4274 1.18 0 5039 0 0 Jun 72 4316 3679 1.17 0 4316 0 0 Oct 72 4163 3590 1.16 0 4163 0 0 Mar 73 4200 3649 1.15 0 4200 0 0 Jun 73 4421 3770 1.17 0 4421 0 0
5 ^

< o

oooooooo

o 5

< o

o + rOS

a,

wCOr

1—lCN^^CNlr^^o^^ll—

I

oooooooo

oooooooo

>^30^0fNlr-loo^oo

I—((Nil—li—{rO'^hO(M

CN)(Nirsirsj(N4(N((Nj,—

(

vO!-lt--vOl-00'*vOCM

t-^LOMtNlt—IOC7)I~~

I—1^1—It—|LO(NlLOtO00 O vO OO OO i—l to CTl LO O p

OOOOOOOO

tO'Tj-l-OvOl-OLO-^l-O oooooooo

i-ni—(i-ihor--i~-fsi'*

8 oooooooo

5 <-> < O

o \o 00 ai CTi

r-^ \o vo vo

to r~- vo cNj K) 00 vo o o

o

c

o

•H

•!-> "J

. . (1) +J D 60LO to

<+-!!-( ai O (Ni ,-1

>-3 u t-H <;

T3> Of

.-Ic

O cfl

•!-> -H

J- H H I—

I

a: c

(D O o

>^ (D > C/) 4-1 <.

CS > -H -H OO ^ k >: ^ ^

MQ _ Q X C •H C I/) O I o c -H ^

1^ C O S -M

OJ 2 0) ^1 (U +j

1—I I > <U OOl-n c/3 HE . I4H o rH R ii <D 4) 1 r-| CO < s u M <;

nj

SSg M

MX •HX c

<U o

• X 1) > U) +J

•T) nJ > -H -H DO > q 3 -H > c

rH ^ ^ jH a .H m -H MQ -

a, -H c X _ o ct

^ p o s M -H X CO fi in (U 2 dJ ^ (U C g T-H I > dj 00"-O •H 3 Sh >s Ch !h

i-H i-H -H E • M-l O tvi

59
rsj r-4 I o o o o o o

I—I r4 O O o

Ln o o o

•^torotNiLni-nvoa^

O

ro .—

OO \0

rs) rH

ooooCTtrsiroor-.LO

rH r^J to rsj 00 vO O O O CNl CNj o

oooocooor--r--r--r-.

(Nl 00 rH 1—t .—

(

rH O 1—I O O O

LO (—I \o

00 O 00 o

O O --H

rsi rj- hO

r3- LO r-- LO

CO i-H O

rsi LO to LO

t—I rO >-H

O

<S

w

3

2:

^ 00 O 1—I or-H rsi oj rg o O ro rH o o o

Tt LD O

I o -^t

I -Nl O -Nl

nHO-^r^r^orsioo <7i (M oo cn 1—I 00 : i-^oo-^Lnoo-^cri

o o o o o o

rs) o rH ^ rsi rs] o o o

O O t—

o o o

o o o

o o o

O <—I 1—

o o o o o o

o o o o

O rH —I O

o o

r-J ^ -—

Ln oo

LO o

CTi O Cn O Osl\0 t--- to

1—I r-- CTi

t000OO\OO'^t0

rOCNJr-.rHUOr-lrHa^ coooocntovOLO-^

r^OLocH'^tor--'—

tO's*Orvli-HvO(^0

ooco30oooooor-~oo

CO ''^ rH O ^

LOvOtOrHO^tOr^O

LOLOOr^-^OtOrH*^

r-- r-- i-H to to O OO

un \0 to lo

LO LO O 1—

LO lo \0 o

o o o

o o o o o o o

COw

J Ju

a. a o a 1

w

a

to to o

^ LO .—

r-- «^ to o to ^ to o

r-- CO ro 'Tt

rsjtOfOtooor--o^i-H OvOrv)or--cnooo OCTir^r--\or^oor^

rO to to to to rO to to

^r--or~-ooO'—(O

OCTitocnt^MDrsirsi OocTiooooor^^ LOOLOLOLOO^OO

':J-00"^'^'*tOCOOO

Lnr--.oor--cTioor—to^

vO O vO

tOLnrsjr-.tOi-H'^f'.D oocri\D'^Oi—itoi—

^OLOOOCTiOOCn

r--r--\Or^oor-.r~-r^

CO LO CO LO

(Nj CTi en

rO LO rv] t~-- oo CTi o ^ t~-- ^ o un CT) oj

r--

eg r-- to -^rt i-H

i-HtNlOOOO^OOa^LO

LOLorxji—ir^LOLTjo

r-.—<ooo^\OcjiO~ioo

o o ^

rsj i_o rsi

>o O O

CO to LO

un r-, o o o

O to rO

fN] rsj o

\D O O O

O to CTi O O O

ooooot^rNjLDLn

'X^i-OCTinHrslrOi-nO r--oor-.oooocTia^ai

or^O'^^rHoo^o'^J oot^ooo^ooco o r-- i-H LO .—I to to CTityir-jrvj^rvjcooO

toi-0\OLOi~~~-r^L0\O cnoor--oooooo

o to r-- o

Tt LO to

; \0 rH CO \D

LO (N) \J3 to

I to LO \0 LO o

, CO r-- o

Cu Dh 4-> CD <U U

CO CO o g

o r-- o a> r (Ni rsi ,H S

CX 4-» 0 U u

U~} o o a Q, +^

<L> (D U

to CO O

U >-i i-< III

) O, D. -t-J 0 O <D U

1 CO CO O

t CX, 4-> >

£ 0) 0) U O

I C/5 CO O 2

50
APPENDIX B

61
APEEMDIX B

Table 31

Trends in Busway Bus Assianinents and Patronage (^rovrth

NUMBER OF BUSES MONTH

OF

COUNT

SOITTH OF SHIRLINGTCWSHTRI TNRTnN rd\ DUO

Sep

39 39 53 UC L . 40 40 54 Nov. 42 42 53

Dec. 42 42 59 Jan. 70 42 42 54

Feb. 44 44 S3 Mar. 44 44 53 Apr. 48 48 51 May 48 48 50 June 48 48 52 July 49 49 50 Aug. 49 49 49

Sep. 51 49 100 43

Oct. 53 49 102 45

Nov. 55 48 103 46

Dec. 55 48 103 47

Feb. 71 62 48 110 46

Apr. 66 42 92 201 46 May 67 47 97 212 45 June 103 52 95 250 42 July 103 53 96 252 40

Aug. 106 51 89 247 41

Sep. 106 53 96 255 43

Oct. 109 57 Nov. 111 55 93 260 46

Jan. 72 114 55 88 257 48

Feb. 121 56 93 270 46

Mar. 133 55 Apr. 135 57 Nby 136 57 93 286 46 June 149 58 July 148 62 Aug. 151 57 Sep. 159 58 Oct. 170 58 Nov. 177 57 Dec. 178 58 90 326 45

Jan. 73 180 58 Mar. 199 54 Apr. 204 55 90 349 40

f'lay 202 55 June 199 56

PASSENGERS soum OF SHIRLINGTON

SHIRLINCTON PENTAGON

2,095

2,166

2,235

2,058 2,290

2,364

2,375 2,456

2,412

2,504

2,469

2,408 2,507

2,688

2,818 2,856

3,177

3,482

3,422

4,474

4,398

4,679

5,118

5,551 5,850

6,223

6,237

6,724

6,760

6,994

6,937

7,074

7,722

7,641

8,497

8,630

9,029

8,379

9,259

8,814

9,473

9,729

1,816

1,944

1,987 1,991

1,976

1,689 4,165

2,072 4,226

2,134 4,009

1,847 3,956

1,889 3,699

2,016 3,930

2,342

2,363 3,819

2,464 3,817

2,344 3,894

2,397

2,383

2,320 4,088

2,189

2,508 2,309

2,121

2,275

2,148 2,113 3,680

2,144

2,046

1,921 3,441

2,233

2,140

62
APPENDIX C

63
Appendix C

Cost Allocation Study

In order to explore in more detail the economic impacts of the project service, monthly

system costs and revenues were allocated by line and by type of service - peak and off-peak.

The procedures utilized to allocate costs were developed by Mr. D.H. James, Transit

Consultant, Reston, Virginia and are based upon his observations and experience. The procedure can be summarized as follows:

1. The bus company posts monthly expenses for the project service in accordance with

a chart of accounts established by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission (WMATC). A definition of each

account is provided in Table 32.

2. The allocation procedure is used to distribute total monthly (or other period)

expenses in these accounts among each line for peak and off-peak periods of the

V. day. The allocation is made on the basis of five factors (or parameters):

a. Total miles (revenue and non-revenue) - by line peak and off-peak

< ' b. Platform hours! _ "by line, peak and off-peak

c. Passengers - by line, peak and off-peak

- d. Number of bus vehicles - by line, peak service only

e. Number of operators - by line, peak service only.

The first three parameters are used to allocate certain variable costs; the last two

parameters to allocate certain fixed or semi-fixed costs. Mr. James has established an allocation methodology which has been used herein to estimate the relative contribution to

the accounts by each of the five parameters. For example, 58% of account kllO (Supervision

of Shops and Garage) is likely to be explained by route mileage, and k2% by the number of

vehicles required to service the route. The percentage allocations developed by Mr. James

are listed in Table 33.

Total expenses in each account have been distributed among the five parameters in

accordance with these percentages. For each route, by peak period (and off-peak if

applicable )» total (revenue and non-revenue) miles, platform hours, number of operators

(required for peak service), number of vehicles (required for peak service), and number of

passengers have been determined and each has been expressed as a percentage of the total

(Project system) level for that parameter. Those percentages are used to allocate the

total expenses in each account which have been broken down by parameter type. Siimmaries of

expenses allocated by each parameter are presented in Table 33.

Table 3^ displays the changes in parameter values, costs allocated by each parameter,

percent of total cost allocated by each parameter, and parameter unit costs from the last

half of 1971 to the last half of 1972. In the latter half of 1972, 39-'^% of the total

costs were allocated to peak' service alone (peak period vehicles and peak, period operators)

versus kl.k% for the last half of 1971. The net result is that in 1972 about Q2% of the

project service costs were allocated to peak operations versus 80% for the last half of 1971.

Total costs do not include depreciation on projec^ bus vehicles, diversion payments or management fees paid to the AB&W Transit Company.

Platform hours include all running and layover time.

Diversion payments were made to compensate the AB&W Transit company for passengers diverted

from non-project to project routes. With the acquisition of AB&W by WMATA in February 1973

these payments and the management fees were discontinued.

6h
I—

I

z

u

oo

in

r-t a

S

0) •H

d ^-

cd lu n!

1-1 Q,i-I CO w w

(U <D s a

(U (1>

OJ (jj 0) w

ifl (/) S to tn Q (U 4> <1> O O ?7 CS £ 4J +J W •»-> OJ rH O f< US' cfl ,C PJ M GO <u >s ^ ' C U3- P.

. 0) o

in U 0) »->

. cS 00 c8 ^ j2 nS .-I U O OJ I- p

(S (2 o

c c:

J8

C C C C d c c

o o o o o o o

•H -H -H -rt -H -H .H

+J 4J +J *J 4J <J

cd cti cd Cd CTJ 03 ct3 •H -H -H -H -H -H -rl u o u o u u c;

(U (1) O 4) 4) (U (D

!h in ^ !^ )-i »-i El, D< p> a. 1^ 1^

COwCO6

0)

t- M

in

(1> O,OU

a,

1-1 0)

CL, H

(-1 13

0) cd O

4) 1/1 C (U •H t/l C O CU <n u

C

o

<n

(-. (U Oh

0)

(U X (fl M CO (U

cd E- ><

•(-> ro

1/1 1—I E—

'

W .-IO !-

r-l U H

CO >sX

0) CO 4-> CU o

cd

•(-> I

a

I CSI

I ^ <

i-lrMM«a'\OOOOi-(fNl(Sl{MLOLOvOvOtOtO

1-Hi-ii-ii—ii-HfMto^LOi-nLOLnLOLnLnmi^t^oo

sO vO vO ^0 vO\000\OvDOOvOvOO\0^00 r-H (SI K5 »:)- LO Cn o o o o o o o Lo Lo Lo Lo Lo Ln m

o o o o o 1—I (Ni K) un

<NI Csl CNl <NI CSJ Ln LO LO LO LT) O i-H

COu

y5

U3-

I

(L>

cd O cd CUU O C3 « 0) O -H ^< 00 £ uD- i. US' <U CO

tfl f. 5 1-1

. CU 0) a, o td o c« o a, o o js , CO Mh CO •U3' c o o o _

0) cd _ o, a. (u o. oox: 3 <u a, 0) -H 4J CO ce; O OS -J O

O cd Ph

4-1 (U o

in CO

(- « •H •»-> t-r Cd £ «

(U a> B S g

o o o o

cd cd cd

(u oj 0£ OS

t

C 2 (U 0) c - C -H >

0) O (D I > u OS

<U t/1 OS CH (U C O XI O 3

1/1 (i -H us P O H > -H )/l Cd o > 0) a. o Sh ^

(u a> <u -H

OS OS C/T H

0)

i-1 H C

cd Cd 1)

"cd "cd 6"

CO CO w

HH

g) g)U

•H •!-( t/l cn <L> (L>

• H 0) -H

+-I W H

!-i !-> cd

OJ ^ 1-1 > oo cd 6 -H CA) < CO

I I I c c O O t/l i/l •H -H (U (h

4-1 !-> r-H (U

Cd Cd 3 "+H 4-1 <-> T3 (/I •H -H <U C o o c3 •H -H L) }h rH i-H CO H o o

C/i CO uff usr U O w

• H -H CH 4-1 CH M-i M-l <U

M-l <+H -H ^ cd cd cj

5-1 J-l cd -H H H H H

1

o I< tn CO w _

00 00 H -H

1/) (/) •H -H

4-> 4-1

d) (L) (U

!-i ^-i ^ x: O -H -H 4-> S [i, PL, o

o o o o i-( rsi «*

1-1 to Ti- vO vo vO

r-j fs) CNi r-g <N) csi (sj

i-t ^ CJl i-H

1-1 i-H i-H to

to to to to ^ -a- 'SCO w I I o o o o o o tH 1-H to t-^ ^ 'S- 'S- O O O 1-1 O 1-H O 1—I csj to t-^ t-- c»

LO LO LO LO LO LO LO

6S
Table 33

Percentage Contributions to Variations in Transit Expenses

ACCOUNT 1 PARAMETERS

HOURS OPERATORS VEHICLES PASSENGERS

TOTAL AM3UNT

NUMBER MILES LAST HALF

1971

FIRST HALF

1972

LAST HALF

1972

H ±±\J oo 42 5,202. 6,444. 7,625.

41H J. 71J. DO 42 169. 351. 419.

41't J. 7?^ ^ QO 10 249. 520. 723.

41 7R D\J 50 118. 481. 1,380.

Do 42 2,428. 2,806. 3,678.

41 "^7 50 9,280. 13,489. 20,048.

41 40 xuu 1 00 11,076. 32,607. 36,806.

4145 1 on 791. 7,774. 4,848.

4146 ion 100. 243. ( 8,227.)

4147 1 on 100 ( 1,117.) ( 6,303.) ( 5,925.)

4150 100 27,569. 37,755. 53,678.

4160 100 3,692. 6,312. 10,738.

4210 80 20 11,267. 16,664. 22,450.

4711 oUftO ^U70 6,320. 9,648. 11,953.

67 "^3 167,517. 269,932. 415,809.

1 nn ±UU 12,076. 19,825. 29,877.

xUU 494. 1,656. 1,597.

A 7 A/1 25 75 3,717. 6,664. 7,950,

/I 71 1 100 3,244. 5,534. 8,533.

100 30. 39. 57.

4'^1 Q 4 jiy 100 0. 9. 0.

.4/110 441U . . ., .

. ..... . .

. ^, ^ 100

44jU 95 5 8,948. 15,018. 13,992.

444n 100 117. 867. 1,137.

4470 100 743. 0.

4t;i n LD7^ 25 50 839. 1,623. 2,426.

JJ77 67 9,906. 17,001. 22,090.

4';4i 110A 3 71 9 1 939. 1,461. . 2,562.

HO / U 100 3,954. 692. . 5,268.

4';71 ';o sotj u 187. 338. 624.

4i;sn tooU xuu 100 68. 234; 512.

461

100 703. 1,468. 319.

461 7 100 61. 43. 22.

461 "5 cD 10 10xu 75 6,365. 10,221. 14,784.

461 4 co 10 xu10 75 4,193. 4,708. 4,605.

461 40XD co 10xu 1 0 75 12. 14. 45.

4670 xu1 0 90 519. 524. 2,523.

40jU co 1 n 1xun 75 504. 1,260. 1,453.

4640 100 815.- 1,210. 2,299.

46';i cD X10u xu10 75 814. 1,971. 2,519.

46i;7 1XD 0 /X Q 1 18,614. 37,410. 39,671.

4fic:c QOoU 70zu 1,614. 2,538. 3,478.

46';6 c3 xu xu1 n 75 917. 1,628. 2,083.

100 670. 1,479. 595.

40 / 4 90 ^U ^lU 70zu 20 1,540. 5,807. 786.

^m 1 c0 1X 0u xu1 n 75 78. 588. 910.

juox onyu If) xu 544. 833. 1,104.

jU4X c;o.i 1 bo 47 194. 231. 241.

jUOX ';o';i co 10 10 75 353. 506. 712.

OU / X Do 42 476. 622. 518.

'^71 0 1xuunn 6,947. 9,033. 2,761.

t;770 zo7 75 1,056. 10,554. 4,145.

JZ ou 100 2,813. 12,812. 4,176.

t;740 100 12,487. 23,754. 29,839.

5250 100 286. 415. 615.

4320 100 12,875. 13,053. 12,890.

5321 100 528. 433. 1,294.

Parentheses indicates refund for period, usually an adjustment.
O

1/1

^ H <Ni O c/^ t-^

lilt H O a>

D. H -(

CO

gI—

I

s

O

CO

I—

0

LO i-H 0 LO 0

LO 0 ^0 0

iH M

SO 00

1—1 00 0 • 0 LO tn 0

1-H

\Q

to rH r-H

00 00 rH

to 00

rH rH

LO 0 cn

to

1—

(

I-H H rH

t

LO LO rH to 0

LO to f-.

0*1 0 rH LO 00

CM

0^ rH 0

00 00 to I-H 00 00 CNl 00

to

LO 0 0 to

LO LO

^0 LO

to LO 10

J

^ j

0 rH vO to NO

i-H to

to

'd-

(/) tn

(U 1—

1

j

1 rH u•1-1

Ve C, 0^

0 0

•H •H

fH ^<

0)

1 CU

Nor 0 a, X Mh U tr. 0 0 0 0 (50 U )h c g 0 rH

(-> 0 If) re

re > VI M 1—1 ClJ 0

C£ z H

67
I

\

» -

'l
APPENDIX D

68

APPENDIX D

PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING REDUCTION IN AUTO USAGE

The basic elemen-cs of the auto reduction estimating procedure are l) the busway

passenger counts and 2) an analysis of the 'previous mode" responses of the 1971 bus

commuters survey. The analysis of the former mode responses of the 1971 bus rider survey

provided parameter values which were applied to the busway passenger counts to estimate

auto usage reduction. Elements of the procedure are discussed below.

Use of Busway Counts and "Other" Bus Patronage Estimates

In estimating auto reduction stimulated by the demonstration project, it was necessary

to estimate the number of autos which would have used Corridor highways if the demonstration

project had not been undertaken. To obtain this estimate of auto reduction required an estimate of what busway patronage would have been without the project. Bus patronage levels

pn Shirley Highway bus routes a,t the times of busway service initiation were taken as the

estimate of what bus patronage would have been without the demonstration project.

Busway service was first initiated in September 1969 when the established bus routes

originating south of Shirlington Circle were rerouted onto the completed sections. The

first busway count (taken in September I969) is taken as an estimate of what bus patronage

on south of Shirlington routes would have been in the absence of a busway. In September

1970 busway entrances at Shirlington Circle became operational and Shirlington area bus

routes were admitted to the busway. The September 1970 busway count is taken as an estimate of what patronage for Shirlington area routes would have been if no busway

existed. The sum of these Shirlington and south of Shirlington passenger counts represents the hypothetical patronage level for WMATA Shirley Highway buses without the

demonstration project. "Other" buses also began busway service in September 1969;

pre-busway patronage estimates for these buses, taken from the appropriate company

records and dispatcher notes for 1969, are assumed to represent the hypothetical patronage

of "Other" Shirley Highway buses without the project. (See Table 35 for pre-busway

patronage estimates.)

Table 35

Bus Patronage on Shirley Highway Routes - September 1969,1970

WMATA

(PROJECT AND

NON-PROJECT)

"OTHER"

BUSES

September I969 Busway

Patronage south of Shirlington 2100 ii50

September 1970 Busway

Patronage at Shirlington 1820

Total 3920 U50

Non-Busway and Auto Diversion

The additiofial bus riders on the busway routes have come from non-busway (non-Shirley

Highway) routes and from autos. The diversion from non-busway bus routes to all busway

routes is estimated using a sample of responses of commuters on NVTC buses to the October

1971 bus commuter survey "former mode choice" question . 2 Estimates for the number of autos

'This actually overstates the hypothetical patronage for the no busway condition since some of the persons counted on these routes in September I969 (and September 1970) were attracted

by the provision of a busway.

'Former mode choice refers to the means of transportation used by an individual prior to

using busway service. 59
removed from the highways as a function of diverted auto users are based on an analysis of

former mode responses of commuters on all busses surveyed.-^

The survey form contained six responses to the former mode question:

1. did not make this trip (from my present home to my present Job location)

2. drove my car (carried no passengers)

3. was a driver carrying passengers

k. was an alternate driver

3. was an auto passenger

6. used another bus (specify route and bus company)

Those who reported that they did not previously make the trip (which includes people who

failed to respond to the former mode choice question) were assumed to have former mode

characteristics similar to all others . interviewed. Responses in Category (l) therefore

will not be treated explicitly in this analysis, but rather attention will focus on replies

which fell into categories (2) through (6).

There were 666 persons interviewed' for former mode on NVTC buses; of those that re- sponded in categories (2) through (6), 90 reported that they had previously used a non- Shirley Highway bus. This implies that in October 1971, 13.5 percent (90/666), of the

project bus sample were diverted bus users. ^ This percentage was applied to the October 1971

busway patronage estimate to obtain an estimate of passengers diverted from non-Shirley

Highway bus routes. This estimate of riders diverted from non-Shirley Highway routes was subtracted from the October 1971, October 1972 and June 1973 busway patronage counts. 5 Auto reduction as a function of diverted auto users is estimated using the following

interpretive scheme (for categories (2) through (6)). For every respondent in (2), one fewer vehicle is in use. One half of those persons who drove with passengers (3), and one

out of every six alternate drivers {k) are presumed to represent diverted vehicles. Auto

passengers (5) and former bus riders (6) have no effect on auto volumes since they did not

previously drive autos. The sample of bus users interviewed for former mode whose responses

are summarized in the aforementioned categories is represented in Table 36 (excluding those

who did not previously make the trip (category l), and those who used another bus (category 6)).

Thus, given these assumptions, the 315 former auto users represent 190 diverted autos; or, for every 5 auto commuters attracted to the bus, 3 autos are diverted from the highways

(190/315=60^). The ratio of diverted motorists to diverted autos was the same' for riders

on the "Other" buses (U6/77=60^).

.

. . .

'

, . Table 36

Former Auto Users and Diverted Autos

CATEGORY RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 71

SURVEY FORMER MODE QUESTION"^

WMATA BUSES "OTHER" BUSES

NUMBER OF AUTOS DIVERTED

WMATA BUSES "OTHER" BUSES

Drove alone

Drove w/passengers

Alternate driver

Auto passenger

Total

167 39

26 -5

57 22

65 11

315 77

167 39

13 3

10 k

0 0

190 h6

Excluding "did not make trij!' and "used another bus" categories

Not each former auto user represents an auto removed from the highways, since he might have

been an auto passenger, or a participant in a car pool.

This does not include persons who were diverted from the other busway buses since shifts

from one busway route to another have no effect on total busway patronage. Also, Colonial

Transit, Continental Trailways, and Greyhound commuter buses serve regions outside the Corridor, and do not board passengers at stops in competition with non-busway routes. Only a few WMATA Arlington buses use the busway; thus their effect on diversion, if any, is slight.

'implicit in this procedure is the assumption that maximum diversion over the life of the

project occurred with the inauguration of busway bus service. This assumption will be

tested during the Fall 1973 bus survey.
71
APPEUDIX E

- ' Details of Air Pollution Reduction Computations

The following series of 6 tables contain the statistics and computations leading to

the estimates in paragraph 3.6 for reductions in air pollution due to the demonstration

project

Tables 37 through h2 and Figure 12 correspond to the air pollution reduction analysis

outlined in 3-6, and are labeled accordingly. The total amount of air pollution reduction

attributable to the demonstration project is an estimated I962 tons of carbon monoxide,

19^ tons of exhaust hydrocarbons, I36 yons of nitrogen oxides, and 75 tons of evaporative

crankcase hydrocarbons.

72
Table 37

Jnadiusted Air Pollution Rmission Rates By Vehicle Model Year

MODEL YEAR CARBON HYDROCARBONS NITROGEN HYDROfARRONS

MONOXIDE rpXHAIIST^ r FVA PORATTVF ^ gr/mile gr/mile gr/mile gr/mile

1963 ^ earlier 87 8.8 3 6 3 8 1964 87 8,8 3 6 3.8

1965 87 8.8 3.6 3.8

1966 87 8.8 3.6 3.8

1967 87 8.8 3.6 3.8

1968 46 4.5 4.3 3.0

1969 39 4.4 5.5 3.0

1970 36 8.6 5.7 3.0

1971 34 2.9 4.8 0.5

1972 19 2.7 4.6 0.2

1973 19 2.7 4.6 0.2

Table 38

Deterioration Factors for Exhaiast Pollution Control Devices

MODEL YEAR CARBON NDNOXIDE HYDROCARBONS NITROGEN OXIDES

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

1967 5 earlier 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

1968 1.47 1.53 1.58 1.23 1.26 1.28 1.00 1.00 1.00

1969 1.59 1.63 1.68 1.18 1.21 1.23 1.00 1.00 1.00

1970 1.32 1.38 1.40 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00

1971 1.18 1.32 1.38 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00

1972 1.00 1.18 1.32 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00

1973 1.00 1.18 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00

73
Table 30

"Adjusted" Air Pollution Emission Rates

MODEL YEAR CARBON NDNOXIDE HYDROCARBONS (EXHAUSTl NITROGEN OXIDE HYDROCARBONS (EVAPORATIVE)

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jim 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 (Grams /Mile) (Grams /Mile) (Grams /Mile) (Grams/Mile)

1953 Q earlier 87.0 87.0 87. 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8

1964 87.0 87.0 87 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8

1065 87.0 87.0 87. 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8

1966 87.0 87.0 87 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8

1967 87.0 87.0 87. 0 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8

1968 67.6 70.4 72 7 5.5 5.7 5.8 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.0 3.0

1969 62.0 63.6 65. 5 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.0

1970 47.5 49.7 50 4 9.5 9.7 9.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 3.0 3.0 3.0

1971 40.1 44.9 46 9 3.0 3.2 3.3 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.5 0.5 0.5

1972 22.4 25 1 2.8 3.0 4.6 4.6 0.2 0.2

1973 22 4 2.8 4.6 0.2

, Table 40

"Typical" Vehicle (Weighted) Air Pollution Emission Rates

MODEL YEAR CARBON MONOXIDE HYDROCARBON (EXHAUST) NITROGEN OXIDE HYDROCARBONS (EVAPORATIVE)

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73 Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

(Grajns/Mile) (Grams /Mile) (Grams /Mile) (Grams /Mile)

1963 5 earlier 6.3 3.7 2. 5 0.6 0 4 0 .3 0 3 0.2 0 1 0.3 0.2 0.1

1964 2.4 2.6 3 7 0.2 0 3 0 4 0 1 0.1 0 2 0.1 0.1 0.2

1965 4.4 2.4 2 6 0.4 0 2 0 3 0 2 0.1 0 1 0.2 0.1 0.1

1966 5.8 4.4 2. 4 0.6 0 4 0 2 0 2 0.2 0 1 0.3 0.2 0.1

1967 8.7 5.8 4. 4 0.9 0. 6 0 4 0 4 0.2 0 2 0.4 0.3 0.2

1968 8.9 7.0 4. 9 0.7 0 6 0 4 0 6 0.4 0. 3 0.4 0.3 0.2

1969 ' 9.4 8.4 6. 6 0.8 0 7 0 5 0. 8 0.7 0. 6 0.5 0.4 0.3

1970 9.2 7.5 6 7 1.8 1. 5 1 3 1. 1 0.9 0 8 0.6 0.5 0.4

1971 8.3 8.7 7. 1 0.6 0 6 0. 5 1. 0 0.9 0. 7 0.1 0.1 0.1

1972 4.6 4. 8 0. 6 0. 6 0.8 0. 9 0.0 0.0

1973 : 4. 6 0. 6 0. 9 0.0

Typical

Vehicle 63.4 55.1 50. 3 6.6 5. 9 5. 5 4. 7 4.6 4. 9 2.9 2.2 1.7

74
COw

M

S

W

o

M

K

E-i

I Ehw•-3 o

K

o

o

W

1 9 10 11 12 13 13+

VEHICLE AGE (YEARS)

Source: Unpublished Data from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Figure 12. Distribution By Vehicle Age of- Vehicle Miles Traveled Within the Washington Metropolitan Area. ^

75
Table hi

Distributions of Corridor Peak Period Speeds and Volumes ,

30 MINUTE AVERAGE SPEED PERCENT OF TOTAL VOLUME^

Mar 71 Mar 72 Mar 73 Jun 73 Mar 71 Mar 72 Mar 73 Jun 73

6:31-7:00

7:01-7:30

7:31-8:00

8:01-8:30

8:31-9:00

29.23 26.17 22.36 39.32

15.53 13.69 13.99 30.75

11.57 12.30 10.49 29.23

13.12 12.85 11.70 35.99

36.33 29.48 22.64 50.66

22.0 27.5 25.1 21.9

20.5 21.4 19.4 21.2

19.5 17.5 17.7 20.8

18.6 15.8 17.0 20.0

19.6 17.8 20.8 16.1

^Columns may not total 100 percent because of rounding

Table h2

Corridor Peak Period Auto Emission Rates

30 MINUTE

INTERVAL CARSON MDNdliffi

*' HYDROCARBONS (EXHAJST) NITROGEN OXIDE HYDROCARBONS (EVAPORATIVE)^

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

(Grams/Mile)

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

(Grams/Mile)

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

(GramsA^^ile)

Oct 71 Oct 72 Jun 73

(Grams/Mile)

6:31-7:00

7:01-7:30

7:31-8:00

8:01-8:30

8:31-9:00

Typical

Vehicle

11.2 13.6 7.8

16.4 15.2 10.3

17.1 13.5 11.0

15.7 11.8 9.3

8.1 8.3 - 4.7

68.5 62.4 43.1

1.2 1.5 0.9

1.6 1.5 1.1

1.7 1.3 1.2

1.5 1.2 1.0

0.9 0.9 0.6

6.9 6.4 4.8

1.2 1.4 1.2

0.9 0.9 0.3

0.8 0.7 0.3

0.8 0.7 0.3

1.1 0.9 1.0

4.8 4.6 3.1 2.9 2.2 1.7

76
APPENDIX F

77
APPENDIX F

Inventory of Project Route Mileages and Travel Times

Included in this appendix are definitions for the various bus route components [a)

suburban collection and distribution, b) line haul, and c) downtown collection and distribution] for the different bus route destinations [l) Farragut Square (only), 2) Southwest

^ Terminal, 3) Pentagon (only), and h) Farragut Square via the Pentagon]. The route distances

(mileage) for each of the three portions of the four route types are displayed in Table U3.

The associated times required to traverse the distance listed in the table are given in

Table hh . The percent of the total route travel time required by each route component is

also exhibited. Table shows average travel speed for the entire route and each segment

of the route for the four types of bus destinations.

Note that for most routes, barely one-third of the total travel time is spent, in the

line haul portion (on the busway). Thus, while busway speeds are high the contribution

they make to the overall trip speed is slight; see Table U5.

' ' - Definition of Terms

I. Bus Route Destinations - A.M. Peak Period Operations

a. Farragut Square - Bus routes serving only Farragut Square (see d)

b. Southwest Terminal - Bus routes with Southwest Terminal destinations

c. Pentagon - Bus routes serving only the Pentagon (see d)

d. Farragut Square and Pentagon - Bus routes serving both the Pentagon and Farragut

Square

II. Route Distance Components

a. Suburban collection and distribution distance - for all destinations - the distance

from the beginning of the route until the last stop (LS) before bus enters the

' ,. Shirley Highway. (For route ITG buses , the last stop before bus enters route 1-^95

(Beltway).)

b. Line haul distance

1. For Farragut Square (only) and Southwest Terminal destinations - the distance

from the LS to lUth and C streets, S.W. (Please note that this distance

includes some arterial and residential street distance - from the LS until

the entrance to Shirley Highway - as well as any distance traversed on the

regular lanes of the Shirley Highway until buses can enter the reserved lane

of the highway (busway).)

- " 2. For Pentagon (only) bus destinations - the distance from the LS to the Shirley

Highway exit for Pentagon bound traffic

3- For Farragut Square and Pentagon destinations - the distance from the LS to

- the exit of the Shirley Highway for Pentagon bound traffic, plus the distance

from the entrance of the Shirley Highway (for traffic coming from Pentagon) to

lUth and C Streets, S.W. , . c. Downtown collection and distribution distance

1. For Farragut Square (only) destinations - the distance from l^ith and C Streets,

S.W. to ITth and K Streets, N.W. (Please note that AB&W and NVTC published

schedules give 20th and Eye Streets as the location of Farragut Square. The

17th and K Streets location was thought to be a more realistic description of

the terminus for Farragut Square bound buses.)

2. For Southwest Terminal destinations - the distance from lUth and C Streets,

S.W. to the southwest terminal on D Street, near 9th St., S.W.

3. For Pentagon (only) destinations - the distance from the exit of the Shirley

Highway (for Pentagon bound traffic) to the Pentagon.

h. For Farragut Square and Pentagon destinations - the distance from the exit of

the Shirley Highway (for Pentagon bound traffic) to the Pentagon, and that from

the Pentagon back to the entrance of the Shirley Highway, plus the distance from

lUth and C Streets, S.W. to ITth and K Streets, N.W.

"''All distances were scaled from an AAA map of Northern Virginia.

78
III. Route Travel Time Components

a. Suburban collection and distribution time, line haul time, downtown collection and

distribution time - For the distances defined in Section 2 , the travel time is

the time required to travel those distances (from the published schedule of bus

routes produced by AB&W). In those cases where the published schedule does not

explicitly list the time the bus arrives at a given checkpoint (i.e., LS, ikth

& C St., etc. ), estimates were made from the available information in the

schedule. Four minutes was assumed as the time requirement for buses to travel

from 20th and Eye Streets to ITth and K Streets.

Table 1+3

Revenue Trip Distances for Project Bus Routes (Miles!

ROUTES DESTINATION SUBURBAN LINE DOWNTOWN TOTAL

COLLECTION § HAUL COLLECTION § MILES

DISTRIBUTION MILES DISTRIBUTION

MTT FQ MTT F"^

2G Farragut Square 8.3 8.1 2.6 19.0

2G Farragut Square § Pentagon 8.3 8.1 3.7 20.1

3G Farragut Square ^ Pentagon 1.0 6.5 3.7 11.2

4G Farragut Square 4.7 8.5 2.6 15.8

4H Pentagon 9.7 7.1 0.8 17.6

6G Farragut Square 3.2 4.8 2.6 10.6

7G Farragut Square 3.1 6.5 2.6 12.2

8G Farragut Square 2.2 6.5 2.6 11.3

17G Farragut Square 5.3 14.0 2.6 21.9

17G Pentagon 5.3 12.1 0.8 17.2

17M S.W. Terminal 9.9 8.5 1.3 19.7

18G Farragut Square 7.2 12.1 2.6 21.9

18M S.W. Terminal 9.7 10.5 1.3 21.5

19G Farragut Sqpare 4.8 6.5 2.6 13.9

79
(D -p

7io

fc;w

1^ eq

-po

(Uo

u

o

w

(U rH •H X) EH

Oj E- H

(U>

u

EH

(D H

u

CO

g

CO

W

1

ootNiooooi-oo'*<NjoocT>i^iHcno

LOvo^o=d-•T^-'*v^"*Ln^OLOvol-ou^

l-0<Nl\OtO\00'v)-OLO(NIOOvOO

\0 OOvOr<l\0v0^\0(N00vO00vO

t—l(Nl(NlrH I—It—li—li—I I—I !-H

LOOOrsJtO'vl-LOOO'^i-HbOi—(CsJ^O

rHi—li—IrHrHi—li-Hi—IrSlOsl^rvJOsl^

OOCslK)01-OC«vO'*l-nCT)00000

LorsihOfOi—icNii—(ooairoi>-t---oo

vOvoi-0\o(NiK3'^(vii>^i>.rorooo

o o

Cd CTj 4-1 +-> d CI 0 0)

u!7 u£r

(U 0 (U <D

>H !h >H >-( oj 03 03 cr cr cr cr

CO CO CO

0 0 0) 0)

^-1 !-l f-l 03 cti o3 03 :2 zi ^ :i cr cr cr cr

CO CO C/D CO

0 0)

Oj I—I Oj 3 03 3

cr C cr

CO -H CO

+-> +->

o3 o3 o3 o3

f-4 ^ ^ U

fH ^ fH

o3 oJ o3

PL, Ph PL, [JL,

M C -M 4-> -M (-> C 330333300) 00 GO bO OO DO DO bo OOH

03 03

03 03

3 0) Boh

03

03 tlHpL,pL,tL,pL,C/5tL,COP-,

(-3 S U OO 00 CT)

80
Table

Average Speeds for Project Bus Routes

DAI I'l'L' JJcbllNAlION SUBURBAN LINE DOWN 1 OWN nrTYV A T lUlAL

COLLECTION q HAUL COLLECTION q M.P.H.

DISTRIBUTION M.P.H. DISTRIBUl ION

M.P.H. M.P.H.

2G

- Farragut Square 19.2 30.4 9.8 19.7

2G Farragut Square § Pentagon 19.2 30.4 11.1 19.4

3G Farragut Square § Pentagon 12.0 30.0 11.1 17.7

4G Farragut Square 17.6 31.8 9.8 19.7

4H Pentagon 18.2 38.7 24.0 23.4

6G Farragut Square 14.8 26.2 9.8 15.9

7G Farraput Sauare 13.

7

27.8 9.8 16. 7 8G Farragut Square 11.0 27.8 9.8 16.2

17G Farragut Square 18.7 33.6 9.8 22.6

17G Pentagon 18.7 36.3 24.0 26.4

17M S.W. Terminal 18.0 31.8 9.8 20.5

18G Farragut Square 18.8 33.0 9.8 21.5

18M S.W. Terminal 19.4 30.0 9.8 21.9

19G Farragut Square 14.4 27.8 9.8 16.7

81