August 1975

cvaiuafion

e%f the

^iiirivjf rii^iiwujf

Express - Bus - on - Freeway

Demonstration Project/

Final Report

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

U S Deoartment of Transoortotlon

Washington, D.C. 20591

Report DOT/UMTA 7

EVALUATION OF THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY EXPRESS-BUS-ON FREEWAY

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT - FINAL REPORT

James T. McQueen, David M. Levinsohn, Robert Waksman and Gerald K. Miller Technical Analysis Division

U. S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

August 1975

Prepared for

URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION

Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C. 20591

PREFACE

This final report is the culmination of series of documents comprising an evaluation

of the Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project. The evaluation effort

undertaken for the Urban Mass Transportation Adminstration (UMTA) , U. S. Department of

Transportation, by the Technical Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of Commerce, extended over four years - beginning in early 1971 and ending in

1975.

The program began with the development of a research plan which conformed to generally

accepted experimental design practice and at the same time was feasible to implement in the

field and fell within prescribed budgetary constraints. The development of this plan was coordinated by Ralph E. Schofer of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) , with the

participation of Ronald Fisher (UMTA), Dr. Alan Goldman (NBS), James M. McLynn and Robert

Watkins (DTM Inc., Bethesda Md.), Dr. Peter Sherrill, (Consultant, San Francisco, California),

Dr. Martin Wachs, (University of California, Los Angeles); Stanley Price (UMTA) and

John Crain (Consultant, Menlo Park, California).

When the research design was being conceived, the planners could scarcely have

anticipated an economic recession with consequent decline of employment; the 1973-74 oil

oil embargo and the accompanying fuel shortages and price increases/general inflation; and

the resulting increase in importance of public transport and car pooling. These external

events caused some rearrangement of priorities, and (along with the discernment of clearly

improved ways of accomplishing some objectives) resulted in plan modification during the

implementing of the evaluation. Despite these unanticipated discontinuities, the original

research plan was generally adhered to throughout the evaluation program. It was reappraised

and modified, as necessary, annually. Drs. Wachs and Goldman served as consultants to the

project team in periodic reassessment efforts to improve both methodology and reporting

procedures

.

Abolition of the Technical Analysis Division in June of 1975 somewhat curtailed

original expectations for this final report. Once it became clear in the autumn of 1974

that project personnel would be departing prior to June 1975, the report's scope had to be

reduced to permit finishing its supporting research and analysis early in the calendar

year 1975.

It is likely that the evaluation team members , although dispersed in new positions, will

in the near future produce several technical papers related to the Shirley Highway

Evaluation. In addition, mode choice research supportive of the transf errability of the

bus-on-freeway technology will be published separately late in 1975.

Gerald K. Miller served as project leader for the evaluation during its first two

years. He was succeeded by James T. McQueen, who directed the work through to its

conclusion in this final report.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this evaluation of the Shirley Highway Express Bus -on-Freeway Demonstration

Project, many individuals have contributed both their ideas and their time. Space will not

permit the recognition of all of them; however, we want to acknowledge major contributions

by the following persons:

Ronald Fisher and James Bautz of the Urban Mass Transportation Administratidn for

direction and assistance;

Perrie Nutwell and Mike Bresnahan of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

and David Erion of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission for their cooperation in

obtaining information important to the evaluation;

Ken Brown, Merrie Fraser, Faith VanderClute and others of the Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments for their diligent efforts in the collection and processing of the

data used in the evaluation; and

Colleagues at the National Bureau of Standards for their support. Significant among

them are: Keith Goodman, Richard Yates, Theodore Saks and Carol Harrison who worked on earlier phases of the evaluation; Ralph Schofer, George Suzuki and Alan Goldman who provided technical direction and analytical assistance; Dorothy Wood and Ruth Ciufolo who

prepared the draft; Elaine Bunten who assisted in the development of our commuter surveys;

and Sally Pea-vy who provided computer programming assistance.

li
ABSTRACT

The Shirley Highway Express Bus -on- Freeway Project began in June 1971 and ended

December 31, 1974. The principal goal of the project was to demonstrate that express

bus -on- freeway operations can improve the quality of bus service and lead to an increase

in the people moving capability of peak period transportation facilities for an entire

urban corridor. Secondary project goals were to demonstrate the effectiveness of this

technology as a means of reducing auto pollutant emissions and gasoline consumption,

improving the mobility of the transportation disadvantaged and the economic condition of

the transit operator.

This report summarizes project performance with respect to the attainment of the above - goal?. An analysis of bus operations is presented which shows that the project effected

an improvement in the quality of the Shirley Highway Corridor bus service as evidenced by

the reduction in travel times by bus, and the increase in both the reliability and the

coverage of the bus system. Trends in peak period traffic volumes are presented which show

that the subsequent increase in bus patronage and bus' share of Corridor commuters led to an increase in the peak period people moving capability of the Corridor. Corridor people

moving capability was also increased by project stimulated growth in carpooling.

Data from surveys of Corridor commuters were used in identifying factors important

in commuters' decisions to use bus or to carpool. Bus users who formerly had cortrouted by

auto reported that the most important factors in their decisions to switch from auto were

the expense and discomfort of commuting by auto, and the express features of project bus

service. Factors reported as most important in decisions to join or form a carpool were

reduction in commuting costs, special parking privileges for carpools, and availability of

the express busway to carpools.

The report concludes with an analysis of project performance with respect to the

secondary goals. The project resulted in significant reductions in peak period auto usage,

auto pollutant emissions and gasoline consumption. The utilization of project bus service

by transportation disadvantaged persons is discussed and project costs and revenues are

analyzed.

iii
TABLE OF COm'ENTS

PAGE

1.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS 1

1.1 Attainment of Project Objectives 1

1.2 Implications of Fijidings for Transportation Planning 3

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 6

2.1 Purpose of Report 6

•2.2 Related Reports 6

2.3 Description and Background of Project 7

2.4 Project Goals and Description of the Evaluation Program 23

3.0 IMPROVEMENT IN THE QUALITY OF BUS SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 26

3.1 Improvements in Bus Schedule Reliability 26

3.2 Comparison of Busway and Non-Busway Bus Travel Times 29

3.3 Improvement in Bus Passenger Convenience 31

3.4 Changes in Bus Passenger Comfort and Seat Availability 39

4.0 INCREASE IN PEOPLE MOVING CAPABILITY OF THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY CORRIDOR 41

4.1 Trends in Corridor Wide People Movement 41

4.2 Conparison of People Movements on Shirley Highway and Other Corridor

Arterials 47

4.3 Effectiveness of the Shirley Highway Strategies for Increasing

Corridor People Moving Capability 54

5.0 CORRIDOR CCMMUTERS AND THEIR MODE CHOICE DECISIONS 58

5.1 Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys 58

5.2 Mode Choice Decisions of Bus and Auto Commuters 62

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PROJECT 82

6.1 Reductions in Auto Usage, Auto Pollutant Emissions, and Gasoline

Consumption 82

6.2 Changes in Mobility of the Transportation Disadvantaged. 87

6.3 Economic Consequences of Project 89

7.0 CLOSURE 95

iv
APPENDICES p^j

A. Traffic Counting Program and Data 98

B. Details of Procedure for Estimating Auto Commuter Travel Time Savings 106

C. An Investigation of Potential Non- Response Bias of Survey Results 110

D. Details of Procedures for Estimating Reduction in Auto Usage 117

E. Computational Details of Estimating Reductions in Pollutant Emissions and

Gasoline Usage 120

F. Cost Allocation. 128

G. Copies of Fall 1974 Commuter Survey Questionnaire Forms. 133

V
LIST OF FIGURES

1 Elements of the Shirley Highway Express -Bus -on- Freeway Project 9

2 Shirley Highway and Entrances to the Reversible Lanes 10

3 Peak Period Bus Priority Lanes in Downtown Washington 12

4 Peak Period Bus Service in June 1971 13

5 Peak Period Bus Service in December 1974 14

6 Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area 17

7 Shirley Highway Corridor 18

8 Forecasts o£ Employment Growth in Downtown Washington, D. C 22

9 Boute 18 Schedules for July 1969 and Septeniber 1974 32

10 Fall 1971 Patronage Density by Origin Census Tract 33

11 Fall 1974 Patronage Density by Origin Census Tract 34

12 Park- and- Ride Locations , . 36

13 Origins o£ Park- and- Riders Using Two Selected Park-and-Ride Locations 37

14 Trends in Person Trips Crossing Screenline 42

15 Trends in Bus Market Share 44

16 Trends in Corridor Auto Usage 46

17 Trends in Person Trips on Shirley Highway and Other Corridor Arterials. 48

18 Trends in Bus and Auto Person Trips on Shirley Highway and Other Corridor

Arterials 49

19 Trends in Busway Patronage Growth 50

20 Trends in Busway Passengers Per Bus 51

21 Peak Hour Throu^iput on Shirley Highway 53

22 Mean Travel Times on Shirley Highway Inbound Between Turkeycock and

23 Washington Boulevard Ramps 55

23 Origins of Busway Carpoolers 71

24 Screenline Location 99

25 Distributions of Peak Period Volumes on Shirley Highway 107

26 Distribution by Age of Vehicle Miles Traveled Within the Washington

Metropolitan Area ' . . 122

vi
LIST OF TABLES

1 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Shirley Highway Corridor and

Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. SMSA 19

2 Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway Buses at First Stop in D.C. . . . 27

3 Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway Buses at Last Stop in D.C 28

4 Passengers' Responses to Bus Reliability Questions 28

5 Comparison of Scheduled Operating Speeds of Busway and Non-Busway Routes .... 29

6 'Average Busway Line Haul Speeds Between Turkeycock and Washington Boulevard. . . 30

7 Mean Reported Trip Times by Bus from Selected Corridor Origin Census Tracts

to Downtown Washington, D.C 30

8 Distributions of Bus Riders' Access and Wait Times 38

9 Estimates of Corridor Bus Market Share 43

10 Sensitivity Analysis of Bus Market Share Estijnates 45

11 Trends in Busway Carpool Usage During the A.M. Peak Hour 54

12 Trends in Busway Carpool Usage During the Entire A.M. Peak Period 54

13 Average Bus Line Haul Speeds on the Busway Between Turkeycock and Washington

Boulevard

.

57

14 Sample Rates for Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys 58

15 Response Rates from Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys 59

16 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Corridor Commuters 60

17 Selected Trip Characteristics of Corridor Commuters 61

18 Year Bus Users Began Current Service 62

19 Reported Auto Availability of Bus Users 63

20 Prior Commute Mode of "Choice" Bus Users 64

21 Reported Reasons Why "Choice" Bus Users Switched from Auto to Bus 65

22 Distributions of the Dates Auto Users Last Changed Their Place of

Residence 66

23 Distributions of the Dates Auto Users Last Changed Their Work Locations 66

24 Reasons for the Increase in Carpool Size 67

25 Reported Auto Availability for Carpoolers 67

26 Reported Alternate Mode of Carpoolers 68

vil
27 Factcrs Irtportant to "Qioice" Carpoolers When They First Decided to Join or Form Their Present Carpools 69

28 Distributions of Door-to-Door Travel Time Savings for Carpoolers 70

29 Prior Ccrtinute Mode of "Oioice" Carpoolers 72

30 Selected Trip Characteristics of Corridor Carpoolers 73

31 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Corridor Carpoolers 74

32 Factors Important to Carpool Drivers When They First Decided to Join or Form

Their Present Carpools 75

33 Factors Important to Carpool Passengers When They First Decided to Join or

Form Their Present Carpool ,. . 76

34 Last Time Drivers Alone Regularly Used A Bus to Make Present Home to Work Trip. . 77

35 Last Time Drivers Alone Regularly Used a Carpool to Make Present Home to

Work Trip 77

36 Reasons Drivers Alone Did Not Regularly Commute by Bus 78

37 Reasons Drivers Alone Did Not Regularly Commute by Carpool 79

38 Summary of Estimates of Bus -Stimulated Reduction in Auto Usage 83

39 Estimates of Daily Reductions in Auto Pollutant Emissions (Pounds) 85

40 Estimates of Yearly Reductions in Auto Pollutant Emissions (Tons) 85

41 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Users of Mid-Day Service 88

42 Selected Demographic Characteristics of Users of the Reverse Commute Service. . . 89

43 Shirley Highway Construction Costs and Estimated Busway Costs Per Mile 91

44 Summary of Project Economic Indicators 92

45 Project Operating Statistics 93

46 Trends in People Movement on Shirley Highway Compared With All Other Major

Radial Corridor Arterials 101

47 Corridor Screenline Counts by Stations 102

48 Trends in Busway Assignments and Patronage Growth 104

49 Trends in Corridor Auto Volume and Auto Occupancy 105

50 Summary of Conditions on Shirley Highway With and WitJiout Reserved Lanes

for Buses and Carpools 109

51 Distributions of Responses to Short Form Questionnaires Ill

52 Distributions of Responses to Mail Back Questionnaires 112

viil
53 Outcome of Random Selection of Non-Respondents 113

54 Distributions of Driver Alone Responses 115

55 Distributions of Carpool Driver Responses 116

56 Pre- Project Bus Patronage on Shirley Highway 117

57 Bus Stimulated Auto Diversion 118

58 Carpool Stimulated .Auto Diversion 119

59 Unadjusted Vehicle Emission Rates by Model Year 12i

60 Deterioration Factors for Exhaust Pollution Control Devices 12i

61 Distribution of Peak Period Speeds and Volumes on Shirley Highway 123

62 Corridor Emissions Rates 123

63 Fraction of Total Vehicles in Each Weight and Model Year Class 124

64 Base Fuel Consumption Rates in Gallons Per Mile for Nfodel Years and

Weight Categories . .' 125

65 Correction Factors to Adjust Base Fuel Consumption for Traffic Volume on

a 6- Lane Expressway 126

66 Correction Factors to Adjust Base Fuel Consumption for Traffic Volume on

a 6 -Lane Major Urban Arterial with No Parking 127

67 Operating and Maintenance Expense Accounts 129

68 Percentage Contributions to Variation in Transit Expenses 131

69 Comparison of Project Bus Cost Allocations 132

ix

1.0 SU^^IARY OF EVALUATION

A major goal o£ the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) of the Department

of Transportation (DOT) is to foster transportation innovations which are likely to lead to more efficient transportation operations and to an improved urban environment. The Shirley

Highway Express-Bus -on- Freeway Demonstration Project -- the largest bus-transit and highway

project ever sponsored by DOT -- represented a major effort in the promotion of innovation

in urban transportation. The project, which began April 1971 and ended December 1974, had

three major elements: 1) an eleven-mile, t^vo-lane reversible busway in the median of the

Shirley Highway (1*95) which was used by buses and later by carpools with four or more

members, 2) buses with new interior features, and 3) fringe parking lots coordinated with

the express bus service.

The primar>" goal of this project was to demonstrate to state and local transportation

authorities that express bus -on- freeway operations can improve the quality of bus service

and lead to an increase in the people moving capability of peak period transportation

facilities for an entire urban corridor. Related project objectives were:

(1) Increase reliability of bus service.

(2) Reduce travel time for transit and auto commuters

.

(3) Increase coverage by bus routes

.

(4) Increase bus passenger convenience and comfort.

(5) Increase bus patronage.

(6) Increase bus's share of corridor ccmrnuters.

A secondary project goal was to demonstrate that this technology can have a favorable

impact on the transportation-related environmental and social conditions within a corridor

and on the economic condition of the transit operator. Related project objectives were:

(1) Reduce peak period auto pollutant emissions.

(2) Reduce peak period gasoline consumption.

(3) Increase mobility of the transportation disadvantaged.

(4) Increase productivity of the bus operator.

This document reports an investigation of project performance with respect to the

previously stated goals. The present section summarizes the findings of the evaluation and

their more important implications.

1.1 Attainment of Project Objectives

The project demonstrated that a comprehensive bus-on-freeway operation can be integrated with corridor bus service and that the resultant express bus service can be operated

as a high quality transit system. It also demonstrated that high quality express bus ser- vice can attract commuting motorists (primarily those who drive alone) and increase the

peak period people moving capability of corridor transportation facilities. Such shifting

of motorists to the express bus serxace effected reductions in auto usage, auto pollutant

emissions and gasoline consumption. Although special project services resulted in increased

mobility for a few of the transportation disadvantaged, the project did not demonstrate

that express bus-on-freeway operations lead to substantial increases in mobility for the

disadvantaged group.
Corridor Bus Service Was Improved . The evaluation shows that this bus -on- freeway operation improved aspects of bus service which have been found to be important to commuters:

1) service reliability, 2) travel time, 3) service convenience, and 4) trip comfort. Prior

to the project, only about 33 percent of the buses arrived at their first stop in

Washington, D.C. within six minutes of the scheduled time. Immediately after the project was implemented, this figure rose to 92 percent. The improved performance was maintained

over the life of the project. Average speeds of express buses (buses using the busway) were consistently higher than those of non-busway buses. Also, reported door-to-door

travel times of passengers on the express buses were lower than those of non-busway passengers for similar trips. The express bus service fitted corridor commuter travel patterns

better than the non-busway service, as service was more direct, and walk and wait times

lower.

These lower access and waiting times also reflect the large expansion in the coverage

of the bus service. In 1971, the project consisted of 60 route miles of express bus service' during each peak period. In September 1974, this figure had risen to 138 route miles.

During the same period the number of express bus trips operated during each peak period

rose from 156 to 299. The expansion in express bus service allowed the system to provide

reasonably comfortable service in spite of continued increases in patronage. Even though

daily A.M. peak period patronage on the express buses rose from a]x)ut 4,200 riders in

June 1969 to about 16,100 riders in tfovanber 1974, seat availability ranained high, v/ith

about 89 percent of the passengers reporting tliat they "usually get a seat."

Peak Period People Moving Capability Was Increased . The project resulted in a substantial

increase in the people moving capability of the Shirley Highway Corridor (the influence area of the express bus -on- freeway service). Much of this increase was due to the increase

in Corridor bus patronage. During the life of the project, daily peak period corridorwide bus ridership (one-way) increased by 11,000; from 14,000 (June 1969) to 25,000 passengers (November 1974). This increase was due to the project, as daily peak period patronage (one-way) on the new express bus service increased by almost 12,000; from 4,200 to

16,100 passengers (including passengers carried by private companies).

This growth in bus ridership led to an improvement in the effectiveness of people

movement through the Shirley Highway Corridor as evidenced by changes in bus market- share

(the percentage of potential bus person trips that are made by bus) . Prior to the beginning of the project, bus market- share was about 27 percent. In November 1974, this figure

had risen to 41 percent.

The increases in bus patronage and bus market- share were, in large part, the result of

motorists switching to the new express bus service. These former auto commuters reported

that express features of the bus operation together with the high cost and discomforts of

commuting by auto were the major reasons for their decisions to switch to bus. In contrast

to the motorists who switched to bus, many of the commuters who drove alone to work had

formerly used bus. These motorists, most of whom had used non-busway bus service, reported

that excessive waiting and travel times and poor service reliability were their principal

reasons for no longer using bus.

An increase in carpooling during 1974 also contributed to the increase in Corridor

people moving capability, as auto occupancy (both Corridor-wide and on the Shirley Highway),

which had been declining since the beginning of the project, began to rise. In October

1974, near the end of the project, both Corridor -wide and Shirley Highway auto occupancy

rates were higher than at any time previously during the project. Most of the increase in

carpooling and auto occupancy can be attributed to motorists; however, former bus users comprised about 25 percent of the surveyed carpoolers. This was especially true for com- muters diverted to carpool by the availability of the busway to that mode; about one-third

formerly commuted by bus, the large majority of whom resided in the service area of busway

bus routes. Both former auto and former bus users reported that reductions in commuting

costs and preferential treatment -- use of the busway and provision of special parking

privileges -- were the principal factors in their decision to carpool, Carpool locator

services were not a significant factor. Commuters who drove alone identified loss of flexibility as the greatest obstacle to carpooling.

2
Another measure used to indicate the effectiveness of people movement is "person move- ment per lane during the peak hour." In November 1974, the Shirley Highway carried nearly

36,800 persons on the main roadway and the reversible lanes (i.e., busway) during the A.M.

peak period (6:30-9:00 A.M.); 16,100 bus riders and 20,700 auto commuters, (including 4630

carpoolers on the reversible lanes). During the peak hour (7:00-8:00 A.M.), averages of

persons per lane on the main roadway (three lanes) and on the reversible roadway (two lanes) were 2310 and 6080 respectively. Thus, the peak hour throughput per lane of the reversible

roadway was more than 2 1/2 times that of the main roadway.

Peak Period Auto Usage, Auto Pollutant Emissions and Gasoline Consumption Were Reduced . As a result of the project, approximately 7600 autos were diverted from daily peak period

traffic on Corridor roadways (as of October 1974) , an 18 percent reduction frati vAiat auto

usage would have been without the project. About 7280 were attributable to the express

bus service and about 320 to the policy allowing carpools with four or more members to use

the reversible lanes. However, it appears that the opening of portions of the reconstructed

Shirley Highway was more responsible for reducing congestion and auto travel times than was

the diversion of automobiles. Nonetheless, had these large numbers of express bus riders

not been diverted from auto travel, the highway system would have been even more congested

and all auto users would have been subjected to additional delays and longer travel times.

Other consequences of this removal of autos from Corridor roadways were a 21 percent

reduction in auto pollutant emissions and a 23 percent reduction in gasoline usage. Between

June 1971 and December 1974, the estimated reductions in auto emissions were as follows:

about 5,500 tons of carbon monoxide, 700 tons of hydrocarbons, and 400 tons of nitrogen

oxides. During the same period, approximately seven million gallons of gasoline were saved.

(Gasoline usage and pollutant emissions attxifcutable to the additional bus service were

negligible.)

The Impact On the Bus Operator Was Favorable . The busway has had a generally positive

impact on the bus operator. Utilization of vehicles and labor improved on routes that use

the busway. Time savings on these routes allowed the same number of buses and drivers to

make more trips than would have been possible otherwise. Increased utilization, however, was not enough to accomodate growth in patronage, and additional buses were put into service.

To maintain November 1974 bus headways if the busway did not exist would have required

approximately 20 additional buses and would cost the operator an estimated additional

$30,000 per month.

Peak period service was expanded substantially during the life of the project. In

addition, wages and the cost of fuel and other resources increased considerably. Still,

the revenue from project riders (without an increase in fare after 1970) was nearly sufficient to cover total operating costs. Project revenues totaled $6,556,000. Project

operating expenditures totaled $6,699,000, and operating costs averaged $.84 per mile

(about $1.00 per mile for peak period service alone). Project revenues averaged $.83,

bringing about a deficit of about $143,000 (slightly over $.01 per bus -mile).

1.2 Implications of Findings for Transportation Planning

The findings of the evaluation are significant in that they provide an example of the

potential impacts of bus -on-freeway operations. The following discussion of the findings

will focus on their implications for similar bus projects as they affect: 1) patronage

potential, 2) incentives for increasing carpooling, 3) impact of preferential treatment for

carpools on express bus operations, and 4) benefits and costs.

With regards to the implications of the evaluation for planning similar projects, the

findings suggest the following:

3
Many Motorists Will Use Express Bus Service .

Auto commuters, even those from upper-middle income, multiple-auto households, switched

to the high quality bus service because commuting by auto was expensive and difficult.

Faced with expensive parking and frustrating commuting on congested roadways, many motorists

switched to the express bus operation which provided: 1) travel times shorter than preproject travel times by bus, 2) improvements in the reliability of bus service, and 3) expansion in the coverage and frequency of that service.

These findings suggest that plans for increasing bus' share of a corridor's commuters

are best directed towards improving operating performance (as opposed to interior features)

,

more specifically reducing travel times and increasing reliability. The plans might also

include modifications to schedules which would reduce waiting times and increase commuters'

arrival and departure time options.

Priority Treatment on Highway Facilities and in the Assignment of Special Parking Privileges

Can Stimulate Substantial Increases in Carpooling .

These two incentives along with the gasoline shortages of the Winter of 1973-74 were

found to be the principal reasons for the increase in Corridor carpooling. The greatest

increase in carpooling was attributed to the availability of the reversible lanes, which

reduced travel times and increased the reliability of expected auto arrival and departure

times. Also significant to the increase in carpooling were the special parking privileges

which made convenient parking available to carpools, often at reduced rates. Carpool

locator services and concern for air pollution problems were not found to be important.

Most of the increase in carpooling was attributable to former auto commuters. However,

at least one-fourth of the carpoolers using the busway had formerly commuted by bus. Most

of these former bus users resided in the ser^/ice area of busway bus routes, suggesting that

the availability of a busway to carpools can have a significant impact on the patronage of

express bus service.

With respect to conflicts with the express bus operations, neither bus operating speed nor bus schedule adherence suffered because of carpools on the reversible lanes. During

1974 there were only three accidents between the buses and carpools, and none of these

involved injuries.

Substantial Benefits Are Possible With Bus -on -Freeway Service Involving Exclusive Highway

Facilities .

The project resulted in a substantial increase in the people moving capability of the

Shirley Highway, due primarily to large increases in patronage on busway bus routes. Also

attributable to the project were an 18 percent reduction in auto usage, a 21 percent reduction in auto pollutant emissions and a 23 percent reduction in gasoline consumption (compared with estimates of what they would have been without the project) . Expenditures for the

Project were primarily for the construction of the reversible lanes, the acquisition of

buses, and the operation of the express bus service. Construction costs averaged $4.1 million

per mile (1972 costs). Bus costs averaged $45,000 per vehicle. Combined, peak period and

mid-day bus operating costs averaged $.84 per bus -mile. An average cost of about $1.00 per

bus -mile was ascribed to peak period service alone. Combined, peak and mid-day passenger

revenues averaged $.83 per bus -mile, with about $1.10 attributed to peak period service

alone

.

Manv of the elements of this project have been implemented in the past with varying

results. i Hiis demonstration project is different in the simultaneous iitplementation of_ project elements, the aggressive' expansion of bus service (as opposed to the reduction of ser- vice as with most transit operations) , and the continued provision of timely and highly

"Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art," National Cooperative Research Program Report 143 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D. C. , 1972, Ch. 2.

4
reliable bus service. While there is certainly nuch more to be learned about bus-onfreeway operations, the inpressive results achieved here are an affirmation of the

potential of well designed and carefully inplearented bus service.

5
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

2.1 Purpose of Report

This report presents the principal results of a comprehensive evaluation of the four

year Shirley Highway Express-Bus -on- Freeway Demonstration Project by the Technical Analysis

Division of the National Bureau of Standards. Although directed towards transportation

professionals, it should also be of interest to Federal and local administrators, and to

transportation planners. Measures of performance with respect to specified goals of the

project are presented, and results of an investigation into commuters' mode choice

decisions are discussed. The report also presents an analysis of carpooling within the

Shirley Highway Corridor.

It is not a purpose of this report to present detailed descriptions of the data and

analytical procedures used in the evaluation, and only brief summaries appear. For more

complete discussions, the reader is referred to our interim reports. References to these

reports are included in the next subsection.

The remainder of Section 2 lists other publications on the demonstration project;

describes the demonstration project and Corridor operating environment; and discusses the

project evaluation program. Sections 3 through 6 present the major findings of the

evaluation.

2.2 Related Reports

While this final report of the evaluation of the Shirley project covers all aspects of

the multi-year project, related publications may also be of interest. Such publications

include those which cover the feasibility investigation conducted prior to the project, the

interim results of the Technical Analysis Division monitoring program and discussions of

the project by others.

Since 1969, several publications have described elements or interim results of this

multi-year project. One of the earliest, the "Feasibility Study for Bus Rapid Transit in

the Shirley Highway Corridor,"! predicted the benefits and costs of alternative express bus

operations within the Corridor area. The study concluded that express -bus -on- freeway

operations were feasible, and the design of one of the alternatives considered became the

basis for the development of the Shirley Highway Express-Bus -on- Freeway Demonstration Project. IViO subsequent reports, prepared in 1971, reccmmended imDlanentation Dlans,.and

monitoring and evaluation programs for the project. 2 Many of these recommendations were

adopted as elements of the demonstration project and evaluation program.

Since the evaluation of the project began in 1971, six interim reports have been

published by the Technical Analysis Division: Interim Report 1 presents a detailed description of the project, including the background and location and the major elements of the

project. 3 Interim Report 2 presents results from the monitoring of project performance since

The "Feasibility Study for Bus Rapid Transit in the Shirley Highway Corridor" by Howard,

Needles, Tamen, and Bergendoff, prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments, March 1970.

'One, "The Implementation Plan for the Shirley Highway Express-Bus -on-Freeway Project," was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, March 1971. Another,

"Plans for the Operation of New Express Bus Services Using the Shirley Highway Exclusive

Lane," was prepared for the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission by Alan M. Voorhees

and Associates, February 1971.

'"The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on- Freeway Demonstration Project - Project Description,

Interim Report 1" (Report DOT/UMTA 1), August 1971. Available from National Technical

Information Service (OTIS), Springfield, Virginia, PB 218-983.

6
its beginning in April 1971 through July 1972. It contains detailed discussions of the

analytical procedures and data used to estimate project perfomance measures. Also included

are profiles of bus and auto commuters developed fron a 1971 survey. 4 Interim Report 3

presents results of a survey of users' reactions to the innovative interior features of

project buses. 5 Interim Report 4 parallels the second report and presents results from the

monitoring of project objectives through July 1973, with primary emphasis on the period

between July 1972 and July 1973.6 interim Report 5 examines the reverse commute service

provided by project buses, describes the users of the service, estimates benefits to the

users, and recommends guidelines for the development of future reverse commute operations.^

Interim Report 6 examines park- and- ride services which have been developed in conjunction

with the express bus -on- freeway operation, and describes the demographic and travel characteristics of the users of the service from the lots. The report also discusses the reasons why auto users switched to bus service at the park-and-ride lots, as obtained from a special

bus user survey.

A report by a consultant to the Technical Analysis Division describes a mode choice

modeling analysis performed using the 1971 survey data.^ This report presents statistical

analyses of the 1971 survey data and a set of mode choice models calibrated on these data.

The Shirley Highway project is the subject of three Transportation Research Board publications. One describes the project and interim results. 1^ Two others conpare the project

with other transportation projects. One, "Bus Use of Highways - State-of-the-Art ," describes

and presents performance statistics (patronage, cost, etc.) for the Shirley Highway and

other existing or planned bus -on- freeway projects in the United States and Europe. 11 The

second, a recent research paper, compares the Shirley project with the Lindenwold rail line

which provides rail rapid transit service to and from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 12

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

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

Virginia, PB 214333.

'"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 73-11453.

'"The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Proj ect/ Second Year Results,

Interim Report 4," prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department

of Transportation, November 1973. Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, CO^ 74-10785.

r "The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Demonstration Project/A Study of Reverse Commute Service, Interim Report 5," prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1974. Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, COM 75-100412.

'"The Shirley Highway Express-Bus-on-Freeway Denonstration Project/A Study of Park-andRiding, Interim Report 6," prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, April 1975. To be published Spring, 1975.

'j.M. McLynn, et al . , "Itode Choice and the Shrtrley Highv^y Experiment," prepared for the

Technical Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards, November 1973. Available from

NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, PB 231-893.

"^Ronald J. Fisher, "Shirley Highway Express Bus -on- Freeway Dononstration Project," Highway

Research Record 415 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1972.

""'""Bus Use of Highways: State-of-the-Art," National Cooperative Highway Research Program

Report 143 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1973.

'^.R. Vuchic and R.M. Stanger, "Lindenwold Rail Line and Shirley Busway: A Comparison,"

Highway Research Record 454 , Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1973.

7
2.3 Description and Background of Project

In 1969 a section of the reversible lanes in the median of the Shirley Highway opened

exclusively to buses. This "busway," the first in the United States, became part of the

Shirley Highway Express -Bus -on- Freeway Project which began in April 1971 and ended

December 31, 1974. (Currently the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

operates the project bus service.) During that period it demonstrated the coordinated

development of a major, comprehensive transit service improvement for an entire urban

corridor. The demonstration project involved the operation of express buses and carpools

on an exclusive right-of-way within the median of the Shirley Highway (1-95) from the

Northern Virginia suburbs into Washington, D.C. Over 90 new buses on many new

and extended express routes dramatically improved the coverage area and quality of bus

service for many commuters. Fringe parking lots were coordinated with the new bus service

to provide park-and-ride facilities, and bus passenger shelters were built at many bus

stops to protect waiting users from inclement weather.

The project showed that bus service could be significantly improved, that a major shift

of auto commuters to bus could be attained, and that people moving capability could be

increased substantially by such a bus -on- freeway operation. The four year experiment was sponsored jointly by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) and the Federal

Highway Administration, both in the Department of Transportation. Administered by the

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC) and the Virginia Department of Highways

and Transportation, the project also demonstrated the cooperation among state, regional, and

local organizations that is required to implement and operate a joint highway and mass

transit system. 13

Such a large system of integrated elements was not implemented all at once, but was developed in stages based upon an initial comprehensive plan. 14 As tlie project evolved, a steering committee was established to guide the development and coordinate the implementation of its various elements.

In this section, the major elements- -the priority lanes, the bus transit operations,

and the fringe parking lots- -will be described and their evolution will be summarized.

The salient geographical, socio-economic, and transportation characteristics of the project

corridor will be presented. Finally, changes which have occured in the project environment

and in the transportation system will be highlighted.

2.3.1 Major Project Elements

Three major elements comprised the project: 1) the reversible priority lanes for buses

and carpools on the Shirley Highway and the bus priority lanes in downtown Washington, D.C;

2) a bus transit operation involving additional buses (with special features) on new routes

and with new schedules; and 3) residential fringe parking facilities for bus riders. The

relative locations of the elements are shown in Figure 1.

The first project element provides exclusive or priority lanes for buses from the time

they enter the Shirley Highway until they reach their terminal points in downtown Washington or the Pentagon. Figure 2 depicts the Shirley Highway, showing the completed 9 mile

permanent eight lane section (two three-lane directional roadways separated by a two- lane

reversible express roadway) and the 2 mile portion still under construction with the singlelane temporary busway. 15 Also shown are the bus and carpool access points. When completed

Other participating agencies included the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic.

^For the early history of the project planning and implementation, see Section 1 in Interim

Report 1 - "Project Description."

*The permanent reversible lanes are 24 feet wide with 10 foot shoulders. The temporary

busway is 18 feet wide, but may narrow in some locations to 11 feet; of course, 1-95 is

built to interstate standards.

8
9
Figure 2. Shixley Highway and Entrances

to tbe BeversiiiLe Lanes

10
in Fall 1975, the reversible priority lanes will be approximately 11 miles long and will end

at the southern end o£ the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River.

After -travelling through the Corridor on the busv.-ay, inbound buses crossed the Potomac

on the 14th Street Center Span Bridge. (The reversible lanes were only used during the

peak periods- -inbound from 6:30 to 9:00 AM and outbound from 4:00 to 6:30 PM.) The buses

then merged with regular District of Columbia traffic. V.ithin the District, peak period

bus lanes and special turn advantages gave the buses some priority over autos. Figure 3 shows the locations of priority bus lanes and special turn advantages as of December 1972.

This plan was modified during the project as construction of the local subway (Metro)

progressed.

In December 1973, the 9 mile completed section of the reversible priority lanes that

had been previously used exclusively for buses was opened to carpools with 4 or more

occupants. As indicated in Figure 2, the carpools entered the reversible lanes at the two

southem-iTDSt points and exited at Washington Boulevard (just before the terrporary buslane

began). Carpools and buses will share the entire length of the facility when the 1-95

reconstruction project is completed in 1975 (current policy of the busway operator, the

Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation)

.

Project bus operations (the second project element) consisted of peak period Shirley

Highway bus ser\'ice operated by the AB§K bus company prior to the proj act, 1" the new

decKjnstration sen'ice which was administered by the Northern Virginia Transportation

Conimission (X\TC) , and new service initiated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority 0'»^I>'^TA) to accomodate expanded patronage.!'^ lOLATA (foimerly .AB^K) served the preproject bus routes; however, the project sen'ice was provided by 90 new special feature

buses purchased by MTC using U>rrA demonstration grant funding. l° U^^^A funding was also

used to install bus passenger shelters along these routes; 20 were installed, six bv the

N\TC and the rest by IsMATA.

Figure 4 depicts the A.M. peak period sendee as of April 1971. Figure 5 depicts the

A.M. peak period sendee as of December 1974. The complexity of the routes (a single route

mmber may subsume many variations in routing and starting and ending points) is omitted to

presence the clarity of the figures. The new project routes had more direct routing in

suburban and do^sntoisn collection and distribution to complement the express lanes, and thus

provided fast and reliable peak-period bus sendee. (Section 3 presents further information on the peak period bus sendee improvements.) In addition, project buses were also

used to provide new base day and reverse commute routes.

The nesv buses had special features (relative to t)'pical urban transit buses) which

increased passenger comfort and sendee reliability. Features designed to increase

passenger comfort included: air conditioning, wider seats and aisles, smooth line interiors

(no advertising racks) with colorful plastic wall coverings, and carpeting or a new vinyl

mat-t>'pe floor covering that was color coordinated with the walls and seats. Tis'o-way

radios were provided to enable dispatchers to communicate ^.dth drivers in the event of

break- do^sTis or accidents, and to direct route changes when warranted by traffic conditions.

In addition to the above features, all of the buses were equipped with anti-pollution

devices to reduce exhaust emdssions, and seme were powered by eight -cylinder engines

(typical urban transit buses have six-cylinder engines)

.

^vMATA acquired the AB^iV Transit Company, a private firm, on Februar>' 4, 1973, as part of

the regional bus systan. It now operates the former AB^W buses as well as the N\i?C

service.

17Although not part of the project, private companies such as Colonial Transit, Greyhound,

and Trailways also operated commuter buses on the reversible lanes.

18

At the completion of the danonstration project W"MATA acquired the NVTC buses and continues

to operate the project service.

11
7-9 A.M. BUS PRIORITY LANE

4-6 P.M. BUS PRIORITY LANE

7-9 & 4-6 BUS PRIORITY LANE

NO RIGHT TURN EXCEPT BUSES

I IfiBBftflPlffCg AVE

! C ST

D ST ($W )

Figure 3. Peak Period Bus Priority Lanes in Downtown Washington

12

14
Residential fringe parking facilities ( third project elanent) were coordinated with

the new bus service to serve park-and-ride patrons. Figure 1 indicates the locations of

the three official lots. The lot at Backlick Road near the Capital Beltway (1-495) is a permanent park-and-ride facilit>' on the site of a future Metro station which NVTC leased

during the project. The five acre, lighted lot has 400 parking spaces, an area for passenger boarding and alighting, and a kiss-and-ride staging zone as well as a bike rack and

passenger shelters. The .WTC also obtained pemission from two shopping centers

(Springfield Plaza and Shirley Plaza) to designate portions of their lots for all -day free

parking for bus users. Other shopping centers were also used for parking by daily riders,

but were not officially part of the project.

2.5.2 The Development of the Project

The maj or proj ect elements have evolved into a coordinated system over a 6 year period

(1969 to 1974) . This section highlight that evolution.

The reversible priorit>' lanes were opened in stages as the reconstruction of the

Shirley Highway (1-95) progressed northward to Washington. Beginning in 1964, the Shirley

Highway has been improved from a four- lane controlled access highway to an eight- lane

interstate facility with t\%"o three-lane directional roadways and a t^v^o-lane reversible

express roadway. In September 1969, the conpleted portion of 1-95 reversible roadway was

opened during the morning peak period to buses exclusively. This 4.8 mile section between

Edsall Road and Shirlington (see Figure 2 for locations of interchanges) provided buses a

savings of 12 to 18 minutes (over travel on the main roadway)

.

In Septenber 1970 the first portion of a single lane temporary busway was opened

through the area under construction from Shirlington to north of Glebe Road. An estimated

5 to 8 minutes were saved by the buses on this 1.6 mile section, and about 50 additional

bus trips were routed onto the busway at Shirlington.

The final section of the temporar)' bus^vay, extending to the new Center Span Bridge, was opened on April 5, 1971, and provided a total savings of about 25 minutes (compared

with autos) over the entire length. At the same time, the new bridge was opened to buses

and a system of peak period priority bus lanes on downto^m Washington streets was implemented.

As the reconstruction progressed, the tonporar)'' single buslane was replaced by the twolane reversible roadway. By May 1973, the nine-mile section of the reversible roadway from

Springfield to the Pentagon was completed. The Shirley Highway, including the reversible

lanes, is still under construction from there to the Potomac lUver, with a temporary busway through this section.

Bus sendee was developed as the busway was opened in sections , and the 90 demonstration project buses were purchased in increments. Although the opening of the initial

busway sections in 1969 and 1970 stimulated increased ridership, the private bus company

was unable to expand the peak period bus service significantly until the demonstration

project began in 1971. After the opening of the entire busway into Washington and the

beginning of the denonstration project, 30 new- feature project buses and eight new peak

period routes were introduced in June 1971. T\srenty more buses were added in February 1972,

10 more in June, and 16 were placed into service in September. The final 14 began operating in Februar)^ 1973. Mid-day bus service began in 1972. This service consisted of Wo

radial routes between the southern part of the Corridor and Washington, D.C. and two which

circulated in opposite directions within the Corridor.

The fringe parking lots also were not introduced simultaneously. Parking at designated

portions of the two shopping centers began in June 1971, while the permanent facility at

Backlick Road was opened in October 1972. Bus passenger shelters were installed during

1973 and 1974.

2.3.3 Characteristics of the Shirley Highway Corridor

The demonstration project provides Northern Virginia commuters with fast and reliable

peak-period bus sendee to the major emplo>'ment areas in do\\nto^vn Washington, D.C, the

15
Pentagon, and Crystal City, Virginia. The project influenced travel by bus and auto

within a broad wedge-shaped section of Northern Virginia that extends south from the

Nation's Capital and includes portions of Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties

and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church and Fairfax. The shaded portion of Figure 6

indicates the position of this influence area (referred to in this report as the Shirley

Highway Corridor) within the National Capital Region.

The Corridor was defined according to the expected influence of the project on radially oriented commuter travel from the Northern Virginia suburbs. If it was plausible

that a significant number of travelers from a particular area might use the project buses

/

the area was included as part of the Corridor. After analysis of the 1971 commuter survey,

data, the Corridor area indicated in Figure 7 was defined.

At the northeast of the Corridor are the major employment centers, including the Pentagon, the Crystal City Complex, and downtown Washington, D.C. The northern boundary is

U.S. 'Route 50 (Arlington Boulevard), with the Potomac River on the east. The southern

perimeter extends to Woodbridge (almost 20 miles from Washington) and includes the

suburban areas of Fairfax and Prince William counties. Route 123 defines the western

boundary. The total area is over 150 square miles.

2.5.3.1 Demographic Characteristics

Approximately 500,000 people lived within the Corridor in 1970 (about 20 percent of

the total population in the Washington, D.C. -Maryland-Virginia SMSA) . It is one of the

most affluent areas in the Nation. In 1970 the median family income 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 Nation. 1^)

Highlights of other 1970 census demographic statistics include the following (also see Table 1)

:

(a) Seven percent of the Corridor population were Black compared to 25

percent for the entire SMSA.

(b) The mobility of the Corridor residents is quite high, with 47 percent

of the people moving into their homes within a 27 month period (January

1968 to March 1970) coitpared to only 41 percent of the SMSA residents

and 37 percent of the District residents having itoved during this same

period.

(c) About 44 percent of the Corridor workers are government employees (37

percent Federal) compared to 39 and 42 percent for the SMSA and the

District, respectively.

(d) Auto ownership is high, with an average of 1.34 cars per family and 41

percent having two or more cars. For the SMSA, the average number of

autos per family is only 1.23, and 36 percent have two or more cars. The District average is 1.13, with only 19 percent having two or more

cars available.

2.3.2.2 Transportation System Characteristics

Peak period traffic congestion is commonplace throughout the entire Northern Virginia

highway network. 20 Corridor motorists commuting into the project destination areas

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Statistical Abstract, 1972.

'The "Feasibility Study" concluded that each of the arterials operated at congestion during peak periods.

16
17

Table 1

Selected Demographic Characteristics of

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

19 7 U UEMXIKAPHIC CHAHALTEKiSTiCS TOTAL CORRIDOR TOTAL SMSA VJASHTvGTON, D.C.

TOTAL PERCENT TOTAL PERCEOT TOTAL PERCE^3T

1

IDtaj. 496,470 2,861,123 756,510

Negro 32,379 7

1 ^ A A C 76j ,445 2d 537,712 71

Nixnber Faniilies T. ^"7 CCA 167,564 898,496 162,656

AREA. Scjuare Miles 152.6 2,399 61

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

YEAR MOVED I^?^0 HOUSING

iybo~±y/u iMarcnj 73,871 47 367,995 41 96,118 37

1965-1967 35,147 22 206 ,136 59,743 23

1960-1964 24,117 15 139 , 366 Id 40 , 229 7Id

lyou-lyjy 17 ,922 11 128 ,366 14 41 , 225 Id

j.y4y or earner D, / 54 4 52, 059 -7 2d ,222 7 r\ 10

1 Q"7n T?aMTTV TVW^Tpl

Median $15,000 $12 , 993 S9,583

Private 110 , 666 52 c cc c n ^ 57 7 "7 0 n r\ 179 , 830 r A 54

Government yo , UoO 44 460 ,779 39 14i , lb

J

4Z

oeir—fcaii^Jioyea C "7 0 0 •5 ou , 4iy 1 "3 Z 1 A 13 , DlO 4 lotaj. ^1^ , D J'i 1,176,794 0 J'i , DU J

AUTOS AVAILABLE

1 /4 , 4y / 44 403 ,179 45 1 1 "7 1 113 , b /I 7 A

/U o£. 60 , 004 36 •3

1

ii Zo , 3o0 1

"7 1 / 3 or more y , boU 5

/in *7

1

49 ,713 5 4, J /y Z iuuaJ. ViVuuOS J z^i , o4b 1 ,108 , 978 TOO ZiCO Average (Autos/family

)

1. 34 "1 0 T 1. 23 7 7 1.13

23 , 179 15 166 , 274 7 0 19 15 , 225 1 n 10

MejANS TI^ANSPUKEATIOts TO VSURK Driver 147,958 69 748,801 60 125,415 37

Passenger 30,186 14 163 ,922 13 39,246 12

Total 178,144 83 164 ,661 49

Bus , ^ U U 1 n 190 ,187 Id

/ , ybo 4 70 /I / 0 , 3U4 b J J ,

/

4d 1 n Worked at Heme J , JO/ z 24,019 2

c Q Q n b , ooU Z 4,107 2 33,022 3 11,039 3

WORK PIACE

D.C. Central Business District 20,095 9 128,453 12 48,467 18

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

Arlington 40,114 19 103,655 10 11,590 4 Virginia 88,847 41 183,811 17 7,181 3 Other , 28,241 13 308,948 28 34,298 12

•'-The Corridor median annual family inccsne of $15,000 is an approximation based on the mean

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

Corridor camiuters live in Fairfax County ^vhere the irsdian annual family income \sas 215,700

in 1969.)

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

1970 Census Tracts PHC (l)-226, Isiahington, D.C.->ia.-Va. SMSA, f-iay 1972.

19
traveled on the Shirley Highway and six radial arterials: 1) Arlington Boulevard (Rt. 50),

2) Columbia Pike (Rt. 244), 3) Amy-Navy Drive, 4) Arlington Ridge Road, 5) Jefferson Davis

Highway (Rt. 1), and 6) George Washington Memorial Parkway. (See Figure 24, page 99 .) These arterials vary from four- lane undivided roads to a four- lane parkway. Trends in auto

volumes are discussed in Section 4.

An extensive peak period bus system operated throughout the Corridor. In addition to

the eight routes with over 300 bus trips on the priority lanes, 21 more than 240 bus trips

operated on the other Corridor radial arterials. During the project development, there were no significant changes to the bus service on these non- Shirley routes. (In December

1974, a bus lane was opened on Arlington Boulevard.) Trends in transit ridership on the

priority lanes as well as the other arterials are discussed in Section 4.

By 1980, the Metro regional subway system will be in operation and will intercept the

buses in Virginia, hopefully alleviating traffic problems in Washington. For a discussion

of tihe bus operations after Metro opens as well as more details on the transportation

system characteristics prior to the project, see "The Feasibility Study for Bus Rapid

Transit in the Shirley Highway Corridor. "22

2.5.4 Changes in the Corridor Environment

Previous paragraphs have described the introduction of the major elements in this new

experiment in mass transit technology, and presented the general demographic and transportation system characteristics of the area. The description of the project would not be

complete without, however, a discussion of the major changes which occurred in its

environment

.

A stable environment cannot be expected to persist throughout a large scale transportation demonstration project. Suburban areas grow, and employment at major centers

changes or shifts locations. Events such as the "energy crisis" as well as longer term

influences like major transportation system construction can occur and affect the project.

The following text will highlight those events within the Corridor and the metropolitan

region that may have significantly affected the project outcome.

2.3.4.1 Population Growth Within the Corridor

During the 1960-1970 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 in the Nation's suburban areas increased about

38 and 39 percent respectively. 23

Since 1970, the rate of population growth in the entire Northern Virginia suburbs

declined substantially, but Fairfax County and Prince William experienced large increases

in population between 1970 and 1973. In Fairfax County, where three out of every five

Corridor residents live, population increased about 19 percent between 1970 and 1973, from

455,070 to 541,000 persons. In Prince William County, the population increased almost 30

percent between 1970 and 1973, from 111,100 to 145,000 persons. 24

"There are an additional 60 bus trips operated by the private companies serving the far

southern sections of the Corridor.

•"The Feasibility Study for Bus Rapid Transit in the Shirley Highway Corridor," pp. 4-11,

pp. 50-53.

'u.S. Department of Cannerce, Bureau of Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing,

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

^1973 Population estimates prepared by Northern Virginia Planning District Camiission,

October 1974.

20
These large population gains occurred primarily in the suburban developments far

removed from central Washington. (The population of Arlington County, inside the Beltway

and at the northern edge of the Corridor boundary, actually declined from 1970 to 1973.)

The project bus service expansion took place in the distant suburban areas, many of which

were developed during the last five years. Thus, the service was often introduced to

commuters who had not lived in their communities very long. Tliis high residential mobility

may have influenced commuters ' reactions to the new bus service (see Section 5)

.

2.5.4.2 Changes in Economic Conditions in Northern Virginia

Washington, D.C. has traditionally been a major employment center for the Northern

Virginia Region. One- third of the labor force is employed in Washington, primarily as government and service workers. However, recent employment trends (1970-1974) indicate

that for the first time combined employment in the service and retail trade sectors com- prised a larger portion of total employment than the government sector,^ suggesting

reduced dependence upon Washington, D.C. as a source of employment.

The same data indicate that total employment in Northern Virginia rose at an annual

rate of over 7 1/2 percent during the period 1970-1974 and that the annual population

growth rate was 5 percent. 26 During that period, the unemployment rate was (as is usually

the case) below the national average. In October 1974 the percent unemployed in the

Northern Virginia region was only 3.5 as compared with the national rate of 5.5. The

annual regional unen^loyment rates were less than 3 percent for 1970-1972 and only 3.5 in

1973.

2.3.4.5 Employment Changes at Corridor Destinations

Daily peak period Corridor travel is predominantly oriented toward downtown

Washington, D.C. Major centers of employment in the downtown area are shown in Figure 8

with their 1969 and 1975 estimated levels of employment. 27 Project bus routes served

these areas with an estimated 296,000 jobs in 1969 and over 399,000 forecasted for 1975.

The Southwest area is expected to experience the greatest growth in employment, with the

Downtown West and Connecticut Avenue areas following. Project bus routes also served the

Crystal City Complex where employment was 50,000 in 1967 and is forecasted to be over 40,000 in 1975.

While employment in most areas increased during the project period, employment in two

major centers with previous high transit ridership declined. The Pentagon employed over

27,000 in 1969 (with almost 20 percent of the Corridor's transit trips 2o

) ; by 1974 Pentagon

employment had declined to less than 21,000. Department of Navy buildings on the Mall in

downtown Washington were closed in 1970, and over 5,000 employees were moved to Crystal

City and other areas of Arlington, Virginia.

2.3.4.4 Changes in the Transportation System

Throughout the duration of the project, many changes occurred which directly affected

the Corridor transportation system. Construction underway during the project on the

Shirley Highway and the downtown portion of Metro disrupted traffic. The national

energy crisis and subsequent gasoline shortages and price increases accelerated the

'"Labor Market Trends 1970" - September 1974, Virginia Employment Commission,

'ibid.

These estimates from the "Feasibility Study" (p. 15) are used because more recent data

are not available.

I'"Project Description," p. 17.

21
22
formation of carpools. The four bus companies operating in the Washington area were con- solidated into an integrated regional bus system. (However, this had no perceptible

effect on the project.)

For ten years the Shirley Highway has been under reconstruction. As the construction

moved North from the Capital Beltway toward the 14th Street Bridge, peak period traffic

was disrupted daily on some sections and increased the stress and frustration as well as travel time of the auto commuters in the Corridor. With routine traffic flow conditions

disrupted by the construction, even slightly inclement weather, a minor accident, or a disabled vehicle was enough to cause even the normally uncongested sections of the highway

to become clogged, and usually caused the congested sections near the Pentagon and over

the 14th Street Bridges to break down completely. On these occasions the drive to work or home became an ordeal.

' Construction on Metro has been underway in downtown Washington since 1970. During

that time entire city streets were closed, or excavated and covered with timber while the

subway construction proceeded. Auto and taxi traffic was extensively disrupted in various

areas, and on- street parking spaces reduced. The impact on the downtown bus circulation

and new priority lanes was severe, as buses moved slowly through the detours and congestion.

2.4 Project Goals and Description of the Evaluation Program

From the beginning, the development, operation, and evaluation of the Shirley Highway

Express -Bus -on- Freeway Project were based upon a set of explicit goals. As a demonstration

with national significance relating to the future construction and operation of highways

and bus systems in many urban areas, its objectives were specified by UMTA and FHWA. Additional input into the formulation of project goals was provided by Corridor jurisdictions

and the evaluation team. This section will present project goals and briefly describe the

program designed to evaluate its performance.

2.4.1 Project Goals

The primary goal of the this project was to demonstrate to state and local transportation authorities that express bus -on- freeway operations can improve the quality of bus

service and lead to an increase in the people moving capability of peak period transportation facilities for an entire urban corridor. Related project objectives were:

(1) Increase reliability of bus service.

(2) Reduce travel time for transit and auto commuters.

(3) Increase coverage by bus routes.

(4) Increase bus passenger convenience and comfort.

(5) Increase bus patronage.

(6) Increase bus system's share of corridor ccmnuters.

(7) Increase peak capacity of the corridor transportation system.

A secondary project goal was to demonstrate that this technology can have a favorable

impact on the transportation related environmental and social conditions within a corridor,

and on the economic condition of the transit operator. Related project objectives were:

(1) Reduce peak period auto pollutant emissions.

(2) Reduce peak period gasoline usage.

(3) Increase the mobility of the transportation disadvantaged.

(4) Increase the productivity of the bus operator.

23
An additional goal which is involved in all Department of Iransportation demonstration

projects is to provide information useful in the planning and implementation of similar

systems.

2.4.2 The Evaluation Program

UMTA's evaluation program for the project had two general objectives:

(1) Determine the extent to which the goals of the project were

achieved.

(2) Relate the results to the planning and implementation of future

bus -on- freeway operations.

In order to assess the degree to which the projects' objectives were attaiiied, the

evaluation program established measures of effectiveness for each goal. To determine if

Corridor bus service was improved, changes in the following were measured for that service:

1) operating speeds, 2) door-to-door travel times of bus riders, 3) reliability of service,

4) area coverage bv bus routes, and 51 passenger comfort and convenience features such as seat availability and fewer bus transfers. (Section 3 presents the evaluation results for

this goal.)

The increase in people moving capability is measured in terms of 1) the increase in

bus patronage and the rise in bus's market-share (the percentage of person-trips vMch are potentially bus trips and vMch are in fact made by bus) as well as increases in carpooling

and reductions in single occipant autos, and 2) the grov\rth in person volumes (bus and auto)

per lane on the Shirley Highway as well as the resultant changes in the quality of service

encountered by both bus and auto comiuters. (These results are found in Section 4.)

Section 5 examines the reasons for the increase in Corridor people movement. Factors

important in decisions to commute by bus or carpool are identified and the implications of

these factors for mode choice modeling are discussed.

The secondary project goal concerns its economic/ environmental, and social inpacts.

The evaluation program measured the economic impact on the bus operator in terms of project

operating costs and capital expenditures, and savings from increased productivity. Environmental consequences were measured in terms of reductions in Corridor gasoline consumption

and auto pollutant emissions. The social impact was measured in terms of the utilization

of the bus service by persons from transit dependent households. (These results are presented in Section 6 .

)

The information from the evaluation should be useful from both national and regional

perspectives. In the national interest, UMTA seeks to stimulate innovation within the

transit industry by demonstrating the successful implementation of new techniques such as this express bus -on-freeway project. UMTA seeks also to provide to transit operators and

transporation planners forecasting techniques and the planning information developed in

conjunction with the Shirley Project. Such information includes the contribution of

various features to increases in bus patronage, bus operator productivity, and efficiency

of freeway lane utilization. This knowledge will aid in making decisions about future

bus -on- freeway operations in other urban areas.

The regional perspective concerns the impact of the express bus operation on the

Shirley Highway Corridor. Estimates of benefits and costs attributable to the project

provide regional agencies with an indication of its impact upon the area it serves. These

estimates will also provide planners in other areas with examples of the benefits and

costs which they may experience.

24
2.4.5 Data Collection and Aaal>^ical Activities

The objectives of the evaluation program required the collection of various types of

traffic and commuter data and the development of analytical procedures to estimate measures

of project performance. The monitoring program and the series of commuter surveys are described in detail in the interim reports. The follo^-ing highlights the kinds of information collected:

Periodic counts were made of peak period vehicular volumes and person trips (both bus

and auto) crossing an eight- station screenline which intercepts the main radial arterials

emanating from Washington, D.C. into the Corridor. (The counting program is discussed in

Appendix A, and count data are sunmarized in Section 4.) Bus and auto travel times and

bus schedule adherence data were collected periodically. The bus operator made monthly

counts of all bus passengers using the busivay and also provided aggregate system costs,

reveiiues, and operating statistics.

Both general and special purpose commuter sur\^ey data were collected. In-depth, mailback sur\"eys of Corridor auto and bus commuters w^ere conducted during October 1971, and

October and November 1974. These sur\'eys were used to determine demographic characteristics

and travel patterns, and to determine reactions to the new service. The survey responses

have also been used to develop and calibrate a mode choice model. ^9 Copies of the 1974

survey questionnaires are presented in Appendix G. (Copies of the 1971 survey forms are found in the "First Year Results" referenced earlier.) Users of the two major Corridor

park-and-ride lots were sur\'eyed on-board buses during Februan^ and >krch 1973 to determine

factors important in their decision to park-and-ride. -^O In June 1972, passengers were

surveyed to determine their reactions to the special interior features (wide seats,

carpeting, etc.).^-'-

A number of anal>^ical procedures, employing plausible assumptions when direct data were

lacking, were utilized to estimate project impacts and measures of effectiveness. Many of

these procedures are described in earlier reports and so are only mentioned in this document.

These procedures were applied to estimate: 1) bus market share, 2) commuter travel time

savings due to the priority lanes for buses and carpools, 3) reductions in automobile volumes, gasoline consumption and air pollutant emissions, and 4) bus operating costs.

See ">bde Choice and the Shirley Highway Experiment."

30

See "A Study of Park-and-Riding -- Interim Report 6."

^'"See 'TJsers' Reaction to Innovative Bus Features -Interim Report 3."

25
3.0 IMPROVEMENT IN THE QUALITY OF BUS SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO TKB DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

A prlmar)'- goal of the project was to demonstrate that express bus operations improve

the quality of Corridor bus service. "Quality of service" is an elusive characteristic of

a bus transit system because it is a subjective concept, dependent upon user's perceptions.

Subjective perceptions vary widely and are also difficult to quantify. However, previous

studies have shown that commuters consistently rate the following measurable system performance characteristics as very important in mode choice decisions involving transit:

1) schedule reliability, 2) travel time, 3) convenience of the service, and 4) comfort of

the trip.

Based upon these findings, four characteristics were chosen as primary indicators of

the quality of bus service, and the goal, "improve the quality of bus service," was then

interpreted as 1) improve bus schedule reliability. 2] reduce bus travel time, 3) improve

passenger convenience, and 4) improve passenger comfort. This section examines project

performance to determine whether or not the quality of Corridor bus service was improved.

Quality of service is assessed using both passengers' perceptions and direct measurement of

changes in the four characteristics as defined below:

1. Schedule reliability - refers to the ability of buses to consistently arrive at

their origins and destinations at the scheduled times.

2. Travel time - refers to the interval from the time a commuter leaves his home until

he reaches his place of work. Travel time includes access time, the time spent traveling

from home to the bus stop; waiting time, the time spent waiting for a bus to arrive; invehicle time, the time spent traveling in a bus; and egress time, the time spent traveling

from bus stop to place of work.

3. Convenience - refers to the quality of the bus ride and includes the proximity of

bus stops to both passenger origins and destinations, the frequency of bus service, and the

directness of routing between origin and destination.

4. Comfort - refers to such amenities as air conditioning, sound proofing, and seating. Most of these characteristics are covered in the report, "Users' Reactions to Innovative Features," and will not be reiterated here. Another aspect of bus comfort, which

was identified in bus passenger surveys, was freedom from the discomfort and stress associated with commuting by auto to work.

3.1 Improvements in Bus Schedule Reliability

Bus schedule reliability has two dimensions. One, "schedule adherence," is measured

by the difference of the actual (observed) and scheduled (published) arrival times. The other

involves commuters' perceptions as determined through responses to survey questions on the

reliability of the bus service.

Bus schedule adherence was examined to determine the effect of the project priority

elements- -the reversible lanes on Shirley Highway and the bus priority lanes in downtown

Washington- -on the reliability of the bus service. To determine the effects of the busway

upon schedule reliability, schedule adherence was examined for buses arriving at their first

stop upon leaving the busway. Table 2 presents trends in the on-time distribution of buses

arriving at 14th § C Streets, S.W. in downtown Washington, the first stop upon exiting the

busway. The Spring 1971 observations were recorded prior to the opening of the entire busway in April 1971. As indicated by subsequent observations, there was an immediate improvement in schedule reliability after the busway opened.

'Alan N. Nash and Stanley J. Hille, "Public Attitudes Toward Transport Modes: A Summary of

Two Pilot Studies," Highway Research Record 233 (1968), 33-46; Thomas F. Golob, ^al .

,

"An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for a Public Transportation System" (Warren, Mich:

General Motors Corporation, 1970), 17-23; Christopher H. Lovelock, "Consumer Oriented

Approaches to Marketing Urban Transit," prepared for Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, March 1973, available from NTIS, Springfield,

Virginia, PB-220 781.

26
Generally, buses were within 6 minutes o£ scheduled arrival times at this first stop in

do^snto^sn V>'ashington. It should be noted that hea\y patronage increases on busway routes

(from about 3,800 in 1969 to 13,700 peak period passengers in October 1974)2 and longer suburban collection route segments increased delays during the collection portion of the bus

trip, thus preventing an even greater improvement in schedule adherence. Such delays could

be recovered only partially through the higher operating speeds possible during the line

haul segment on the reversible lanes.

Table 2

Schedule .Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway

Buses at First Stop in D.C. (14 § C Streets, S\f)

NUMBER OF

OBSERVATIONS

PERCENT OF OBSERV-'ED BUS TRIPS

1 OBSER\^ EARLY 1 OX TBE MINUTES LATE

1-6 7-15 0\TR 15

Spring 71^ 32 15 0 18 67 0

Fall 71 226 36 8 35 16 5 Spring 72 91 42 13 14 3 0

Fall 72 296 40 12 42 6 0 Spring 73 169 51 12 31 6 0

Fall 73 124 44 51 4 0

Spring 74 128 45 11^ 37 4 2 Fall 74 177 41 8° 42 8 0

before the entire bus^s"ay opened

^Includes up to one minute late

To measure the effect of the do\vnto^vn priority lanes on schedule reliability during

the distribution portion of the bus routes, schedule adherence checks were also performed

at the last bus stop in the District. The results, sho^sn in Table 3, reflect only the performance of the buses as they travel over the system of bus priority lanes between the first

and last stops islthin the District. This is achieved by disregarding \shether a bus was early

or late at the first stop and computing its on-time performance at the last stop solely on

the basis of the travel time between the t^vo stops.

The effects of the priority lanes on schedule reliability were not as impressive as those of the bus\s-ay. (See the "percent 7-15 minutes late.") This v.'as due largely to the

disruptive effects of subway construction in the domtom area. However, it should be noted

that without the priority lanes, sub\say construction would have had a much more damaging

effect on bus schedule adherence ^slthin dorato^sn Washington.

.ess othenslse noted, all references to patronage and bus trips refer to WMATA routes only.

27
Table 3

Schedule Adherence for A.M. Peak Period Busway

Buses at Last Stop in D,C. (20 § Eye Streets, NW)

WHEN NUMBER OF PERCENT OF OBSERVED BUS TRIPS

OBSERVED OBSERVATIONS EARLY ON TIME MINUTES ]LATE

1-6 7-15 OVER 15

Fall 71 226 19 9 64 8 0

Spring 72 -.91 4 6 65 25 0

Fall 72 296 5 6 74 : 15 1 Spring 73 169 9 9 50 25 7 Fall 73 120 3 3 74 20 0

Spring 74 128 7 19 56 19 0

Fall 74 174 5 4 65 26 0

The on-board bus survey taken in November 1974 contained two questions designed to elicit

information concerning passengers' perceptions of bus schedule reliability at both the origin

and destination of the bus trip. The responses to these questions were categorized by 1)

passengers on routes which utilized the reversible lanes and by 2) those which utilized other

Corridor arterials (hereafter referred to as non-busway routes) . As indicated by the results

summarized in Table 4, no statistical difference was found between the two distributions

(based on a Chi-square test at the 5 percent level) . Approximately 70 percent of both

populations indicated that their buses seldom arrive at their destinations later than the

scheduled times. (It should be noted that patronage had declined on non-busway routes and

expanded dramatically on busway routes.)

Table 4

Passengers' Responses to Bus Reliability Questions^

RESPONSE BUSWAY

Percent

NON-BUSWAY

Percent

Q: Does this bus arrive at your boarding bus stop later than scheduled time?

Never 10 8 Seldom 70 70

Usually 18 19

Always 2 3

Q: Does this

scheduled

bus arrive

time?

at your destination bus stop later than the

Never 5 5 Seldom 66 64

Usually 25 27

Always 4 4

From the November 1974 Bus Survey

28
5.2 Comparison of Busway and Non-Busway Bus Travel Times

Travel time by bus is influenced by the reversible lanes which affect speed, and by the

expansion of service which affects both the frequency and routing of buses. Each of these

project elements affects the different components of travel time in different ways. These

effects were directly measured by observing bus travel times and speeds, and indirectly

measured through an investigation of passengers' perceptions of travel time.

5.2.1 Measured Travel Time

The reversible lanes were expected to provide higher bus line haul speeds and hence

shorter in-vehicle times. To investigate this, a con^arison was made between trips on routes

using the busway and those using other Corridor arterials. It would be expected that for a similar trip,^ the operating speed for a bi^sway route would be higher than for a route not

traveling on the busway. Table 5 gives scheduled travel time, mileage, average passengers

per bus and computed average speed for selected groups of busway and non -busway routes.

These bus routes are shown in Figure 5 on page 14. For all groups examined, the scheduled

bus operating speeds are faster for busway routes, with the difference ranging fron 1.5 mph

to 9.7 mph. These statistics reflect the fact that the busway allows buses to maintain a high average speed on the line haul portion of the route without interference from other

vehicular traffic.

Table 5

Comparison of Scheduled Operating Speeds

of Busway and Non-Busway Routes ^

BUS ROUTE LINE HAUL

ROADWAY

AVERAGE

PASSENGERS/BUS

TOTAL ROUTE

LENGTH

tmiles)

SCHEDULED

TREP ^piME

fimnntesl

SCHEDULED

^OPERATING SPEED

llA^ G.W. Parkway 42 21.5^ 75 17.5

IIT EX G.W. Parkway 49 21.5^ 66 19,7

18D Shirley Busway 40 20.7^ 56 22.2

IIY EX G.W. Parkway 52 19.5^ 61 19.2

18K Shirley Busway 45 55 22.1

16A EX Columbia Pike 55 44 15.5

29G Shirley Buswa> 56 10.8^ 28 22.5

Based upon information available in Metrobus Timetables, September 1, 1974, published by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

^See Fig\;ire 5, page 14, for location of routes.

Q Distance from origin of route to terminus at 20th § Eye Streets, N.W.

dr^ • Distance to Virginia end of 14th Street Bridge.

The line haul speeds attainable on the busway are highlighted by bus speed checks taken

on the reversible lanes between the Turkeycock entrance ramp and the Washington Boulevard

exit ramp (refer to Figure 2, page 10 for location of these ramps). Table 6 lists travel

times and computed speeds observed during January 1975 for this 6.5 mile section of conpleted

busway. As indicated, the busway provides for very high line haul speeds vdiich approach the

55 mph speed limit of the highway.

Similar trips are defined as trips which are approximately equal in terms of average patronage per bus and route length, with comparable percentages of suburban collection, line haul,

and downtown distribution route segments.

29
Table 6

Average Busway Line Haul Speeds

Between Turkeycock and Washington Boulevard'^

TIME PERIOD NUMBER OF

OBSERVATIONS

AVERAGE TIME

(Minutes)

AVERAGE SPEED

(mph)

6:30-7:00 9 7.57 49.9

7:01-7:30 16 7.52 50.3

7:31-8:00 23 7.34 51.5

8:01-8:30 15 7.40 51.1

8:31-9:00 5 6.99 54.1

distance between ramps is 6.3 miles.

Standard deviations ranged from .46 to .79 minutes.

3.2.2 Perceived Travel Time

Questions on the on-board bus survey form (see Appendix G) were designed to yield information concerning passengers' reported total trip time. By examining reported bus travel

times from selected Corridor origins, equidistant from doimtown Washington and served only

by busway or non-busway service (but not both) , an indication could be obtained of whether

or not passengers perceived the shorter travel times afforded by busway service.

Table 7 lists mean reported door-to-door trip times for three pairs of census tracts

with busway and non-busway origins. For all pairings, reported travel times on busway buses were shorter than those on non-busway buses, with the differences ranging from eight to eleven

minutes. This indicates that not only did busway service provide shorter measured travel times

than non-busway service, but also that the difference was perceived by the passengers.

Table 7

Mean Reported Trip Times by Bus From Selected Corridor

Origin Census Tracts to Downtown Washington, D.C.

CENSUS

TRACT

DISTANCE

FROM CBD

(Miles)

MEAN PERCEIVED

TRAVEL TIME

(Minutes)

NUMBER OF

OBSERVATIONS

TYPE OF

SERVICE

4002.00 8.0 62.0 20 Non-Busway

2001.03 7.4 51.0 45 Busway

4010.00 11.7 65.7 14 Non -Busway

4034.00 11.3 54.9 26 Busway

4011.00 13.4 65.4 13 Non -Busway

4038.00 13.1 56.9 76 Busway

^See census tracts in map on page 33.

30
Another comparison made was between reported bus and auto travel times from origin census tracts served exclusively by either busway or non-busway service. In all cases, the perceived

difference between bus trip time and auto trip time was less for origins served by busway

routes than for those served by non-busway routes. While neither busway service nor non-busway

service was reported to be faster than auto, reported travel times via busway service more

closely matched those by auto.

5.3 Improvement in Bus Passenger Convenience

Passenger convenience, as defined previously, is dependent upon the location of bus

service relative to potential commuters, the frequency of that service, and the directness

of routing of the service. During the life of the project, the expansion of bus service,

both in coverage and frequency, affected each of these deteminants of passenger convenience.

5.3.1 Bus Service Coverage

Bus service coverage is a broad term which attempts to depict the extent of the bus

service area in the Corridor. It depends upon the number and geographic locations of bus

routes as well as the location of park-and-ride facilities.

Route miles is one indication of the extent of bus service and hence its service coverage.

Figure 4, page 13 depicts project routes in June 1971, just after the inception of the project. At that time there were approximately 122 route miles of service, concentrated primarily in the northern portion of the Corridor. Of that total, about 60 route miles comprised

service that was routed over at least a portion of the busway. Figure 5, page 14 depicts project routes in September 1974 when the service had been expanded to approximately 260 route

miles. Most of the expansion of 138 route miles occurred in the southern and western portions of the Corridor and was due to the increase in express busvay routes developed by the

Demonstration Project. (During 1974, WMATA added new express bus routes to satisfy patronage demands stimulated by the project routes.) Concurrent with the increase in bus route

miles was the increase in bus trips. The number of bus trips (during each peak period) using

the busway and entering the reversible lanes at all entrances from Shirlington southward

increased from 96 in September 1970 to 297 in September 1974, a more than taro-fold increase.

Another indicator of the extension of bus service in the Corridor is obtained from an

examination of one busway route over the lifetime of the project. Route 18 services the

West Springfield area of Fairfax County with trips to the Pentagon and the District of

Columbia via the busway. (See Figure 5, page 14.) Figure 9 shows the Route 18 schedule as of July 1969. At that time, there were seven trips during the A.M. rush period (6:00-9:00

A.M.) serving either the Pentagon, or Washington Terminal. Also shown in Figure 9 is the

Route 18 schedule for September 1974 when there were 57 trips during the A.M. rush period

to destinations \s^iich included the Pentagon, Crystal City, Washington Terminal, Southwest

Mall, and Farragut Square. Between July 1969 and September 1974 one-way route mileage on

Route 18 doubled, going from 13 to 26. The dramatic increase in the Route 18 service over

the life of the project is representative of the expansion which occurred on routes in the

southern and western portions of the Corridor.

31
7:13 7:30 ISC 5:53 6 CO C 02 £ M 6.12 6 2 1 6:41 6:50 lEX 'StiirjlulllHtlt S: 13) 6:22 6-24 6 23 E:4S 6:57

T:-44 7:56 18V 6:21 6:26 6 30 6:44 7;5b S:10 ISC 6:13 6 2Q 6.22 S:. 6 32 6 41 7:01 7:10 ISA ifttt & Pioneer S SOI 6 34 6:13 6:i9 6 53 7:13 7:1S f:03 S:15 18P EIE 1 6 23 6:35 6:44 6 IS 702

S:2-; t:36 lev

j

6:25

j

6:32 6:46 6:4S 6.52 7:06 ISP 11 1 Pioxtti eisi 6:40 6 19 6:55 ; 59 .7:13 ICfviuI Ciiv 7-iSI \lSfnnif„lilPliiiS:tOI 6:49 6:51 6 SS 7:15 7:21 ISO 6:33

1 ••• 6:<0 e«7 6 50" 659 7 03 7:17 7:27 7.29 ISW 1 ... 7:00 7.02 7:06 7:20 isa IFrin. A Pionetf S:55} 6:59 7:03 7:14 7:18 7:32 7:42 7:44 ISH (Oiange Hunt 6:4 :) ;:S2 1 6,55 6:58 7:C7 7:21 7:31 7:40 l!G 6<3 6:50 I 6:52

I E-59 7:02 7:11 7J1 7:4a IE" 6.45 6 52 t 6.54 7 01 7 04 7:13 7:19 7 23 7:37 ISK 6:52 6:59 7:01 7:07 7:16 7:S 7.45 ISX tldPUiil on 7:11 7:13 • ' • 7:17 7:37 7:4S I8G 6:53 7.oa 7:02 7:03 7:12 7:21 7:41 >:S0 1!W 7:14 7:16 7:20 7:34 ISP 6:57 7:04 7:11 7:14 7:23 7:29 7:33 7:47 ISA tffjfi. &Pionttf 1: 01 7:14 7:23 7:29 7:33 7:63 ISX tSpiirt^trtiaPtut?. 121 7:21 7:23 7:27 7:47 7:56 ISH 6:SS 7:05 7:12 7:15 7:25 7J7 7:31 (S.W. Mill 7*)) (lii, t c 7ii6J UC 7:03 7:10 7:12 7:19 7J2 7:51 7Jil S:0a lEX/ .7:28 7:30 7:34 7i48. ISS 7:07 7:14 l-2\ 7:24 7:33 7:39 7:43 8:03 8:05' ;« (Sprinjfitid Plan 7:22) 7:31 7:33 7:37 7:57 <:(« ISP 7:t» 7:13 7:15 7:22 7J5 7J4 7:38 ISS 7:06 7:15 7:17 7:24 7:27 7:36 7:55 8:CS I8H (Orange Huit ):!5> 7:2? 7:25 7:23 7:37 7)51 8:01 8:10 IK 7:13 7:20 7:22 7:29 7:32 7:41 8:01 6:10 ISX (Sprinsf tia PlJia 7:32) 7:41 7:43 7:47 8:07 E.IS ISM 7:IS ... 7:25 7:32 7:35 7:45 7;<7 7:51 (S.W. Mall 8:10) (41)1 t C B:16) 18* (fun S PiV.ttf 7:301 7:34 7:43 7:49 7:53 8:13 8:15 ISP 7:19 7i6 7:33 7:36 7:45 7:49 ... ' 8:03 1S3 7:18 7:25 7:27 7:31 7:37 7:45 8:06 8:15 ISO 7J1, 7:33 7:37 7:40 7:49 7:53 (V^l. Mjn. Br.)8;I7 8:19- ICK 7:23

7' 7:34 7:37 7.-40 7:49 8-09 8:13 isa 7:33 7:40 7:42 7:49 7:52 £:Ci 8:21 8:30 18X (Spr;ng(itl3 Plan 7:U) 7« 7:55 7:59 8:19 8:2S ISP 7:2S 7:37 7:14 7:47 7:K 8:02 6:0S 8:20 (Crrslil CilY 8:25) ISM 7:33

1 7:40 7:47 7:50 8:00 8:02 8:06 (S.W. Hall 8:25) ,4,1, J c J :31) ISX/ 7:56 7:53 f;C2 8:16 ... ... 1 ISG 7:33 7:45

j

7:47 7:54 7:57 8:05 8:26 8:35 lEX 8:00 8:02 8:06 8:26 6:35 ISX (Spfin ;r.tld PlalJ 7:5 ) "'

8:C6 8:03 6:12 8:32 8:11 18H (Orsnge Hunt 7:«,)7:52 7.55 7:58 s.c.; 8:21 8:3i 8:40

ISX, 9:10 «:12 816 8:30 ISG 7:SS 7:55 7:57 8:04 8:07 8:16 8:36 8:45 18M 7:51 8:00 8:07 8:10 >:23 8-22 8:25 IS.W. Kan 8.-45) (41!, i c 3:SU

18X (Stfingftli Plan S:12) 8:21 8J3 8:27 8:47 S.56 ISS 7i8 &i05

j E:C7 8:11 S:I7 8:?S 8:46 8J5

18G 8:C3 8:15 8:17 8.24 8:27 8:35 8:56 9:05 ISV B.'O e 32 e 36 8 50

ISX Piiii S 111 8 36 8 33 S 42 9:02 S II ISC e 23 8 30 1 8 32 8 33 8 42 8 51 9:11 9 20 ISX SBrif^Ql.ttllPlUjS '!3I e 52 8:54 8 53 9:12 9 22 9 31

-lac 8 5] i 00 1 9 02 1 9 01 910 3 17 9 19 9 25 9 33 J:4» S:Si U.M

Figure 9. Route 18 Scheidules for July 1969 and September 1974

The extent of bus service coverage cap. also he roughly shown by patronage density changes.

Patronage density is defined here as the number of bus passengers per acre and is computed

for each origin census tract. This measure attempts to define the geographic market area of

the bus service, and the intensity of transit usage by geographic area. Figures 10 and 11

show patronage density by origin census tract for November 1971 and November 1974, the dates

of two major on-board surveys. The figures show that from 1971 to 1974 there was a marked

increase in patronage density in the western portion of the Corridor. By examining Figure 5,

it can be seen that this is also the area where new routes were added.

32
33

About 10 percent of transit passengers in the Corridor were transported via private

carriers (see Table 48, page 104 ) . Greyhound, Continental Trailways, and Colonial Transit

serve the satellite conimunities o£ Woodbridge-Dale City on 1-95 and Manassas -Warrenton on

1-66 with trips to the Pentagon, Crystal City, and Washington Terminal (see Figure 6, page

17) . While- perhaps not as dramatic as the increase in service provided by WMATA, there was

a substantial increase in private carrier service, from 12 A.M. peak period trips in July

1969 to the 57 as of September 1974.

Along with the increase in service stimulated by the project was an iii5)rovement in the

directness of routing. Directness of routing refers to the number of bus trips vdiich could

be served without transfers. Eighty- six percent of the home to work trips (determined from

the Fall 1974 bus survey) made via busway service required no transfers as con^ared with

only sixty-nine percent via non-busway service.

5.5.2 Park-and-Ride Coverage

Another means for increasing the service coverage of fixed route bus systems is to promote park-and-ride service from outlying suburban areas, and one of the inqjortant goals of

the project was to inclement and evaluate park-and-ride service in the Corridor. This

aspect of the project has been reported in detail earlier.'* The specific concern of Paragraph 5.5.2 is to demonstrate that park-and-ride facilities did extend Corridor bus service

coverage beyond the immediate vicinity of the system of fixed routes.

There are three officially designated park-and-ride lots in the Corridor: designated

parking spaces at Springfield Plaza Shopping Center and at Shirley Plaza Shopping Center,

both opened in June 1971; and the BackJ.ick park-and-ride lot, a permanent parking facility

constructed at Backlick Road and Industrial Drive and opened in October 1972. All three of

these lots are served by Route 18 service, and late in 1974, Route 16G service from the

Backlick lot was added.

In addition to the three offical park-and-ride locations, there were over twenty con- sistently used unofficial locations, ranging from shopping center lots to on-street parking

near bus stops. About 21 percent of all park-and-riders used the official lots, with the

remainder patronizing unofficial locations. Figure 12 shows the location of the three

official lots as well as the locations of the most widely used unofficial park-and-ride areas

as reported in the 1975 bus survey.

Since bus routes can serve walk-on passengers only within a limited distance from the

route itself, park-and-ride access can significantly extend the market area of bus transit.

That this was the case for Corridor park-and-ride facilities is illustrated in Figure 15/

which indicates the origins of commuters who utilized two park-and-ride facilities, one

official, the other unofficial. Persons in census tracts without direct bus service utilized

the bus system by patronizing park-and-ride facilities. Persons from census tracts vdiich were contiguous with tracts served by busway routes used the park-and-ride service to reduce

their walking distance to the bus stop.

"A Study of Park-and-Riding," Interim Report 6.

35
36

3.3.3 Perceived Convenience

Another perspective on the project's effect upon convenience of bus service is gained by

examining user perceptions of convenience aspects of the service. The convenience aspects

investigated include the time spent walking to and from buses, time spent waiting for buses,

and the time park- and- riders spent driving to the bus stop. Also included are riders' reac- tions to the scheduling of bus service, i.e., bus arrival and departure times.

The November 1974 on-board bus survey form asked the following question about walking

and waiting time: "When you made this trip how much time did you spend walking to arid from

bus stops and waiting for buses?" Distributions of passengers' responses to this question,

stratified by busway buses and non-busway buses, are presented in Table 8, Approximately

70 percent of busway bus users reported less than 15 minutes total time to walk to and wait

for buses, as compared with 64 percent of non-busv/ay bus passengers.

Table 8

Distributions of Bus Riders' Access and Wait Times

Total Walk and Wait Time

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

MINUTES NUMBER OF

PASSENGERS

RESPONDING

PERCENT OF

PASSENGERS

CUMULATIVE

PERCEOT

NUMBER OF

PASSENGERS

RESPONDING

PERCENT OF

PASSENGERS

CUMULATIVE

PERCENT

0-4 617 18.4 18.4 187 13.2 13.2

5-9 868 25.9 44.3 349 24.7 37.9

10-14 849 25.3 69.6 365 25.8 63.7

15-19 512 15.3 84.9 240 17.0 80.7

20-24 285 8.5 93.4 165 11.7 92.4

25-29 98 2.9 96.3 52 3.7 96.1

30-34 73 2.2 , 98.5 38 2.7 98.8

>35 54 1.5 100.0 17 1.2 100.0

Auto Access Time for Park- and-Riders

0-4 73 6.7 6.7 25 8.7 8.7

5-9 465 42.5 49.2 74 25.8 34.5

10-14 218 19.9 69.1 52 18.1 52.6

15-19 88 8.0 77.1 36 12.5 65.1

20-24 66 6.0 83.1 31 10.8 75.9

25-29 19 1.7 84.8 13 4.5 80.4

30-34 41 3.7 88.5 19 6.6 87.0

35-39 20 1.8 90.3 7 2.4 89.4

>40 104 9.6 99.9 30 10.5 99.9

Another aspect of bus convenience is perceived auto access times of park-and-ride passengers. Table 8 also presents the distributions for busway and non-busway bus park-andriders. Sixty-nine percent of park-and-riders on busway bus service reported traveling less

than 15 minutes to reach a bus stop as compared with only 53 percent of non-busway park-and38
ride passengers. Two factors contributed to this difference: one, seivice from the official

park-and-ride lots was planned and in^lemented as a part of the project whereas only ad hoc

service was available from the unofficial lots; two, non-busway park-and-ride locations were situated in traffic-congested areas of the Corridor (non-busway routes primarily served

close-in Arlington and Alexandria) , and hence their auto access times were longer than those

to the sxaburban busway park-and-ride locations.

The final aspect of bus convenience considered in this study was bus arrival and departure times. An on-board survey of park-and-riders at the Springfield Plaza and Backlick

park-and-ride lots conducted in February 1973 solicited satisfaction ratings of the convenience

of bus arrival and departure tines from the lots. Ohe stixty nnnr>iiyi«ari that rider satisfaction

with the arrival and departure times was quite high.^

5.4 Changes in Bus Passenger Comfort and Seat Availability

. Comfort is perhaps the most subjective element of the quality of bus service. It is the

passengers' perceptions of bus vehicle characteristics such as climate control, design of

seating, interior noise level, and other such factors. Interim Report 5 investigated passenger perceptions of various bus features in terms of satisfaction and importance of individual features. The report concluded that passengers were highly satisfied with bus interior

features such as design of seating and interior noise levels. However, with one exception,

they did not consider these features nearly as important as service features such as departure and arrival reliability and travel time. The exception was heating/air conditioning.

Since that study, subsequent on-board surveys have revealed that passengers place a high

value on being able to obtain a seat. Because the project stimulated a large increase in

patronage, it was important to examine seating availability. Two measures are employed in

the determination of seating availability. One is the measured average nunber of passengers

per bus, which v*ien carpared with potential seats available per bus, yields an average

seating surplus or deficit per bias. The second measure is passenger perception of seat

availability.

Average passengers per bus over the life of the project is shown for busway routes in

Figure 20 on page 51, It is noted that for busway buses, the average passengers per bus

remained at or slightly above the seating capacity of the buses. IMs does not necessarily

mean that, with very high probability, passengers are seated v^ien ridiixr a busway bus. Certain

routes were consistently more crowded than others and passenger load varied with time so that

passengers may have been more or less likely to obtain a seat depanding i^on where and when

they boarded a bus.

The following question was asked on all three on-board bus surveys conducted since the

project began: "On an average day vhen you board this bus, do you find a seat? / / never

/ / seldom / / usually / / always." The distribution of responses to this question yields

a measure of passenger perceptions of seat availability. Reported seat availability remained

high (greater than 80 percent for always or usually finding a seat) in spite of the fact that

patronage increased dramatically during the same time period. When reported seat availability on busway buses was conqjared with reported seat availability on non-busway routes (from the

Fall 1974 survey) , non-ljusway bus riders reported higher seat availability. Ninety-one percent of non-busway passengers reported always or usually finding a seat versus 84 percent

for busway users. This is understandable in that the average number of passengers per bus on non-busway routes was only 36.4 compared with 45.8 for busway routes in Fall 1974. The

average number of passengers per bus remained relatively constant over the life of the project and reported seat availability remained high, indicating that the rapidly increasing

demand for service was accommodated by an increased supply of buses.

The reader is referred to Section Four of Interim Report 4, "Second Year Results": Parkand-riders were queried about their satisfaction with the convenience of bus arrival and

departure times at the lots and given five reponse options: 1) very satisfied, 2) satisfied, 3) neutral, 4) unsatisfied, and 5) very unsatisfied; 88 percent of the riders re- sponded either "very satisfied" or "satisfied."

39
Further insights conceming perceived cxanfort were obtained by examining reasons reported for switc±i±ng modes from auto to bus. In response to the following question

from the Fall 1974 on-board bus survey: "If prior to riding this bus you octnnuted

regularly by automobile (as either driver or passenger) , v^y did you switch to bus?"

the single reason cited most (by 33 percent of those answering the question) was the

disocanfort of connuting by auto. Another frequently cited reason was traffic congestion

encountered when driving,* This information indicates that the express bus service was

perceived as being more confortable and less stressful than driving by a substantial

fraction of those \/dx> switched from auto to bus.

^or more details, see Table 21 on page 6S

40
4.0 INCREASE IN PEOPLE WVING CAPABILITY OF THE SHIRLEY HIGHWAY CORRIDOR

A principal objective o£ the Shirley Highway Express -Bus-en -Freeway Project was to

dononstrate that high quality bus service and preferential treatment for buses and carpools

lead to an increase in the people moving capability of a Corridor. People movement was measured in terms of total person trips, bus person trips, bus market-share, and auto occupancy. Section 4 examines project stimulated changes in the people moving capability of

Corridor transportation facilities. The section is divided into three major subsections:

Subsection 4.1 describes the upward trends in total Corridor -wide people movement. Subsection 4.2 examines the trends in people movonent on the Shirley Highway and compares, them

v,lth the trends from the rest of the Corridor. These subsections show that the Shirley

Highsay, in particular the strategies on the Highway's reversible lanes, were primarily

responsible for the increase in the Corridor's people moving capability. Subsection 4.3

examines the impacts of the priority strategies on other commuters and their effectiveness

as means of increasing the Corridor's people moving capability.

4.1 Trends in Corridor -Wide People Movement

Corridor traffic flows were monitored through a program of periodic counts of all per- son and vehicular volumes crossing a seven station screenline (see Figure 24, page 99).

Trends in inbound person trips crossing the seven station screenline daily during the A.M.

peak period (6:30-9:00 A.M.) are presented in Figure 14. ^ (Tables presenting details of

Corridor screenline counts are presented in Appendix A.) Between April 1970 and June 1972,

total daily person trips crossing the seven station screenline remained fairly constant at

about 63,000. Since then, total daily person trips increased to approximately 76,000 person trips in November 1974, when the last screenline counts were made.

^^ost of this increase was produced by a steady increase in daily bus person trips,

from about 14,300 in April 1970 to about 24,300 in November 1974. (These totals include

bus riders carried by private companies.) In contrast to the steady increase in bus person

trips, auto person trips declined from 48,500 in April 1970 to about 44,000 in June 1972,

followed by an increase up to about 50,000 in November 1974. Thus, there was a net increase

of only 1500 auto person trips during the life of the project. As a result of the large

increases in bus person trips and the slight increases in auto person trips, the "bus percentage" of the total person trips crossing the screenline increased from 23 percent in

April 1970 to 33 percent in November 1974.

4.1.1 Trends in Corridor-Wide People Movement by Bus

For various reasons, bus is regarded as a more effective means of carriage than auto;

thus, increasing bus's share of ccrmiters increases the effectiveness of the transportation

systen. Bus market-share is defined as the percentage of "project trips" that are made by

bus. A project trip was defined as a person trip by either 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 was defined as the area where commuters had the potential to use buses and was described in Section 2

.

The 'T3US percentage" of the total person trips crossing the screenline would equal the

bus market share if all of the auto and bus person trips counted at the screenline actually

began in the Corridor and ended in the destination areas. However, such was not the case. Some trips crossing the screenline did not begin in the Corridor. These were primarily auto

through- trips beginning in the southern counties of Virginia or in other states, and bus

trips beginning in southern Virginia. They also included some trips along Arlington Boulevard and Columbia Pike ^<Mch originated outside the residential portion of the Corridor.

Some trips crossing the screenline also did not end in the project destination areas. These were primarily auto trips but also included bus person trips that involved transfer to buses

that travel outside the project anployment areas. Removing from the screenline counts all

of the non-project trips leaves the remaining person trips crossing the screenline as those

that could have been made by bus. (Hmvever, this ignores some persons' need for a car during

the work day.) Bus market share is the percentage of these remaining trips that are in fact

made by bus.

"See Appendix A for a description of the counting program.

'Person trips across an eighth screenline station, on the northbound ramp connecting the

Woodrow Wilson Bridge with the Anacostia Freeway (1-295), are not included in Corridor

person trips because very few persons traveling on 1-295 travel through the Corridor.

41
80,000

75,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

CO

Q.

tr 45,000

z

o

^ 40,000

Q.

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10.000

1—I—

r

T\—

r

AUTO PERSON TRIPS

BUS PERSON TRIPS

J I \ \ \ \ \ I \ L

1—\—

r

1—I

]—\—

r

J l_l \ L 4 6 10^ 3 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 —> V _ 70 71 72 73 74

DATE OF COUNT (month, year)

J L

Figure 14. Trends in Person Trips Crossing Screenline (Inbound 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

42
Table 9 summarizes the confutations o£ this procedure. Columns 2 and 3 of the table

present the' screenline person trip totals for October 1970, October 1971, October 1972,

October 1973, and October 1974.-^ Columns 4 and 5 are estimates of the project trips. The

1970, 19^1 , and 1972 estimates are based upon the appropriate screenline counts and the project trip percentages obtained frcm the October 1971 surveys [54.7 percent for auto persons

and 88.8 percent bus persons).

The 1973 and 1974 estimates are based upon 1973 and 1974 screenline counts and project

trip percentages obtained from the November 1974 sur\'eys (53.8 percent for auto persons and

84.6 percent for bus persons). The resultant market share estimates are shov-n in Column 7. Figure 15 displays the changes over time in these (estimated) bus market shares, and includes a value for 196S, before the project began. The 1968 value of 27 percent was obtained from estimates of auto and bus person project trips from the Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments (COG) 1958 home interview survey.^

Table 9

Estimates of Corridor Bus >Iarket Share

from 1970-1974

DATE AUTO PERSONS

AT SCREENXINE

BUS PERSONS ^ AT SCREENXINE"

' PROJECT .AUTO

PERSON TRIPS

PROJECT BUS

PERSON TRIPS

TOTAL PROJECT

PERSON TRIPS

BUS MARKET,

SRARE

ESTIMATE

(PERCENT)

Oct 70 55,708 14,768 30,776 13,114 43,890 29.8

Oct 71 48,008 17,577 26,260 15,608 41,868 37.7

Oct 72 48,536 20,050 26,440 • 17,804 44,244 40.2

Oct 73 53,264 21,864 28,656 18,497 47,153 39.2

Oct 74 56,071 24,883 30,166 21,051 51,217 41.1

Includes passengers on buses of private companies.

The estimates indicate that the bus market share increased from 27 percent before the

project began to around 40 percent in 1974. TMs substantial gro^vth indicates the success

of the project in increasing the effectiveness of Corridor people movanent. The leveling

off of the bus market share after October 1972 (at around 40 percent) masks the continued

substantial grov.th in the number of persons crossing the screenline by bus , Ish.ile the

number of bus persons continued to mount, the number of auto persons also began to increase

during 1973 ard 1974.

^Persons crossing the eighth screenline station (the rarrp to 1-295) were included in bus

market share estimates. Although persons traveling on 1-295 were not traveling through the

Corridor, some of them were making project trips.

4

"The Home Interview Surv^ey-'^shat and lNh.y," Information Report No. 5, by the Transportation

Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, W^ashington, D.C., February

1968.

43
o o o o o o

lO ^ ro CM

—

lN30d3d

44
Ratios of the number of project trips to the number of trips counted at the screenline are the principal source of potential error in the estimates of bus market share. The

estimated ratios will be in error if the actual ones fluctuate widely over time or if data

used to measure the ratio (at a particular point in time) are inaccurate or incomplete. Since

there is little difference bet\sreen the 1971 and 1974 ratios for bus or for auto, it is

plausible to assume that the ratios of the number of project trips to the number of trips

counted at the screenline are stable over time. With respect to the data for a particular

ratio, data used for the bus ratio are sufficient to assure reasonably precise measurement.

This is not the case ^vdth the ratio for auto. Of the autos which crossed the screenline,

only those \n.th. Virginia license plates could be mailed survey forms. To estimate the

percentage of autos mth Virginia tags crossing the screenline, license tags were recorded

and these tag nun±)ers were matched against the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles

records of registered o\sTiers' addresses in the counties of Fairfax, Arlington, and Prince

William, and in the cities of Fairfax, Alexandria, and Falls Church. The percentage of

licenses tliat did not match the addresses in these nearby counties and cities was taken as an estimate of the fraction of Virginia auto trips that did not begin in the area influenced

by the busway.

For autos mth non-Virginia license plates, it could not be determined how many, if any,

of these persons were making project trips; however, a high turnover rate exists among

Corridor residents, and many military personnel living in the Corridor legally retain out-ofstate license plates. On this basis, it was assumed that many of the persons in autos with

non-Virginia license plates were making project trips, and the ratio for the autos with

Virginia license plates ms assumed to also apply for autos mth non-Virginia plates.

Therefore, in terms of possible errors in the ratios of project trips to trips counted

at the screenline, the ratio for bus is probably quite accurate. Because the nature of trips

by persons in autos ^slth non-Virginia license plates could not be determined, such a confident statement cannot be made regarding the ratio for auto. The effect on market share of

the uncertainty associated with the ratios was investigated by varying those estimated from

the October 1974 survey, bus by +_2 percent and auto by +10 percent. Results from this

analysis of the sensitivity of bus market share to the ratio estimates (presented in Table

10) indicate that the October 1974 market share lay between 35 and 47.7 percent. The lowest,

35 percent, is distinctly higher than the 30 percent figure which existed in 1970 prior

to the beginning of the prrject.

Table 10

Sensitivity Analysis of Bus Market

Share Estimates

RATIOS VARY BY NOV. 74

(PERCENT)

01 Auto 0% Bus 41.1

- 5% Auto +21 Bus 44.4

+ 5% Auto -2% Bus 38.1

-101 Auto +4% Bus 47.7

+10% Auto -4% Bus 35.1

4.1.2 Trends in Corridor-Wide People Movement by Auto

Carpools transport travelers efficiently, and so auto occupancy (the average number

of persons per auto) is a measure of the people moving effectiveness of Corridor automobiles.

Corridor --^slde auto occupancy rates, which are presented in the bottom portion of Figure 16,

showed a dom^v^ard trend between 1970 and 1972, going from an average of 1.42 in April 1970

(at the beginning of the screenline counts) to 1.34 by the end of 1972. For the next year,

auto occupancy remained fairly constant. Then it rose, going to 1.47 in November 1974, vdien

the last screenline counts ^vere taken. During the period between April 1970 and Novanber

1974, the daily number of autos remained relatively constant at 34,000.

See also Tables 46 and 49 in Appendix A, which summarize the auto occupancy trends.

45
1

\—r-r 1

\—\—\—\—\—\—I—

r

55,000 -

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

AUTO VEHICLES

.50

1.45

35

.25

AUTO OCCUPANCY

Ol I L J I L J \ \ L

4 6 IQ 3 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 10 4 6 I 70 71 72 73 74

DATE OF COUNT (month, year)

Figure 16. Trends in Corridor Auto Usage (Inbound 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

46
Of particular interest was the increase in auto occi^ancy from the October 1973 level

to the 1974 levels,^ after the steady downward trend between 1970 and 1972. This was in large

part due to the gasoline shortage and to the energy conservation strategies of the winter of

1973-74 which encouraged the formation of carpools. These strategies included the opening

of the Shirley Highway busway to carpools of four or more persons in December 1973. See

Paragraph 4.2.2 for further information on this matter.

4.2 Comparison of People Movments on Shirley Highway and Other Corridor Arterials

Corridor person trips crossing the seven- station screenline inbound during the A.M.

peak period (6:30-9:00 A.M.) increased from 62,400 in April 1970 to 76,400 in November 1974.

All of this increase occurred on the Shirley Highway, where the person trips increased from

16,900 in April 1970 to 36,900 in November 1974. (Reconstruction of the highway was progressing during this period and capacity was being increased.) On the other Corridor arterials, person trips actually decreased, going from 45,500 in April 1970 to 39,500 in November

1974. Figure 17 illustrates these trends. (See also Table 49 in Appendix A.)

4.2'.l People Movement by Bus on Shirley Highway Compared with Other Corridor Arterials

As described earlier. Corridor bus person trips crossing the seven station screenline

inbound during the A.M. peak period increased from about 14,300 in April 1970 to 24,300 in

November 1974. All of this increase occurred on the Shirley Highway, with the number of bus

person trips increasing from 4,400 in April 1970 to 15,800 in November 1974. On the other

Corridor arterials, bus person trips decreased from 9,900 in April 1970 to 8,500 in November

1974. Figure 18 illustrates these trends and details are presented in Table 46 in Appendix

A. (A detailed analysis of this increase is presented in Section 5.) All of the bus trips on the Shirley Highway were made on the exclusive busway, which became operational in increments, beginning with the southern portions. Buses that had been entering the Shirley Highway south of Shirlington Circle began using the busway in September 1969 when the first

section (the section south of Shirlington Circle) was opened. (See Figure 2, page IQ for

locations.) Buses that had been entering Shirley Highway at Shirlington Circle began using

the busway in September 1970 when the second section (between Shirlington Circle and the

Pentagon) was opened. When the last section of the busway (between the Pentagon and the 14th

Street Bridge) was opened in April 1971, buses that had been entering the Shirley Highway at

the Pentagon began using the busway. However, these buses were not considered Shirley

Highway buses (and were not included in the patronage figures for the Shirley Highway) , as they did not cross the seven station screenline viiile on the Shirley Highway and used the

busway for only a short distance.

The trends in inbound A.M. peak period bus patronage on the Shirley Highway busway are presented in Figure 19. Patronage is divided into the two classifications: ridership on buses entering the busway south of Shirlington Circle and that on buses entering the busway

at Shirlington Circle. (See also Table 48 in Appendix A.) The figure shows that all of the

busway patronage growth is attributable to the routes which enter south of Shirlington. I^st

of the growth occurred after September 1970, after the opening of the second section of busway

#iich bypassed a highly congested area on the Shirley Highway.

Nearly all of the buses added to service since the busway became operational were placed

on routes entering the busway south of Shirlington. Although the bus service was continually

expanded, the busway buses always operated, at or above, seated capacity. This is highlighted

in Figure 20 (see also Table 48 in Appendix A)

.

' The dip in passengers per bus around June

1971 is due to 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 acted as a constraint on patronage, and as bus fleet size was expanded, peak period

bus patronage increased, (A.M. peak period bus patronage on control counts made outside of

the Corridor was about 3,300 in March 1971 prior to introduction of demonstration service

and about 3,400 in December 1974 at the end of the project. The stability of these figures

suggests that patronage was not being diverted fron non-Corridor bus service.)

'According to unpublished data from the District of Columbia Department of Highways and

Traffic, the rate of decline in auto occupancy also slowed considerably on other approaches

to Washington, D.C., during 1974.

See also the "Second Year Results Report" for an examination of this phenomenon on selected

WMATA bus routes.

47
80,000

1

1

\—

r

I

I

I I—r—

r

T—I—I

\—\—\—

r

75,000

70,000

65,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

to^ 45,000

o^ 40,000

LU

Q.

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000 -

10,000

70

TOTAL PERSON

TRIPS

PERSON TRIPS ON OTHER

CORRIDOR ARTERIALS

PERSON TRIPS

ON SHIRLEY HIGHWAY

J \ I I L J \ \ L J \ \ L

.4 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 10 3 6 II 71 72 73 74

DATE OF COUNT (month, year)

Figure 17. Trends in Person Trips on Shirley Highway and Other Corridor Arterials

(Inbound 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

48
70000

65000

60000

55000

50000

45000

40000 —

35000

30000

25000

20000

5000

iOOOO

5000

AUTO PERSON TRIPS

BUS PERSON TRIPS

ALL CORRIDOR ROADWAYS

OTHER CORRIDOR ROADWAYS

ALL CORRIDOR ROADWAYS^

SHIRLEY HIGHWAY

OTHER CORRIDOR ROADWAYS

,4 6 IO/\ 3 6 10/ ,3 6 10, >3 6 10, ,3 6 11, V V V V V 70 72 73 74

MONTH OF COUNT

Fig\:ire 18. Trends in Bus and Auto Person Trips on Shirley Highway

and Otlier Corridor Arterials (Inbound 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

49
2000

1000

0000

9000

if)

UJCO<

Q.

UJCD

8000

7000

6000

9000

4000

3000

2000

1000

SOUTH OF SHIRLIN6T0N BUSES

WMATA a PRIVATE CARRIERS)

9/69

DATE OF COUNT

Figure 19. Trends in Busway Patronage Growth (Inbound 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

50

4.2.2 People Movement by Auto on Shirley Highway Compared with Other Corridor Arterial

s

Corridor auto person trips crossing the seven station screenline inbound during the

A.M. peak period (6:30-9:00) increased from 48,300 in April 1970 to about 50,000 in November

1974. During this period, auto volumes remained relatively constant at about 34,000, All

of the increase in auto person trips occurred on the Shirley Highway, where they grew from

12,500 in April 1970 to 20,000 in November 1974; correspondingly, the number of auto vehicles

increased from 8,400 to 12,800. On the other Corridor arterials, auto person trips decreased

from 25,600 to 22,0U0. Figure 18 on page 49 illustrates these trends in auto person trips.

(See also Tables 46 and 49 in Appendix A for details of the trends in auto volumes and auto

occupancy on the Shirley Highway and other Corridor arterials.)

Corridor-wide auto person trips and auto volumes were significantly affected by the

construction work in widening the Shirley Highway from a four lane facility to eight lanes.

Between April 1970 and October 1970, v^en construction extended only as far north as Glebe . Road, auto person trips and auto volumes on the Shirley and the other Corridor arterials

remained fairly level. As the construction activity moved farther north, past Glebe Road,

and congestion increased in the area of the notorious "Mixing Bowl," auto person trips and

auto volumes on the Shirley Highway decreased sharply (from about 12,000 person trips and

8,500 autos during the A.M. peak period at the end of 1970 to under 8,000 person trips and

6,000 autos by late 1971). Auto person trips on the Shirley Highway remained under 9,000

and auto volumes under 6,400 through April 1973, while the section between Glebe Road and the

Mixing Bowl was under construction. During this period, auto person trips and auto volumes on the other Corridor arterials, where congestion was already high, remained fairly constant.

Construction was completed in May 1973 on the segment between Glebe Road and the Mixing

Bowl. This changed that segment of the main roadway from a four lane facility encumbered

with construction to a new six to eight lane facility, and the number of auto persons and

auto volumes on the Shirley Highway nearly doubled. Coupled with the increase of over

9,000 person trips and nearly 6,000 autos on the Shirley Highway was a decrease of over

4,000 person trips and 3,000 autos on the other Corridor arterials, as many auto trips

sx^dtched from the other Corridor arterials to the improved Shirley Highway.

Between October 1973 and November 1974, auto person trips and auto volumes on the

Shirley Highway increased by about another 3,000 and 1,500, respectively; auto person trips

and auto volumes on the other Corridor arterials decreased by about 2,000 and 2,500 respectively. The shift of auto persons to the Shirley Highway from the other Corridor arterials was primarily due to the opening of the reversible lanes on the Shirley Highway to carpools

of four or more persons in December 1973, as auto occupancy on that Highway (including the

reversible lanes) increased from 1.35 to 1.61. On the other arterials, auto occupancy

increased from 1.32 to 1.40.

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

Another measure of people moving capability is people movement per lane or lane productivity. Figure 21 illustrates these trends for the reversible lanes and for the main

roadway of Shirley Highway during the single hour (7:00-8:00 A.M.) when the highest number

of person trips was counted. The figure clearly shows that the lane productivity of the

busway was from two to three times greater than that of the main roadway.

Values for peak hour lane productivity were calculated for the period October 1970

through November 1974. For lane productivity calculations for periods before May 1973 when

the completed eight lane Shirley Highway was extended north through the Mixing Bowl, the

busway was considered to have been a single lane facility. Even though the southern part of

the busway had two lanes of completed reversible roadway, the northern part, in the region of

maxijTium flow, consisted of only a single temporary lane.

The busway was considered as a two lane facility for the calculation of productivity

during periods after May 1973, when the temporary busway as far north as the Mixing Bowl was replaced with two lanes of completed reversible roadway. (The section of busway

extending from just north of the Mixing Bowl to the 14th Street Bridge is still tenqjorary.)

As shown in Figure 21, these changes in the computation of busway lane productivity reduced

it by one-half. Carpools of four or more persons, which began using the busway in December

52
1 0001 1 1

\ ^ 1

\—^

\ 1

\ i 1-

10/70 .3 6 10. .3 6 10. .3 6 10. .3 6 11.

71 72 73 74

DATE OF COUNT

Figure 21. Peak Hour Ihrouglput on Shirley Highway (Inbound 7:00-8:00 A.M.)

53
1973, were responsible for the sharp increases in busway lane productivity during 1974 (see

Tables 11 and 12) , However, regardless of vdiether the busway was considered a one or two

lane facility, the lane productivity of the busway was always much greater than the lane

productivity of the main roadway during the peak hour.

Table 11

Trends in Busway Carpool Usage

During the A.M. Peak Hour (7:00-8:00)

MONTH OF COUNT CARPOOLS CARPOOL PERSONS CARPOOL OCCUPANCY

March 1974 499 2231 4.47

June 1974 526 2399 4.56

November 1974 758 3404 4.49

Table 12

Trends in Busway Carpool Usage

During the Entire A.M. Peak Period (6:30-9:00)

jMONTH OF COUNT CARPOOLS CARPOOL PERSONS CARPOOL OCCUPANCY

March 1974 698 3133 4.49

June 1974 757 3472 4.59

November 1974 1050 4630 4.41

4.3 Effectiveness of the Shirley Highway Strategies for Increasing Corridor People Moving

Capability

The study of peak hour lane productivity on the Shirley Highway indicates that the

reversible lanes with bus and carpool priority treatment had a greater people moving capability than the lanes on the main roadway vdiich carried only autos. At the same time, the

travel speed and reliability on the reversible lanes were consistently higher than on the

main roadway.

Figure 22 demonstrates the large travel time savings that were realized on the busway

during the peak period. On the 6.3 mile stretch between the Turkeycock rair^ and the Washington Boulevard exit (the northernmost and most congested segment of the con^leted portion

of the Shirley Highway) , travel time savings as great as 19 minutes during the peak hour

(7:00-8:00 A.M.) were possible on the busway. Because vehicles on the busway were not

affected too adversely by inclement weather or accidents, travel time reliability was also

high. By contrast, vehicles on the main roadway were consistently affected by inclement

weather and accidents. Under such conditions, travel times on the main roadway were often

considerably greater than they were under normal conditions.

54
55
Some motorists on the main roadway might have felt that their travel times were increased

because not all autos were allowed to use all of the existing lanes. ^ To examine this con- tention, a computerized mathematical model was used to estimate the travel times for bus,

carpool, and auto users over the 1.3 mile section of the completed Shirley Highway between

Glebe Road and the Washington Boulevard exit. The model estimated these travel times both

under the bus and carpool priority operations existing in 1974 and under those conditions

that could have expected had all lanes (including the reversible lanes) been opened to all

vehicles

.

For these calculations, existing conditions under priority operations in 1974 were

assumed to be those observed in June 1974 during the A.M. peak period (6:30-9:00), v^en

45 percent of the person trips on the Shirley Highway were by bus and the average auto

occupancy on the Shirley was 1.49. It was assumed that had there been no project, the total

number of peak period person trips on the Shirley Highway would have been the same as with

the priority operations (33,800 with 18,500 during the peak hour), and the number of bus

passengers would have been about the same as existed prior to the project, about 5,000 (the

average in 1970 was 4,800). This means that only 15 percent of the total person trips

would have been by bus, and auto volumes would have been considerably higher. The average

auto occupancy was assumed to have been the same as existed prior to the project, 1.44

(about the average in 1970)

.

The estimates of travel times obtained from the computer model indicated that, along

the 1.3 mile stretch of highway, the 1974 priority operations for buses and carpools of four

or more persons saved over 1,400 total person hours daily during the A.M. peak when compared,

with the expected mixed traffic conditions on all lanes (including the tMO reversible ones)!^

without the project. A savings of 1,400 person hours is large, about equal to the total time

spent on that stretch by all ccnitiuters under existing priority conditions. In terms of

travel time savings per person, it represented not only over a three minute saving for each

bus rider and carpool user, but also a nearly minute saving for each person traveling

by auto. It is inportant to realize that this large daily tine savings still underestimates

the benefits of the priority lanes because it refers only to the 1.3 mile section between

Glebe RDad and the Washington Boulevacd exit and does not consider the P.M. peak period. For a further discussion of this point ard a general discussion of the model, see i^jpendix B.

The model clearly demonstrated that the 1974 priority operation for buses and carpools

saved considerable amounts of time not only for both the bus and carpool users on the busway,

but also for auto users on the main roadway. Thus, the 1974 priority operation for buses and

carpools was a highly effective strategy for increasing the Corridor's people moving capahility.

Another consideration was whether it was more effective to allow only buses on the

reversible lanes, rather than both buses and carpools of four or more persons. Clearly, the

members of the carpools using the busway realized considerable time savings and improvements

in reliability. At issue is vdiether the presence of the carpools significantly lowered

bus operating speeds on the busway and increased bus accidents. Preliminary data from the

Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and WMATA indicate that there were no major accidents between buses and carpools on the reversible lanes as of December 1974.

Four sideswipe -type collisions were reported; however, no injuries were involved.

Table 13 shows that the average bus speeds on the completed section of busway between

Turkeycock and Washington Boulevard during the A.M. peak period declined slightly from

about 56 mph in November 1973, before carpools were allowed on, to about 51 mph in January

1975 with carpools using the busway. This decline did not appear to be a consequence of

the carpools on the busway but rather a result of the lowering early in 1974 of the speed

It should be noted that prior to June 1973, before the Shirley Highway was con^leted as far

north as the Mixing Bowl, the provision of the temporary busway did not reduce the number

of lanes available to autos on the highway. The ten^jorary busway could not have been safely or efficiently operated as a high volume auto lane. Only after June 1973 was it physically

possible to accomodate autos on the busway. Like the carpools that were using the busway,

the autos would have been required to exit at Washington Boulevard, just south of the re- maining stretch of temporary busway,

"^An analysis of the sensitivity of these results to alternative assumptions is presented in

Appendix B,

56
limit on the highway from 60 ii^h to the national 55 mph speed limit. This is si^jported by

the bus speed observations in Table 13, which shows that the decline in speed between 1973

and 1975 during the 6:30-7:00 and 8:30-9:00 time periods ^•^en few carpools were on the busway

was about the same as the decline in speed during the 7:00-8:00 time periods when most of

the carpools (758 out of 1050) were on the busway.

Table 13

Average Bus Line Haul Speeds on the

Busway Bet^\-een Turkeycock and

Washington Boulevard (Inbound

^ 6:30-9:00 A.M.)

TBE PERIOD

AVER-IGE SPEED (MPH)^

m'BIBER 1973

AVERAGE SPEED (MPH)^

JAXUARY 1975

6:30 - 7:00 54.3 49.9

7:00 - 7:30 57.7 50.3

7:30 - 8:00 55.5 51.5

8:00 - 8:30 35.5 51.1

8:30 - 9:00 6a. 8 54.1

'Based on a total of over 65 obser\^ations throughout the peak period.

Thus, the carpools did not lower the bus operating speeds or increase bus accidents on

the reversible lanes. At the same time, the approximately 4500 carpool persons using the

reversible lanes realized the same travel time savings and improvements in reliability that

had'been accruing to the bus riders. It is clear that it was more effective to allow car- pools of four or more persons to join the buses on the reversible lanes.

57
5.0 CORRIDOR CCMHTERS AND THEIR MODE CHOICE DECISIONS

Section 5 describes Corridor bus and auto commuters and examines their mode choice

decisions. Particular attention is devoted to the influence o£ the project on these

decisions. The information used in this section comes primarily from commuter surveys

conducted during Fall 1974. Subsection 5.1 describes the survey procedures and presents

selected characteristics of Corridor commuters. Subsection 5.2 uses the survey data in an investigation of commuter travel behavior and mode choice decisions.

The primary objective in Subsection 5.2 is to provide insight into v^iy commuters use

bus or carpool. To this end, the reasons given by bus users for riding bus and reasons given by carpoolers for carpooling were examined. To isolate the effects of the priority

treatment, bus users and carpoolers were stratified into those using the reversible lanes

(busway bus users and busway carpoolers) and those using all other Corridor roads (non-busway

bus users and non-busway carpoolers) . Reasons given by commuters vdio drive alone for not •• usipg bus or carpooling vere also examined. The subsection concludes with a summary vMch

provides a brief statement of the factors v^ich were found to be important in the mode choice

decisions of Corridor commuters. A discussion of the implications of these findings for mode

choice modeling is also included.

5.1 Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys

The 1974 surveys were conducted during the last week in October and the first two weeks

in November. (Similar surveys were conducted during October 1971.) Survey objectives were to

provide information on: 1) the demographic characteristics of Corridor commuters, 2) the

characteristics of their trips, and 3) the factors influencing these commuters' mode choice

decisions. Subsection 5.1 describes the survey procedures, including steps taken to check

for potential bias due to non-respondents. The subsection concludes with a brief discussion

of the demographic and trip characteristics of the surveyed commuters.

5.1.1 Description of Survey Procedures

The surveys of bus and auto commuters involved different procedures. For the bus survey,

mail -back questionnaire forms were distributed by bus drivers to passengers on a sample

of peak period buses. The auto survey was more involved. A sample of license plates of

autos crossing the screenline (see Screenline in Figure 24 , page 99 ) was observed and

recorded. Mail back questionnaire forms were sent to the addresses of owners of those autos

which were registered in Virginia. If passengers were observed in a sample auto, a carpool

driver questionnaire form and the appropriate number of carpool passenger forms (based on the number of passengers observed) ^ere mailed. If no passengers were observed, a "driver

alone" questionnaire form was mailed. Copies of the four survey questionnaire forms are presented in Appendix G. Sampling and response rates are presented in Tables 14 and 15.

Table 14

Sample Rates for Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys

SURVEY GROUP POPULATION

SIZE

SAMPLE

SIZE

PERCENT OF POPULATION SAMPLED

Driver Alone

22,556 2,951 13.1

Busway Carpool Driver 946 625 66.1

Non- Busway Carpool Driver 9,171 1,378 15.0

Busway Carpool Passenger 3,223 2,131 66.1

Non- Busway Carpool Passenger 11,790 1,778 15.0

Busway Bus Passenger 16,106 5,259 32.7

'

Non- Busway Bus Passenger 8,777 3,021 34.5

58
Table 15

Response Rates from Fall 1974 Commuter Surveys

SURVEY GROUP NUMBER^

SAMPLED

NUMBER

RESPONDING

PERCENT

RESPONDING

Driver Alone 2,587 1,230 47.6

Busway Carpool Driver 599 360 60.1

Non-Busway Carpool Driver 1,180 388 32.9

Busway Carpool Passenger 2,043 1,125 55.0

Non-Bus Carpool Passenger i , bZZ 4ol 3U. 3

Busway Bus Passenger 5,259 3,401 64.7

Non-Busway Bus Passenger 3,026 1,429 47.2

Since some of the observed person trips were not being made by Corridor

commuters, these numbers are smaller than the intended sample figures in

Table 14.

A 30 percent sample of Corridor buses resulted in sampling rates of 32.7 and 34.5 percent

for busway and non-busway passengers respectively. A 20 percent sample of non-busway autos was attenpted. (Because of the speeds of the autos when they pass the observation stations,

this (1 of 5 autos) is about the maximum sanqjling rate.) Due to observation and recording

errors, and to autos with non-Virginia license plates, the actual san^ling rate was 13 percent

for drivers alone and 15 percent for carpoolers. Because of the small number of carpools on

the busway, and a bottleneck at the observation station, a 100 percent sample of busway car- poolers was attempted. Out-of-state autos, and observation and recording errors resulted in an actual san^le rate of 66 percent for busway carpoolers.

Survey response rates ranged from 30 to 64 percent. Commuters directly benefiting from

the busway had the highest response rates and non-busway carpoolers had the lowest response

rates. Two short studies were conducted to investigate potential bias due to survey nonrespondents. These investigations, one for the bus survey and the other for auto drivers

(carpool and drivers alone) indicated little statistical difference (based on chi- square

tests at the 5 percent level) bet'.-.'een respondents and non-respondents. (Details are presented in Appendix C.) Thus, it was concluded that the responding commuters represented a random sample of Corridor commuters.

5.1.2 Characteristics of the Surveyed Ccmmuters

The Fall 1974 commuter surveys provided the latest description of Corridor commuters.

The "typical" Corridor canmuter came from a household which owned two autos, and had an

annual household income of between $15,000 and $30,000. This "typical" commuter was a male

between 21 and 39 years old.

Except for income and auto ownership, demographic characteristics of Corridor commuters

in 1974 were essentially unchanged from 1971. The 1971 survey showed that 62 percent of bus

riders had annual household incomes in excess of $15,000 as con^ared to 79 percent in 1974;

34 percent were from households \>^ich owned two or more autos (with an average of 1.32 autos/

household) as compared to 44 percent in 1974 (with an average of 1.47 autos/household) . In

1971, 72 percent of auto commuters had annual household incomes in excess of $15,000 as compared with 85 percent in 1974; the percentage of households owning two or more autos increased from 61 to 66 percent, and average household auto ownership increased from 1.72 to
Table 16

Selected Demographic Characteristics o£ Corridor Conmiters (1974)

rWARAfTPRTClTTr'i VJlrtIvr\LjlIjI\J.iJi XLjO BUS PASSENGER

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY ALONE

(ALL)

CARPOOLER

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

J: CI ^CllL fercent X CX ^Cil L Household Income

< $5,000 0%

$5,000 - $15,000 3/ 23 7

1 o 18

$15,000 - $30,000 61 44 45 61 51

> $30,000 18 17 32 32 31

100-g 1 Ari 0. 100% iUU-6 1 A A Q. Age

< 21 yrs. J 0 JO 1% 1 % 7%

21 - 39 yrs. 59 53 47 46 45

40 - 65 yrs. 37 41 51 53 52

> 65 yrs. 0 14 1 0 1

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Sex

Male 62% 51% 73% 85% 65%

Female Jo f y 27 1 c XD

1X.\J\} nn?;0 1 nn% 100% 100%

Auto Ownership ,

0 5% 15% 0% 1% 1%

1 51 56 35 30 40

2 37 24 55 56 47

I 6 4 9 11 9

4 1 1 1 2 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Mean Autos per

Household 1.47 1.20 1.76 1.83 1.48

60
Table 17

Selected Trip Characteristics of

Corridor Commuters (1974 Survey)

BUS PASSENGERS UKlvcK CARPOOLERS

BUSWAY NON- BUSWAY AT nXTR DT TCUTAV MOM- RT TQWAY

Transfers Per Trip Percent Percent Percent Percent Pei'cent

0 86 69

1 13 29 NA NA NA

1 .2 Access Mode

iUU

Walk 67 83 NA NA NA

Auto 33

lUU

17

TTTTT IUU

Dailv Parking Cost

None 45 58 45

$0.01-. 49 4 22 12

in '^0- QQ g 7 7 $1.00- $1.49 NA NA 17 7 20

$1.50-$1.99 6

oZ $2. 00- $2. 99 14 3 10

$3.00 or more 6 1 4 IUU" IUU" IUU" Parking Location

btreet 0 0 1

Emt)lover

NA NA 53 84 68

Commercial 36 11 26

Other 5 5 5 im IUU IUU

Weekly commute JvlDae Days Use Bus

0 0 1 87 95 97

1

J. 1 1 7 4 3

2 2 3 2 0 0

3 2 3 3 0 0

4 5 5 3 0 0

5 or more 90 87 3 1 0

iUU TTTTT IUU IUU" iUU 1 Tin IUU

Days Drive Alone

0 92 92 2 94 87

1 5 5 7 5 11

1 1 7 1 2

To 1 1 4 0 0

A4 0 0 0 0

5 or more 1 1 TO7o 0 0 IUU" IUU" ±uu 11)11 IUU" IUU" Days Carpool

0 97 96 85 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 0

7 0 1

1X 0 0

3 1 1 3 1 3

4 0 0 5 6 9

5 or more 1 1 5 92 88

100 100 100 100 100

NA - Not applicable.

Survey question: "How often do you use each of the following means

to travel from home to work?"

61
Table 16 presents selected demographic characteristics of Corridor commuters. Among the

COTimuters, bus passengers were the youngest and least affluent. In addition, the bus passenger population had the most females and owned the fewest autos. Busway carpoolers were the

most affluent and owned the most autos. This group also contained the fewest females.

Table 17 presents selected trip characteristics of the commuters. Those who drove alone

(hereafter referred to as "drivers alone") used their primary mode least regularly. When not

driving alone, they used bus and carpool on an almost equal basis. About 86 percent of

Busway bus riders did not transfer during their commute and about 33 percent used park-andride access (25 percent in 1971) . Fifty-three percent of drivers alone used employer -provided

parking as compared with 84 percent for busway caipoolers and 68 percent for non-busway

carpoolers; As a group, Corridor auto commuters experienced an increase in daily parking

costs between 1971 and 1974. During this period, the percentage parking without charge declined from 56 to 50 percent, and the percentage paying more than $2.00 daily increased from

6 to about 15 percent.

5.2 Mode Choice Decisions of Bus and Auto Commuters

The commuter surveys conducted during Fall 1974 provided considerable information on

commuter travel behavior within the Corridor. Subsection 5.2 uses this information in an

examination of the mode choice decisions of Corridor commuters, with emphasis on the influ- ence of project elements. The subsection is divided into three major paragraphs. Paragraph

5.2.1 examines the mode choice decisions of bus commuters, in particular the significance of

project elements in the attraction of former auto users. Paragraph 5.2.2 examines the mode

choice decisions of auto commuters who used carpools, and Paragraph 5.2.3 examines the mode

choice decisions of commuters who drove alone. Paragraph 5.2.4 summarizes the decisions of

bus users, carpoolers and drivers alone in an attempt to present a complete picture of the

mode choice decisions made by Corridor commuters. Paragraph 5.2.4 concludes with a brief

discussion of the implications of the findings for mode choice modeling.

5.2.1 Mode Choice Decisions of Persons Commuting by Bus

After the entire Shirley Highway busway was opened in April 1971, and service was ex- panded on routes using the busway, daily peak period patronage (6:30-9:00 A.M.) on busway

buses increased from under 5,000 in October 1970 to about 16,000 in November 1974 (including

patronage on private carriers) . During the same time period, daily peak period patronage

c3eclined on non-busway buses (vAiere service was not significantly changed) frcm 10,000 to

9,000. (These trends v^e discussed in Paragraph 4.2.1.)

Those changes in patronage do not reflect the dynamic nature of the bus user population.

Of the November 1974 bus riders, 92 percent of the busway riders and 78 percent of the non- busway riders began using their present bus after the entire busway was opened in April 1971.

Even more dramatic is the fact that more than 46 percent of all Corridor bus riders surveyed

in November 1974 began using the bus service during 1974. (Table 18 summarizes responses

to the survey question: "When did you begin to regularly use this bus to commute from home

to work?") The large percentage of bus riders new to the system and the patronage changes on busway and non-busway routes indicate that busway buses attracted new riders at a much

greater rate than they lost old riders, while non-busway buses lost old riders at a slightly

greater rate than they gained new ones.

Table 18 .

Year Bus Riders Began Using Their Current Service

YEAR BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

1969 or earlier 5% 18%

1970 3 4

1971 6 7 1972 16 9

1973 : . : ^' 22 16

1974 48 46

1001 100%

62
Seme bus commuters did not have an auto available with which to commute to work on a regular basis. These were "captive" riders ^s-ho had to use a mode in which they were dependent on others regardless of ^vhether or not they were satisfied ;^^ith the service provided.

Table 19 summarizes responses to the survey question: "Is an auto available for you to

regularly drive alone from home to wrk?". These responses give an indication of the percentage of captive riders. Based on bus riders who answered either that an auto was definitely not available or that they didn't drive, 19 percent of busway and 30 percent of nonbusis'ay bus riders were considered to be captive. (For 1971, 21 percent of busway and 36

percent of non-busway bus riders were considered to be captive.)

Table 19

Reported Auto Availability of Bus Users

BUS^VAY NON-BUS^mY

Not Available

Available, But Inconvenient

Available, and Not Inconvenient

Don't Drive

16% 24%

25 23

56 47

3 6

100% 100%

Responses to the question, "If you could not comute from home to work by means of this

bus, how would you usually make the trip?", suggest that not all of these captive riders were totally dependent on bus transit. Only five percent of busway riders and 10 percent of

non-bus\vay riders indicated that they "wuld have been unable to make this trip" if they

couldn't have used their present bus. The remaining captives, 14 percent of bus^vay riders

and 20 percent of non-bus^%ay riders, indicated that they ^vould have used other buses or joined carpools. Thus, while not dependent solely on their present bus, their reported

alternate mode is'ould have been one in which they were still dependent on others.

IVhile captive bus riders had to use a mode in \\'hich they were dependent on others, there was no such dependence for the large majority of bus commuters. These were the bus. riders

who chose to commute by bus, referred to hereafter as "choice riders." Table 20 presents

the responses of these choice bus riders to the survey question: "Before you began using

this bus, how did you usually commute from home to wrk?". Sixty percent of the choice

busway riders and 56 percent of the choice non-bus^ay riders formerly used auto. Of the

commuters who had made the same trip prior to using bus, 79 percent of the busway riders and

82 percent of non-busivay riders formerly used auto (excluding those responding "other")

.

Of the former auto commuters ^vho had made the trip prior to using bus, 63 percent of busway

riders and 68 percent of non-busway riders had driven alone.

63
Table 20

Prior Conmute Mode of "Choice" Bus Users

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

Did not make this trip:^

used auto in previous trip m 28%

used bus in previous trip 23 27

used other in previous trip 4 5 Drove alone 19 19

Was an alternate driver in a carpool 5 3

Drove in a carpool 3 . 2

Was a passenger in a carpool 3 4

Used another bus 8 6

Other 5 6

100% 100%

^e trip made before using this bus was either from a different place of residence or to a different place of work (or both).

Comparing these statistics for 1971 and 1974 reveals an increased diversion of auto

commuters, primarily persons driving alone, to bus. Prior mode information is available

from the 1971 survey only for commuters who made the sane trip prior to using bus. In 1971,

of the bus riders who had made the trip prior to using bus, 60 percent of the busway riders

and 63 percent of the non-busway riders had formerly commuted by auto. Of the former auto

commuters who had made the trip prior to using bus, 55 percent of the busway riders and 50

percent of the non-busway riders had formerly driven alone.

To determine why a large number of choice bus riders in the Corridor had switched from

auto, responses to the following survey question were examined: "If prior to riding this

bus you commuted regularly by auto, v\^iy did you switch to bus?." As indicated in Table 21,

among both busway and non-busway choice riders, "discomfort of driving" was given most often

(by about one- third of the riders) as the reason for switching from auto. Almost 26% of the

busway riders indicated that an incorne related feature (e.g., "car not available/' "car

too expensive," or "parking too expensive") was the reason for switching, \diile 46% of the

non-busway riders indicated so. At the same time, 28% of the busway riders indicated that a feature related to priority bus operations (e.g., "reduced effect of traffic congestion on bus" and "bus express") was the reason for switching, compared with only 10% of the non- busway riders.

Data from the 1971 survey indicated that features related to express bus operations and

income related features were the primary reasons for switching from auto to bus. Mode choice

models developed for the Demonstration Project, using the 1971 survey data, support the finding that the expense of commuting by auto was a primary reason why auto commuters diverted to

bus.l The nodels estimated that if parking costs viere increased by one dollar (an "averaged

out" approximation to a doubling of parking costs) , bus ridership would have increased by

over 50 percent.

"^^ode Choice and the Shirley Highway Experiment."

64
Table 21

Reported Reasons IVhy "Choice" Bus Users Switched From Auto To Bus

REASONS

busi\:ay

71 Survey 74 Survey

NDM71 Survey 74 Survey

Car Not Available 181 13% 42% 26%

Car Too Expensive 8 3 7 5 Parking Too Expensive 7 10 12 15

Reduced Effect of Traffic

Congestion on Bus

14 20 12 9

LJ J- «_> wi1 LA. <J 1 \J-L. ±J1. 7 34 /I '^ JZ

Bus Faster 20 2 7 L Bus ^fore Reliable NA 2 NA 2

Bus Express 11 8 2 1

Time on Bus Useable 1 2 1 0

Other 14 6 18 8

100% 100% 100% 100%

NA - Not available.

It is significant that an analysis of the 1971 survey data did not find "discomfort of

driving" to be a primary' reason for sid-tching to auto. However, special bus surveys con- ducted in 1972 and 1973 support the finding of the 1974 bus survey that "discomfort of

driving" has becxxte a primary reascn for auto coiinuters' switch to bus. Results fron a 1972

survey of busivay bus riders revealed that the "stress and frustration of commuting" ranked

as the most important factor in the mode choice decisions of former auto Gxarmaters. Results

from a 1973 survey of park-and-riders sho\v'ed that "stress and frustration of commuting" ranked

as the most important factor in the decisions of auto commuters to switch to busway bus service

fron the fringe park-and-ride lots.-^

A special category of Corridor bus riders were those wiio "did not make the same trip

prior to using their present bus." These were commuters who began riding the bus after a change in job or residence location. An examination of the dates of the most recent changes

in job or employment locations by auto commuters revealed that such changes appeared to be a factor in the decisions of many auto commuters to s^>ritch to bus.

Tables 22 and 25 compare the responses of current auto users and of bus users who formerly had commuted by auto to the questions: 'H\'hen was the last time you changed your place

of residence?" and '^Vhen was the last time you changed your physical w^ork location?". The

auto users who s^vltched to bus had more recent changes in employment and residence locations

than the current auto user population. This finding uas further supported by Chi-square

tests which showed the differences to be significant at the five percent level.

"Users' Reactions to Innovative Features," pp. 15, 16.

*^"A Study of Park-and-Riding," pp. 11, 12.

65
Table 22

Distributions of the Dates Former Auto Users Last

Oianged Their Place of Residence

YEAR

AUTO USERS AUTO USERS WHO

SWITCHED TO BUS

1969 or earlier 44% 32%

1970 S 4

1971 9 7 1972 12 V 13

1973 15 18

1974 15 26

100% 100%

Table 23

Distributions of Dates Former Auto Users Last Changed

Their Work Location

YEAR

AUTO USERS AUTO USERS WHO

SWITCHED TO BUS

1969 or earlier 42% 30%

1970 6 4

1971 9 7

1972 12 11

1973 15 16

1974 16 52

100% 100%
5.2.2 Mode Choice Decisions of Persons Comniuting by Carpool

After a long period of decline, carpooling in the Shirley Highway Corridor began to

increase after the Fall of 1973. Of the carpoolers surveyed during October 1974, more than

40 percent began carpooling during 1974. In addition, 37 percent of Corridor carpool drivers

stated that their carpools had increased in size during 1974. As presented in Table 24, the

main reasons given for the increase in the size o£ carpools were the energy crisis of the winter

of 1973-74 and the opening of the Shirley Highway busway to carpoolers with four or more

persons in December 1973.

Table 24

Reasons for the Increase in Carpool Size

Between December 1973 and November 1974

REASON PERCENTAGE OF CARPOOL DRIVERS INDICATING REASON

BUSWAY NON- BUSWAY

Opening of Shirley Highway

express lanes to carpools

Special parking privileges

for carpools

Carpool locator services

Gasoline crisis

Other

39 5

16 19

4 13

22 22

19 41

As with bus commuters, some carpool commuters were captive riders vdio did not have an

auto available with v^ich to commute to work on a regular basis and had to use a mode in

which they were dependent upon others. An indication of the percentage of riders who were

captives can be obtained from Table 25 which presents responses to the survey question:

"Is an auto available for you to regularly drive alone from home to work?"

Table 25

Reported Auto Availability for Carpoolers

CARPOOL DRIVERS

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

CARPOOL PASSENGERS

BUSIVAY NON-BUSWAY

Not available

Available, but inconvenient

Available, and not inconvenient

5% 3%

21 15

74 82

1001 1001

10% 20%

28 19

62 61

100% 100%

67
Few o£ these captive carpoolers were totally dependent on their present carpool. Table

26 simimarizes responses to the survey question: "I£ you could not commute from home to work

by means of. this carpool how would you usually make this trip?" The responses indicated

that almost no carpoolers "would have been unable to make this trip" if they couldn't have

used their present carpool. While not dependent solely on their carpool, however, their

reported alternate mode would have been one in vdiich tliey were still dependent on others.

Table 26

Reported Alternate Mode of Carpoolers

ALTERNATIVE MDDE

CARPOOL DRIVERS CARPOOL PASSENGERS

iiUoWAl NUN-BUSWAY BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

Join or form another carpool 551 29% 44% 29%

Drive alone 26 24 ^ 43 41

Use bus 18 43 12 28

Would be unable to make trip 1 1 0 1

Other 0 3 1 1

1001 1001 100% 100%

While captive carpoolers had to use a mode in which they were dependent on others, for

the large majority of carpoolers there was no such dependence. These were the "choice"

carpoolers. To determine }fAiy Corridor commuters chose to carpool, responses to the survey

question which asked them to identify how important each of several factors were in their

decision to join or form their present carpools were examined. Table 27 summarizes these

responses. Among both busway and non-busway carpool drivers and passengers, "reduction

in commuting cost," "special parking privileges," and "convenient work locations of other

carpool members" were the factors most often reported as "very important." "Availability of

Shirley Highway express lanes for carpool usage" was also considered by over two-thirds of

busway carpool drivers and passengers to have been very important in their decisions. Only

a small percentage considered either the "availability of carpool locator service" or the

"loss of flexibility in working hours" to be very important.

An examination of selected characteristics of the previous commute and present carpool

trips of carpoolers revealed that their parking conditions and travel times had been improved.

Eighty- five percent of busway carpool drivers reported that they used employer -provided parking; by contrast, of those who had commuted by auto prior to joining their present carpool,

only 59 percent had used employer -provided parking. For non-busway carpool drivers, the

figures were 69 and 47 percent respectively.

Table 28 shows that more than 60 percent of busway carpoolers reported travel times lower

than those usually experienced in traveling by their previous mode. By contrast, a majority

of non-busway carpoolers reported travel times higher than those usually experienced on their

previous commute trips. These differences probably result from the higher line haul speeds

possible on the busway, vvdiich allow busway carpools to overcome time lost in picking up and

discharging passengers. These high speeds are not possible for non-busway carpools, hence

the resultant increases in travel time.

68
LO rO i-O

)-> Co

'J CN] t^, CO LO LO LO

CM O

CO

(Nl oto

00

Osl •PP

O

I—

I

o

o

CJP

0

H

o

fHo

op

g

s

1

!

Z3 P

g

U

5-1 O

i

i

oo

CsJ rH CTi O O LOCO o 00 to C~- '^f o LO cNj to

to CNI i-H LO cri to

t—

i

^ LO LO

LO LO

to CsJCr. LO O O to rHi-HOCO tOOLOLO

i-H O LO

LO to

to <y> LO \0

oo CTi to to LO

to CO LO to LO

o p o P

o aO 03 O o rJ !h a CO c i/i P

o o 3 >^ O IT) I—i •H 3 H p CD i-l 03 fH •S > 03 fH 1/1 p •H O •H

rami

i-i O i-H -T3 t—

1

SO o

o cX ^ M-l O

u 5h H CO tfl H O t/l rk 2 , X 03 0

•H P U !h P H P

C rH t. CO o o H O

•H •H rH .3 '— ^ p C Q P 03 0

u •H o ll r-l tA, u

3 'J •H O 3

0

Rod Sp 6

§H

P

3

r-l

i-lO

fH •H

OC

!h0

c

0

fHo

03 0

00 P 030

0H

r3

ir. ^

X 0

0 t/1 u O 0 C/5 3

op 1

o O

p o

OC c o o X

0 p

'A H

3

E

i

O

g

03u

fH0

o

0 ^ u ^

'J -c 3 o C O -3 fH Q 0 3 O

00 rHO 3 O 0 X

a ho t-- v-i-

(/) et 0 fH CO bC o OS

ill C Sh at P u rH

fH tJ o

o

"3

t/) "8 !/-, 'H 0 -3 rH SO c !h o fH 3 H

O

-3C

0

J) X •S

rt 0 p 03 o H P O p

u rH §^

H H r m

o

0 •H 0 •H > P •H& ty

fH ^H i-H •H !H o tp f- —

(

0 H C

p o rj o

fH "o •H

on

03 •H o P —

1

P H 7", •H H

B T, 03 8 3

rj 1

X

>

•H

o

infH0

m

o

o

•HP

•H

XfH0

>

tpo0

to

03 P

gU

fH0

0

•HpH

OJ fH

"HI0

5

« 0

X ^I- P

0

O S

&.H

"HO 0

fn Cu 03 § A ^ 0

CO-H

EH u

03 . 0 P

•J) fH fH O -H

69
Table 28

Distributions of Door-to-Door Travel Time Savings of Carpoolers

(Previous Commute and Surveyed Carpool Trips)

MINUTES SAVED

50-15 15-1

MINUTES LOST

0-15 15-50 50-45

Percent of Respondents

Carpool ^rivers

Btisway [208)

Non-Busway (224)

17

5

37

18

29

42

7 219

16

Carpool Passengers

Busway (560)

Non-Busway (212)

22

12

40

30

24

41

6

14

1

3

(•) Number of Respondents

Since there was a sharp increase in carpooling during 1974, the carpooling factors

discussed in the previous paragraph were examined separately for persons vAvo began carpooling during that year and for those who began carpooling earlier. In both groups, the same factors -- "reduction in commuting cost," "special parking privileges" and "convenient work

locations of other carpool members" -- were most often reported as very important.

The availability of the Shirley Highway Express lanes to carpools was the factor most

often cited as very important by busway carpoolers who joined their present carpool during

1974. (The busway was opened to carpools on December 10, 1973.) In addition, the express

lane factor was ranked fourth in importance by busway carpoolers who joined their present

carpool before January 1974. While this was probably an attempt by respondents to insure

that the busway would remain open to carpools, it is also an indication of the in^ortance

attached to the busway by carpoolers who had established carpools prior to the opening

of the busway to them.

While a majority of the choice carpoolers had commuted by auto prior to joining their

present carpools, a substantial percentage had formerly used bus. Table 29 summarizes

responses of choice carpoolers to the survey question: "Before you began using this carpool

how did you usually commute from home to work?" Former auto users comprised 75% of busway

and 85% of non-busway carpool drivers, and 60% of busway and 61% of non-busway carpool

passengers. Former bus users comprised 21% of busway and 15% of non-busway carpool drivers,

and 55% of busway and 28% of non-busway carpool passengers. With respect to the busway

carpoolers, it is significant that the residences of over 90% of these carpoolers were located in the service area of the busway bus operation (see Figure 23). Thus, the busway carpool

operation was in conpetition with busway bus service, and many of the former bus commuters

in these carpools had probably switched from the high quality express bus service of the

proj ect

.

70
Figure 23, Origins of Busway Carpoolers

71
Table 29

Prior Commute Mode of "Choice" Carpoolers

CARPOOL DRIVERS CARPOOL PASSENGERS

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

Did not make this trip:^

used auto in previous trip 11% 101 18% 16%

used bus in previous trip 9 3 9 17

used other in previous trip 1 1 2 5

Drove alone 23 51 16 27

Was an alternate driver in a carpool 23 13 20 13

Drove in a carpool 3 4 2 2 Was a passenger in a carpool 4 • 's'- 4 3

Used bus 12 12 24 11

Other 3 1 5 6

100% 100% 100% 100%

3(Ehe trip made before using this carpool either from a different place of

residence or to a different place of work (or both)

,

Of the 4200 carpool commuters (about 460 of the carpoolers were not commuting) using

the busway in Fall 1974, about 28 percent had formerly commuted by bus (20 percent of non- busway carpoolers had formerly commuted by bus) . A special category of busway carpoolers are those who joined their present (surveyed) carpool during 1974 (after the opening of the

busway to carpools) , and reported that the availability of the busway to carpools was "very

important" in that decision. These are referred to as carpoolers diverted by the availability

of the busway to carpools. Of an estimated 2400 carpoolers diverted by the availability of

the busway to carpools, approximately 32 percent had switched from Corridor bus service.

Tables 30 and 31 present selected demographic and trip characteristics of carpoolers who

formerly commuted by bus and those who formerly commuted by auto. (This analysis focuses on

commuters who switched to carpools and does not include commuters who reported that they had

not previously made the same trip.) Generally the former bus riders are younger, less

affluent and own fewer autos than the former auto users. Predictable, a higher percentage

of the former bus users perceived bus as a commuting alternative.

72
Table 30

Selected Demograpnic Characteristics o£ Corridor Carpoolers

CRARACTERISTIC

ms\m NOX- BUS1\AY

Formerly Used Formerly Used

Bus .Auto Bus Auto

Percent of Respondents

Household Income

<s 5,non 0 0 0 0

Dq_ 1X J

c; ^ nnn U U U 8 6 24 18

15- 30 000 70 59 41 51

> 30 000 22 35 25 31

Age

< 21 0 0 0 1

59 39 60 41

40-65 41 60 40 57

> 65 0 1 0 1

Sex

Male 84 90 62 72

Female 16 10 38 28

Average Autos per Household 1 . 65 1.90 1.68 1.95

Number of Respondents 212 379 56 169

Other statistics in Table 31 provide clues as to why carpoolers switched from bus. Carpooling is faster than bus; more than 70 percent of the former bus riders reported a doorto-door travel time for their present (carpool) commute trip that ^ra.s lower than the travel

time of their previous bus commute trip. The availability of the bus^\"ay to carpools appears

to have been a major factor: more than t\-.'o-thirds of the former bus riders joined their

present carpools after the opening of the bus^\'ay. The other significant factor was the preferential parking privileges extended to carpoolers. 0\^erall, about 85 percent of the former

bus riders received special parking privileges; and for those using the high speed bus^vay,

90 percent of the former bus users received special parking privileges. Corresponding figures

for former auto users are 80 and 85 percent respectively.

73
Table 31

Selected Trip Characteristics o£ Corridor Carpoolers

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

CHARACTERISTIC

Formerly Used

Bus Auto

Formerly Used

Bus Auto

Percent of Respondents

Began Carpooling

: After December 1, 1973 oy to 41H J. 41

Reported that Bus Could be Used for 97 76 91 /U

Reported Bus As Baclcup Mode 76; 17 73 16

Use Employee -Provided Parking^

Previous Trip 69 -- 47

Surveyed Trip 90 85 64 69

Changes in Travel Time

Saved 15-30 minutes 30 20 25 3

Saved 0-15 minutes 41 43 61 17

Lost 0-15 minutes 23 31 10 58

Lost 15-30 minutes 6 6 4 17

Lost 30-45 minutes 0 0 0 4

Number of Respondents 212 379 56 169

Carpool drivers only.

Some insight into why these former bus riders began carpooling can also be gained from

an analysis of responses to the ?ur^/ey question which asked for an importance rating for each

of several factors in the decision to join or form their present carpools (does not include

commuters who reported that they had not previously made the same trip) . Summarized in

Tables 32 and 33, these responses are quite similar to those of the entire carpool population,

as presented in Table 28, page 70 . Among former bus riders, "reduction in commuting cost,"

"special parking privileges," and "convenient work locations of other carpool members" were

the factors most often reported as very important. Availability of Shirley Highway express

lanes for carpool usage was reported as "very important" by more than two thirds of the former

bus riders.

5.2.3 Mode Choice Decisions of Persons Confuting by Driving Alone

Throughout the Shirley Highway Express -Bus -on -Freeway Project, the number of persons

driving alone in the Shirley Highway Corridor remained relatively constant at about 23,700.

To gain insight into why such a large segment of the Corridor commuters continued to drive

alone when preferential treatment was being given to buses and carpools, the Fall 1974 mode

choice decisions of drivers alone were examined.

Prior to their October 1974 commute trip, some of these drivers had used a bus or car- pool to make their present home to work trip.^ Table 34 summarizes responses to the survey

question: "When was the last time you regularly used the bus to commute from your present

home to your present work place?" Table 35 summarizes responses to the survey question:

"When was the last time you regularly used a carpool to commute from your present home to your

Work place?" Thirty-one percent of these commuters had regularly used a bus after the project

Captivity had not been an issue with these present drivers alone. Only one percent of them

indicated that an auto had not been available for them to regularly drive alone from home to

work. Also, only four percent indicated that one had been available, but inconvenient.

74
Table 32

Factors Important to Carpool Drivers When They First Decided

to Join or Form Their Present Carpools

FACTORS CARPOOL DRIVERS RESPONDING ' 'VERY IMPORTANT"

BUSWAY NON- BUSWAY

Formerly Used

Bus Auto

Formerly Used

Bus Auto

. Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank

Reduction in commuting cost 77 1

A 57 2 3

Availability of Shirley Highway 73 2 63 2 ID QO 7 13

express lanes for carpool usage

Special parking privileges 57 3 66 2

A A 44

•7J 56 2 Convenient work location of other 57 3 69 1 61 1 62 1 carpool members

Reduced stress and frustration in 37 5 35 6

z c ob A4 21 9

commuting

Reduction in gasoline usage 33 6 57 5 ob A4 44 4

Reduced use of an auto or making the 33 6 24 8 15 9 22 6

purchase of an auto unnecessar)'

Concern for energy and air pollution 30 8 25 7 15 9 32 5 problems

Characteristics of other carpool 20 9 10 11 31 6 18 10

members

Comfort of vehicles used by carpool 11 10 17 9 8 11 9 12

Availability of good bus service as a 10 11 16 10 26 •77 22 6

"back-up"

Additional trip time resulting from 7 12 4 15 0 15 12 11

pabbcngcl pXL,JS. up cUiU. U-J-OV^lidi Loss of Dersonal privacy 5 13 10 11 0 15 7 13

Availability of carpool locator

3 14 5 14 8 13 2 17

system

Loss of flexibility in working hours 3 15 9 13 12 11 22 6

Additional risk to personal safety 0 16 3 16 0 15 5 16

Additional auto insurance requirec

0 16 3 16 4 13 7 13

NOTE: For each group of carpoolers, tne factor with highest percentage of "very important"

is ranked first. Ties are assigned the same rank.

75
Table 33

Factors Important to Carpool Passengers When They First Decided

to Join or Form Their Present Carpools

FACTORS CARPOOL PASSENGERS RESPONDING "VERY IMPORTANT"

BUSWAY NON-BUSWAY

Formerly Used Formerly Used

Bus Auto Bus Auto

Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank"

Availability of Shirley Highway

express lanes for carpool usage 83 1 66 1 4 17 17 10

Reduction in commuting cost 59 2 66 1 48 4 56

Special parking privileges •J / zJ Od 7J 6Z 1 63 2 Convenient work location of nthpr

carpool members 56 4 61 4 55 2 64 X Reduction in gasoline usage 47 5 58 5 28 6 56 X Reduced stress and frustration in

commuting 44 6 45 6 52 3 38

Availability of good bus service as a "back-up" 35 7 16 10 32 5 24 «o Concern for energy and air pollution

problems 24 8 25 8 28 6 33 6

Reduced use of an auto or making the

purchase of an auto unnecessary Z.U 70 y

"Z c OD 1 21 11 27 7 Characteristics of other carpool

members 13 10 20 9 28 6 18 9

Comfort of vehicles used by carpool 13 10 13 11 10 14 11 14

Loss of flexibility in working hours 6 12 8 12 7 16 17 10

Availability of carpool locator

services 5 13 7 13 10 14 7 16

Additional trip time resulting from

passenger pick-up and discharge 4 14 4 15 24 9 13 12

Additional risk to personal safety 4 15 5 14 24 9 11 13

Additional auto insurance required 3 16 2 17 11 13 4 17

Loss of personal privacy 1 17 3 16 14 12 10 15

^^"^ is'r^ed^nr^t"' S"P°°1«"- ^^J"'-

highest percentage of "very important' is ranxed first. Ties are assigned the same rank. •

76
began, and 18 percent had regularly used a carpool after the energy crisis began and the

reversible lanes were opened to carpools.

Table 34

Last Time Drivers Alone Regularly Used

A Bus To Make Present Home To Work Trip

YHAR PFRCFNT

Never 49%

Not Within the Last 5 Years 20

1970 2 1971 1

1972 3

1973 4

1974 21

100%

Table 35

Last Time Drivers Alone Regularly Used

A Carpool To Make Present Home To Work Trip

YEAR PERCENT

Never 59%

Not Within the Last 5 Years 16

1970 1

1971 2 1972 1 1973 3

1974 18

100%

To investigate why those drivers alone who had tried commuting to work using bus or carpcol returned to their autos and vAiy the remaining drivers alone never used these modes,

responses to the following survey questions were examined: "If you do not now regularly

commute from home to work by bus, why not?" and "If you do not now regularly commute from

home to work by carpool, 'why not?." Tables 36 and 37 summarize the responses to these

questions. There did not seem to be any significant difference in the reasons given for not

commuting by bus between those who had tried commuting by bus in the Corridor since 1970 and

those who had not. Among both groups, "loss of flexibility in working hours," "bus takes too

long," "too much time spent waiting at bus stops," and "need car during work day" were the reasons given most often for not commuting by bus. "Bus unreliable" was also frequently given

as a reason for not commuting by bus.

Reasons given for not commuting by bus were also investigated for drivers alone v^o had

last regularly commuted by bus during 1973 or 1974. "Loss of flexibility in working hours,"

"bus takes too long," "too much time spent waiting at bus stops," and "bus unreliable" were

the reasons given most often for not commuting by bus. Significantly, an analysis of the

locations of the residences of these diverted bus riders revealed that at least two- thirds

lived in areas served by non-busway bus routes. Since it was shown previously in Subsection

77
(NI to 00 LO r~- CTl

O CTi

pcu

5h a,

00 o oto

(VI

O 00 oo

CD Xi

(->

•H

10

Oj

QJ

5h

Oj

t/5 (D • HH

00 o CTi

4-> to •Hm0

+-> u

CD

CO

LO

:S

.ao

•H0o

t/) ino Cooo

CD H op

CO

.5

4->

CD COooH oto o

>^ t/5 >^ a

in

Q es 8

on o

inX 0) o

1—1

CD o3 1—1 >

.a

•H J2 •H

CD (/I i-H 03 •H- rH •H I—(

CD •H

03 i-H

H 03 rH

^1 0) C/1

g

tj o p

p

U o 03

O

a CD o

t3 Oh

CD if) o tf) to o

C/1 j3 •H

p: TS

CD o3 p ^ o 4-> o3

c/)

p

CD o >

•H i O

c/) 03 to

<D

!h I-Ho3

CD p ^0 g mo

i—i 03 o

!/)H

!h •P 0 u

AT

a J-i to .s O I-H03

t/l

O •H>

03

u

03 1 0 • M-l o a Xt0

•P

m P

to NO

78
(VI

(Nl

r— ^ tNl r-^ ro o

t§ § ^- c

oa

O g

in (->

f-t 1 bCCH

rH 0

>^

+-> er

r-A 1—

(

U > •H U o H H H H !/) a

3 Sa

cr

%^ a

o re o +-1 c re o

o G

a §

t/; C o

cu <f> •H 1

(/) no >^ •H £X >^

+-) +-) u 3 & •H. t/) —

(

u O O > C o

-H o CO Di Q H 1—

1

•p U

X! -5 e; re

•rt i 1

r. o

X o +-> o M •H U r-l •H !^ I—

1

^ Di. o

tu

(-> J- o J=

w-( H u U o I—

1

U H m Xi u m IT, 03 0 o O

Q d Ne p e2 1

79
3.2 that busway bus service is faster than non-busway service, the slowness of non-busway

service may have contributed to this loss of bus passengers to auto.

A.S w-th the reasons given for not commuting by bus, there did not seem to be any significant difference in the reasons give^i! for not us'ing carpool between those who had commuted

by carpool in the Corridor since December 1973 and those who had not. Among both groups,

"loss of flexibility in working hours" was, by far, the reason given most often (by over

t^fo-thirds of the respondents) . "Inability to locate ethers v.llling to carpool" and "need car during work day" were also given by many as reasons.

Notice that "loss of flexibility in working hours" was given considerably more often as a reason for not carpooling than as a reason for not using bus. While Corridor bus service

afforded some flexibility of work hours (i.e. , there was usually a choice of buses operating

at different times) , carpooling probably afforded less flexibility since the carpools would

usually leave at a fixed time.

5.2.4 Summary of Corridor Commuter Mode Choice Decisions

Paragraph 5.2.4 compares the mode choice decisions of bus users, carpoolers, and drivers

alone, to provide greater insight into v^y buses or carpools were or v^e not used by Corridor

commuters. The paragraph concludes with a brief statement about the implications for mode

choice modeling of this investigation of commuters' mode choice decisions.

Generally, our examination of Corridor commuter mode choice decisions suggests that the

greatest contributors to increased bus usage and carpooling are the discomfort and expense

involved in driving alone, and the priority treatment given to buses and large carpools. The

results also suggest that the perceived inflexibility in arrival and departure times of

buses and carpools are the greatest barriers to increasing utilization of these high occu- pancy modes.

In 1974, about 61 percent of Corridor bus commuters had formerly commuted by auto, and

about 54 percent of thece former auto users had driven alone to work. Most of the former auto users reported that they switched to bus because of the discomfort (or stress) and expense

of their pr^or auto commute trip, and the express features of the bus -on- freeway operation.

The results of mode choice models developed for the Demonstration Project are consistent with

the survey finding that expense of c^mmvting by auto was a primary reason why auto commuters

switched to bus.^ These irodels estimated that a doi±)ling of auto conmuting costs would have

increased bus ridership by over 50 percent.

A comparison of the demographic characteristics of bus riders diverted from auto and of

current auto commuters revealed that the diverted auto commuters had more recent changes in

jobs 3nd residences. This finding indicates that many commuters used i job or residence

change to experiment with commuting by bus, and suggests that areas of high mobility (such

as Washington, D.C.) are potentially fertile transit markets.

While a large number of bus riders had been diverte^^ fr':^m auto, some drivers of single

occupant autos had been diverted from bus. The reported reasons for this "reverse" diversion were the excessive travel and waiting times by bus and poor bus reliability. Although most

of these former bus riders had probably used the non-busway bus service, their reasons for

switching suggest that waiting time, door-to-door travel time, and reliability of bus service

are important factors in deciding whether or not to use bus. In this instance, the level of

non-busway bus service was such that the former bus riders chose to drive alone.

During 1974, Corridor carpooling increased significantly. (Auto occupancy went from

1.33 to 1.47.) Corridor carpoolers reported that the availability of the busway to carpools

and the onset of the gasoline crisis were the primary reasons for the increased carpooling.

Carpoolers also reported on the factors important in their mode choice decisions. Factors

cited most often as very important when they decided to join or form their carpools were:

l)"special parking privileges," 2)"reduction in commuting costs," 3) "convenient work locations

of carpool members," and 4) "availability of reversible lanes to carpools" (by carpoolers

using busway) . The primary reason given by drivers alone who stopped carpooling during 1974

involved their fre'^uent need for a car on short notice.

^"Mode Choice and the Shirley Highway Experiment."

80
An examination of the present (suPv-eyed) commute trips of carpoolers and their previous

trips by other modes revealed some of the benefits enjoyed by carpoolers. One was employerprovided parking. Prior to joining their present carpool, 47 percent of the former auto

commuters used employer -provided parking; after joining the carpool, this figure rose to

69 percent. Another benefit was travel time savings, with more than 60 percent of busway

carpoolers reporting a door-to-door travel time lower than that of the previous commute trip.

The benefits of carpooling also attracted bus riders. About 25 percent of the carpoolers

had commuted by bus prior to carpooling. Of the carpoolers attracted by the policy allowing

carpools with four or more members to use the busway, about 32 percent had formerly commuted

by bus. The factors cited most often by the former bus users as important in their decision

to carpool were the same as those reported by other carpoolers. About 85 percent of the former

bus riders used eqplqyer-provided parking and nore than 70 percent reported a travel tine lower

than that of the travel time by their previous bus commute trip.

'The results of this investigation of Corridor conmuter mode choice decisions have significant inplications for the variables and modes (travel options) to be included in mode

ch'^ice models. MDSt models only include time and cost as travel variables (as opposed to

socio-economic variables).^ By contrast, six factors were found to be inportant in Corridor

commuters' mode choice decisions: 1) stress and frustration of commuting, 2) expense of

COTTOuting, 3) flexibility of arrival and departure times, 4) reliability, 5) waiting time

and door-to-door travel time, and 6) preferential parking privileges. With mode choice models

vdiich consider only travel time and cost, it will be difficult to accurately estimate the

patronage potential of transportation operations such as the Demonstration Project.

Another problem involves the representation of auto commuters. In most mode choice

models, all auto commuters are handled as a single group. However, the results from this

section strongly suggest that auto commuters should be divided into carpoolers and drivers

alone. Not only do the two groups have different demographic and trip characteristics, but

current transportation^ policies differ in the treatment accorded them, generally encouraging

carpooling and discouraging driving alone.

'See Dan Brand, "Travel Forecasting: Some Foundations and a Review of Urban Travel Demand

Forecasting", Special Report 143, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1973.

81
6.0 ENVIK3NMENTAL, SOCIAL AND EOONCMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

The project affected the environmental and social conditions of the Corridor, the

economic situation of the bus operator, and the level of service provided by the Corridor

auto system. Project -stimulated changes in auto travel times were investigated in Subsection 4.1, with a finding that the project resulted in a reduction in auto travel times for

motorists on all Corridor roadways (below what they would have been had there been no project)

This section is divided into three parts: Subsection 6.1 discusses the environmental

impacts of the project and estimates reductions in peak period auto usage, auto pollutant

emissions and gasoline usage attributable to the project. Subsection 6.2 discusses the

impact of the project on the transportation disadvantaged (i.e., the physically handicapped,

the auto- less, etc.). Subsection 6.3 discusses the economic impacts of the project and

estimates project costs and revenues.

6.1 Reductions in Auto Usage, Auto Pollutant Emissions, and Gasoline Consumption

The project had a positive impact on the Corridor environment. Diversion of motorists

to buses and carpools resulted in reductions in the use of autos for commuting. The

reduction in auto usage led to reductions in pollutant emissions and gasoline consumption.

This subsection summarizes estimates of reductions in auto usage attributable to the proj

ect and presents associated estimates of reductions in pollutant emissions and gasoline

consumption.

6.1.1 Reductions in Peak Period Auto Volumes

In the absence of the project, approximately 7600 additional autos would have used

Corridor roadways during each peak period (as of October 1974) . This reduction in auto

usage was caused by the diversion of motorists to the express bus service and into car- pools which used the busway. Auto diversion attributable to the project can be approximated

by the product of (1) the number of diverted auto commuters, and (2) the reciprocal of auto

occupancy for diverted auto commuters which was estimated from responses to the "prior mode"

question of the 1971 and 1974 commuter surveys. The "prior mode" question on the 1974 survey

was: "Before you joined this carpool (began riding this bus, for bus riders), how did you

commute from home to work?"-*-

LJ did not make this trip (from your present home

to your present work place) ; how did you commute

prior to changing your place of residence or work?

CJ auto [J bus other

/_/ drove alone

tJ was an alternate driver in a carpool with

other person (s)

l_l drove in a carpool with other person (s)

(always or nearly always drove)

.1^1 was a passenger in a carpool with other

person (s) (never or almost never drove)

/_/ used bus (specify route)

./_/ other (specify)

Responses to a similar question on the 1971 survey questionnaires were used to estimate

a value for auto occupancy for diverted auto commuters for 1971 and 1972. See "Second

Year Results Report," pp. 69, 70.

82
The magnitude of auto commuter diversion attributable to the express bus service is

estimated as the difference between the October 1974 express bus patronage and the number

of bus riders who utilized pre-project bus service. ^ An estimated 5440 commuters used preproject bus service -- 4370 from routes which used the Shirley Highway prior to the con- struction of the reversible lanes, and 1070 from bus routes which used other Corridor

arterials

.

The second factor, the reciprocal of auto occupancy, was estimated from an analysis of

the "prior mode" responses of bus riders who formerly commuted by auto. (See Appendix: D

for a detailed explanation of the procedure.) A value of .6 was estimated fron the 1971 tus

survey responses; this value was used to estimate auto diversion for 1971 and 1972. A

value of .68 was estimated from the 1974 bus survey responses; this value was used to

estimate auto diversion for 1973 and 1974. The higher value in 1974 reflects an increase

in the percentage of bus riders who had formerly driven alone to work.

As of October 1974, 7253 autos had been removed from Corridor roadways because of the

express bus service. Estimates of reductions in auto usage were computed for the month of

October for the years 1971 through 1974. (The 1971 and 1974 commuter surveys were

conducted in October.) The computational procedures are summarized in Table 38 along with

the estimates of reductions in auto usage.

Table 38

Sxjrtitary of Estimates of Bias-Stimulated Reduction in Auto Usage

ESTIMATES

October

1971

October

1972

October

1973

October

1974

Total Daily Mi Peak Busway Users 9,093 12,105 14,042 16,106

Users of Non- Shirley Highway

Buses Prior to Busway Opening,

Now Using Busway Service 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070

Users of Shirley Highway Buses

Prior to Busway Opening 4,370 4,370 4,370 4,370

Estimated Former Auto Users 3,653 6,665 8,602 10,666

Estimated Diverted Autos 2,192 3,999 5,849 7,253

As of October 1974 an estimated 323 autos had been removed from Corridor roadways

because autos with four or more occupants were allowed to use the reversible lanes. The

reduction in auto usage attributable to carpools on the reversible lanes was computed as the difference between the number of diverted autos (347 autos) and the number of autos

required for newly formed carpools (24 autos). As with the express bus service, the

estimate of diverted autos is computed using (1) the number of auto commuters diverted to

carpools because of the reversible lanes, and (2) the reciprocal of their auto occupancy.

An estimated 610 auto commuters were diverted to carpools because of the availability of

the reversible lanes to carpools. This number is the total of auto commuters who met all

of the following conditions: (1) regularly carpooled on the reversible lanes; (2) joined

their carpool after the reversible lanes were opened to carpools (December 1973) ; and (3)

cited the reversible lanes as a very important reason in the decision to join their present

carpool. Using the "prior mode" responses of these carpoolers to the October 1974 survey,

"Uris approach assumes that all new commuters (prior bus and auto users) would have used

auto and that all prior bus riders would have remained on the bus service. Since bus

patronage had been declining in years prior to the project, the likely effect of this

assumption is that diversion from auto to bus will be understated.

83
it was estimated that 347 autos had been diverted from daily peak period traffic because

of carpooling on the reversible lanes.

If all of these commuters had joined existing carpools, 347 would have been correct

as an estimate of autos removed from the roadway because carpools with four or more members were allowed to use the busway. However, one of these autos was used on a daily basis by

each of the newly formed carpools. Daily requirement for autos for the new carpoolers was estimated after an analysis of changes in carpool size since the reversible lanes

opened to carpools. When a change did occur in the size of a carpool which used the

reversible lanes, more than 80 percent of the time a new member joined an existing carpool

of at least three members. Twenty-four was the estimated daily auto requirement of the

20 percent of these commuters forming new carpools.

6.1.2 Reductions in Auto Pollutant Emissions

The reduction of auto pollutant emissions is a major objective of programs to improve

air, quality in the Washington metropolitan area. The success of the project in reducing

peak period auto emissions demonstrates the potential of bus transit in such programs.

This paragraph summarizes procedures for estimating reductions in auto pollutant emissions

and presents estimates of reductions in pollutant emissions attributable to the project.

The quantity of pollutants emitted by corridor traffic is a function of the following

factors: (1) number of vehicle trips, (2) miles of vehicular travel, (3) mix of vehicular

traffic (auto, buses, truck, etc.), (4) vehicle speeds and highway levels of service, and

(5) effectiveness of the vehicle emission control devices. The project directly affected

factors 1 through 3 and indirectly affected t^^ fourth. The reduction in auto pollutant

emissions attributable to the project occurrea because of:

(1) The reduction in both the number of vehicular trips and the miles of

vehicular travel;

(2) The removal of all buses from the main roadway of the Shirley Highway; and

(3) The increase in attainable vehicle speeds because of changes in factors

1 and 2.

Estimates of daily and annual reductions in pollutant emissions are presented in

Tables 39 and 40 respectively. These estimates are obtained as follows (see Appendix E for a detailed explanation of procedures)

:

(1) Estimates for auto exhaust emission rates of carbon monoxide (CO) , hydrocarbons (HC) , oxides of nitrogen (NOx) , and auto crankcase- evaporative

hydrocarbons (HC°) are assembled in Table 59.

(2) The effectiveness of CO, HC, and NOx exhaust emission control devices

diminishes as vehicle age increases, and so deterioration factors for

each pollutant type (listed in Table 60) are applied to the exhaust

emission rates for each model year to compute "adjusted" exhaust

emission rates.

(3) For each pollutant, an emission rate for the "typical corridor commuter

auto" is computed based upon the "adjusted" emission rate and percentage

of travel for each model year (see Figure 26)

.

(4) CO and HC exhaust emission rates are affected by vehicle operating speed.

Speeds and auto volumes (listed in Table 61) , observed during half hour

intervals from 6:30-9:00 AM on the Shirley Highway (inbound between

Route 7 and the Virginia side of the 14th Street Bridge) , were chosen

as representative of average peak period conditions for all project

commuters. The vehicle speeds are used to specify the emissions

adjustment factors to be applied to the "typical auto" emission rates

in computing peak period auto emission rates. Peak period emission

84
rates (in Table 62) for the typical Corridor commuter auto were com- puted using the speed- adjusted emission rates and the half-hour distribution of auto volumes on Shirley Highway.

(5) Estimates of reductions in pollutant emissions resulting from the

project during 1971 and 1972 assumed an average roundtrip commute

distance of 19.8 miles and auto reduction estimates of 2,192 for

October 1971, and 3,999 for October 1972. Estimates for 1973 and

1974 assumed a roundtrip distance of 25 miles, and auto reduction

estimates of 5,849 for October 1973 and 7,600 for October 1974

(from paragraph 6.1.1).3 Tne product of these figures and peak

period pollution emission rates for the "typical" auto represents

the estimated reduction in air pollution for one day during each

of these months (presented in Table 391 . Estimates of annual

reductions in pollutant emissions in Table 40, are based upon a

200 day work year.

Table 39

Estimates of Daily Reductions in Auto Pollutant Emissions

(Pounds)

POLLUTANT OCT 71 OCT 72 OCT 73 OCT 74 TOTAL FOR ALL CORRIDOR

COMMUTERS IN OCT 1974

Carbon Monoxide 6,733 11,679 22,100 32,240 122,708

Hydrocarbons (Exhaust) 689 1,194 2,168 3,089 11,777

Nitrogen Oxides 511 853 1,576 2,048 7,799

Hydrocarbons (Evaporative) 314 417 567 711 2,706

Table 40

Estimates of Yearly Reductions in Auto Pollutant Emissions

POLLUTANT JUL 71 - JAN 72 - JAN 73 - JAN 74 - JUL 71 - DEC 71 DEC 72 DEC 73 DEC 74 DEC 74

TONS TONS TONS TONS TONS

Carbon IVfonoxide 168 920 1,721 2,717 5,526

Hydrocarbons (Exhaus t

)

17 94 171 263 545

Nitrogen Oxides 13 68 124 181 386

Hydrocarbons (Evaporative^ 8 37 52 64 161

Estimates of the October 1974 reductions in daily pollutants are 32,240 pounds of

carbon monoxide; 3,800 pounds of hydrocarbons and 2,048 pounds of nitrogen oxides. 4 The

October 1974 figures represent about 26 percent of the auto pollutants generated by CorriThese assumed roundtrip distances were the respective averages of the estimated roundtrip

distances of diverted commuters using the 1971 and the 1974 survey results.

^An estimate was made of the increase in the amount of pollutants attributable to the

additional bus trips that were added as a result of the project. For all types of pollutants, the increases due to buses wei-e less than five percent of the total decrease

attributable to diverted autos.

85
dor commuter traffic crossing the screenline (or about a 21 percent reduction in what auto

pollutants would have been in the absence of the project).

6.1.5 Reduction in Gasoline Consumption

As present day awareness of the limited nature of energy resources has increased,

public transportation has been looked to as a means for reducing the energy requirements of

urban travel. One of the goals of the project was to demonstrate that increased use of

public transportation does reduce the amount of fuel consumed by Corridor commuters.

Corridor gasoline usage depends upon the amount of auto travel and the rate at which

the gasoline is consumed. The rate of gasoline consumption is dependent upon both the

characteristics of individual vehicles and the roadway conditions under which the vehicles

operate. The two primary vehicle characteristics are weight and model year, the latter

being a surrogate for design modifications which affect fuel consumption. Roadway operating conditions determine the applicable speed and level of service, and are dependent upon

the type, volume, and capacity of the roadway. ^

The project resulted in a diversion of autos from Corridor roadways during peak

periods, and in hourly auto volumes which were lower than they would have been in the

absence of the project. As those volumes decreased, speeds increased to a more efficient

fuel consumption range. While auto speeds increased because of the reduction in auto

volume, lack of data prevents the estimation of lessened gasoline consumption due to these

higher speeds. For this reason, estimates of savings in gasoline consumption were based

solely on reductions in auto usage and are therefore conservative. An outline of this

estimation procedure follows (for a summary of computations, see Appendix E):^

(1) For 1971 and 1972, an average round trip distance of 19.8 miles was estimated using the trip lengths of diverted auto co^jters as reported

in the 1971 commuter surveys. For 1973 and 1974, a distance of 25 miles

was estimated from the 1974 commuter surveys.

(2) Distributions of the fraction of total vehicles in each weight class and

model year were determined based upon national data for model years 1960

through 1974 and for eleven weight categories. (Refer to Table 63.)

data were combined with the estimated number of diverted autos and the

average roundtrip distance to produce an estimate of the daily reduction

in vehicle miles traveled by autos in each model year-weight class category.

(3) Average base fuel consumption rates were obtained for each model yearweight class category (see Table 64). These rates, expressed in gallons

per mile, were then multiplied by the vehicle miles of travel for each

vehicle category to obtain base fuel consumption.

(4) The base consumption figures were multiplied by adjustment factors (see

Tables 65 and 66) which reflect the effects of traffic volume and road

type (freeway or arterial) on fuel consumption. Estimated daily gasoline

savings attributable to the project are: 3,433 gallons for October 1971,

6,209 gallons for October 1972, 13,232 gallons for October 1973, and

17,166 gallons for October 1974." The October 1974 estimate represents

30 percent of the total estimated consumption for all Corridor commuter

traffic across the screenline (or about a 23 percent reduction in what

gasoline consumption would have been in October 1974 in the absence of

the proj ect)

.

Also see "A Procedure for Estimating Automobile Fuel Consumption on Congested Urban Roads,"

report prepared for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Department of Transportation, by the Technical Analysis Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

20234, 1974. Available from NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, COM-75-10057.

*An estimate was made of the increase in fuel consumption attributable to the additional

bus trips that were added as a result of the project. The increase in fuel consumption

due to buses was less than five percent of the total decrease attributable to diverted

autos

.

86
(5) Estimated savings attributable to the project are: 394,600 gallons for July 1971

through December 1971; 1,155,000 gallons for January 1972 through December 1972;

2,218,000 gallons for January 1973 through December 1973; and 3,138,200 gallons for

January 1974 through December 1974. Total gasoline savings for the period July

1971 to December 1974 is estimated at 6,905,800 gallons.

6.2 Changes in Mobility of the Transportation Disadvantaged

Another objective of the project was to improve the mobility of persons dependent upon

public transportation to carry out their daily activities. (Hereafter such persons are referred to as "transit dependents.") A bus passenger was characterized as transit dependent

if he was very old, very young, handicapped, or from an auto-less household. Relative to the

large number of bus riders who benefitted from the project, only a few could be characterized

as transit dependent. Although no data exist on project ridership by physically handicapped

persons, experience from several on-board surveys suggests that few handicapped persons used

the peak period express bus service. The small percentage of riders from auto-less households, or who were very young or very old, is documented in Table 16, page 60.

There are several reasons for the mobility of transit dependents to have been unaffected

by this peak period oriented project. First, peak period buses were very crowded (during

1974, they averaged approximately 45 persons per bus); this would discourage their usage by

handicapped persons. Second, project service was provided in residential areas with high

incomes and high auto ownership; as a result, there were considerably fewer potential riders

from auto-less households. Finally, project service was commuter oriented, and such markets

contain few very young or very old persons.

Two extensions of project operations, a mid-day service and a reverse commute service,

did improve the mobility of some Corridor transit dependents. Relative to peak period

express bus service, the scope of these operations was limited, and patronage was very low.

Nonetheless, both provided vastly improved bus service to their users.

Mid-day project service was of two primary types: 1) radial service between Northern

Virginia and the District of Columbia and 2) cross -corridor service within Northern Virginia.

The socio-economic characteristics of the two groups of riders were quite different: Users

of the cross -corridor service (approximately 300 riders on 61 daily bus runs in early 1973) were older and poorer, and owned fewer cars than the users of the radial service (approximately 500 on 63 daily trips) . Demographic characteristics of the users of the mid-day

services are presented in TalDle 41. Note the similarity between the users of mid-day

radial service and those of the peak period express bus service (see Table 16, page 60 )

.

87
Table 41

Selected Demographic Characteristics o£ Users of Mid- Day Bus Service

CHARACTERISTIC CROSS- CORRIDOR ROUTES RADIAL KOUlho

Sex

Male 32% y| no. 49-6 Female 68%

100*^ n 0 51%100%

Age

< 21 23% 10%

21-31 41 51

40-65 26 39

> 65 10

100% 100%

Hous ehold Income

< $5,000 22% 4%

$5-10,000 35 12

$10-15,000 17 19

$15-30,000 20 47

> $30,000 6

100%

18

100%

Percent Auto- less

Households 40 7 Mean Autos/Household .8 1.65

Number o£ Respondents 126 144

^etrobus Routes 26, 29L

^etrobus Routes 17G, 18G

The reverse commute service operated between Washington, D.C. and selected areas in

Northern ^.^irginia. This operation provided approximately 400 riders on 20 peak period trips

with bus service that was a substantial improvement over that available prior to the project.

Wjth the reverse commute service, waiting and in-vehicle travel times were lower, the number

o£ transfers and the time spent transferring were reduced, and walking distances to jobs were shorter.

Demographic characteristics of the users of the reverse commute service are presented

in Table 42. Average auto ownership among these commuters is lower than either the District

or the Corridor-wide average. Thus, the reverse commute service did increase the mobility

of this small group of transit dependents.

88
Table 42

Selected Danographic Characteristics of Users

of the Reverse Conmiute Service

CEARACTERI STI

C

PERSONS BO.ARDIXG IN

\'JASHINGTCN, D.C. VIRGINIA 1 Age

< 21 4% 61

21-39 25 39

40-65 69 53

> 65 2 2 Total 100% 100%

Sex

>Iale 34% 48%

Female 66 52

Total 100% 100%

Autos CHtTied. Per Household

0 49% 33%

1 42 41

7 Q

3 0 6

4 0 2 Total 100% 100%

Mean Household

Auto OisTiership .59 1.04

Number of Respondents 87 53

6.3 Economic Consequences of Project

The in^lonentation and operation of this project involved expenditures for each of its

elements. Funds ;s"ere expended for: 1) the acquisition of right-of -i<uy and the construction

and operation of the reversible lanes, 2) the purchase of nev buses and operation of the

express bus ser\ace, and 3) the operation of fringe park-and-ride lots. Of the three official

project fringe park-and-ride lots, funds >,-ere expended only for the Backlick lot, a fringe

parking lot for the future K^IATA rail rapid transit system (see Subsection 2.3). Under the

terms of a lease agreement islth VMATA, the Demonstration Project paid 552,000 per year for

the use of the lot. Subsection 6.5 discusses expenditures for the priorit>' and transit

elanents and concludes islth a brief summar)- of the econcmic impact of the project on the bus

operator

.

89
6.3.1 Reversible Lanes

Expenditures involving the reversible lanes include right-of-way acquisition, operating,

and construction costs. Data on right-of-way acquisition costs are not available; however,

the reversible lanes follow v^iat was the median strip of the Shirley Highway prior to con- struction, and land acquisition vas therefore minimal.'' Data from the Virginia Department of

Highways and Transportation CVDH^T) indicate that operating costs- -the labor costs involved

in the manual opening and closing of the reversible lanes for each peak period- -averaged

about $10,000 per year. VDH^T also estimated that the reversible lanes will require resur- facing every 6 to 8 years at a cost of from $150,000 to $200,000 for each operation.

Construction cost information is available only for the entire roadway. Thus, it is not

possible to identify and separate the actual costs of the reversible lanes. In order to

approximate these costs, 30 percent of the total construction costs of the entire roadway

from just south of the Springfield interchange to eight-tenths miles north of the Glebe Road,

interchange was allocated to the reversible lanes. This figure was chosen because the

revel"sible lanes account for about 30 percent of the width of the roadway cross section. The

reversible lanes are 44 feet wide (two 12 foot lanes and two 10 foot shoulders) and the regular roadway is 108 feet wide (six 12 foot lanes, two 10 foot shoulders, and two 8 foot

shoulders). The busway, therefore, represents approximately 30 percent (44/108) of the total

roadway width. On this basis, $27.4 million (30 percent of the total construction costs of

$91.2 million) or $3 million per mile was allocated to the reversible lanes (see Table 43).

Allocating the costs on a simple relative width basis may misrepresent the actual costs where

special structural costs occur because of the reserved lanes. In addition, the number and

type of interchanges and ramps significantly affect the costs of expressway. Although these are noted with each segment ' s cost data (in Table 43) , no detailed study was attempted to

isolate the effect of ramps and interchanges.

The remaining 2.3 miles of reversible lanes pass through the Mixing Bowl interchanges.

The total cost of these interchanges is approximately $106 million (1972 dollars) , or about

$46 million per mile. Some of these interchanges do not involve the reversible lanes. While

it is obvious that the busway accounts for less than 30 percent of the construction in the

Mixing Bowl area, the situation ivas so complicated that attempts to determine a rational

allocation of the costs were abandoned.

If the $5 million per mile upper bound on construction costs cited in NCHRP Report 143

is accepted, ° then it is possible to bound the estimate of construction costs attributable

to the reversible lanes. Ihis would mean that a maximum construction cost of $43 million

($15.5 million for the Mixing Bowl portion and $27.4 million for the southern portion) could

be allocated to the reversible lanes.

6.3.2 Transit Element

Expenditures attributable to the bus transit element of the project were for the purchase

of 90 new- feature buses and six bus shelters and the operating costs of providing express bus

service within the Corridor. The 90 buses were purchased incrementally between June 1971 and

February 1973, totalling $3.8 million. Total purchase and installation cost for the six bus

shelters was $16,000.

As Corridor express bus service was expanded, operating costs increased. Table 44

summarizes trends in fleet size, total bus miles of operation, operating costs and passenger

revenues for each six month interval between June 1971 and December 1974. An estimated $6.7

million was expended for bus operating costs during this 42 month period.

The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation estimates that the total right-ofway acquisition cost for the entire roadway was at least $10 million.

^"Bus Use of Freeways - State of the Art/' p. 31.

90
o o o LO to CTi

r-t (NJ (NI

LO LO K5 00

LO LOO

LO rj (NI LO o (NI rH 00 o I—1

1—1

1—1

.—1 i

03 •HO

(U

nil Ti •M +-> c

rH Oj 0 (U 5

0) <D P 03

H ?H

M-l rH >NMM

CO 03 CO

q 4-' ^ • H -H 4-> ci3 .a

rH 0)

?H ^ fH CLirH (0 •H (D 1

•H rH

CO

umw1 CO 1 CO

U 1 1 (NI rH rH I—1

I—1

(NJ

1^ LO00

^0

K) (NI

LO

1—1

(Tl

Oj •MOH

03 M

5-1 O

V)

(/5 OMB

?H

OjP.

<u o

03 H

•H>I

PL,

Xoou

•H

!hOU

CD a:%

.5

SiD

(D .S

(NlOMO

•H

+Ju

•p

(/) gu

M-lO

<D

+->

03 sU

031U

MhtJ

(D P

S-i (Uo

91
Table 44

Summary of Project Economic Indicators

Buses Owned by

Demonstration Project

Total Bus Bus Operating

LOS L Total

Revenue

Jan - Dec 71 30 $ o4D,lyb

Jan - Jun 72 60 0/4 ,Z3/ $613 ,742 $ 538,816

Jul - Dec 72 76 CilC All $807 ,613 $ 812,453

Jan - Jun 73 90 1,412,139 $1,105,293 $1,127,784

Jul - Dec 73 90 1,460,261 $1,181,170 $1,220,377

Jan - Jun 74 90 1,482,752 $1,288,892 $1,277,061

Jul - Dec 74 90 1,495,890 $1,340,927 $1,234,578

Total Jun 71 - Dec 74 7,935,041 $6,699,786 $6,556,264

This expansion in bus service has affected the bus operator in several ways, the most

important being: 1) operator income, 2) peak period labor and vehicle requirements, and 3)

productivity. In examining the impact of the project on the bus operator, only costs and

revenues properly charged against the demonstration project grant are considered.^ This means that costs and revenues of the WMATA Metrobus routes, or those of private carriers are not considered (see discussion in Subsection 2.3).-'-^

As noted previously in this Section, the expansion of express bus service required substantial operating expenditures. Nonetheless, these expenditures have nearly been equaled

by the revenues from the associated growth in bus patronage. Over the life of the project, revenue averaged $.83 per mile, compared with $.84 for costs. The total operating deficit

of $143,000 (slightly more than one cent per bus -mile) is attributable to two factors:

1) fares frozen at 1970 levels and steadily rising operating costs, and 2) losses resulting

from mid-day bus service. During the 42 month life of the demonstration project, fares

remained at their 1970 levels, averaging $.70 per trip. During the same period, driver wages

increased from $4.20 per hour to $6.72 per hour (an increase of 60 percent), and the price

of diesel fuel rose from $.11 per gallon to $.29 per gallon (an increase of 166 percent).

Losses attributable to the mid-day service totaled an estimated $218,000 between June 1971

and December 1972 alone. Although data are not available for the estimation of the costs

and revenues attributable to the mid-day service during 1973 and 1974, the service was not

reduced, and a dramatic reduction in the losses of the mid-day service for this period is

quite unlikely.

Table 45 presents an allocation of project revenues and operating costs between peak

and mid-day bus service for each six month interval between July 1971 and December 1972.

(The procedure used to allocate costs and revenues is presented in Appendix F.) Because

peak periods require a large number of vehicles and drivers which cannot be economically

used at other times, about 40 percent of total operating cost was allocated to peak period

service alone. The remaining 60 percent was allocated between peak and mid-day service,

resulting in approximately 80 percent of total operating costs being attributed to peak

period service.

These are the bus operations administered by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission,

Initially AB^W Transit Company operated these bus operations. Since January 1973 they have

been operated by the Alexandria Division of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority.

"^The available data did not allow an investigation of the project's irtpact on the private

carriers or on other WMATA busway service. Nonetheless, it is quite likely that the net

effect was favorable, During the project period, both operations experienced rapid patronage growth and higher average bus speeds.

'"Separate cost and operating statistics for peak and mid-day project bus services have not

been available since IVMATA purchased the AB^W Co. in January 1973.

92
LO

X3

CO CO ^ O 3 < U CQ i

C3

Oh

55—

CO

>3

C/5 CO o

LO 00 LO

LO LO

COo

toto o o vO LO

(SI

1—1 LO LO LO

I—I

to LO

to

00 o rH

OO LO

rH t-t 1—11—1

rH rH

00 (O o o [~~~ OO

to LO 00 o LO

O >=^ 00

LO

00 oCTl 00 o

CSl CTl rH

i-H rH 00 LO

to LO \o rH

(NI (O LO rH rH

<N1

CTloco

•rH

+-> 03 -M

f-( O

03 •HCH

&0

fH •H> •

+-> tJ o o z u

<u o

th 5MC o O

LH t/) <u

03 rH

•M •H

03 13

13

•H

rHd > 3

Si1 s g o

MH 13

13

<U

+-> 3&Ou

mo Uo ci

CO

m

03exu

•H

&,op

<u§o

is

<D 13I

•HHi>

in o

•H13

CD

+-> O

X313

(D 13

•H>

•H13Og

P-, oMM

t/l Jh •H

MHI0

CD>

93
The statistics in Table 45 highlight differences in the economic viability of peak and

mid-day Demonstration Project bus operations. Even with continued increases in bus service,

and steadily increasing operating costs (with no associated increase in bus fare) , the peak

period bus service operated at a profit. By contrast, the mid-day service, with an allocation

of only 20 percent of project operating costs, always operated at a deficit. Although these

statistics only cover the first 18 months of the Demonstration Project, a reasonable assumption for the remaining 24 months is that peak period service continued to operate at a profit while mid-day service operated at a deficit.

With respect to the cost of mid-day operations it seems appropriate to expand on an observation from Table 45. The average per mile costs of mid-day (non-peak) operations were

about one -half those of corresponding peak periods. Thus, the mid-day service could have

broken even carrying fewer passengers per bus. This suggests that well designed off-peak

bus service can be paired with peak period service and operated at a lower average cost per

bus -mile than the associated peak period service.

With respect to productivity, Subsection 3.2 documented the higher speeds of buses which

used the reversible lanes (relative to buses that did not). The higher speeds of project

buses increased scheduling flexibility and allowed the operator to provide a high level of

service with fewer buses than would have been possible at lower speeds. This translated

into gains for the bus operator because more revenue service was provided with the available

buses. The data required for a direct analysis of operator productivity were not available.

However, the staff at WMA.TA was able to provide estimates of vehicle requirements with and

without the higher operating speeds possible with the reversible lanes.

To maintain the November 1974 peak period headways with the higher speeds would require

approximately 20 additional buses. This represents monthly savings of approximately $31,000

in both capital and operating costs. It should be noted that without the higher speeds,

these headways would probably not be required since the passenger demand would not require

such capacity.

94
7 . 0 CLOSURE

At the conclusion of so long an evaluation, it would be useful to review in detail

v^t was learned from this demonstration project. Unfortunately, circumstances preclude

such a review,-'- and we can offer only brief catments on: (1) the doronstration project's

performance and the irrplications of that performance, and (2) possibly desirable changes

in evaluation methodology for such projects suggested by hindsight and our experiences.

Since the demonstration project achieved its principal pre-set goals in high

measure, it must certainly be judged a "success." The likely proninence of this

successful first-of-its-kind effort, given even higher "visibility" by its association

with the Nation's capital, may, hovever, tend to pronote uncritically optimistic

ej^ctations about the potential of bus-on-freeway operations in other—possibly less

propitious—settings. It is therefore necessary to enphasize here that the effectiveness

and suitability of this premising new operating technology should be gauged by the

results from the full range of recently inplemented bus-on-freeway activities, including,

but nbt daninated by, those fron the Shirley Highway express bus project.

In "Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines," National Cooperative

Research Program Report 155 , five factors were found to characterize the pre-project

corridor conditions of successful bus-on-freeway operations: (1) an intensively

developed downtown area with limited street capacity and high all-day parking costs;

(2) a long-term reliance on public transport; (3) highway capacity limitations on

approaches to dcvnitown; (4) major physical barriers v^ch limit road access to downtown

and channel bus flows; and (5) fast nonstop bus iruns for considerable distances. With

respect to these five factors, pre-project conditions within the Shirley Highway Corridor

(including the area of its trip destinations) were highly conducive to the success of

this bus-on-freeway project; see Subsection 2.3. If a similar operation had been

inplemented in an urban corridor offering less favorable conditions, it is unlikely that

the results would have been as iirpressive.

Therefore, pirudence must be exercised in judging the applicability of this project's

results to any other specific planning situation. In particular, pre-project conditions

in the corridor under consideration should be coitpared with those in the Shirley Highway

Corridor prior to ^ril 1969.

We turn now to desirable changes in the evaluation approach. During the years of

the project, a number of improvements were developed and added to the original evaliaation

program; these appear elsevAiere in our documentation and will not be repeated here.

Instead, we briefly identify two additional areas in which modifications would be made

if we could "start all over again."

First, a sharper analysis of bus operations requires methods for estimating those

reductions in driver and vehicle requirements attributable to the higher speeds on the

busway. Such techniques vrould have permitted a more thorough assessment of the busway's

inpact and would facilitate the evaluation of similar projects. Developing soundly

based methods, for this purpose, is also an interesting research challenge.

The second area in vAiich hindsight suggests changes concerns our surveys of project

comiuters. These provided valuable information, but only on a special subgroip of

Coinridor cortinuters—those ccrmuting to the Pentagon, Crystal City, or Downtown Washington,

D.C. No corridor-wide household surveys were conducted. The changes suggested here

^The Technical Analysis Division (the organization conducting the evaluation and preparing

this report) was administratively abolished effective June 30, 1975. This not only

required coitpletion of the report earlier than the previously planned date, but also

caused a gradual exodus of project staff during the final phases of the work, increasing

the operational burden on those vto remained and ruling out the period of calm reflection

needed for a thoughtful review-in-depth.

^For an enumeration of these projects, see "Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art."

95
vrould augment our present surveys of project camruters with simultaneous small sarrples

of household data to permit a more oonplete analysis of the project's influence (or

lack of influence) . Household surveys in the area of project impact v\ould provide, at

small additional cost, useful information about those cotimuters who were r^t affected

by the project. This information would carplete the data required for an area analysis.

In surmary: As a demonstration project, the Shirley Highway Express-Bus-On-Freeway

Project was a success in that it showed local authorities the effectiveness of this new operating technology. Our evaluation effort has atteanpted both to document the project's

performance and to provide sane insights into the key factors v^ch determined that

perfontance.

USCOMM-NBS-DC 96
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC COUNTING PROGRAM AND DATA

This appendix describes the screenline counting program, presents trends in screenline

volumes, and discusses two problems in the counting program -- variation due to periodic

counting, and "leaks" in the screenline. Tables 46 through 49 present the trenc3s in screenline volumes.

A.l Screenline Counting Program

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 located on (1) Arlington Boulevard (Route 50) at Highland

Street; (2) Columbia Pike (Route 244) at Walter Reed Drive; (3) Shirley Highway (1-95)

just north of Glebe Road; (4) Army-Na-vy Drive at 28th Street; (5) Arlington Ridge Road just

north of Glebe Road (Route 120); (6) Jefferson Davis Highway (U.S. 1) at Glebe Road; and

(7) George Washington Parkway at Four Mile Run. An eighth station on the north-bound ramp

connecting the Woodrow Wilson Bridge with the Anacostia Freeway (1-295) was added in 1971.

Figure 24 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, counts were made and recorded for autos 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, and 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. The 1972, 1973 and 1974 counting schedules were identical to

those for 1971. A complete listing of all A.M. peak period traffic data for each screenline count is presented in Table 47, page 102. For each count, auto persons, autqs, bus

passengers, and buses were tabulated.

A. 2 Variability of Screenline Counts

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

times a year (one day in March, June, and October) at each of the eight sites. To examine

the reliability of these morning peak period counts, observations were performed on the same day for three successive weeks at the four major stations (Columbia Pike, Shirley

Highway, Jefferson Davis Highway, and George Washington Parkway) for the October 1972 and

March 1973 counting periods.

The variability analysis, presented in the "Second Year Results Report,"^ showed that

for the three October 1972 counts, the mean variation on Columbia Pike, Jefferson Davis

Highway, and Shirley Highway for auto, and auto and bus person totals was less than 10

percent. For the four March 1973 counts, even less variation was observed, and mean variation on the four major roadways was generally less than five percent for auto, and auto

and bus person trip totals.

Bus passenger data for the express buses on the reversible lanes are collected by WMATA.

"Second Year Results Report, Interim Report 4," page 60.

98
Figure 24. Screenline Location

99
A. 3 Potential Screenline Leaks

The screenline counting sites were located so that essentially all inbound A.M. peak

period Corridor-wide traffic could be observed. All of the buses were counted at these

locations, but there were a few secondary streets which represented potential "leaks" for

auto trips through the screenline. Inspection revealed that there were eight such streets,

but that each was unlikely as a portion of Corridor commute trips; all are narrow and wind

through residential areas with frequent stops at intersections. 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 4 and 5; and Eads Street between stations 5 and 6. About 2500 autos were observed at these four

sites. It is unlikely that many commuters would have been willing to include these

circuitous routes as parts of their commuting trips , and that most of the 2500 autos were

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, they would represent only about nine percent of the potentially affected

autos crossing the screenline.

'Details are presented in the "Second Year Results Report, Interim Report 4," page 18.

100
4-) O

•Hoo

.t^ o ^ o

5-1

Oo H ' a:

•H1

CO

Qi I—I

I—a:

CO

I—I os; 2 H ou <

CO

X ^ 38

CO

J 2 H

to to iH to LO 00 CO 00 to

rH OO to fSl to rH vO to rH o to LO o o rH 00 00

LO LO 00 \0 LO CO CO 00

O

to to to to to to to to to to to CSl eg to

cr> o o 00 00 o to o o to eg

rH vO LO vD to o LO Csl CO LO

tn LO LO rH o LO

I—1 o QO 00 OO vO 00 o 1—1 I—I

iH iH rH rH rH rH CO

to rH (VJ LO <S1 to

O eg rH LO LO LO LO rH o O LO

LO LO to 00 Oi (SI o rH cr> rj to LO oo o vD LO CO LO LO LO OO 00 00 OO iH

LO ^ LO

OO LO to rH 00 LO rH LO eg vO

LO o O 00 vD rH "Sit to fSJ eg eg

00 LO 00 00 to CD vO o 00 vO rH o% o% OO 00 00 C— 00 00 00 OO

Csl to 00 to rH LO LO Oi CO eg o cn (Nl o o vO to o 00 00 rH to o LO vO rH iH IS- o o 00 rH o o Cn] to to LO

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

1—1 o 00 CTi LO

O vO rH LO to vD o tO 00 LO to o CO 00

Csl VO rH LO 00 to o r-- OO 00 cn 00

LO vO 00 00 o o rH rH to eg

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH Csl (SI CO CO eg CO CO

CO 00 '=3- LO LO vO o CO CTl rH o CTl to LO LO l>- LO LO rH c^ o rH VO CT^ LO rH eg LO 00 OO 00 eg O LO rH O CT^ LO LO 00 LO LO to LO O O CT^ to to to

to CT^ LO LO tsi eg CO eg 00

to to OO LO CO 00 o LO CT^ CT^ CTl OO o rH \0 eg rH eg rH CT^ LO LO OO o 00 CTl o csl CT^ o to vO

rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH eg CO CO to to to to

to

O rH OO rH CT^ CO CT^ rH to vO 00

to

O o OO eg eg CTl OO eg vO to

LO CTl to

O o LO rH COO LO o to CO rH LO eg eg O to vO O O CO rH \0 vO vO I^ o o o rH rH rH CO eg eg to to to

r-- IS-

!h P P p in > 1 U o '-5 o o

101
Table 47 Corridor Screenline Gomts By Station (Inbound 6:30-9:00 AM)

MONTH AUTO TOTAL AUTO BUS TOTAL BUS PASSENGERS

OF PERSONS AUTOS OCCUPANCY PASSENGERS PERSONS PERCENT PER BUS

COUNT

MT. VERNCN DRIVE

Apr / u

7A7fi 1 c;o lOoo ^1 0 ol . U

XA O o4 . U Tim 7n i

1^0 loOU 1 c;ftO oUDo oU^0 a. 0 7Q A zy . 4

r\ri- ucx 70/ u A^ 04 L\J 1 i. '^A ±1 708 / Uo 1^81 7 7Q 4 z.y . ^ o4^4 Q. y

Mai" 71 oO / 0

?^'^1 i

A'to 1 A7Q Oi.U c;i 07/ 78^o 0. u OOXX 7 . L

Ti in 71 9Q'^0 A f. 1 7Q1 oooO JX 7 xn 0 oU . U

Hn-t 7'l oO JO 1 XQOO 1 774 4Q'^7 'f y oZ LD . 0 70 0 zy . u Mo>^ Mar 71/ i JUDO 77'^7 £. 1 J 1 I

1loOU xf\r\ oulo ^01 77 1 7 Q O zo . y

Ti m 7 ? 7 c: •77

<i J J / 1 38 117 7 7/1 A 9 A 9 Zo . z

Hr-I- 7? 7 Q TO 1 35 1iioD 1 44yQQ a 00 7 7 7 7A Q zo . y Mar 73 3696 2719 1 36 1181 4877 24.2 27.5

Jun 73 2647 2055 1 29 1034 3681 28.1 25.9

i Oct 73 2431 1882 1 29 1191 3622 32.9 28.4

Mar 74 2251 1637 1 38 1409 3660 38.5 34.4 Jun 74 1986 1415 1 40 1341 3327 40.3 32.7

Nov 74 2002 1411 1 42 - 1223 3225 37.9 31.4

j JEi't'EFSON DAVIS HIGHWAY

i Apr 70 6868 4756 1 44 727 7595 9.6 23.5 Jun 70 6923 4880 1 42 894 7817 11.4 34.4 Oct 70 7762 5039 1 54 1003 8765 11.4 33.4

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 i Jun 73 6279 4646 1 35 888 7167 12.4 29.6

Oct 73 5662 4099 1 38 648 6310 10.3 19.6

Mar 74 5947 4183 1 42 615 6562 9.4 19.2

Jun 74 5988 4261 1 41 853 6841 12.5 29.4

Nov 74 6042 4366 1 38 764 6806 11.2 34.7

GEDPGE WASHINGTCN PARFO^Y

Apr 70 10831 7633 1 42 1701 12532 13.6 40.5 Jun 70 11094 7797 1 42 1658 12752 13.0 36.8 Oct 70 10810 7688 1 41 1549 12359 12.5 39.7

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 75 10682 7916 1 35 1639 12322 13.3 34.9

Jun 73 10376 7545 1 38 1805 12181 14.8 37.6 Oct 73 10721 7814 1 37 1732 12453 13.9 36.9

Nov 74 9339 6594 1 42 2028 11367 17.8 43.2

Jun 74 10304 7013 1 47 1916 12220 15.6 41.7 Nov 74 10038 7068 1 42 2304 12342 18.6 41.9

1-295 (WILSCN 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 Oct 73 4557 3860 1 18 , 0 4557 0 0 Mar 74 3396 2900 1 17 0 3396 0 0 Jun 74 4521 3604 1 25 0 4521 0 0 Nov 74 4616 3736 1 25 0 4616 0 0

1U2
Table 47 COont'd.)

Corridor Screenline Counts By Station (6:30-9:00 AM)

MONTH AUTO TOTAL AUTO BUS TOTAL BUS PASSENGERS

OF PERSONS AUTOS OCCUPANCY PASSENGERS PERSONS PERCENT PER BUS COUNT

ARLINGTON BLVD. Apr 70 7Q78 Q77n J. o^ Q1 Q7 1 7 Au

7/1 /I 04 .

4

1 Jun 70 /DjU C 7 1 1 3 /ii o4 1 474 yuD4 ±D 71 71 n ol . U

\ Oct 70 C Q 7 Q DO / O i OD 1400 O 70 1 yobi 1 r Id 70

7 7 A 00 .

4

j Mar 71 A 7 7 C DoJO i oi 14 71 14Z1 y /4d 1 A 14 D

7/1 7 34 . /

1 Jun 71 010 0 60b /

1i zcOD 1711 IZll n 7 n 7 9393 1 7 IZ oy

7 A 7 36 .

7

i Oct 71 r 7 A

1

i oU 1 7(1^ 1ZU4 o o r\ 86oy 1 7 lo oy 34.4

i Mar 72 byob i 77Z / 1 7^7 IZdo 0 7nA 0 /y6 1 A 14 7 36.9

Jun 7 - 70/10 An7T 1 77oZ 1 7/1

A

1Z40 yiyb 1 7 lo D 35 .

6

Oct 72 70on /yyu A "z 9 r\ ooZU 1 26 1101 yuyi 12 1

7 7 A 3Z . 4 Mar 73 oUoi ATn7 OoUZ 1 27 1143 yi /4 12 5

7 7 7 3Z . 7 Jun 73 6775 5532 1 22 1010 7785 13 0 28.9

Oct 73 6743 5719 1 18 1318 8061 16 4 37.7

Mar 74 6826 4825 1 41 1230 8056 15 3 36.2

Jun 74 7060 5334 1 32 1129 8189 13 8 31.4

Nov 74 . 7710 5769 1 34 1065 8775 12 1 38.0

OQLLMBIA PIKE

. Apr 70 4889 3687 1 33 3684 8573 43 0 38.4

Jun 70 5116 3799 1 35 3563 8673 41 1 36.4 Oct 70 6218 4421 1 41 3807 10025 38 0 39.2

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 Oct 73 4475 3339 1 34 2666 7141 37 3 32.5

Mar 74 3716 2627 1 41 2993 6709 44 6 37.4

Jun 74 3833 2560 1 50 2576 6409 40 2 33.9 Nov 74 4344 3029 1 43 3064 7408 41 4 36.9

SHIRLEY HIGHWAY

Apr 70 12529 8420 1 49 4407 16936 26 0 40.8

Jun 70 11942 8029 1 49 4892 16834 29 1 43.7 Oct 70 12210 8916 1 37 4873 17083 28 5 44.7

Mar 71 10260 7262 1 41 6194 16454 37 6 48.0 Jun 71 8778 6295 1 39 7348 16126 45 6 40.8 Oct 71 7554 5662 1 33 9093 16647 54 6 46.9

Mar 72 7768 5604 1 39 10521 18289 57 5 47.0

Jun 72 8539 5941 1 44 10626 19165 55 4 43.4 Oct 72 8100 5897 1 37 12105 20205 59 9 44.3

Mar 73 9054 6419 1 41 13105 22159 59 1 44.0

Jun 73 16223 11392 1 42 13769 29992 45 9 45.3

Oct 73 16520 12192 1 35 14042 30562 46 0 45.0

Mar 74 19470 13412 1 45 15092 34562 43 7 47.9

Jun 74 18653 11939 1 56 14839 33492 44 3 43.6

Nov 74 20742 12864 1 61 16106 36848 43 7 45.1

ARyDT-NAVY DRIVE Apr 70 1949 1337 1 46 490 2439 20 1 32.7 Jun 70 1356 1032 1 31 409 1765 23 2 29.2 Oct 70 1526 1121 1 36 390 1916 20 4 26.0

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 Oct 73 2165 1485 1 46 267 2432 11 0 19.1

Mar 74 753 511 1 47 354 1107 32 0 25.3

Jun 74 627 450 1 50 311 988 31 5 25.9

Nov 74 577 387 1 49 357 934 38 2 25.5

103
oo (SI LO 00 I—

1

LO LO (VI \o

to o o o to o CO 00 00 I—

t

to o rH O O 00 1—1 o o to to Tt- LO \D

rH 1—1 1—1 rH rH rH 1—1 1—1

i-H 00 I—

1

t-- cn tn O 1—1 1—1 (VI 00 00 OO LO 1-H

I---. oo oo o rH 1—

1

(Nl o rH o (VI rH (VI rH I—

1

1—1 Csl Cs! (VI (VI (VI (VJ

t—

I

u

Mh Cj r-s o o

c +-> X O 03 •P +-> >

9CO -H Oi

CO

o o o o o o o O O O O O O o o o o (VI o o o o O LO O o O o LO o LO LO 00 o (VI LO 00 CD rg to to

1—1 rH rH rH rH rH rH (VI (VI (VI (V]

UO to 1—

I

rH (VJ CTi rH rH (VI CTi LO O to rH rH LO (VI to to LO (VI LO o LO LO to (VI LO cn 1—

(

(VI 1^ LO to

(Vl (vq (VI (VI to LO \0 00 (Ti (3^ o o rH

CO 00o o o (VI O00 (VI

(VI

LO

(VI

to

(VI

00

CTi

(V) Oto to

LO O 1—t "^^r LO

to to to

Q XI »c

00 00 cn ^ "=t 00 to

LO LO UOLO 00LO COLO LO LO 00

LO LO LO o

<i> 1—1u

MH U ^ O (D M 4-1 > (VI (VI to cn

cvi oo vO(VI to 00

to

LO LO CT^ LO

LO LO LO OO

LO

cn

to 00 00 CTi (VI to CTi O O

to

to

CTi O cn cn o(VI

(VI o cn O (VI lO

(VI (VI (VI

CO

M 3

cS Mh O Q O t_>

cn o o o rH o r-- r-- t-~ rc5^ 8

to to

4-> > 8

104
Table 49

Trends in Corridor Auto Volumes and Auto Occupancy

CORRIDOR TOTAL SHIRLEY ALL OTHER CORRIDOR ARTERIALS

Date of lotal Auto Total Auto lotal Auto

Count Autos Occupancy Autos Occupancy Autos Occupancy

Apr 70 1.4Z 8,420 1.49 25, 559 1 A f\ 1.40

Jun 70 33, 579 1.42 8,029 1.49 or r r A 25, 550 1 7 n

1. 39

Oct 70 35, 734 1.42 8,916 1 7 ^ 1.37 26,818 1 A 1 1.43

Mar 71 1 7 O 1. 38 7,262 T A'\ 1.41 O lie 26,336 1 7 7 1.37

Jun 71 32,0/0 1 Ad 1.40 6,295 1. 39 26,3oi 1.41

Oct 71 31,740 t 7 r 1.35 5,662 1 7 7 1. 33 26,0/0 1. 3o

Mar 72 7 7 OilT 33, Zo/ 1.3o 5,o(J4 1. 3y LI ,003 l.OO

Jun 72 7 7 17 7 33,133 1.36 5,951 1.44 2/ ,192 1. j4

Oct 72 33, 510 1 7 O 1,32 r o r\ "7 5,897 1.37 27 ,613 1.31

Mar 73 1 A 1 O T 34,lol 1 7 r 1. 35 6,419 1 /IT 1.41 07 7 2 /

, / Dl 1 7 7 1. 33

Jun 73 35,491 1.36 11,392 1.42 25,099 1.33

Oct 73 36,530 1.33 12,192 1.35 24,338 1.32

Mar 74 33,789 1.43 13,412 1.45 20,377 1.41

Jun 74 32,972 1.47 11,939 1.56 21,033 1.42

Nov 74 34,894 1.47 12,864 1.61 22,030 1.39

105
APPENDIX B

DETAILS OF THE PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING AUTO CONMJTER TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS

This appendix describes the model used to estimate the auto commuter travel time

savings presented in Subsection 4.3. The appendix also describes an analysis undertaken to

determine the sensitivity of the estimates o£ travel time savings to possible errors in

either the assumptions or parameter values used in the model.

B.l Model Description .

The model is that developed by Sparks and May,-^ and uses a specified speed-flow relationship to determine the travel time over a section of roadway. So long as the flow or demand remains below the capacity of the roadway, speed decreases as flow increases. If

the' demand is greater than capacity, then a deterministic queuing approach is utilized;

a queue will form at the beginning of the section, and all vehicles on the section will

travel at a speed corresponding to flow at roadway capacity for the duration of the queue.

To compute the total passenger hours of travel time over a given section of roadway,

the following information is required: . , '

.

(a) Total person demand -- number of persons per hour throughout the

peak period; :,.

(b) Bus share -percentage of the total persons that will use buses;

(c) Auto occupancy distribution and average bus occupancy - relating person

demand to vehicle flow rate; and

(d) Roadway characteristics such as length, number of lanes and lane

capacity - utilized with the vehicular speed-flow relationship to

determine the total travel time if there is no queuing and with the

deterministic queuing approach when lane capacity is exceeded. For

a complete description of the relationships and assumptions in the

model, see Sections 2 and 6 of the Sparks and May report.

B. 2 Applying the Model to the Shirley Highway

To calculate the total travel. time savings on the Shirley Highway for the existing

priority operation and for the condition without exclusive lanes requires two sets of model

parameters. These inputs are described below and the model results are presented in

Paragraph B.2.2. In the last paragraph, the sensitivity of the savings to different

assumed conditions is examined.

B.2.1 Model Input Parameters for the Existing and Expected Conditions

The total passenger demand curve is based upon the June 1974 screenline counts.

Figure 25 depicts the distributions of bus, auto, and total person volumes during the A.M.

peak period. The flow curves are assumed to be the same for the expected mixed traffic

situation on all six lanes as for the existing two priority lanes condition. Although the

bus curve is slightly more peaked than the auto curve, the model assumes that bus flow

Sparks, G. A. and May, A. D. , "A Mathematical Model for Evaluating Priority Lane

Operations on Freeways," The Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering,

University of California, Berkeley, June 1970, Report No. FH-11-7186.

106
107
comprises a constant percentage of total flow. The effect of this assumption is to over- state peak hour traffic volumes and to understate non-peak hour traffic volumes. Thus, it

is implicitly assumed that the net effect is zero.

The model was not applied to the entire length of the Shirley Highway because of

insufficient traffic volume data and because of difficulties in determining the capacity

of the long roadway with its many ramps and merges and varying number of lanes. However,

volume data were collected at the screenline station on a section of the Highway between

Glebe Road and Washington Boulevard. This led to the selection of that 1.3 mile section

between Glebe Road and the Washington Boulevard off-ramp as the section on which to apply

the model.

This section has six lanes - four regular inbound and the two-lane reversible express

roadway in the center. Before Glebe Road there are three regular lanes, but the single

lane on-ramp joins them and forms four lanes to Washington Boulevard. Taking into account

the effects of ramp merging, the average lane capacity for each of the six lanes under

priority and regular operation was determined to be 1550 equivalent vehicles per hour.

The speed- flow curves from the Highway Capacity Manual indicate for Level of Service E

(approaching capacity) a speed of about 28 miles per hour.2 In June 1974 the highest

observed average vehicle flows per lane on the four lane section were 1200 - 1400 vehicles

per hour and the speeds varied between 25 and 35 mph.

A summary of the conditions on the roadway for the existing priority operation and the

expected situation had there been no bus expansion and priority lanes is presented in

Table 50. To calculate the total travel time under existing conditions, the following parameters are used. There are six lanes: four regular and two priority lanes. Four or more member carpools and buses are allowed in the priority lanes. The bus share is 45 percent

of the total volume and the auto occupancy distribution is as observed in June 1974.

(Average auto occupancy = 1.49.)

To estimate the total travel time under expected conditions without the priority lanes

and expanded bus service requires a set of assumptions about the probable values of the

model parameters. It is assumed that the mixed traffic for buses and autos would be

allowed in the six lanes, and that there would be about the same number of bus riders as existed prior to the demonstration project. This assumes about 5,000 riders (average in

1970 was 4800) or a 15 percent bus share. The auto occupancy distribution would have an average of 1.44 (about the average of 1970).

B.2.3 Sensitivity of Total Savings to Different E:^)ected and Existing Conditions

With the above parameter values as inputs, the model estimated a daily travel time

savings of 1409 person hours. However, the parameters used to determine the travel time

under non-priority conditions are assumptions for the probable situation. Since it is

impossible to know what condition would have actually occurred, we should also examine the

total time savings under different assumed conditions for the non-priority operation.

If the bus share (assumed 15 percent) would have increased to 20 percent without

priority operations then the daily savings would have been about 650 person hours. If the

average auto occupancy would have increased to 1.49 then the daily savings would have been

about 1000 person hours. On the other hand, if bus share would have decreased to 10 percent then the savings would be over 2200 person hours. If auto occupancy would have

decreased then the savings would also have increased.

^See Figure 9.1 in the "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report «7 , Highway Research

Board, Washington, D.C., 1965. .

'

108
Table 50

Summar)^ of Conditions on Shirley Highway With and Without

Reser\^ed Lanes for Buses and Carpools

PARAMETERS EXISTING ]\TIH PRIORITY

OPERATION

EXPECTED WITHOUT

PRIORITY OPERATION

Number of Lanes four regular

two priority

six regular

Priority Operation Buses and four or more manber carpools

mixed traffic

Laigth of Section 1.3 miles 1.3 miles

Bus Share 45% C16,000 riders) 15% [5,000 riders)

Ave. Auto Occupancy 1.49 1.44

Peak Demand Rate 18,400 persons/hour 18,400

Ave. Bus Occupancy 48 48

If the Shirley Highway did not have priority lanes for buses and carpools, then fewer

people in the corridor might use it and would travel instead on the other congested

road\s'ays. It is not clear whether this would reduce the total travel time throughout the

corridor (and it could increase the total time as well as the vehicle miles of travel)

,

but if we assume that 10 percent of the persons on the Shirley under priority conditions

would nave been diverted to the other roadways then the daily savings would have been about

100 person hours. This is still significant and does not consider the project's beneficial

effects on travel time on the other routes.

It is interesting to consider the effect on travel time savings if there were a

10 percent diversion of persons from the other corridor roadways to the Shirley Highway

under priority operations and the same existing bus share and auto occupancy rate were

attained. The Highway could carr>' 10 percent more people than currently and still save about 650 person hours compared with the current person demand under non-priority operation.

If there were a 10 percent increase in demand there would be over 3100 person hours saved

each day under the priority situation.

Increases in the existing bus share will increase the time savings, while a drop in

current bus ridership will decrease them. If the bus share (currently 45 percent)

decreases to below 35 percent, then there will be no time savings. If the average auto

occupancy increases then the daily savings will increase. Should it decrease drastically,

to the lowest ever obser\^ed (1.33), then the daily savings would still be about 650 person

hours

.

Finally, if carpools of three or more members are allowed to use the priority lanes,

then the total time savings would be about 100 person hours per day more than for the

existing four or more member carpool priority operation.

In suramar>s under different assumed conditions of bus share, auto occupancy, and total

person demand for both non-priority operations and the existing priority situation, the

estimated total travel time savings was significant. The bus estimate is over 1400 person

hours daily in the A.M. peak period, and the computed range of savings varied from 130 to over 3100 person hours.

109
APPENDIX C

AN INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL NON-RESPONSE BIAS IN

SURVEY RESULTS

Whenever some members of a sample population cannot be accounted for, there is a possibility that they may differ significantly from the remainder of the sample. The

absence of these members can introduce bias and thus limit the validity of results attributed to the entire population. To investigate this potential "bias" attributed to the non- respondents , two studies were undertaken - one for the survey of bus passengers and

the other for the surveys of commuting auto drivers.

C.l Bus Survey

. For a bus survey performed during October 1973, survey personnel distributed a short

questionnaire along with the longer mail back questionnaire to all seated passengers on ten buses representative of a cross -section of the entire set of buses using the reversible

lanes. This "short form" contained a subset of the questions appearing in the mail back

questionnaire. Unlike the mail back questionnaire however, this form was designed to be

filled out on the bus and returned upon leaving the bus. Of the 459 people on the ten

buses given both the mail back questionnaire and the short form, 93 percent (425) returned

the short form and 66 percent (304) returned the longer mail back questionnaire forms; 124

of the 155 bus riders (about 80 percent) who did not return the longer mail back questionnaire completed and returned the short form.

Five characteristics were covered in the short form. These characteristics were

selected as being important to the determination of whether or not bus passengers who

returned the mail back questionnaire differed significantly from those who did not:

1) year began riding bus, 2) days ride bus per week, 3) household auto ownership, 4) sex and 5) age. For each characteristic, the short form responses of those who returned the

mail back questionnaire are compared with the short form responses of those who did not.

Table 51 compares the responses of the two groups.

No statistically significant difference was found between the distributions of the

responses of the two groups for any of the five characteristics (based on Chi-square

statistics computed at the five percent level for each characteristic). Thus, it was inferred that data contained in the returned mail back questionnaires were representative

of the characteristics of all (respondent and non-respondent) passengers on the 10 buses.

A further analysis was made to determine whether this conclusion could be expanded to

include passengers on all WMATA buses using the reversible lanes. Using the questions common to both the mail back and short form questionnaires, responses from the returned

mail back questionnaires of bus riders who also answered the short form were compared with

responses from the returned mail back questionnaires of the entire Shirley bus population.

Table 52 shows the distributions of the responses of these two groups.

The response rate for the Fall 1973 bus survey was 62 percent compared with the 59 percent

response rate for the Fall 1974 bus survey. The questionnaire used in the 1973 survey was only slightly different from the one used in the 1974 survey. The 1973 survey sample size

and the manner in which that sample was chosen differed little from those of the 1974

surveys

.

110
Table 51

Distributions of Responses to Short Form Questionnaire

DID NOT ANSWER

THE MAIL BACK

QUESTIONNAIRE

DID ANSWER

THE MAIL BACK

QUESTIONNAIRE

Year Beean Ridinc Bus

1970 or earlier 4% 10%

1971 13 15

1972 26 30

1973 57 45

100% 100%

Days Riding Per Week

1 1% 2%

2 1 1

3 3 1

4 3 6

5 92 89

6 or 7 0 1 100% 100%

Auto Ownership

0 7 8

1 53 49

2 35 36

3 1 5 >3 4 Z 100% 100%

Sex

Male 59% 63%

Female 41 37

100% 100%

Aee

<21 7% 2%

21-39 70 65

40-65 23 33

>65 0 0

100% 100%

Number of Respondents 121 304

111
Table 52

Distributions of Responses to Mail Back Questionnaire

RESPONDENTS WHO RESPONDENTS FROM

ANSWERED THE ENTIRE BUSWAY BUS

SHORT FORM POPULATION

Year Began Riding Bus

1970 or earlier 10% 17%

1971 15 11

1972 ' 30 26

1973 45 46

1001 V 100%

Days Riding Per Week

1 1%

2 1

3 2

4 . 6 5

5 89 ^ 89

6 or 7 1 2

100.1 100%

Autos Owned

»

0 8% 6%

1 49 57

2 36 31

3

rD

rD >3 2 1 1001 100%

_ Sex

Male 63% 59%

Female 37 41

100% 100%

Age

<21 2% 3%

21-39 65 61

41-65 33 36

>65 0 0

100% 100%

Number of Respondents 425 2,238

112
Except for "year began riding bus,"-^ no significant difference was found between the

responses of the two groups for any characteristic (based on Chi -square statistics com- puted at the five percent level). The responses of the group of passengers who were given

short forms as well as mail back forms did not differ from those of the entire population

of passengers on WMATA buses using the reversible lanes. Thus, it was inferred that data

contained in the received mail back questionnaires are representative of the characteristics of passengers on all WikTA buses which use the busway (reversible lanes)

.

C. 2 Auto Surveys

A follow-up survey of non- respondents to the Fall 1974 auto commuter surveys was con- ducted by telephone interview. The interviewers were given lists of the names and telephone numbers of all of the people viho were mailed but did not return driver alone or

carpool driver questionnaires. The interviewers were instructed to complete 150 randomly

selected interviews from each of the lists, i.e., the driver alone non-respondent list and

the. carpool driver non- respondent list. The 150 interviews represented a sampling rate of

11.1 percent of the driver alone non-respondents and 14.5 percent of the carpool driver

non- respondents

.

To complete the 150 interviews, the interviewers had to select 482 driver alone and

434 carpool driver non-respondents from the lists (or 35.6 percent of the driver alone non- respondents and 42.1 percent of the carpool driver non- respondents ) . These outcomes are summarized in Table 53.

Table 53

Outcome of Random Selection of Non-respondents

OUTCOME

NUMBER OF DRIVER ALONE

NON- RESPONDENTS SELECTED

NUMBER OF CARPOOL DRIVER

NON-RESPONDENTS SELECTED

Could not be contacted 237 186

Refused interview 21 5 Had sent in form 7 6

Business or government car 13 10

Do not commute to areas indicated 34 11

Do not use the indicated

commute mode 20 62

Other 0 4

Completed interviews 150 150

Total 482 434

'The "year began riding bus" distributions were different because no regard was given to

when the bus routes of the ten buses on which the short forms were given out were put

into service. These ten buses were actually servicing newer Shirley Highway bus routes.

Hence, the responses to the "year began riding bus" on these buses reflect the fact that

people began riding these buses recently.

113
It was encouraging that the interview was refused by only a few of the non- respondents

who were contacted. Otherwise, this would have left unaccounted-for a large group of

commuters whose attitudes were likely to be significantly different from the commuters who

did respond to the survey. Nearly half of the non -respondents could not be contacted

either because their telephone number was unlisted, their telephone number had been disconnected, they were temporarily out of the area, or they no longer lived at the number. Most

of the non-respondents who were reached but did not complete the interview didn't do so be- cause either they did not commute to the project destinations or they did not use the indicated commute mode (used carpool when it was indicated they drove alone , or vice versa)

.

rhe percentage of non-respondents who fell into this category is nearly equal to the

corresponding percentage for commuting auto drivers who gave these reasons for not com- pleting (but did return) the mail back questionnaire form.

, The characteristics listed in Tables 54 and 55 were selected for the determination of

whether or not the commuting drivers who returned the mail back questionnaire differed

significantly from those who did not. Three categories comprise commuting drivers:

1) drivers alone, 2) carpool drivers on the reversible lanes (busway carpool drivers), and

3) carpool drivers on other roadways, including the Shirley Highway (non-busway carpool

drivers). For each combination of commuting driver category and driver characteristic,

the distribution of responses from the completed interviews is compared with the distribution of responses from the returned mail back questionnaires. Tables 54 and 55 present

these comparisons.

Except for "Could you have ridden a bus to work?" and "In what year did you join this

carpool?", no significant difference was found between the distributions of either of the

two groups of commuting drivers (based on a Chi-square test at the five percent level)

.

With respect to the question: "Could you have ridden a bus to work?", the respondent

and non- respondent distributions were found to be statistically significantly different

for all three commuting driver categories. A much higher percentage of non -respondents

than respondents indicated that they couldn't ride a bus to work. It is possible that non- respondents would have had a "bias" against bus travel. It is also possible that vdien

confronted by interviewers who knew who they were, non -respondents were reluctant to indicate that they could have used a bus but didn't do so.

The only other characteristic for which the two distributions were found to be significantly different involved the responses of busway carpool drivers to the question:

"In what year did you last change your residence?" The very samll size of the sample of

non- respondent carpool drivers may have been responsible for this difference.

With the exception of the question: "Could you have ridden a bus to work?", all of

the questions asked the non-respondents were factual questions. Thus, there does not

appear to be any non-response bias in drivers' alone and carpool drivers' response distributions to factual questions. By contrast, it is quite likely that respondents have a more positive attitude toward bus than do non-respondent commuting auto drivers. This

also suggests that the respondents may be more likely to view bus as a potential commuting

alternative and therefore the interpretation of the main survey may be slightly more

favorable in this respect than it should be.

114
Table 54

Distributions of Driver Alone Responses

RESPONDENTS^ NON-RESPONDENTS^

How Often Drive Alone

1 7%/ 0 2 7 6

XorD o

4 L

•7J

<J \J L ilLVJX C' 7Q ttb 100^ 1001

Where Aiito Ts PaTked

O/i ft Zo-g

XjUpj.Uyt?r rTOVlClcQ Opd-Ce r p bb 58

7

/ Id

lUU-s 1001

(""nnlfl V^VJLXXVJ. T^i<^ iJLiO ildV^ Hjiat'p JJwC'il Rpf^n TI<;prl L/OV^U- Yes 77?- oy-6

No 91 fin Don ' 1" TCnnw 7 i

1 AA tt. 100%

YeaT La si" fTh;!!!^^!^ Rpsi dpnpp

XPrior X XWX to lQ7n/ W 40%

1 070-7? oi

98 zy

1 AA 0, 100% 100%

iAUU'W Ai i1"n OwnPT^^h V-/Wii^X ^llXlJ i "n 0 n?- u-s 1 35 27

2 54 56

3 or more 11 17

1001 100%

Age

< 21 1% 1%

21-39 47 49

40-65 51 48

> 65 1 2 100^ 100%

Number of Respondents 1230 150

^Respondents to the Mail Back Questionnaire.

L Non-respondents Who Completed Telephone Interview.

115
Table 55

Distributions of Carpool Driver Responses

BUSWAY

RESPONDENTS^ NON-RESPONDENTS'^

NON- BUSWAY

RESPONDENTS^ NON-RESPONDENTSt*

Year Joined Present Carpool

Prior to 1970 909- 1 "7 9- 1 A9- lO-o iy-6

1970-72 '-

" ?() iiV) 1 Q ly

1973-74 7 A76 Db 62 im 100% 100% 1 009' Jtow Often Driver of Carpool

Almost Never Z-6 O 0. 0-6 4^ 8%

Alternately oU /3 bU 41

Nearly Always 18 19 46 51

100% 100% 100% 100%

Where Auto is Parked ' Commercial Lot 1 T 0 11% 26% 27% 25%

Employer Provided Space O A 84 70 72 72

On Street 5 4 1 3

100% 100% 100% 100%

Could Bus Have Been Used

Yes 81% 54% 70% 45%

No 12 42 23 52

Don't Know 7 4 7 3

100% 100% 100% 100%

Year Last Changed Residence

Prior to 1970 no, 51% 19% 47% 7 0 0, 38%

1970-72 27 24

1973-74 22 31 3U 38

100^ 1 And 100^ 100% 100%

Auto Ownership

0 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 35 40

2 64 60 52 47

3 or more 12 24 13 13

100% 100% 100% 100%

Age

< 21 1% 0% 1% 1%

21-39 45 46 43 56

40-65 U 54 54 41

> 65 0 0 2 2 100% 100% 100% 100%

Number of Respondents | 231 26 1 231 124

^Respondents to the Mail Back Questionnaire.

Non- respondents Who Completed Telephone Interview

116
APPENDIX D

DETAILS OF PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING REDUCTION IN AUTO USAGE

The reduction in auto usage stimulated by the project is evaluated by estimating the

number of autos that would have been in operation on Corridor roadways if the project had

not been undertaken. For the express bus operation, this involves the motorists who

switched to the new bus service. For carpools, this involves motorists who switched to

larger carpools in order to take advantage of the time savings possible on the reversible

lanes.

The basic inputs to the procedure for estimating auto reduction are: 1} the peak

period bus and carpool count data, and 2) the prior mode responses of the commuter surveys.

The analysis of the prior mode responses of bus riders and carpoolers provides values for

estimates of auto occupancy, of which the reciprocals are applied to the bus and carpool

count data to estimate auto diversion. Elements of these procedures are discussed in the

remainder of this appendix.

D.l Reduction in Auto Usage Attributable to the Express Bus Service

Express bus patronage data and prior mode data assembled during the bus surveys are used to estimate reductions in auto usage attributable to the express bus operation.

Patronage data are used to estimate auto commuter diversion. Prior mode information from

the 1971 and 1974 bus surveys are used to estimate auto occupancy.

Auto commuter diversion is estimated by total express bus patronage (see Table 48,

page 104), minus what bus patronage would have been without the project. The estimate of

what patronage would have been is approximated by the sum of bus patronage levels on Shirley Highway bus routes at the beginning of the project and the 1070 passengers diverted

from other bus routes.

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 passenger count, in September 1969, is taken as an estimate of what bus patronage

on routes south of Shirlington 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 passenger count is taken as an estimate of what patronage for Shirlington routes would have been if no busway existed.

The sum of these Shirlington and south of Shirlington passenger counts represents the

estimated patronage level for WMATA Shirley Highway buses without the project. Buses of

the patronage for these buses, taken from the appropriate company records and dispatcher

notes for 1969, is taken as the estimate of their patronage without the project. See

Table 56 for pre-busway patronage estimates.

Table 56

Pre -Project Bus Patronage on Shirley Highway

WMATA PRIVATE COMPANIES

September 1969 Busway

Patronage South of Shirlington 2100 450

September 1970 Busway

Patronage at Shirlington 1820

Total 5920 450

See the "Second Year Results Report," pp. 69, 70, for details.

117
Auto occupancy for the diverted auto commuters was estimated using the prior mode

responses from the 1971 and 1974 bus surveys, and was defined as the quotient:

estimate of diverted auto commuters

estimate of autos used by the diverted conmuters

The October 1974 estimate of diverted auto commuters was defined as the total of all former

auto commuters responding to the bus survey. (See Table 57 for summary of computations.)

The estimate of diverted autos was computed as follows: For each person trip who drove

alone (category 1), one fewer auto was in use. Auto usage reduction is 1/2 for each

routine carpool driver (category 2) and 1/6 for each alternate carpool driver (category 3)

.

Former carpool passengers or bus passengers had no effect on auto usage. The value of auto

occupancy estimated from the 1971 survey data was 1.66, and its reciprocal was 0.6. (Computation details are presented in the "Second Year Results Report" pp. 69-70.) The value

estimated using the 1974 survey data is 1.47 and its reciprocal is 0.68.

Table 57

Bus Stimulated Auto Diversion (October 1974 Survey)

CATEGORY ESTIMATE OF DIVERTED

AUTO CONMJTERS

ESTIMATE OF

DIVERTED AUTOS

Drove Alone 545 545

Drove with Passengers 89 45

Alternate Driver 142 24

Auto Passenger 123

Total 899 614

D.2 Reductions in Auto Usage Attributable to the Carpool Policy of the Project

Prior mode data assembled during the 1974 carpool surveys and carpool volumes were used

to estimate reductions in auto usage stimulated by the carpool policy of the project. This

reduction in auto usage is defined as the difference between estimates of the number of

diverted autos and the number of autos required to transport the new carpoolers. Steps in

this procedure are outlined below (computations are summarized in Table 58)

:

(1) The number of auto commuters switching to carpool because of the

availability of the busway is estimated as the total of all busway

carpoolers who: a) previously commuted by auto, b) joined their

present carpool after the busway was opened to carpools and

c) indicated that the availability of the reversible lanes was very important in their decision to join their present carpool.

(2) The estimate of diverted autos is computed as follows: For each

of these commuters who drove alone, one fewer auto was in use: estimates of auto usage reduction for routine carpool drivers

(category 2) and alternate carpool drivers (category 3) are 1/2 and

1/6 respectively. Former carpool passengers or bus passengers had

no effect on auto usage.

(3) The product of the estimates of assumed auto usage reduction factors

and diverted auto commuters yields an estimate of 347 autos diverted

from Corridor roadways because of the carpool policy (see Table 58)

.

118
Table 58

Carpool Stimulated Auto Diversion

CATEGORY

1 ESTIMATE OF DI\^TED

-AUTO COvMUTERS

ESTIMATE OF

DR^TED .AUTOS

Drove with Passengers 30 15

Alternate Driver 205 34

Carpool Passenger 85

Total 610 347

(4) Estimates of the number of autos used by the diverted carpoolers

are determined from an analysis of project stimulated changes in

carpools. An analysis of the carpool survey data indicated that

at least 80 percent of the new carpoolers joined existing

carpools, with no need to drive (on a daily basis) any additional

autos. It was assumed that twenty percent (106 carpoolers)

formed new carpools and therefore required the use of an auto.

-Assuming a 4.5 auto occupancy rate (October 1974 average on busway was 4.45), the daily auto requirement is an estimated 24 autos.

(5) The estimated reduction of auto usage attributable to carpooling

on the reversible lanes is 323 autos, the difference bet\s'een the

estimated daily auto diversion (347) and the estimated extra

daily auto requirement (24).

119
APPENDIX E

COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS OF ESTIMATING REDUCTIONS IN POLLUTAOT

EMISSIONS AND GASOLINE USAGE

Tables 59 through 62 contain statistics leading to the estimates of reductions in auto

pollutant emissions presented in Paragraph 6.1.2.

Tables 63 through 66 contain statistics leading to the estimates of reductions in

gasoline usage presented in Paragraph 6.1.3.

120
Table 59

Unadjusted Vehicle Emission Rates by Model Year

M3DEL YEAR CARBON HYDROCARBONS NITROGEN HYDROCARBONS

MONOXIDE (EXHAUST) OXIDES (EVAPORATIVE)

grams/mile sraiRs/mile SMILJf

Ul-I. (TTflTnQ /mi 1

1963 S 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

1974 19 2.7 4.6 0.2

Table 60

Deterioration Factors for Exhaust Pollution Control Devices

OCTOBER AGE (IN YEARS) CARBON >DNOXIDE HYDROCARBONS

Current Year 1.18 1.05

1 1.32 1.10

2 1.38 1.13

3 1.40 1.15

4 1.68 1.23

5 1.58 1.28

6 and older 1.00 1.00

121
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t 9 10 11 12 13 13+

^ : . VEHICLE AGE (YEARS)

Figure 26. Distribution by Age of Vehicle Miles Traveled Within the Washington Metropolita

122
1

ai

•H

r-l fH >>

(D (U Oi i-H

bl '^^5 OO E

+-> rH

XI > •H

Sh

4->

t/1 •HQ o 2 to I—I ^ vo 00 O t-H tH OO

04 fSI rH rH

vo oe o iH O 0%

<S| r-l rH rH

LO Lf) OO 00

rH r-^ LO r-. rg rg r-H rH rH o in vo o

rg o cj» 00 a>

(Nl rg I—( rH rH

Lf) to

O CT) rH O O to to pH —I i-l rH

\0 rg rH to a>

LO \0 LT) CTl to rv) 1—( rH

r~~ C7> o un oo \0 to 00

\£> to rv) rg rg rH 1—I rH Csj

to to rg to

<N| LO LTJ rH to

CJ> LO rH to

O rvj rH rH rH to

to

rg 2< o o o o to o to o

r^. t--~ 00 00 CT> o o o o o

to o to o to \o oo 00 1o

MHOoo

XIooo

•)->

(/5

(A rg D

0) (2 rH H(/5 •H

•Ho

to

rq

to

rg

to

rg

rg

rg

oi

rg

vO

LO

LO

LO

in

LO

vD

"to" oLO

tooLO

LO

to

rg

rg

rg

CTi

vD

t-~-

Ol

oo

rg

LO

00

123
o

o KJo

o

o o

o

o oo

o o o

o o

in oo o o

o

0% CNJ O <NJ o o

o o

to o

o o

o o

o o o o o o o

r-. o O rHOO o o

o

\0 (NJ vO ^ LO o o o o

LO VO o o

o

00 OS

CTl o o

o

LO oiHo

o

LO o o o o

o o O rH o o

to

LO LO

rHo

o oto to o o

o

to rg o o

o

oo

rg tvj to 'd- o o o

vOO

O

o

o

to ^ 00 fNJ 1—I O 00

(Nj o o o

o

i-i to to o oTt LO O O

vO LO

to \o

o o

o

LO

to

I>- 00 o oo o o00 I>- O p-l o o o o

LO o

O rHO

•<t LO o LO rH

LO ^ rH rg o o o

LO

to o

rH rH O O

X3 O

to O O O

O

oo

o

o

o LOo

LO 00 to o o

o

eg \0 o o o

LOvO to o o

o

rHU

-a

•H

0)

oLO

ooLO

(NI

o eg o o o

o

O rH o o o

to LO to rg o o

o

O (O rH

rg o o

o o

o o

rg rH o o

o

oo

rg LO o oo

rH rg o o

o

rg rg o o o o org to o o

o o o o

LO ^ rH O O rH O O

00

tH rg o o

o

o r-- rg to o o

o o

00 LO

rg LO o o

o

00 to

oo LO o o

oLO

rg

rg o o

o

rg rg o o

rH >n- o ooo

to ^ LO o o o

o

o

LO CTl o o

o

rg CT) LOo o

LO 00 o to rH O

o o

ooorg

rg rg o o

LO <y> o o

o o

rH O rH rg o o

o

CO oo to rg rg to o o o o

ooo o

oo

oo o

rH 00

rH O O

OLO

rH rg o o

o

to rg o o

rsi rg o o

oo

to rg rH o o o o

o

to o

o o o

o o

rg rg o oo

o

CT^

rg to

CTl

LOvO

OO CT^ O

CT)

eg

CD

to

CTt CT>

124
o

oLO

LO

LO fN] O rH rH 00 00 O O O O O

o

i-O 1—I rvi 00 o cn o

O 1—I O rH

Oo

LO oooooooo LO O Ol 00 o O I—I O) O O O i-l >—I 1—I O I—I r-l rH r-f

o

oLO tOLOO^OOOLOfOO Oio^t^oiooooQoao oooooooo 00 00 tNj to O) ^ 00 00 0> Ol O) o> o O O O O O O r-i

00o

^ CN) to CO

r-- 00 CO o o o o o

r-( to

00 00 o o

to to LO o to to

00 00 00 00 O) 0> O) o o o o o o o

^OOt^OitOtOCNlO oooooooo ooor--r-r--r--r-r-^ uO LO LjO (Ni LO (NJ to

r~~- 00 t-^ r-- o o o o o o o

o

o

OOOOrHCOCSI OOOtO oooooooo lolO\OvdOOO\0 t~- to 00 O) ^ so o o o o o o ^

o o o o o o o

o

1—1 o r>j 00 LO to \0 LO O LO LO 'sO LO o o o o o o o

-H O LO o vO

LO O LO LO LO LO LO o o o o o o o

LOootNr^'i'toc^N n"^LOLOLOLor~~LO oooooooo 'S- to OJ —1 —1 to

LO LO LO LO LO LO UO o o o o o o o

"O CO -H ^ ^ ^ LO o o o o

O Ol rH O)

LO ^ o to O O O o

Oi O) fv] r~- o o Tj- LO "a- tS- o o o o o o

-St o

Oi '3- Oi to rf tN ^ to to ^ ^ ^ o o o o o o o

00 rs] LO to to (NJ rH

LO ^ ^ ^ ^ o o o o o o o

^sCO'S'tNOLOO tOtO'S-TS-^TS'LOrr oooooooo o to oo o 1—

I

or «5f to to o o o o o o o

o —

i

to <3- LO o 00 o^ —I to o o o o so o o o

o^ Oi O) O) O) Oi O) Oi Ol

1—

1

1—

(

-H H

125
Table 65

Correction Factors to Adjust Base Fuel

Consumption for Traffic Volume on a

6 -Lane Expressway

une-way iraiiic

Volume

CVPH)

ATTEMPTED SPEED OF AUTOMOBILES (MPH)

45 50 55 60

0-2400 (Level of Service A = free flowing traffic)

2400-2800 1.000 1.000 1.010 1.020

2800-3200 1.000 1.005 1.015 1.025

3200-3600 1.000 1.010 1.020 1.030

3600-4000 1.000 1.015 1.030 1.045

4000-4400 1.001 1.020 1.040 1.060

4400-4800 1.002 1.030 1.050 1.070

4800-5200 1.003 1.032 1.060 1.078

5200-5600 1.004 1.036 1.070 1.085

5600-6000 1.005 1.040 1.080 1.090

>6,000 (Level of Service E = unstable flow)

Correction factors determined for standard-size U.S. cars.

Source: Paul J. Claffey, "Running Costs of Motor Vehicles as Affected by

Road Design and Traffic," National Cooperative Highway Research

Program Report 111, 1971.

126
Table 66

Correction Factors to Mjust Base Fuel

Consumption for Traffic Volume on a

6- Lane Major Street Urban Arterial

with No Parkingr

ONE-WAY 30 MPH ATTEMPTED SPEElf

TRAFFIC VOLUME

fVPHl NO 1 STOP 2 STOPS

STOPS PER MILE PER MILE

< 1 nnn 1. 000 1. 270 1.460

1000-1200 1. 000 1. 270 1.460

1200-1400 1.005 1.275 1.460

1400-1600 1.005 1. 280 1. 460

1600-1800 1.010 1. 285 1.460

1800-2000 1.010 1.290 1.460

2000-2200 1.010 1.295 1.460

2200-2400 1.020 1.300 1.460

^4UU- ZOUU 1.030 1.305 1.460

2600-2800 1.040 1.305 1.460

2800-3000 1.050 1.310 1.460

> 3000 (Level of Service E = Unstable flow)

^Correction factors detemined for standard-size U.S . cars.

Average stopped delay when stopped is 30 seconds.

Source: Paul J. Claffey, "Running Costs of Motor Vehicles as Affected by

Road Design and Traffic," National Cooperative Highway Research

Program Report 111, 1971.

127
APPENDIX F

COST ALLOCATION

For the period of the project for which data were available, 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. Between July 1, 1971 and December 31, 1972, the bus company posted 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 67.

2. The cost allocation procedure was used to distribute total monthly (or

other period) expenses in these accounts among each line for peak and

off-peak periods of the day. The allocation was 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 were used to allocate variable costs; the last two parameters to allocate certain fixed or semi-fixed costs. The allocation methodology was used to

estimate the relative contribution to the accounts by each of the five parameters. For

example, 58% of account 4110 (Supervision of Shops and Garage) was attributed to route

mileage, and 42% to the number of vehicles required to service the route during the peak

period. The percentage allocations are listed in Table 68.

For the period July 1971 to December 1972, total expenses in each account were 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 were determined and each was expressed as a percentage of the project total for that parameter. Those percentages were used to allocate the

total expenses in each account which were broken down by parameter type. Summaries of

expenses allocated by each parameter are presented in Table 68.

Table 69 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, 39.4% of the total costs were allocated to peak service alone (peak period vehicles and peak period operators) versus

41.4% for the last half of 1971. The net result is that in 1972 about 82% 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 project 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.

128
z

oI—

I

I—

I

i

wQ

I O O O I—i C I—I o

t—i CM to 00

UO LO LO UO LO LT! LT) ^ ^ ^

I—(C^tO'*OOOOr-IO-J(NJCNlLOLO

I—ii—ii—it—ii—i(NifO'^i-nLni_OLOi-ni-o

\0 vO O ^ ^ O O O O O o o

I o o to ^ o LO LO r-^ r-- 00 \0 O vO O

^

I—I to Tl- LO CTl o o o o o o o LO UO LO LO LO LD LO

O U (/) (/) •H -H m P

M_| M_i L|_i (U

<+H <4-l -H ^ 03 Oj 5h O

5h S-i OJ -H H H H H

H

(/) l/l H -H

•P P

II

Oi—icNioOi—irv]oOLO\£>r-oo

i-HfNirsicNitotO'^a-'d-'a-^^LOO

i—ii—ll—IrHl—(i—li—li—1^1—It—ll—(i—

I

O O O O 1—

I

r—I CM to rj- \0 vO vO

CM (N! (V] fNl N CS] ^ T^ ^ ^

<—I ^ rH

rH 1—1 rH to to to to to

I I o c o o o o 1—I rH to r-- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

129
g

1/1

O

O

0)

O

C3

CD

t3

03

o) P

Pi Si

o o o o o

t—I <NI to "^f LO ra OJ (Ni LO LO LP tn LTl O rH

to lO

130
Table 68

Percentage Contributions to Variations in Transit Expenses

Accom"

NUMBER MILES mms

RAJIAMETERS

OPERATORS VEHICLES PASSENGERS

TOTAL AMOUNT

LAST HALF

1971

FIRST HALF

1972

LAST HALF

1972

4110 58 A 0 5,202. 6,444. 7,625.

4121 58 A O 169. 351. 419.

4122 90 lU 249. 520. 723.

4128 50 bU 118. 481. 1,380.

4131 58 2,428. 2,806. 3,678.

4132 50 9,280. 13,489. 20,048.

4140 100 11,076. 32,607. 36,806.

4145 100

- 791. 7,774. 4,848.

4146 100 100. 243. ( 8,227.)

4147 100 1 nn lUU ( 1,117.) ( 6,303.) ( 5,925.) j 4150 lUU 27,569. 37,755. 53,678. 1 4160 100 3,692. 6,312. 10,738. 1 4210 80 on 11,267. 16,664. 22,450. I 4211 80 6,320. 9,648. 11,953. 1 4220 67 'Z T 00 167,517. 269,932. 415,809. j 4230 100 12,076. 19,825. 29,877. i 4240 100 494. 1,656. 1,597. 1 4264 25 "7 C 3,717. 6,664. 7,950. ! 4311, 100 3,244. 5,534. 8,533. : 4314 100 30. 39. 57.

4319 100 0. 9. 0. 4410 100

4430 95 5 8,948. 15,018. 13,992.

4440 100 117. 867. 1,137. 1 4470 100 743. 0. ! 4510 25 lb 50 839. 1,623. 2,426.

4520 33 67 9,906. 17,001. 22,090.

4541 16 3 /i y 1 939. 1,461. 2,562.

4570 1 nn iUU 3,954. 692. 5,268.

4571 50 oU 187. 338. 624.

4580 lUU 68. 234. 512. : 4611 100 703. 1,468. 319.

4612 100 61. 43. 22. 1 4613 5

1 nlU T n 75 6,365. 10,221. 14,784.

4614 5

1 nXV 1 n-LU 75 4,193. 4,708. 4,605.

4616 5

1 n 1 n 75 12. 14. 45.

4620 10 90 519. 524. 2,523.

4630 5

1 n 1 n 75 504. 1,260. 1,453.

4640 100 815. 1,210. 2,299.

4651 5

1 n 1 n 75 814. 1,971. 2,519.

4652 16 3 Q 1 18,614. 37,410. 39,671.

4655 80 20 1,614. 2,538. 3,478.

4656 5 10 10 75 917. 1,628. 2,983.

4673 100 670. 1,479. 595.

4674 20 20 20 20 20 1,540. 5,807. 786.

5011 5 10 10 75 78. POO 588. 910

.

bUoi 90 10 544. O 77 833. i,iL)4. 58 194. 231. At 241.

C ACT

5 10 10 75 353. 506. 712.

dU /i 58 42 476. 622. 518.

5210 100 6,947. 9,033. 2,761.

5220 25 75 1,056. 10,554. 4,145.

5230 100 2,813. 12,812. 4,176.

5240 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.
f ^

c

CAl CD (/) 3 rH 5 'Ho * / (N r—

1

to to

LO LO

CT) *

^ ^ too

.^

1—

1

rH 00 1—

1

I—

1

00 (NJ o

I—

i

o LO to o

I—

1

(Nl

E—< (vj «^ o

o CO t-^ O CT) [\ to U .-1 1—

1

1—1 (Nl

CJ OO 00 ,—

1

2

w O CTl to OO

E—1 r—

1

to rH rH (Nl

\£> o vO LO

LO rH o CV] [

to o 1—

1

CTi E—

1

rH LO o to to

Ol o I—

1

LO O (Nl 1—

1

t—

1

<N1 OO

6/>

t-O vD o ^ (Nl H to rH o C/D o OO OO to r-l O r-H I—

1

00 o 00 (NJ (N] OO (Nl 1—

1

to

r— (Nl LO LO

fN] OO (NJ vO

LO CO c%

I—

1

to LO to

1—

1

LO

cn rHrH o r-t o to to H ,—

I

to CTi I—

1

\0

to

a,

•(-> inou

oH

132
APPENDIX G

COPIES OF FALL 197A

COMMUTER SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS

133

III o

IT

UJo

CO o

LL

CO o

1—

w z "o3

CO *a a> X1 1 1

CE 3 >03£

00

CO £EcoaQ 3EEoo

I/) 3O> E

re o £ o

o)

a > >

IOzz

CEO

cnI

I-dz<

en<o

ILUIHZ

CCLUuzou

00

I-00

LUZ)Oo

u.

UJXH 3

o0! ccaE

re 55oz

•uc

re

fco co3O Eo

s:Ec 3

T3 3

re „ = 5 -ii Q. r ^ =. §

-H re S I- Q < o Q

_ 3 a

reO3>

a. c

re jk

i_rea

_0co< ^> _ 3 3

a; re 1^ S c OOQ 0 re — 3 ^ - = I > ^ - 3 1 1 3 5 ^ ° I 2 = = =

OMB No, 11-H2752

Approval Explroi 12'31-76

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

!au of SlantJarils

23, Whal aie your regular working hours? Dno regular working hours, or A,M. lo P,f

24. When was the last time you changed your place ot residence? not within the last 5 years, or _

25. When was the last time you changed youi physical work location? not within the last 5 years.

26, is an auto available for you to REGULARLY drive alone from home to work? D no O yes. but with considerable inconvenience lo others O yes, and without inconvenie

27. How many automobiles are owned or operated by members ot your household? none, or

28, Which of the following attitudes best expresses your opinion about using bus

inconvenience lo others D don't c

ne.of auto(s)

of commuting (fom home to work?

I am generally satisfied with using bus as a long ro.

I am generally satisfied with using bus as a short ti

I am generally dissatisfied with using bus; why

Other (specify)

9 SOlul lUtlng problems,

luting problems u

Please indicate your: Sex: male female Age: Dundcr21 21-39 40 65 Do*

What is the combined annual income of all members of vou' household? Q SO-5,000 55,001-15,000 315,001-30.000 Qabove S30,000 Any comments? ,

51

53 m54 55 m

THANK YOU - PLEASE SEAL AND MAIL

Ill CJ

(£

LUo

CO ? ^

CO ~ O is O < 3 Z >£

60

_eOoaUOoo

>•

re

if> EEoo

"5csEaQ

CO3O(Acoa

CO 3 C

'-0c < E o a 0 < > 2 ^ o 3 t;

.-= fO <«

O 1 i I ? 2 5 - S 5 E E I I E — "S. > c

1= Q. 5I i o!- 2O

CO > O D

Si< g

LL

_

H

g

X CO X

00 cc

1^

X

-Joo

D. 0 < 1 "

CJ LU <

UJ >

00 <

UJ UJ 1 = — _J 3 = - < §

-Co o3O

CJco

LU

g >o< 3

c;

D

LU

O

1-o

C3Zz O

a:I 1

i-zoz9 C

>^

LU

ir

UJ 1 oc

>-

—2 i£

CC<3

t3

.i £ B - o >n EE

T3CEgoI E E X — ~

a> o O

-D t: :i= i i

*i "c "a E E E- O

to

___ M-^ >~ oo

o"

COoo

inooo

a> o

ro o^2oI

a;

—

00 o> oCM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Nalional Buicau ol Standaids

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 Shirley Highway Corridor Carpooler Survey

2 7 This tuivoy is iponsotcd by the U.S. Oapartmcnt of Commnicc

1. Weie you a passenger in a caipool (that is. an automobile ca'ryini) 2 or moie persons, including the driver) D yes: please answer the following questions and mail luivey loim — No Stamp Requiicd

no; please return survey form wilhoul answeting queiiions

Z LISTED 8EL0W ARE SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH MIGHT FIGURE EITHER

POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY IN A PERSONS DECISION TO FORM OR

JOIN A CARPOOL. HOW IMPORTANT WAS EACH OF THESE FACTORS TO YOU WHEN YOU FIRST DECIDED TO USE THE CARPOOL IN WHICH YOU WERE HIDING ON THE MORNING CITED ABOVE*

BESIDE £flCW OF THE FACTORS BELOW. PLACE ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING 'IMPORTANCE" NUMBERS:

3 = Very Important

2 = Moderately Important

/ = Unimponant or Didn't Consider It 0= Not Applicable

Comfort of the vehicle(i| used by the carpool (e.g., teg room, air ^ conditioning, etc.)

Reduction in overall commuting costs

Special parking privileges provided by employer lor carpools

Characteristics of the other member(s) of the carpool (e.g., personality. punctuality, sen, whether person Is a smoker or objecls to smoking.

etc.)

Availability of Shirley Highway express lanes for carpool use

Loss of flexibility in working hours

Availability ol carpool locator services 1

Additional trip time resulting Irom passenger pick up and ^cJJge

Reduced use of an auto or making the purchase of an auto unnecwrf^^ M

Additional risk to personal safety M /\

Concern for energy and air pollution problems Sf /ji

Convenient work location(s) of the other member (i) oF Ihe carpool

Reduction in the use of gasoline /A

Reduced stress and f ruilralion in commuting

Availability of good bus service as "back-up" iransporiation

Other factors (specify) 26

3, How did you get from the place where this trip began to the place where

you were picked up by the carpool? |"j was picked up at or near my residence 27 was driven by another person to carpool pick-up point drove car and parked at carpool pick-up point n nthsr finprilyl

7. What was the (inal destination of this trip? IPhysical address of your work place.

Streal addnn or iMildinsrwne 13 4]

City 43 State 69 Zip Coda 70 74 , , R This address was n work noiher (inrrilwl 1 1

9. Time this trip ended A.M. (arrived at above address) [

1 1 1 1 10. Could you have used a bus to make this trip? ?6 7S

11. The

yes

following

no O don't know Q questions (a i) refer to the carpool in which you were riding on ^

the morning cited above. If you are not currently an active and regular member of Oiis carpool please check here and return survey form without com- 1 1

a) When did you begin to regularly use this carpool (0 commute from home to work? month year 1 1 1 1 1 b) How often aie you the driver of this carpool? —*- -1-^

never or almost never d,.ve p-,

alternately drive L 1 neatly always drive

c) How often do you use each of the following means to travel from home to work?

i. r/i'i carpool (0.1.2.elc.) dav(s) oer week

il. Driving alone dav(s) oer week i 1 1 1

iii. Bus day(s) perweek 1'

d) How many regular users of tfi/s carpool (EXCLUDING YOURSELF) are:

i, membcrsof your household? none.or personlsl [

1 1

ii. employed at your place of work? O none, or petson(s) 1

1

o| Did a carpool matching service assist you in forming or joining tfiij carpool? ,

1 0 yes D no 1

(| If you could not commute from home lo work by means of this carpool how 70 would you usually make the trip? 1 0 1 would bo unable to make this trip [ [ ^ /vD join or form another carpool use bus ^' /(AYj drive alone other (soecifv) ^^j/BeMio you joined this carpool how did you usually commute from

wQiv^taa); how did you commute prior to changing your place ^ «y»g(c?!ceorwork? auto O bus other 1 1 1 Q T^Mk^ alone; which roadway was used? 77 73 Xolumbia Pike Shirley Highway Route 1 Arlington Blvd. George Washington Parkway

Other (soecilvl was an alternate driver in a carpool with other person(s) drove in a carpool with other patjon(sl (always or nearly always drove) was a passenger in a carpool with other person[s) (never

or almost never diove)

4. Where did this trip begin (Your home address i( this trip started at home)

used hm lsn(.r.ifv rnniol

Other (soecifv)

h| Before you toined f/i/s carpool, how long did it take you to commute

i) Before you joined this carpool, where did you park your auto? 1 1—1 1 did not drive

in a space provided or subsidized by youf employer | | on the street 37

in a commercial lot/garage D other (;ot\rifyl

Cily 42 Sule69 Zip Code 70 74

5. This address was home Doiher (soecifvl 1

| 6. Time you began this trip A.M. (left above addres?!

1 1 1 1 1 76 79 *

PLEASE CONTINUE TO OUFfiTlON 7 ahHVP

12. What ate your regular working hours? no tegular workmg hours, or A.M. lo P.M. L_J i—l__J L_J 1 l__J

13. When was the last time vou chanoed vour DlAcn of retiriftncp? n not wliliin ihc ino fi uc-irt nr mnmh wear 1 ! 1 1 1 3G 39

14. When was the last lime you changed yoiJf physical work location? Q not within the last 6 years, or month year 1 1 1 1 1

15. Is an auto available for you to REGULARLY drive alone from home to work?

no yes, but with considerable inconvenience to others O yes, and without inconvenience to others 44

16. How many automobiles are owned or operated by memberi of your household? none, or auto(s) [

|

1 7. Which ol the lollowing altitudes best expiesses your opinion about carpooling as a way ol commuting from home to work?

1 am generally satisfied wiih carpooling as a long ronga solution lo my commuting problems 1 i

1 am generally satisfied with carpooling as a iftorr term solution to my commuting problems until improvements are made in mass transit.

1 am aenerallv dissalisf iert wiTh rarnnnlinn' whu7 O Other I.f«.rifyl

18. Please indicate your: Sex: O Male Female Age: under 21 21-39 40-65 over 65 1 1 1 ,„ , , 47 46

19. What 11 Ihe combined annual income of all members of your household? SO-5,000 $5,001-16,000 $15,001-30,000 above S30,000 70 Anuf^nmmentt? j ] mBO 61

THANK YOU - PLEASE SEAL AND MAIL

O

a

M

O S - 5 = a I- S X cr ^

"S- UJ < m

CO s • -2 5 a IS O < D 2

0)£3

C/3Ooaou>to S Q. o ^ o I E= ° 5 E i 11° It >• ./> " c <u S

.S (1) .t o i- £ It- E > =

•e o 5 ^

Qu yJ O O- f 2

LL CC O < O LU Qj < X > LU H o

to LU CD < CO < g => Q

LU

itQC LU LU >

to <

LU 2

I? 2 OH ^ tr O 5 o o O Q- > 5

00

m

O

D ^ < X ^ ^ i

Uj LU m X Q

to

LU o Q

Q. i» E c

Si t C -S 1-. oj O c o > ^ 5

CO CN »~

Q ^ 8 Z 3 CC oaE < ^ * c o — 2 o E

;5 E E o EE J o E E s > > § E E o c 2 E - -Q > o -g - -9 1i H 5 5 "S

-D ^ " .2 ^ ^ = X g o — — ^ i- > g <

Shirley Highway Corridor Carpooler Survey

n

LISTED BELOW ARE SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH MIGHT FIGURE EITHER

POSITIVELY OR NEGATIVELY IN A PERSON'S DECISION TO FORM OH

JOIN A CARPOOL HOW IMPORTANT WAS EACH OF THESE FACTORS TO YOU WHEN YOU FIRST DECIOEO TO USE THE CARPOOL IN WHICH YOU

WERE RIDING ON THE MORNING CITED ABOVE?

2 = ModeraTely Important

1 = Unimportanl or Oidn i 0 = Not Applicable

p begin? {Your home addie

5, This addresi was home other (specilvl

6 Time vou began thij trip ^ A M, (left above address] |"

j j

'j"

7 What was the final dosiinaiion ot ihis trip? (Physical address ot youi work place.

IS addiesi was Dwork other (spec

(EXCLUDING YOURSELF) petsonisi

(EXCLUDING YOURSELF)

risk to personal safety

It energy and air pollution prot

t work locaiion(s) of the other

_ Reduced it

ilitv of good bus service as "back-u

. Other faciois (specify! .

auto? none. or_

arged befoii

not applicable.

le last passenger was picked up?

iicarpool 10.1, 2, etc.) day Is) pet week

ii. Driving alone day|il per week

iii. Bus day (s) per week

il How many regular users o( tfiii carpool lEXCLUOING YOURSELF)

1, members of vour household? none, or pBrson(s)

il, employed ai your place of work? Dnone.or person(sl

i) Does Ihe number ol people using this carpool vary from day lo day?

stays the same from day to day (eneepi for sick days and vacation

varies so

IS substaniially from day t(

rrri

""eg

PLEASE CONTINUE TO PART I OF QUESTION 17 ABOVE .

ID

I to REGULARLY di

mich of the tollowi

muling proble

Other (specify! . PItNe Indictte your: Mate Fen

il income ot all meml

27, Any commenti? _

inderZt 31-39 0 40-65 over 65

SO-5.000 SS.OOI-15.000 StS.OO1-30.000 above S30.000

I JI IJ rrm rrrfi ei 64 K £8

: P

TO 6

THANK YOU - PLEASE SEAL AND MAIL

lUo

UJ

CD PO o V- w 2 O -oc O2 Q. o <

LLO

h-z

LU

QC<

Q. 2 Q

CO

COo3

OJ

tv

—

CD ' z £ t3

CO3

0)EEoo 3

a.E aa

CO

Z) <= P a I 3OUocooo>ra

0)

CO £3 o£o > c ^ .9 3 «l _ 3c

T3

to

g

CO ^ 0 ^

t;

(/I 3

0)

O 3 ^ CT +; 1 I

-Q <

Q. oO

<u

!5 CO Q CO

i) o > c:

a o o 2 > 'o

"a OJ ^ E

<S3 a •-

'B

T3 <U

(0 (U EI->' 4-" c c ! 3o

T5

a; g

'>

— 2 ^ a o

a, <u o 2-

00 «

.E S 5

0)

II

-o - " :E 2 o 2 2 I I M c c m

4-. c " 2.

a> > 5 -° O TO C X! >

If)oc

a>

(Jc

<u T3 3

inC

is3o>o oo

X) i 

O <u *^ > EoE S^' o

"4— ^-t-J 5 °

_o< .E -I <u

C3 «>

OC -g oI- E °

(U 3

J2 oo3o>

J3EoD o 5 —oEoo

CM

CM

C

O)E>O

Q. Z .i c _ EoEo3o

J3 E E

03 1) a QT3

x:1

T3 3 O -C -C o g > CO ro

0) fO (D

C

25 <u <u o

0) c c to Q. ° -2 X to to cDia

to to to

in

CD

IX) CD

ci

O)

CO

CM

T3c3

>)- D) 0> E E_ T3

to ^

T3 . > ^

"io o E ^

J! o

00

51

CO

CM ooo_

o'

COo<ooo

o"

COoo

in8o

o_

ino

in?o3oEf

J3Eo

in

CSI

QZ<

_l<

LU

C/5 LUCO<I Do>z< EEou>c<

CDCM

Approval Expirci 12 31-74

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau ol Standards

Shirley Highway Corridor Single Occupant Auto User Survey

This survey is sponsored by the U S, Department of Commerce

Did you make a trip by driving alone in an automobile on the n ning of 6:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.?

yes: p'ease answer the following questions and mail survey form - No stamp required

no; please return survey form without answering questions.

What intervening stopis) did you make

began and your final destination?

the place where this trip 1, where did you park y

babysitter 0 other(sl (specify! _

3. Where did this trip begin? (Your home add

in a space provided or subsidized by your employer

other (specify)

P started at home) 10, What is the vehicle parking cost? (Don't divide by the n

persons sharing the parking cost) O not applicable, or $ per day.

This address was Dhome other (specify)

Time you began this trip A.M. (left above address)

1 1 , How often do you use each of the following means to travel between home and

6. What was the final destination of t

place, if work trip)

s trip? (Physical address ol your work

This address was work other (specify)

Time this trip ended. ^ A.M. (arrived at above address)

PLEASE CONTINUE TO QUESTION 9 ABOVE

a) Driving alone dayis) per week

b) Bus dav(s) per week

c) A carpool day(s) per week

1 2. Could you have used a bus to make this trip? yes no don't know

13. When was the last time you regularly used the bus to c( from your present home to your present work place? not within the last 5 years, or month

14. When was the last time you regularly used a carpool to commi

from your present home to your present work place? nevei not within the last 5 years, or month year

If you do not now regularly

I now regularly commute by bus Bus not available Need car during work day Bus takes too long No seats available on bus Bus unreliable Too much time spent waiting at bus stops Too much walking necessary O Bus too expensive No personal privacy on bus Other factor{s) (specify)

from home to work by rk o[ie-e*-Tm»re of the folloi

It you do not now regularly commute from hon

1 now regularly commute by carpool O Inability to locate others willing to carpool Tod much time required to pick up and discf O Too much risk lo personal safety No personal privacy in carpool Too much auto insurance required Loss of tiexibility in working hours Need car during work day Other factor(s) (specify)

k by carpool, why not? (Mark o

iige carpool passengers

17. If you could not commute from home lO work by driving a would be unable lo make this trip usi

join or form a carpool oti

e how would you usually make this trip?

:ifv) -

18. What are your regular working hours? no regular working hours, or A.M. 1

19. When was the last time you changed your place of residence? not within the last

20. When was the last time you changed "^qw physical work locatiort? not within if

J c

21, n auto available for you to REGULARLY drive alone from home to work?

10 yes, but with considerable inconvenience to others. yes, and without ii

22. How n lutomobiles are owned or operated by members of your household? n

23. Which of the following attitudes best eM|

I am generaliy satisfied with driving a'

I am generally satisfied with driving a

I am generally dissatisfied with driving alone; why,

Other (specify)

our opinion about driving alone as a way of commuting from home to work?

long range solution lo my commuting problems,

short term solution to my commuting problems uni

24, Please indicate your: Sex: l\

25, What is the combined annual inco

26, Any comments?

le Female Age: Q under 21 21-39 40-65 over 65

e of alt members of your household? SO-5.000 55,001-15,000 S15,001-30.000 Above S30,000

61

62 m64 6S

6fi m

THANK YOU - PLEASE SEAL AND MAIL