SYSTEM

TRANSPORTATION TRANSIT

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX
OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION 1

UNDERSTANDING TRANSIT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 16

EXISTING CONDITIONS 21

THE 2012 RTP/SCS 52

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND TRANSIT CHALLENGES 60

THE 2016 RTP/SCS CONSTRAINED PLAN 66

NEXT STEPS: EMERGING ISSUES 84

NOTES 92

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT
TRANSIT

OVERVIEW AND DESCRIPTION

The transit system in the six-county Southern California region is comprised of an extensive 

network of services provided by dozens of operators. The network includes fixed-route 

local bus, community circulators, express bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), demand response, 

commuter rail, heavy rail and light rail. The combined regional transit network provides 

the second largest number of service hours in the country, after that of the New York 

City metropolitan area.

While Southern California has a national reputation for auto-centricity, our region has 

an extensive transit network. According to the Public Transportation Fact Book from the 

American Public Transportation Authority (APTA), the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

Ana Urbanized Statistical Area (UZA) ranked number two nationally in several important 

measures. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is the fifth 

largest operator nationally, when ranked in terms of service hours. Eight other properties, 

The City of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 

Access Services Incorporated (ASI), Foothill Transit, City of Los Angeles Department of 

Transportation (LADOT), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Omnitrans and Long Beach Transit 

(LBT) rank among the 100 largest properties nationally.1

Southern California’s transit network is also its largest non-automotive passenger 

transportation mode by trip volume, by a huge degree. Transit riders took more than eight 

times as many trips as air travelers in FY 2011-2012, and nearly 267 times as many trips as 

passenger rail travelers. See FIGURE 1.

2,664,935

84,800,000

710,804,989

Passenger Rail Aviation Transit

Figure 1 Passenger Transportation–FY 2011 Annual Trips

Source: NTD, Amtrak, SCAG Aviation Department

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODES IN THE 

SCAG REGION

The five transit modes in the SCAG region, as they are considered in this analysis 

and as they are defined by the National Transit Database (NTD):

1. Fixed Route Bus Service: Referred to as Motor Bus and defined as " A transit mode 

comprised of rubber-tired passenger vehicles operating on fixed routes and schedules 

over roadways. " Most transit service in the SCAG Region is provided via this mode.

2. Demand Response: Defined as “a transit mode comprised of passenger cars, vans, or 

small buses operating in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the transit 

operator, who then dispatches a vehicle to pick up the passengers and transport them 

to their destinations." Access Services and OCTA Access are examples of this mode 

in the SCAG Region. 

3. Light Rail: Defined as “a transit mode that typically is an electric railway with a light 

volume traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. It is characterized by passenger rail cars 

operating on fixed rails in shared or exclusive right-of-way (ROW) and vehicle power 

drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph." The Metro Blue, 

Green, Gold and Expo lines are examples of this mode in the SCAG Region. 

4. Heavy Rail: Defined as “a transit mode that is an electric railway with the capacity for 

a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by separate ROWs from which all other 

vehicular and foot traffic are excluded and high speed and rapid acceleration passenger 

rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails." The Metro Red and Purple 

Lines are examples of this mode in the SCAG Region. 

5. Commuter Rail: Defined as a transit mode that is an electric or diesel propelled railway 

for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating 

between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service must be operated on a regular 

basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting 

passengers within UZAs, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas." Discussion 

of this mode is included in the Passenger Rail Appendix. Metrolink is an example of this 

mode in the SCAG Region.
 2 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

These commissions play an important role in selecting transit projects for inclusion in the 

RTP, apportioning local, state and federal transit funds among the various transit properties 

and guiding the local vision for public transportation in their respective counties. The 

commissions help to build local support and consensus for projects in the long range and 

implement projects in the short range.

The SCAG Region is also divided into 15 subregional units, represented by subregional 

Councils of Government. Two subregions, ICTC and SANBAG, are also county transportation 

commissions. See TABLE 2.

Currently, there are 68 fixed route transit operators in the region and over 100 providers 

of various specialized services, including community circulators, ferries, dial-a-rides, 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated paratransit and specialized services 

operating beyond the ADA.

These agencies are administered through a wide variety of governance structures. The three 

most significant types are wholly owned municipal transit properties (both fixed route and 

demand response), joint powers structures and four county transportation commissions who 

also operate transit service. Two of the commissions, Metro and OCTA, are also designated 

as transit districts by the State of California. VCTC and ICTC also operate transit service.

TRANSIT GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE AREAS

SCAG is the largest Metropolitan Planning Organization in the United States, consisting 

of about 38,000 square miles and bounded by Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, Arizona and 

Nevada, in addition to Kern, San Diego and Santa Barbara counties. The region is home to 

about 18 million residents and contains 15 urbanized areas (UZAs), as designated by the 

United States Census Bureau.2

 See TABLE 1.

Each of the counties in the SCAG region is served by a state designated county 

transportation commission, created pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 

130050. These entities were created to further the goal of local control over the 

transportation planning and are key partners in creating the vision for the 2016 RTP/SCS:

z The Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC)

z The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)

z The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)

z The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)

z The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)

z The Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC)

Table 1 Urbanized Areas (UZAs) within the SCAG Region

Source: Census 2010

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Santa Clarita, CA

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Thousand Oaks, CA

Indio-Cathedral City, CA Victorville-Hesperia, CA

Lancaster-Palmdale, CA Camarillo, CA

Mission Viejo-Lake Forest-San Clemente, 

CA* El Centro-Calexico, CA

Murrieta-Temecula-Menifee, CA Hemet, CA

Oxnard, CA Simi Valley, CA

Yuma, AZ-CA* *Bi-regional/ Bi-state urbanized areas 

Table 2 Subregions of the SCAG Region

Source: Census 2010

Arroyo Verdugo Subregion San Bernardino Associated Governments 

(SANBAG) 

City of Los Angeles San Gabriel Valley Council of 

Governments (SGVCOG)

Coachella Valley Association of Governments 

(CVAG)

San Fernando Valley Council of 

Governments (SFVCOG)

Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG) South Bay Cities Council of Governments 

(SBCCOG)

Imperial County Transportation Commission 

(ICTC) Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG)

Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments Western Riverside Council of 

Governments (WRCOG)

North Los Angeles County Westside Cities Council of Governments 

(WCCOG)

Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG)
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 3

‘Munis,’ consist of thirteen municipal transit properties and two joint powers 

operators. These operators are designated as eligible recipients of federal formula 

funds via Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 99207.5 of the California Public Utilities 

Code. Most offer fixed route services between jurisdictions, though the municipal 

operators service areas tend to be centered around the jurisdiction that owns 

them. In most cases, these operators provide the bulk of local trips within their 

service area while Metro service is overlaid to support longer distance trips.4

 Some 

of the Munis have fairly small service areas, such as Beach Cities or Culver City 

Transit. Others, including Long Beach Transit and Foothill Transit, have very large 

service areas. Foothill is a JPA operator serving as the primary fixed route operator 

in the San Gabriel Valley, an LA County subregion with two million residents. 

AVTA is a JPA and the sole provider of fixed route bus service in the LancasterPalmdale UZA. See TABLE 3.

z Specialized and Local Operators: Local circulator and demand response services 

are provided by a variety of transit properties throughout LA County. Access 

Services of Los Angeles, Incorporated, is the largest provider of ADA paratransit 

trips in the county and provides some or all complimentary ADA paratransit 

service for Metro and various municipal bus operators. ASI’s service area includes 

the entire county and they are unique in that respect. Similarly, the Pomona Valley 

Transit Authority is a JPA providing demand response service in eastern Los 

Angeles County. More localized providers are referred to as the “local operators.” 

They are typically municipally owned and provide demand response or circulator 

services within jurisdictional boundaries. These operators are represented in the 

planning process via Metro’s Local Transportation Systems Subcommittee (LTSS) 

of the Technical Advisory Committee.

The American Public Transportation Authority’s (APTA) 2013 Public Transportation Fact 

Book illustrates the size and complexity of the transit system in Los Angeles County. In FY 

2011-2012, Metro was the second largest provider of bus passenger trips and passenger 

miles in the nation and LADOT, Foothill Transit, Long Beach Transit and Santa Monica’s 

Big Blue Bus also ranked in the top fifty largest providers of passenger trips and passenger 

miles. LADOT was also the third largest provider of commuter bus trips, while Metro was 

the largest provider of light rail passenger miles and the third largest provider of light rail 

trips in the country. The LTSS operators, together as a group, provided the 18th largest total 

of demand response trips in the nation and Access Services provided the second largest 

total.5

 See EXHIBIT 2.

ORANGE COUNTY

Within Orange County, OCTA operates the second largest fixed route bus transit fleet in 

the SCAG Region and was the nation’s 22nd largest provider of transit trips and 20th largest 

provider of passenger miles in FY 2011-2012. Additionally, OCTA operates ADA paratransit 

and funds Metrolink commuter rail service. The cities of Irvine, La Habra, and Laguna 

Seven Joint Powers Authority (JPA) operators provide fixed route bus service at a 

subregional scale through multiple jurisdictions. These include the Antelope Valley Transit 

Authority (AVTA), Foothill Transit, Gold Coast Transit, Omnitrans, Riverside Transit Agency 

(RTA), SunLine Transit Agency and Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA). Additionally, 

the Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates commuter rail service under the 

Metrolink service brand at a regional scale.

IMPERIAL COUNTY

Within Imperial County, the bulk of service is operated by Imperial Valley Transit (IVT), a 

service brand of the ICTC. IVT currently operates service between municipalities in the 

Imperial Valley and is establishing a series of local circulators. The services are a mix of 

small urban and rural transit services. Circulator services are also historically provided within 

the City of Calexico by the Calexico Transit System.

In addition, the Yuma County Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (YCIPTA) 

provides local services in the Yuma AZ-CA UZA under the Yuma County Area Transit service 

brand, including the community of Winterhaven and Quechan Tribal Lands in the SCAG 

Region. YCIPTA also provides an express service between Yuma and El Centro on Mondays, 

Wednesdays and Saturdays. See EXHIBIT 1.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Los Angeles County is one of the most robust transit markets in the nation. The Los AngelesLong Beach-Anaheim CA UZA, composed primarily of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, 

provided the second largest share of transit trips, service hours and service miles of all UZAs 

nationally in FY 2011-2012. Agencies in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CA UZA 

also provided the third largest total of passenger miles travelled nationally. Given the size 

and productivity of transit service in Los Angeles County, it’s no surprise that transit service 

provision is extraordinarily complex.

Transit service in LA County can be divided into three categories—Metro service, the LA 

County Municipal Operators and local and specialized providers:

z METRO: Metro is typically the 3rd or 4th largest provider of transit trips in the 

U.S. in any given year and provides the vast bulk of all transit trips in the SCAG 

Region. Their service area includes the portions of Los Angeles County south of 

the Angeles National Forest. Metro operates multiple transit modes, including light 

rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit and fixed route bus services. In cities or subregions 

where there are local operators, Metro often operates trunk routes and serves 

long distance markets. Metro funds Metrolink service in LA County. Metro is a 

designated transit district per Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 99213 of the California 

Public Utilities Code.3

z LA County Municipal Operators: The municipal operators of transit, called the 
 4 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

its vehicles to CNG. RCTC funds the county’s participation in the regional commuter rail 

service via Metrolink, and the cities of Riverside and Corona operate demand response and 

local circulator service.

In addition, the cities of Banning and Beaumont also provide service via the Pass 

Transit service brand, and Desert Roadrunner service is provided by the Palo Verde 

Valley Transit Agency covering the City of Blythe and unincorporated eastern Riverside 

County. Rural transit service in southwestern Riverside County is provided by the 

Reservation Transportation Authority, a collaborative of 18 federally recognized tribal 

groups. See EXHIBIT 4.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

Omnitrans is the largest agency in southern San Bernardino County and the Victor Valley 

Transit Authority (VVTA) provides fixed route service in the Victorville-Hesperia UZA. 

SANBAG funds the county’s participation in Metrolink.

Beach operate local circulator service, and the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove and Santa 

Ana are working with OCTA to implement rail circulators. In addition, a 501c(4) non-profit 

entity composed of stakeholders throughout the Anaheim Resort area, the Anaheim Transit 

Network, operates Anaheim Resort Transit. OCTA also provides funds through Measure M 

for cities to plan and operate seasonal transit services (Project V), as well as a program to 

provide specialized transit service for seniors and persons with disabilities (Project U).

OCTA is a designated transit district per Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 99213 of the California 

Public Utilities Code6

. See EXHIBIT 3.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

In Riverside County, fixed route bus service is primarily operated by RTA and SunLine 

Transit. RTA’s service area is the western portion of Riverside County and SunLine’s service 

area is the Coachella Valley. RTA’s service area is among the largest transit systems in the 

nation, and SunLine has led the industry by being the first public agency to convert all of 

Table 3 Municipal Operators of Los Angeles County

Agency Structure Service Area

Arcadia Transit Municipally Owned City of Arcadia

AVTA JPA Lancaster-Palmdale UZA

Beach Cities Transit Municipally Owned Western South Bay Subregion

Claremont Dial a Ride Municipally Owned Pomona Valley

Commerce Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned City of Commerce and Surrounding Communities

Culver City Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned City of Culver City and Surrounding Communities

Foothill Transit JPA San Gabriel Valley Subregion

Gardena Municipal Bus Lines Municipally Owned Northern South Bay Cities Subregion

LADOT Municipally Owned Local Circulators Throughout City of Los Angeles

La Mirada Transit Municipally Owned Northern Gateway Cities, Near City of La Mirada

Long Beach Transit Municipally Owned Southern Gateway Cities

Montebello Bus Lines Municipally Owned North Western Gateway Cities

Norwalk Transit System Municipally Owned Eastern Gateway Cities

Santa Clarita Transit Municipally Owned Santa Clarita UZA

Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus Municipally Owned Cities of Santa Monica, Culver City and Los Angeles (Westside Cities Subregion)

Torrance Transit System Municipally Owned Southern South Bay Cities
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 5

corridors and these agreements limit service, perhaps most severely on the Riverside Line 

which is limited to just six round trips per day. The San Bernardino Line, Metrolink’s busiest 

carrying about 11,000 passenger per day, has 38 daily trips and limited weekend service.

INTERREGIONAL SERVICES

In addition to the services listed above, several transit agencies provide service outside the 

boundaries of the SCAG Region:

z VISTA in Ventura County provides service into neighboring Santa Barbara 

County, including Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, Goleta and UCSB via its 

Coastal Express service.

z The Eastern Sierra Transit Authority provides thrice weekly service from the 

Lancaster Metrolink Station to Mammoth via the Owens Valley, with connections 

to Reno, Nevada and Yosemite National Park.

z RTA route 202 and Metrolink’s Orange County and Inland Empire-Orange County 

Lines provide service to the Oceanside Transit Center in San Diego County.

z YCIPTA also provides an express service between Yuma, Arizona and El Centro on 

Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays.

z The North County Transit District's (NCTD) route 395 operates from Northern San 

Diego County into the City of San Clemente.

z Kern Transit operates two routes, the 100 and the 250, connecting the City of 

Lancaster with destinations in Kern County including Mojave, California City, 

Tehachapi and Bakersfield.

z Santa Barbara’s Metropolitan Transit District currently operates four routes 

(86, 87, 88, 89) connecting the Ventura County Government Center with Santa 

Barbara and Goleta as a construction mitigation.

Rural fixed route transit is provided by several operators in San Bernardino County, including 

the Mountain Area Regional Transit Authority (MARTA), the Morongo Basin Transit Authority 

(MBTA), Needles Area Transit and Barstow Area Transport. See EXHIBIT 5.

VENTURA COUNTY

The largest operator of fixed route bus service in Ventura County is Gold Coast Transit. Their 

service area is centered on the western end of the county and extends as far north as the 

city of Ojai,and includes the communities of Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme, El Rio, Mira 

Monte, Saticoy and Oak View. Simi Valley Transit, Thousand Oaks Transit, Moorpark City 

Transit and Camarillo Area Transit are municipally owned transit properties providing service 

within their respective jurisdictions. The Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA) 

operates service between jurisdictions. VCTC owns and operates VISTA and also funds 

Ventura County’s participation in Metrolink. The Ojai Trolley provides rural transit service in 

and around the City of Ojai. See EXHIBIT 6.

METROLINK

Metrolink is the commuter rail operator in the SCAG region, operating 165 daily trains 

on seven different lines on 536 route miles. These lines are the Antelope Valley Line, 

connecting Los Angeles to Palmdale and Lancaster in the Antelope Valley; the Inland 

Empire/Orange County Line (IEOC), connecting San Bernardino and Riverside with 

Oceanside via Orange County; the Orange County Line, operating between Los Angeles 

and Oceanside through Orange County: the Riverside Line from Los Angeles to downtown 

Riverside; the San Bernardino Line, between Los Angeles and the City of San Bernardino; 

the Ventura County Line, operating between Los Angeles and East Ventura via the San 

Fernando Valley; and the 91 Line, operating between downtown Los Angeles to downtown 

Riverside via Fullerton and along the SR 91 corridor. The Orange County Line extends 

south to Oceanside in San Diego County, where it connects with the COASTER commuter 

rail service to San Diego and the SPRINTER rail service inland to Escondido. Both of these 

services are operated by the North County Transit District (NCTD). The COASTER is a 

commuter railroad like Metrolink that also operates on the weekends and the SPRINTER is a 

light rail using diesel multiple units (DMUs).

The Antelope Valley, IEOC, Orange County, San Bernardino and 91 Lines also operate 

weekend service. Metrolink operates mostly along track and right-of-way (ROW) owned 

by the transportation commissions. Much of their track however is owned by the freight 

railroads: BNSF and UP. For example, the Ventura County Line is owned by the UP west of 

Moorpark station; The 91 Line is owned by BNSF; and the Riverside Line is owned by UP. 

The operator of Metrolink, SCRRA, has cooperative agreements with the freights in these 
MEXICO

ARIZONA

86

78

111

86

115

111

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

8

Brawley

Calexico

Calipatria

El Centro

Holtville Imperial

Westmorland

Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Exhibit 1 Imperial County Transit Network
Kern

405

15

215

5

15

10

210

10

210

405

5

605

710

110

105

5

5

15

57

91

60

22

14

60

118

126

170

138

71

74

30

206

138

18

55

91

91

Los Angeles

County

101

395

101

395

Metrolink (2012) Urban Rail (2012) Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (2012) Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3.5 7 1.75

Miles

Exhibit 2 Los Angeles County Transit Network
San Diego

241

57

91

73

22

71

74

55

91

Orange

County

405

15

215

5

710

5

5

Aliso Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena Park

Costa Mesa

Cypress

Fountain Valley

Fullerton

Garden Grove

Huntington Beach Irvine

La Habra

La Palma

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills

Laguna Niguel

Laguna Woods

Lake Forest

Los

Alamitos

Newport Beach Mission Viejo

Orange

Placentia

San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Santa Ana

Seal Beach

Stanton

Tustin

Villa

Park

Westminster

Yorba Linda

Dana Point

Metrolink (2012) Urban Rail (2012) Rapid Bus (2012) Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Exhibit 3 Orange County Transit Network
San Diego

241

91

60

73

71

74

79

30

1

62

206

Riverside

County

15

15

215

10

10

210

5

10

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Indio

Indian Wells

Tem ecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Rancho Mirage

Corona

Coachella

Jurupa Valley

Cathedral

City

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Palm

Desert

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

La Quinta

Palm Springs

Metrolink (2012) Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

10

Exhibit 4 Riverside County Transit Network
57

91

60 

138

71

58

30

18

91

62

206

395

San Bernardino

County

15

215

10

10

210

15

40

15

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Grand

Terrace

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho Cucam onga

Redlands

Rialto

San Bernardino

Twentynine Palms

Upland

Victorville

Yucaipa

Yucca Valley

Metrolink (2012) Rapid Bus (2012) Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Exhibit 5 San Bernardino County Transit Network
118

126

23

126

33

Ventura

County

101

101

101

Camarillo

Fillmore

Moorpark

Ojai

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Port

Hueneme

Oxnard

Santa

Paula

San Buenaventura

Metrolink (2012) Bus Routes (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Exhibit 6 Ventura County Transit Network
 12 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 4 illustrates transit’s role in terms of total travel in the SCAG Region. These data, 

which were obtained from the Federal Highway Administration’s 2009 National Household 

Travel Survey, represent a sample of all travel in the region, regardless of time, length or 

duration. Transit’s overall role is comparatively small, but it serves an important role in 

providing modal choice.7

TRANSIT AND MOBILITY IN THE SCAG REGION

As of the beginning of FY 2011-2012, our region’s transit system consisted of about 9,000 

miles of bus routes and 70 miles of heavy and light rail, in addition to 388 route miles of rail 

utilized by Metrolink. Almost 5 percent of travelers in the SCAG Region used transit to reach 

their destinations in 2009. According to data reported to the National Transit Database, 

transit agencies in the SCAG Region experienced 716 million boardings and invested $2.45 

billion in operations and maintenance in FY 2011-2012.

Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey

Table 4 Total Trips by County, All Purposes

Total Trips

County Auto Transit Bicycle Walk

Imperial 114,018,194 Not available 318,631 10,361,556

Los Angeles 6,231,994,828 400,196,991 166,397,229 2,083,153,592

Orange 2,180,289,337 67,656,250 39,874,041 388,410,530

Riverside 1,272,756,998 17,577,906 21,621,490 214,696,550

San Bernardino 1,434,093,895 26,259,261 21,761,307 230,494,820

Ventura 477,831,965 6,490,657 15,518,240 79,642,547

Total 11,710,985,217 518,181,065 265,490,938 3,006,759,595

Percentage of Trips

Imperial 90.49% Not available 0.25% 8.22%

Los Angeles 69.65% 4.47% 1.86% 23.28%

Orange 80.76% 2.51% 1.48% 14.39%

Riverside 82.60% 1.14% 1.40% 13.93%

San Bernardino 83.21% 1.52% 1.26% 13.37%

Ventura 81.49% 1.11% 2.65% 13.58%

SCAG Region 74.96% 3.32% 1.70% 19.24%
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 13

The other counties of the region are well below both the state and national averages with 

respect to transit mode share. However, it should be noted that given the sheer size of 

the SCAG region, it still remains one of the largest transit markets in the country. Orange 

County’s commute mode share may only be 2.9 percent, but OCTA still ranks among the 50 

largest providers of public transportation.

Transit is particularly important for commute trips, which tend to occur during peak 

congestion periods. TABLE 5 presents Journey to Work data obtained from the U.S. Census’s 

2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. These data demonstrate that 

the overall mode share for transit is much higher for commute trips than overall trips. Los 

Angeles County has a particularly high transit commute mode share—7.2 percent of all 

work trips, which compares favorably with the state share of 5.2 percent and the national 

share of 5 percent. 8

Source: 2009 National Household Travel Survey

Table 5 Journey to Work by County

2011 3 year

ACS Estimates Imperial County Los Angeles County

Orange 

County Riverside County San Bernardino County Ventura County

Workers 16 Years and Over 57,099 4,327,711 1,400,804 838,422 782,989 378,846

Means of Transportation to Work

Car, Truck, or Van 90.2% 83.0% 88.2% 90.0% 91.0% 89.1%

Drove Alone 78.9% 72.2% 78.1% 77.1% 74.4% 75.9%

Carpooled 11.3% 10.8% 10.0% 13.0% 16.7% 13.2%

In 2-Person Carpool 7.9% 8.4% 7.7% 9.6% 13.2% 9.7%

In 3-Person Carpool 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 1.9% 2.0% 1.7%

In 4-Or-More Person Carpool 1.8% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8%

Workers Per Car, Truck, or Van 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.09

Public Transportation 1.5% 7.2% 2.9% 1.5% 1.9% 1.4%

Walked 2.0% 2.9% 2.0% 1.6% 2.0% 2.3%

Bicycle 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8%

Taxicab, Motorcycle, or Other Means 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.0% 1.0%

Worked at Home 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% 5.1% 3.7% 5.5%
 14 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

EXTERNAL BENEFITS OF TRANSIT USE

Transit use also provides external benefits to the region’s transportation system, through 

investment, reduced traffic congestion and air pollution emissions reductions. APTA 

estimates that for every billion dollars invested in transit (as of 2007) about 36,000 jobs are 

created. This includes the direct purchasing power of transit agencies and also the spending 

power of the employees of transit agencies.12 Were this rate to have held constant into FY 

2011-2012, transit spending in the SCAG Region would have resulted in the creation or 

maintenance of roughly 150,000 jobs.

Similar studies by APTA have concluded that compact, transit friendly communities have 

a per capita transit fatality rate roughly 25 percent that of auto dependent communities 

and have less severe traffic collisions. Further, as the market share for cleaner transit fuels 

has reached 30.4 percent nationally, the per passenger mile air pollution emissions profile 

of transit has decreased significantly, especially regarding diesel particulate, oxides of 

nitrogen and hydrocarbons.13

The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), in its annual Urban Mobility Report, estimates traffic 

congestion delay averted due to the use of the region’s public transportation system. FIGURE 

2, FIGURE 3 and FIGURE 4 track monetized costs avoided via public transit usage, and the 

amount of delay averted in aggregate and per capita hours in the Indio-Cathedral City-Palm 

Springs CA, Lancaster-Palmdale CA, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana CA, Oxnard CA 

and Riverside-San Bernardino CA urbanized areas (UZAs).

As discussed in Chapter 7 of the 2016 RTP/SCS, delay is a commonly used measure of 

mobility, often defined as the difference between actual travel time and the travel time at 

a predefined “optimal speed” for the mode being considered. For the purposes of the TTI 

report, the delay in question relates to auto travel, measured in Vehicle Hours of Delay.

TRANSIT DEPENDENCY

Transit plays an important role in providing mobility and modal choice in the SCAG region, 

but also helps to provide mobility for households or travelers with limited or no access to 

vehicles. TABLE 6 displays Five Year Estimates of Vehicles Available by Household, as 

reported by the U.S. Census’s American Community Survey. One out of ten households 

in Imperial and Los Angeles Counties have no vehicles available, and about 1/4 to 1

⁄3 of 

households in all counties have only one vehicle available. Public transportation remains an 

effective way of providing mobility options for those households.9

As noted in the Brookings Institution Report, “Transit Access and Zero Vehicle Households,” 

the SCAG Region contains three of the 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with 

the largest concentrations of zero vehicle households. As the second largest MSA in the 

country, it is not surprising that the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana10 MSA has the 

third largest number of zero car households, behind New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island NY-NJ-PA and Chicago-Naperville-Jolliet IL-IN-WI. The 358,705 zero car 

households represent nearly 5 percent of the national total and are nearly as much as the 

combined total of the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont CA and Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria DC-VA-MD-MV MSAs.11

The Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario CA and Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSAs 

are also represented within the index, with 65,862 and 10,200 households, respectively. 

These two areas both rank within the bottom quintile for the share of jobs accessible via 

transit within 90 minutes, while Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana ranks within the middle 

quintile (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario ranks 99 out of 100, and Oxnard-Thousand 

Oaks-Ventura ranks 85). Ninety-nine percent of zero vehicle households within Los 

Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana have access to some sort of public transportation, while 

87 percent of Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario households and 91 percent of OxnardThousand Oaks-Ventura households do.

Table 6 Vehicles Available By Household

Source: 2011 American Community Survey

Vehicles Available by Household Imperial County Los Angeles 

County Orange County Riverside County San Bernardino County Ventura County

No Vehicles Available 11% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5%

1 Vehicle Available 31% 35% 29% 30% 28% 26%

2 Vehicles Available 35% 35% 42% 39% 38% 41%

3 or More Vehicles Available 23% 20% 25% 26% 29% 29%
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 15

As displayed in FIGURE 2 significant externalized costs of auto operation are avoided in the 

SCAG region due to travelers choosing transit instead of driving. During the economic boom 

year of 2007, these cost savings totaled nearly one billion dollars. These estimated savings 

are especially significant when compared with the total congestion related costs, estimated 

to be more than $14 billion for the SCAG region in 2007. The impact of the recession of 

2008-2009 and subsequent service cuts can be seen as the cost savings diminish in 

the 2008-2011 period.14

Similarly, FIGURE 3 outlines the aggregated hours of delay averted by travelers who choose 

to use transit instead of driving. In 2007, transit riders averted a total of nearly 45,000 delay 

hours by not using road facilities. As the economy worsened, the delay benefits decreased 

significantly. However, transit’s impact on reducing delays will be greatest when demand 

for road-space is greatest. This would imply that when the economy recovers to pre-2008 

levels, so will transit’s benefit of reducing delays.

FIGURE 4 displays transit’s delay reduction benefit on a per capita basis. Transit riders in the 

SCAG region saved residents roughly ten hours in delay averted in 2011.

$1,003.40 

$838.10 $810.00 

$740.80 $746.80 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 2 Annual Delay Costs Averted by Public Transit, Medium and Large UZAs

Source: TTI 2012

42,941

33,905 33,984 34,416 34,697

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 3 Aggregate Delay Hours Averted by Public Transit, Medium and Large UZAs

Source: TTI 2012

12

10 10 10 10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 4 Per Capita Delay Hours Averted by Public Transit

Source: TTI 2012
 16 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

The FHWA sees performance based planning processes as potentially integrated into all 

of the processes of MPOs. The text below, quoted from the FHWA’s Performance Based 

Planning and Programming Guidebook, outlines the benefits of integrating performance 

based processes into statewide and metropolitan planning processes.

“Performance-based planning and programming (PBPP) refers to the application 

of performance management within the planning and programming processes of 

transportation agencies to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal 

transportation system. This includes a range of activities and products undertaken by a 

transportation agency together with other agencies, stakeholders and the public as part 

of a 3C (cooperative, continuing and comprehensive) process. It includes development 

of: long range transportation plans (LRTPs), other plans and processes (including those 

Federally-required, such as Strategic Highway Safety Plans, Asset Management Plans, the 

Congestion Management Process, Transit Agency Asset Management Plans and Transit 

Agency Safety Plans, as well as others that are not required) and programming documents, 

including State and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs and TIPs). 

PBPP attempts to ensure that transportation investment decisions are made—both in 

long-term planning and short-term programming of projects—based on their ability to 

meet established goals.”

UNDERSTANDING TRANSIT SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Since the passage of the United States Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993, the federal government has advised MPOs to integrate performance management 

into their business practices and long range plans. The initial federal guidance on 

performance consisted of:

“Performance management is the practice of setting goals and objectives; an ongoing 

process of selecting measures, setting targets and using measures in decision–making to 

achieve desired performance outcomes; and reporting results (FHWA Performance Based 

Planning and Programming Guidebook).” FHWA adds that Performance Management 

should be included in the following activities:

z "Enacting agency mission statements

z Generating outcome oriented goals and objectives

z Employing specific performance objectives expressed in quantifiable and 

measurable forms Identification of performance measures or indicators to be used 

in measuring or assessing relevant outputs, service levels and outcomes

z Description of how performance measures relate to goals and objectives

z A discussion of how actual performance relates to stated goals

z Identification of those factors beyond an agency’s control that 

could affect performance

z A description of the resources required to achieve the performance goals" 15

The US DOT defines performance based planning and programming as an approach 

to applying performance management principles to transportation system policy and 

investment decisions. It is a data-driven process that can identify strategies and investments 

at the system or corridor levels and can “provide a nuanced means of assessing progress 

toward meeting the intent of the RTP.”

Within the context of transportation planning, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

defines performance based planning as “selecting investments to most effectively and 

efficiently achieve desired outcomes, as determined through public input and agency 

strategic direction. A Performance Based Planning and Programming (PBPP) process 

becomes cyclical with information on the performance of the system and the expected 

benefits of system improvements strategically directing investments.” FIGURE 5 outlines the 

cyclical nature of the PBPP process.

Figure 5 The Performance Based-Planning Process under MAP-21

Investment Plan

Resource Allocation

Program of Projects

PROGRAMMING

What will it take?

Monitoring

Evaluation

Reporting

IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION

How did we do?

DATA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Goals and Objectives

Performance Measures

Identify Trends and Targets

Identify Strategies and

Analyze Alternatives

Develop Investment Priorities

PLANNING

Strategic Direction

Where do we want to go?

ANALYSIS

How are we going to get there?

Source: FHWA
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 17

z System Reliability

z Freight Movement and Economic Vitality

z Environment Sustainability; and

z Reduced Project Delivery Delays

SCAG has incorporated performance based planning aspects of performance management 

into its Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) since 1998 and has encouraged performance 

based planning throughout the region. For the 2004 RTP, SCAG developed a set of 

measurable goals and outcomes that included the principal of sustainability, which is not 

limited only to the environment and the transportation-land use connection, but also has 

important implications on how the region meets its critical system preservation needs.

The legislation amends 23 U.S.C 150(c) to require MPOs to work in collaboration with transit 

agencies and state DOTs to establish performance measures consistent with performance 

targets related to transit asset management and transit safety, as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

5326(c) and 5329(d). Rules pertinent to implementing this legislation are still forthcoming 

and most likely will be in effect for the 2020 RTP/SCS. Given the system performance 

mandates contained in MAP-21, that RTP/SCS will need to incorporate more multimodal 

measures within its adopted measures, possibly including transit specific measures. As a 

result, this report will also inform the process for selecting the measures to be included in 

upcoming System Performance Reports and the transit component of the 2020 RTP/SCS.

Furthermore, as the Federal Transit Administration completes its rulemaking processes 

regarding MAP-21, staff will have to incorporate new transit specific measures into the 2020 

RTP/SCS, including safety and state of good repair measures. 

MAP-21 also mandates RTPs must employ performance based planning, that RTPs must 

include a System Performance Report and that Federal Transportation Improvement 

Programs (FTIP) must include “a description of the anticipated progress brought about by 

implementing the FTIP towards achieving the performance targets.”

The FHWA and the FTA have outlined a process for the incorporation of performance based 

planning into the transportation planning process. FHWA’s six-step transportation planning 

process is outlined in FIGURE 6. The nine rulemaking processes that will implement the 

MAP-21 performance requirements will affect the transportation planning process in a 

variety of ways, but the Metropolitan and Planning Statewide rulemaking will establish 

performance based planning processes at the state and regional levels and establish 

coordination procedures for establishing of performance targets and linking of those targets 

to the planning and programming processes.

The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Policy on Performance Measurement provides a 

framework for refining the administration’s performance measures and ensuring consistency 

in measures. The policy stresses the importance of linking measures to goals, providing 

clear, concise measures and starting from a validated baseline. As illustrated in FIGURE 

6, the integration of goals, targets, indicators and a validated background is important to 

accurately measuring the impact of plans and policies in the transportation planning process.

FTA’s Fully Integrated Performance Management Goal Structure:

z Strategic Objective

z Performance Goals

z Performance Indicators

z Annual Performance Targets: Outcome or Output Oriented

z Inputs/Resources /Data

z Validated Baseline

MAP-21 AND PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING

MAP-21 continues to reinforce the importance of performance based planning in the RTP 

process, while also reinforcing the importance of maintaining a state of good repair for 

transportation infrastructure and assets. MAP-21 will mandate state and local target setting 

in the following national goal areas:

z Safety

z Infrastructure Condition

Figure 6 The Transportation Performance Management Process

1. National

Goals

2. Measures

3. Targets

4. Plans

5. Reports 6. Accountability and 

Transparency

Source: FHWA
 18 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Transportation Engineers (ITE) Highway Capacity Manual. Vehicle/Driver measures can also 

include measures of facility or guideway capacity. Examples include average vehicle speed, 

volume/capacity ratios, roadway capacity and vehicular capacity. Within the context of 

transit, the measures often focus on the performance of an individual route or run.

Measures at the Community level assess transit’s role in meeting broad community 

objectives. The impact of transit service on different aspects of a community, including 

economic growth, property values and employment, mobility and the environment are 

among the most common community level measures.

NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE (NTD)

The NTD was established by Congress in 1979 to be the nation’s primary source for 

information and statistics on its transit systems. Recipients or beneficiaries of grants from 

the FTA under the Urbanized Area Formula Program (§5307) or Other than Urbanized 

Area (Rural) Formula Program (§5311) are required by statute to submit financial and 

service data to the NTD. APTA states that “the operating and financial data reporting 

system is among the most complete transportation data collection systems for any 

transportation mode in the world.”

More than 660 transit providers in urbanized areas annually report performance data to the 

NTD and larger reporters are required to submit monthly operating and safety data. These 

data are used to apportion more than $5 billion of FTA funds to transit agencies in urbanized 

areas (UZAs). Annual NTD reports are submitted to Congress summarizing transit service 

and safety data. Data reported to NTD by transit agencies allow for analysis to be conducted 

most easily at the agency level. NTD data is not an effective tool for measuring service as it 

is experienced by the passenger.

The legislative requirement for the NTD is found in Title 49 U.S.C. 5335(a). NTD data for 

the SCAG region include annual operations and financial reports dating back to 1991 and 

monthly non-audited operations reports dating back to 2002. The FTA uses these data to 

apportion more than $8 billion to UZAs, states and recipients from the above programs and 

others, such as §5337 (State of Good Repair grants), §5339 (Bus and Bus Facilities capital 

program) and §5310 (Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities).16

Year to year changes in NTD reporting mandates can affect the data used in performance 

measurement. As directed by Congress or through various rulemaking processes, agencies 

may be required to report new types of data to the NTD. Within the past two years, NTD has 

established several new reporting modes, including Commuter Bus and Rapid Bus, which 

affect the way the data are analyzed. Where appropriate these modes are specifically called 

out and in other cases the data are subsumed into the Motor Bus mode to maintain the time 

series. See TABLE 8.

TRANSIT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

The Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 088: A Guide Book for Developing a 

Transit Performance Measurement System divides transit performance measures into 8 

distinct categories. These categories are displayed in TABLE 7.

These performance measurement categories can also be broken into four levels of analysis. 

These include the Agency, the Customer, the Vehicle/Driver and the Community levels.

The Customer level of analysis usually includes measures of service availability, comfort 

and quality of service, most especially relating to comfort and convenience. Performance 

measures within the travel time, availability, service delivery, safety and security and 

maintenance and construction categories are applicable to this level of analysis.

The Agency level of analysis is more concerned with the efficiency and effectiveness 

of transit operations. Appropriate categories include maintenance and construction and 

economic measures. Due to the availability of NTD cost and utilization data, the agency level 

is among the most commonly analyzed.

The Vehicle/Driver point of view includes measures of vehicular speed and delay, such 

as those routinely calculated for streets and highways as proscribed in the Institute for 

Table 7 Transit Performance Measurement Categories from TCRP 88

Source: 2003 Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 88

Category Description

Availability Measures how easily potential passengers can use transit for 

particular types of trips

Service Delivery Measures that assess passengers day to day experiences 

using transit

Community/Transit Impact Measures of transit’s role in meeting passengers day to day 

experiences using transit

Travel Time

How long it takes to make a trip by transit, by itself, in 

comparison with another mode, or in comparison with an ideal 

value

Safety and Security The likelihood that one will be involved in an accident (safety) 

or become a victim of a crime (security) while using transit

Maintenance and Construction The effectiveness of the agency’s maintenance and the 

impacts of transit construction on passengers

Economic Measures of transit performance from a business perspective 

Capacity The ability or transit facilities to move people and vehicles
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 19

review of system performance geared toward planning for operations and maintenance 

into SCAG’s transit modal planning practices. The FY 2011-2012 Report contains the 

performance data for the plan’s FY 2011-2012 Base Year.

Similar to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Statistical Summary of 

Bay Area Transit Operators, these reports provide an annual format for measuring system 

performance, through the analysis of data reported by transit operators to the National 

Transit Database (NTD). The incorporation of a transit property into this analysis is therefore 

contingent upon a steady report of performance data to the NTD.

The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, adopted by the California Transportation 

Commission (CTC), provides guidance in the use of performance measurement in regional 

planning. The Guide defines performance measures as a set of “objective, measurable 

criteria used to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the transportation system, 

government policies, plans and programs. Performance measures use statistical evidence 

to determine progress toward specific and defined objectives.” Performance measures can 

be quantitative or qualitative and should “help set goals and outcomes, detect and correct 

problems and document accomplishments.”

Performance measurement can occur at the regional or corridor level and at either 

the system or a project by project basis. The CTC’s State Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP) Guidelines establish performance criteria at both the project and the 

system level. These guidelines provide the following examples of appropriate system 

performance measures:

z Safety

z Mobility

z Accessibility

z Reliability

z Productivity/ Throughput

z System Preservation

z Return on Investment/Lifecycle Cost

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN THE 2016 RTP/SCS

The adopted performance measures for the 2016 RTP/SCS are outlined in Chapter 7 of 

the Plan and are further discussed in the Plan’s Performance Measurement Appendix. 

In addition to the traditional measures of mobility and economic impact, the adopted 

performance measures also included two new categories: location efficiency and public 

health. As detailed in TABLE 9, the adopted performance measures focus on outcomes 

mostly related to land use, air quality, congestion related delay, road safety and economic 

impacts of planned investments.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE SELECTION

The performance measures selected for analysis in the 2016 RTP/SCS Transit Appendix 

are the result of a long process working with transit sector stakeholders and local elected 

officials, via the High Speed Rail and Transit Subcommittee of SCAG’s Transportation 

Committee and the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee. As part of this effort, 

staff reviewed planning documents, reports and resources to assess what types of 

performance measures should be analyzed annually, what modes should be analyzed 

and which transit properties should be included in the analysis. Input was also sought from 

the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from the 

region’s transit providers.

This process culminated with the publication of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012 Transit 

System Performance Report in the spring of 2015. The annual Transit System Performance 

reports that SCAG produces are incremental steps toward producing existing conditions 

analyses for the transit elements of RTPs. They represent the incorporation of an annual 

Table 8 Performance Measure Data Reported to the National Transit Database

Service Provision and Consumption 

Measures Financial Measures

Vehicle Revenue Miles (Passenger Car 

Revenue Miles for Rail Modes) Fare Revenues Earned by Mode and Type of Service

Vehicle Revenue Hours (Passenger Car 

Revenue Hours for Rail Modes) Operating Expense by Mode and Type of Service

Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service Operating Expense by Mode and Type of Service for 

Vehicle Operations

Directional Route Miles (Fixed-Guideway and 

Mixed-Traffic when Applicable)

Operating Expense by Mode and Type of Service for 

Vehicle Maintenance

Passenger Miles Travelled Operating Expense by Mode and Type of Service for 

Non-Vehicle Maintenance

Unlinked Passenger Trips Operating Expense by Mode and Type of Service for 

General Administration

Monthly Operational Measures Total Capital Expenditure

Capital Expenditure—Rolling Stock

Capital Expenditure—Facilities

Source: 2012 NTD
 20 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Table 9 Adopted Performance Measures from the 2012 RTP/SCS

Source: SCAG 2012-2035 RTP/SCS

Outcome Performance Measure/Indicator Definition LOCATION EFFICIENCY

Land consumption (total & per capita) Total and per capita of land areas used development

Median distance for work and non-work trips The travel distance from which half of the work or non-work trips exceed and the other half below

Percent of work trips less than 3 miles The share of total work trips which are fewer than 3 miles

Share of growth in transit priority areas Share of the region's growth in population, households and employment in transit priority areas

Work trip length distribution The statistical distribution of work trip length in the region

MOBILITY/ 

ACCESSIBILITY

Person delay per capita Delay per capita can be used as a supplemental measure to account for population growth impacts on delay

Person delay by facility type (mixed flow, HOV, arterials) Delay—excess travel time resulting from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed

Truck delay by facility type (Highway, Arterials) Delay—excess travel time resulting from the difference between a reference speed and actual speed

Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, HOV for work and non-work trips Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, HOV for work and non-work trips

SAFETY AND 

HEALTH

Collision/accident rates by severity by mode Accident rates per million vehicle miles by mode (all, bicycle/pedestrian and fatality/killed)

Tons of pollutants Measured/forecast emissions include CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, SOX, and VOC. CO2

 as secondary measure to reflect 

greenhouse gas emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY

Net tons of pollutants (criteria pollutants) and greenhouse gas emissions Measured/forecast emissions include CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, SOX, and VOC. CO2

 as secondary measure to reflect 

greenhouse gas emissions

ECONOMIC 

WELL BEING

Additional jobs supported by improving competitiveness Number of jobs added to the economy as a result of improved transportation conditions which make the Region more 

competitive

Additional jobs supported by transportation investment Total number of jobs supported in the economy as a result of transportation expenditures

Net contribution to Gross Regional Product Gross Regional Product due to transportation investments and increased competitiveness

INVESTMENT 

EFFECTIVENESS

Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio of monetized user and societal benefits to the agency transportation costs

SYSTEM 

SUSTAINABILITY

Cost per capita to preserve multi-modal system to current and state of good 

repair conditions Annual costs per capita required to preserve the multi-modal system to current conditions 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 21

THE VMT INFLECTION POINT AND TRANSIT CROSS ELASTICITIES

These fuel prices increases may have led to a leveling off of growth in total VMT and a 

decline in per capita VMT. National per capita VMT peaked in 2004 and total national VMT 

peaked in 2007. However, declining fuel prices appear to be having an effect on total driving; 

the FHWA projects that 2014 was the third year on record when aggregate national travel 

surpassed 3 trillion VMT. Per Capita vehicle travel remains below the 2004 peak.18

Economists define differences in demand due to price changes as elasticities. These are 

frequently quantified as the change in consumer demand due to a one percent change in 

price. High values for elasticities indicate that consumers are very sensitive to price changes. 

Low values indicated that consumer demand is not sensitive to price. Goods where changes 

in demand occur at a rate smaller than changes in price are called ‘inelastic’.19

The subject of cross elasticities of demand between retail fuel prices and transit trips 

has mainly been explored by academics. The University of Texas at El Paso’s Bradley 

Lane (Lane) published a 2002-2009 timeseries based survey of gasoline costs and 

transit ridership across 33 cities in 2012. He found that fuel price increases of 10 

percent corresponded to up to 8 percent increase in rail transit use and a 4 percent rise 

in bus transit use.20

EXISTING CONDITIONS

MACROECONOMIC CONTEXT

Two key factors outline the macroeconomic context in which the Region’s transit 

performance should be situated—retail fuel prices volatility and the impacts of the 

recession of 2008-2009.

INCREASING REAL RETAIL FUEL PRICES

The marginal costs of operating motor vehicles, particularly fuel and parking costs, appear to 

have strong impacts on travel behavior decision making. As discussed on page 22, below, as 

fuel or parking costs rise, so does the use of public transportation or other less costly modes. 

In this context, the dramatic fuel price instability of the last 15 years should be understood to 

have had a dramatic impact on transit ridership.

FIGURE 7 and FIGURE 8 display national trends in crude oil and fuel prices. The US Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) estimates that about two-thirds of retail gasoline prices are 

driven by crude oil prices. The dramatic spikes in crude oil prices after 2005 have had large 

impacts on the retail price of gasoline, as displayed in FIGURE 8. 17 Fuel prices have reversed 

their growth trend and began declining in 2014 and 2015.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

$140

1975 1985 1995 2005 201 1980 1990 2000 2010 5

Figure 7 US Landed Costs of Crude Oil (Dollars per Barrell)

Source: US Energy Information Administration:

0

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

$4.50

1991 1994 1997 2000 2006 2003 2009 2012

Figure 8 National Retail Gasoline Costs, All Grades (Dollars per Gallon)

Source: US Energy Information Administration
 22 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

In a separate paper, Lane reported a 0.06 percent gasoline cross elasticity for bus ridership 

for the LA –Long Beach Santa Ana MSA and a 14.7 percent elasticity for rail ridership, 

correlating nominal fuel prices with monthly unlinked passenger trips. Southern California’s 

elasticity was among the top 20 percent of the 42 metropolitan areas surveyed. He finds 

that gasoline prices are among the strongest predictors of ridership.21

Iseki and Ali (2014) also found a relationship between fuel prices and transit ridership. Using 

a panel data regression analyzing monthly unlinked passenger trips in nine metropolitan 

regions from 2002 to 2011, they found that in the long run, a 10 percent increase in gasoline 

prices yielded a 1.67 percent ridership increase for bus transit and a 2.05 percent increase 

for commuter rail. In the short run effects were much less pronounced, at 0.61 percent. 

Once the $4 per gallon threshold was crossed, effects were more pronounced, with light rail 

displaying a 9.34 percent change for every 20 percent increase in gasoline prices.22

Alam, Nixon and Zhang (2015) surveyed 273 metropolitan areas and found that 

gasoline prices, fares, service levels, safety and extent of coverage are statistically 

significant predictors of bus transit ridership and that land use and socioeconomic data 

were not as strongly correlated with bus transit ridership and did not have statistically 

significant impacts. Gas prices have the strongest impact of any variable not controllable 

by a transit agency.

In May of 2015, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute’s Todd Littman produced a literature 

review of a series of cross elasticies of transit demand, examining service levels, fares and 

vehicle operating costs. He cites the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 2008 report 

“effects of Gasoline prices on Driving Behavior and Vehicle Markets,” a survey of 13 highway 

corridors in California’s large metropolitan areas. The CBO reports find that a 20 percent 

increase in gasoline prices in a corridor with parallel rail transit led to a roughly 0.7 percent 

average weekday decrease in congestion and increase in ridership, while corridors without 

rail saw little change. Littman also argues that cross elasticities between vehicle operating 

costs and transit demand are weak in the short run (0.05) but could possibly increase to 

0.3 and 0.4 over the long run. He also finds that cross elasticities on transit ridership tend to 

experience some delay.

THE RECESSION OF 2008-2009

Between December 2007 and December 2010, the six county SCAG Region experienced 

the deepest and longest recession since the 1930s, with 1 million jobs lost. Even though 

the recession technically ended over four years ago, California continues to have the third 

highest unemployment rate in the nation with more than 1.3 million out of work, including 

over 672,000 in the region (December 2014). FIGURE 9 tracks unemployment levels across 

three time periods. The first column displays December 2007, before the recession. The 

second displays the peak of unemployment in December 2010 and the third unemployment 

in late 2014. As shown in the graphs to the right and below, unemployment levels are below 

their peak. However, none have returned to the level prior to the recession.

The impacts of the recession of 2008-2009 on transit operators in the SCAG region were 

significant. Up until that time, transit ridership nationally was at near modern record levels 

and had been continually growing in Southern California, as Los Angeles County has 

continued to add new transit facilities and other operators have continued to increase and 

improve their services as well.

Beyond our region, fiscal challenges for transit properties were nationwide. Cuts to State 

and local operating subsidies are forcing transit properties to raise fares, reduce service and 

lay off employees. According to a March 2011 survey conducted by the American Public 

Transit Association, of 117 responding agencies 71 percent saw static or decreasing local 

funding and 83 percent saw static or decreased state funding. Seventy-nine percent of those 

agencies reduced service after January 2010, and 51 percent had already reduced service 

prior to January 2010.

These economic challenges have been felt by public transportation agencies, in our region 

and nationally. APTA documented the national impacts of the recession in a March 2011 

survey of 117 responding transit agencies. Seventy-one percent of respondents saw static or 

decreasing local funding and 83 percent saw static or decreased State funding. 79 percent 

of those agencies reduced service after January 2010 and 51 percent had already reduced 

service prior to January 2010.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14%

2000 2001 2003 2005 2006 2008 2010 2011 2013 2015

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA MSA

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA

California

Figure 9 Unemployent Trends by MSA

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program, 2015
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 23

z Almost all agencies surveyed raised fares, with some still planning additional 

increases in the coming year. Fare increases generally correspond to a decrease 

in boardings, at least initially. The amount of decrease varies by operator and the 

overall structure of the fare adjustment and elasticities for that operator.

The above trends continued to affect local transit agencies until very recently. TABLE 10

displays change in total revenue hours between FY 2008-2009 and FY 2012-2013 for 

fixed route service, by market segment. In FY 2008-2009 total service hours peaked at 

20,098,877 and then dropped nearly 5.2 percent by FY 2010-2011. Total service hours 

(including demand response) have increased again 2.7 percent by FY 2012-2013, so that the 

total drop from the pre-recessionary peak is 2.48 percent.

There appears to be a continuing trend as documented in the 2012 RTP/SCS. Service cuts in 

TABLE 10 appear most drastic in the agencies with the most robust networks and agencies in 

rapidly growing areas such as the Inland Empire and Ventura County appear to have added 

service. Despite massive service cuts to the Metro Bus network, Metro Rail service has 

grown by nearly 49 percent.

The next section of this appendix, provides a fuller discussion of recent trends regarding the 

provision and consumption of transit service.

As displayed in FIGURE 10, the recession also had a significant impact on funding for transit 

operations in the SCAG region. State revenues dropped precipitously during the recession 

and local revenues fell significantly in the period of slow growth that followed. Total revenues 

dropped by nearly 4 percent between FY 2009-2012 and FY 2011-2012.

As part of the technical work of the 2012 RTP, twenty-five transit agencies were surveyed 

in the SCAG region regarding their boardings, service hours and fares from FY 2008 to FY 

2010. Information was also collected for FY 2011. Findings include:

z About half of transit operators cut service hours due to the recession, by 

between 2 percent and 20 percent. Of those, four agencies have cut service by 

more than 10 percent.

z Boardings are also generally down, by between 2 percent and 27 percent. Four 

agencies have seen boardings reduced by more than 15 percent. But again, in 

the burgeoning areas, it tends to have increased. While Metro Bus ridership is 

down 5.4 percent, its rail is up slightly in the last two years. The opening of the 

Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension may be a factor in this growth. Employment is 

generally the number one factor effecting transit boarding levels.

Table 10 Transit Service After the Recession

Fixed Route Market 

Segment

Change in Service 

Hours, FY 2008-2009

 to FY 2012-2013

Percent Change in Service 

Hours, FY 2008-2009 

to FY 2012-2013

Imperial County -369 -1.14%

LA Munis -117,945 -3.15%

LTSS 13,296 2.77%

Metro Bus -789,636 -10.39%

Metro Rail 315,530 49.26%

Metrolink 82,023 32.05%

Orange County -226,722 -11.05%

Riverside County 10,152 1.51%

San Bernardino County 8,357 1.16%

Ventura County 53,736 22.99%

Total -651,578 -3.96%

Source: NTD 2013

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Fares Federal State Local Other

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 10 SCAG Region Overall Operating Revenues (In Billions)

Source: NTD 2012
 24 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

In Fiscal Year 2011-2012, the region’s transit agencies provided just over 19 million hours 

of bus, rail and demand response transit service, along 18,696 directional miles of routes. 

These service levels along these routes combined to just under 300 million vehicle revenue 

miles of service. Passengers in the region took just under 711 million unlinked passenger 

trips on those bus, rail and demand response services and traveled just over 3.6 billion 

miles on those services.

SERVICE PROVIDED AND CONSUMED: TWENTY YEAR TRENDS

National Transit Database data provides an opportunity to construct time series dating back 

to 1991. Given that this period contains the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the onset of Metrolink and Metro Rail service in the SCAG region, it is helpful to look at 

this timeseries in order to understand the changing nature of transit service provision and 

consumption in the SCAG region. 

The number of service hours has grown by roughly 60 percent since 1991, but that growth 

has stagnated since the recession of 2008-2009. See FIGURE 12.

SERVICE PROVIDED AND CONSUMED

The 2012 RTP/SCS contained an analysis of transit performance trends in FY 2007-2008 

and FY 2008-2009, and the subsequent FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012 Transit System 

Performance Reports focused on analyzing each year’s performance. One key finding of 

these efforts was that the years between FY 2008-2009 and FY 2011-2012 were a period of 

austerity and downsizing for households and employers in the region and subsequently also 

for transit agencies. This austerity was the product of the Recession of 2008-2009 and led 

to cuts in service and dropping demand.

As reported in the FY 2010-2011 Transit System Performance Report and displayed in 

FIGURES 11, 13 AND 14, the 710.9 million trips reported in FY 2010-2011 represent a 6 percent 

decrease from the FY 2008-2009 data point, and per capita trips have fallen from a high of 

over 42 in 2005-2006 to 38.8 in 2011-2012.

FIGURE 11 demonstrates basic service provision and consumption measures for the region, 

as obtained from NTD’s 2012 data.

SERVICE PROVIDED

SERVICE

CONSUMED | TRIPS

SERVICE

CONSUMED | MILES

Total Vehicle

Revenue Hours:

19,160,239

Total Directional

Route Miles:

18,696

Total Vehicle

Revenue Miles:

293,205,799

Total Passenger Trips:

710,804,989

Per Capita Transit Trips:

38.95

Total Passenger Miles:

3,633,814,562

Per Capita Passenger Miles:

206.39

Figure 11 Characteristics of Transit Service in Scag Region: Service Provision and Consumption in FY 

2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

0

10

20

30

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 12 Total Service Hours (In Billions)

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 25

The declines in productivity evident in FIGURE 13 and FIGURE 14 are most likely a product of 

the increase in service hours over the last 20 years. As service has increased, it is no longer 

being used as intensely as it was in the early 1990s. Of course, there are valid policy reasons 

to seek to reduce the number of passengers per hour or mile. For instance, an agency could 

seek to extend service further into the evening, seeking to provide later return trip options 

for travelers or to provide mobility for service sector workers who often work well into the 

evening. Similarly, an agency might determine that the load factors on its runs are too high 

and seek to provide extra service so that travelers would have more comfortable rides. 

Passengers per hour are decreasing as displayed in FIGURE 15, while the cost per passenger 

trip is increasing commensurately.

Total transit boardings have grown by about 26 percent since 1991, but are roughly 6 

percent below their high point in 2008. As noted above, service cuts and the economic 

recession have had negative effects on ridership. FY 2011-2012 represents an annual uptick 

in ridership, a growth of 1.7 percent total trips taken and 0.3 percent per capita trips. This gain 

is still 7.2 percent below the pre-recession high of 42 per capita trips. A further discussion of 

more recent trends can be found on page 58.

The use of per capita transit trips as a measure of regional performance has a long history 

at SCAG, dating back to the 2001 RTP. The Transit appendices to the 2001 and 2004 RTPs 

spell out the region’s per capita trip performance targets, as endorsed by the Regional Transit 

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 14 Per Capita Trip Consumption

Source: NTD 2012

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 13 Total Boardings (In Millions)

Source: NTD 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 15 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hours

Source: NTD 2012
 26 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Task Force (RTTF) and Transportation and Communications Committee (TCC). This goal 

was 34.9 trips per year, a figure that is being slightly exceeded in FY 2011-2012. However, 

that goal was enacted in light of the drastic drop in per capita transit trips in the mid-1990s, 

and represented the 1997 total. The TCC and RTTF hoped to stabilize and maintain total per 

capita transit trips, and this goal has been achieved. 

The region’s pattern of service provision has changed drastically over the past 20 years, 

as rail and demand response transportation have become a much greater focus of regional 

transit provision. Metro Rail, which provided only 4 percent of all vehicle revenue hours in 

2012, accounted for 13 percent of all operating expenses and carried roughly 14.3 percent 

of all trips. Annual per capita passenger miles do appear to be growing though, suggesting a 

long term trend towards longer transit trips. See FIGURE 18.

0

1

2

3

4

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 16 Total Passenger Miles (In Billions)

Source: NTD 2012

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 17 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Mile

Source: NTD 2012

0

50

100

150

200

250

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 18 Per Capita Passenger Miles Traveled

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 27

Passenger miles per seat miles are displayed in FIGURE 19. The trend over the last few years 

has been towards increased passenger miles per seat mile, as service cuts have taken effect, 

particularly in Los Angeles County. 

Over the last several RTP cycles, the comparison of passenger miles to seat miles has been 

used as a measure of transit productivity. This is a common measure of productivity in the 

commercial aviation industry, where passengers do not regularly board and alight mid trip, 

and there are no standees. At a high level, this measure can give a sense of how much of the 

system’s capacity is being consumed, though not as effectively as in the aviation industry. 

This measure was envisioned as a corollary to the RTP highway productivity measure.

Within the transit industry, measures of productivity are most frequently tied to measures 

of service provided or cost performance. Essentially, agencies seek to balance how much 

value is being derived from each unit of output. Most typically, passengers per revenue hour 

or passengers per revenue mile are employed. These measures do not include deadheading, 

which can skew outcomes negatively, but which are included in the reporting of seat miles. 

Furthermore, partners at the Regional Transit Technical Advisory Committee have expressed 

discomfort with the passenger miles to seat miles measure for some time. Partners 

from smaller agencies note that the measure of seat miles is closely related to vehicle 

size, and that where they employ smaller vehicles for operational reasons, load factor 

performance could be made to look less crowded simply by buying oversized buses. 

Further, stakeholders felt that if such a measure were established as a standard, it would 

create incentives to buy unnecessarily large vehicles, with higher maintenance and fueling 

costs. Direct measures of productivity do not create these incentives, or representations of 

performance, as they measure service consumption by unit of service provided instead of 

seats or vehicle size. 

As such, direct measures of productivity have been included in this appendix, including 

passengers per revenue mile and passengers per revenue hour. Moving forward, direct 

measures of productivity will be used to monitor performance.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Imperial Los Angeles

Orange Riverside

San Bernardino Ventura

SCAG Region

Figure 19 Ratio of Transit Passenger MilesSeat Miles
 28 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

CHANGING PATTERNS OF SERVICE PROVISION

As shown in FIGURE 20, the share of vehicle revenue hours devoted to demand response 

has doubled, from 9 percent in 1991 to 19 percent in 2012. Similarly, the share of operating 

expenses devoted to demand response also doubled, from 5 percent to 10 percent over the 

same period, as shown in TABLE 13 on page 36 of this appendix.

The split of passenger miles traveled by mode has also changed drastically over the past 

20 years. In 1991, 99 percent of passenger miles were provided by bus, whereas in 2012 

only 69 percent were. In 2012, Metro Rail accounted for 16 percent of all passenger miles 

and commuter rail for 12 percent, with demand response accounting for 2 percent of all 

passenger miles. See FIGURE 21.

Another key trend in understanding fixed route trip provision is the growing importance of 

Metro Rail and municipal transit operations. Between 1993 and 2012, Metro Rail service 

grew from 2 percent to 8 percent of all transit service in Los Angeles County. Similarly, the 

LA County Munis share of total service hours doubled, from 15 percent to 30 percent. In 

Orange County, since it began reporting in FY 2006-2007, the Anaheim Transit Network 

has grown from 4 percent of all Orange County service hours in to nearly 12 percent in FY 

2011-2012. See FIGURE 22.

77%

18%

4% 1%

Bus

Demand Response

Metro Rail

Commuter Rail

Figure 20 Share of Total Vehicle Revenue Hours By Mode, 2012

Source: NTD 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Bus Demand Response

Figure 21 Modal Share of Service Provided in the SCAG Region

Source: NTD 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Commuter Rail Demand Response Metro Rail Bus

Figure 22 Modal Share of Passenger Miles

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 29

EVOLVING TRANSIT MODE SHARES

Since 1991, transit agencies in the SCAG Region have provided about 13.22 billion transit 

trips, almost 90 percent occurring on buses, 4 percent on heavy rail, 5 percent on light rail 

and commuter rail and demand response each providing 1 percent.

Between 1991 and 2011, there was a massive effort to expand the scope and nature of transit 

in the region. One strategy has been the proliferation of fixed guideway transit facilities. The 

NTD defines a fixed guideway as:

z “A public transportation facility using and occupying:

 A separate right-of-way (ROW) or rail for the exclusive use of public 

transportation and other high occupancy vehicles (HOV), or

 A fixed catenary system useable by other forms of transportation.”

As of 1990, all regional fixed guideway transit operations consisted of express buses 

operating in HOV lanes. Between 1991 and 1993, the Los Angeles County Transportation 

Commission (LACTC), the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) and Metrolink 

began operating light, heavy and commuter rail service. Similarly, the passage of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 mandated that accessible parartransit be provided to 

passengers with disabilities within three-quarters of a mile of any fixed route bus service.

Since the opening of the Metro Blue Line in 1991, rail transit has grown from 1.3 percent of 

transit trips to about 10 percent in 2002 and to 16 percent of trips in 2012. Conversely, bus 

trips have declined from 99 percent of trips to 83 percent of trips. Rail transit supplies only 

12 percent of all Vehicle Revenue Miles, since the per vehicle capacity of various rail modes 

is much higher than that of buses. However rail transit services also constitute 21 percent of 

all operating expenses in the SCAG region. See FIGURE 24.

0

20

40

60

80

100%

1992 2002 2012

Commuter Bus Commuter Rail Demand Response

Heavy Rail Light Rail Motor Bus

Rapid Bus

Figure 24 SCAG Region Transit Mode Share, 1992, 2002, 2012

Source: NTD 2012

Figure 23 SCAG Region Transit Mode Share, 2012

Source: NTD 2012

2% 1%

7%

7%

83%

Commuter Rail

Demand Response

Heavy Rail

Light Rail

Motor Bus
 30 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

GEOSPATIAL TRENDS IN SERVICE CONSUMPTION

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSIT TRIPS

Los Angeles County is the largest and densest county in the region, and it is no surprise that 

the largest percentage of transit services provided and consumed occur there. However, 

while Los Angeles County represents slightly more than half of the total population of the 

SCAG region, it has historically represented over 80-90 percent of total transit ridership.

As demonstrated in FIGURE 25, Orange County, while having roughly 17 percent of the 

region’s population, has seen between 8 percent and 12 percent of the total transit trip 

consumption since 1991. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, despite both having grown 

rapidly since 1991, have differing growth patterns in terms of their overall share of regional 

transit consumption. While San Bernardino County has grown from 1 percent to nearly 3 

percent, Riverside County has hovered steadily at roughly 1 percent. Ventura and Imperial 

Counties represent fairly small portions of the region’s overall transit trips. Los Angeles 

County is not depicted below in order to maintain the scale of the chart.

INCREASING AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH

FIGURE 26 details the impact of changes in residential patterns by county on average trip 

length. As the share of regional residents living in a County other than Los Angeles County 

has grown from 39.9 percent to 45.8 percent, the average length of a transit trip has 

grown by 15 percent.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Metrolink Imperial County

Orange County Riverside County

San Bernardino County Ventura County

Figure 25 Transit Trip Share All Counties but Los Angeles

Source: NTD 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Share of Regional Residents Outside LA County

Average Trip Length

Figure 26 Average Trip Length and Residential Distribution by County

Source: NTD 2012

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Demand Response Heavy Rail Light Rail Bus

Figure 27 Average Trip Length by Mode

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 31

In contrast, demand response trips have seen a radical growth of 232 percent, from just over 

four miles a trip to nearly 9.5 miles a trip. This is the largest average trip length growth of 

any transit mode and partially explains the rapid growth of the demand response mode in 

terms of service hours.

Transit agency stakeholders commented during the draft process that a good way of 

understanding those changes to demand is the measure of Demand Response trips per 

fixed route bus trip. FIGURE 28 captures that measure and also display the rate of demand 

response trips to all fixed route trips. The average number of demand response trips per 

fixed route bus trip has grown by 47 percent in the past 21 years. By 2012, the region was 

providing 0.014 demand response trips for every fixed route bus trip.

SERVICE PROVISION AND CONSUMPTION BY URBANIZED AREA

Within the U.S. Census defined urbanized areas of the SCAG region, there is a similar 

pattern in the provision and consumption of transit service. These areas exclude rural areas, 

where relatively small proportions of the region’s transit service is provided or consumed. 

As demonstrated in TABLE 11 the vast bulk of transit service, trips, passenger miles and 

operating expenses occur in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA. This UZA, 

containing central Los Angeles County, Northern Orange County and small portions of 

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties represents the vast bulk of the population of the 

SCAG Region, with over 12 million residents.

Given its massive size, it’s no surprise that the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA 

makes up the largest portion of service provided, service consumed and costs. However, the 

UZA represents approximately 89 percent of all operating costs, while supplying 87 percent 

of the service hours and carrying 94 percent of all trips. While each individual unit of service 

might be more expensive to provide within the UZA, it can be concluded that this service is 

more productive on the whole.

FIGURE 27 demonstrates the modal breakdown of this growth in average trip length. Newer 

modes, including commuter rail and light rail, are being used to serve much longer trips 

and increasing demand response trip lengths reflect new residential distribution patterns. 

Commuter rail trips have retained an average of nearly 35 miles a trip and range of standard 

deviation of 2.4 (roughly 7 percent of the mean value). Bus trips have also maintained a 

mean trip length of four miles, with a standard deviation of .12.

Changes in average rail trip length relate most closely to system expansions by Metro. 

As new rail corridors enter service, they serve travel markets of varying lengths. The 

average trip length of light rail transit started at 8.7 miles when the Metro Blue entered 

service in the early 1990s, serving a relatively longer distance market. The subsequent 

opening of the Metro Green Line, Metro Gold Line and Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension 

led to an eventual 21 percent decline in average trip lengths, as those corridors served 

shorter distance trips.

In contrast, the heavy rail mode shows great growth after the opening of the Metro Red Line 

Extensions to Hollywood and North Hollywood in 1999 and 2000, respectively. These 

extensions doubled and then tripled the extent of the regional heavy rail system, from 10 

directional route miles, to 20 and then to 32.

Figure 28 Demand Response Trip per Fixed Route Trip

Source: NTD 2012

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
 32 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

EXISTING CONDITIONS: REVENUES AND COSTS

Cost effectiveness and efficiency are important measures for understanding the performance 

of transit. Transit capital and operations and maintenance costs total roughly half of the 

investments in the 2012 RTP/SCS. The annual operating costs of transit service in the SCAG 

region are significant. In FY 2011-2012, operating costs totaled nearly $2.39 billion and 

capital investments were slightly over $1.1 billion. See TABLE 12.

Table 11 Share of Service Provision and Consumption by Urbanized Area

Source: 2012 NTD

Vehicle Revenue Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours Unlinked Passenger Trips Operating Expenses

Camarillo, CA 0.07% 0.08% 0.01% 0.04%

El Centro-Calexico, CA 0.34% 0.23% 0.09% 0.18%

Indio-Cathedral City, CA 1.14% 1.23% 0.64% 0.89%

Lancaster-Palmdale, CA 1.03% 0.91% 0.44% 0.82%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 85.86% 86.34% 93.75% 90.61%

Oxnard, CA 1.39% 1.41% 0.64% 0.86%

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 7.61% 7.49% 3.54% 4.95%

Santa Clarita, CA 1.19% 1.05% 0.51% 0.86%

Simi Valley, CA 0.20% 0.22% 0.06% 0.20%

Thousand Oaks, CA 0.31% 0.30% 0.05% 0.17%

Victorville-Hesperia, CA 0.86% 0.74% 0.26% 0.42%

Yuma AZ-CA 0.20% 0.13% 0.03% 0.13%

Table 12 Characteristics of Transit Operating Expenditures in SCAG Region

SCAG Region FY 2011-2012:

Operating Costs And Revenues from NTD

Total Operating Expenditures $2,455,096,615 

Vehicle Operations Costs $1,348,570,441 

Vehicle Maintenance $460,565,064 

Non Vehicle Maintenance $162,374,398 

General Administration $469,429,994 

Fare Box Revenues $638,174,478 

Source: 2012 NTD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 33

FIGURE 29 details the proportions of capital funds spent on facilities and the proportions 

spent on vehicles. According to APTA, in 2007 the nation spent roughly 27 percent of its 

transit capital funds on vehicle acquisition and roughly 73 percent on the development of 

facilities, implying that the region is keeping pace with national trends.

HISTORICAL INVESTMENTS

Since 1992, transit agencies have spent $14.67 Billion in 2012 dollars on capital 

investments: 36 percent for rolling stock; 48 percent for facilities, including passenger 

stations, guideways, administration buildings and maintenance buildings; and 15 percent for 

other expenses, including purchased transportation services, communications-information 

systems and fare collection equipment.

In the period since 1991, transit agencies have spent a further $42.898 billion (2012 dollars) 

on Operations and Maintenance expenses. Nearly 78 percent of those expenses have been 

for fixed route bus service, nearly 6 percent each for light rail and commuter rail, 8 percent 

for demand response and 3.3 percent for heavy rail.

FUND SOURCES

As of FY 2011-2012, local funding makes up just over half of all transit capital funds in the 

SCAG region. This is consistent with the national trend of diminishing federal shares in 

transportation funding. However, it should also be noted that one reason the SCAG region 

is able to fund nearly half its capital budget locally is the success of local option sales taxes 

for transportation. Five of the six counties in the SCAG region are self-help counties and Los 

Angeles County has passed a total of three sales tax measures. See FIGURE 30.

66% 

25% 

9%

Facilities

Vehicles

Other

Figure 29 Transit Capital Expenditures, SCAG Region, FY 2011-2012 (in Millions)

Source: NTD 2012

52%

19%

29%

0%

Local

State

Federal

Other

Figure 30 Sources of Capital Funds, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012
 34 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

As demonstrated in FIGURE 31, from 1998 to 2003 well over 60 percent of all capital 

revenues were federal. This period coincides with Metro Red Line extensions to Hollywood 

and the San Fernando Valley and demonstrates the importance of the region’s ability to 

compete for federal resources. The precipitous decline in state revenues between 2008 and 

2012 coincides with declines in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues as documented in 

the Transit Appendix of the 2012 RTP/SCS.

FIGURE 32 displays total FY 2011-2012 O&M funding for the region’s transit properties. In 

FY 2011-2012 only 32 percent of transit O&M revenues were generated outside the region, 

with the remaining coming from farebox revenues or other local sources. The 20-year trend 

for O&M funding is more stable than for capital funding, reflecting the federal government’s 

reluctance to directly support operations in urbanized areas in the Post-Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) era. Declining state revenues in recent years 

reflect similar trends as declining capital funds.

The importance of LTF funds to transit agencies operating budgets is demonstrated in 

FIGURE 33. As state revenues grew beginning in 2000, local monies were freed up for other 

uses. However, decreases in state funds between 2007 and 2012 have meant that local 

funds are increasingly important, in addition to causing many operators to cut service.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Local State Federal

Figure 31 Transit Capital Fund Sources

Source: NTD 2012

18% 

14%

42%

23%

3% 

Federal

State

Local

Farebox

Other

Figure 32 Sources of Operations Revenues, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Fares Federal State Local Other

Figure 33 Trends in Operating Funding

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 35

COST PERFORMANCE

The region’s operating costs per revenue hour have fluctuated significantly over the past 20 

years but have been steadily increasing over the last decade, while farebox recovery has 

remained fairly steady. Costs per passenger mile were fairly volatile in the 1990s, but they 

have been surprisingly steady since 2001, given the rising importance of rail transit in the 

region. See FIGURE 35.

Operating costs per passenger trip have grown by 44 percent since 1991, when indexed 

for inflation. During the year 2010, when the stress of the recession peaked for the transit 

system, the cost per trip also peaked at $3.56. See FIGURE 36.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 34 Operations Revenues as a Share of All Revenues

Source: NTD 2012

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

$135

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 35 Operating Costs per Revenue Hour

Source: NTD 2012

Figure 36 Operating Costs per Passenger Trip

Source: NTD 2012

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

$4.00

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012
 36 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Costs are rising as the distribution of residents spreads and the average length of transit trips 

grows. As can be seen in FIGURE 36, the average cost of a passenger trip has grown by 47 

percent, while the average cost per passenger mile has grown only by 15 percent, as shown 

in FIGURE 37. This confirms that longer, costlier-to-supply trips are growing as a proportion 

of all transit travel. Operating costs per PMT since 1991 have grown, although they have 

hovered near $0.70 since 1994.

FIGURE 38 outlines the region’s farebox recovery performance between 2002, when 

reporting requirements began, and 2013. The recovery rate has been relatively stable, 

varying from 26.1 percent in 2002 to just over 26 percent in 2012. Since the aftermath 

of the recession of 2008-2009, the farebox recovery rate has grown from 24.3 percent 

to nearly 26 percent.

OPERATING EXPENSES BY TRANSIT MODE

TABLE 13 demonstrates the splits among modes in terms of O&M spending. The region’s 

increasing financial commitment to rail transit and demand response is evident in the period 

between 1992 and 2012, as total combined spending on rail and demand response modes 

grew from 5 percent in 1992, to 23 percent in 2002 and to 29 percent in 2012.

Transit faces significant funding challenges in the SCAG region. While five of the six 

counties in the region have passed or extended local option sales taxes dedicated to 

transportation within the last decade, state and federal revenues for transit have been 

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

$0.80

1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 37 Operating Costs per Passenger Mile

Source: NTD 2012

23

24

25

26%

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Figure 38 Farebox Recovery, 1991-2012

Source: NTD 2012

Table 13 Operating Expenses by Mode 1992, 2002, 2012

1992 2002 2012

Commuter Bus 0% 0% 1%

Commuter Rail 0% 6% 7%

Demand Response 5% 8% 10%

Heavy Rail 0% 4% 4%

Light Rail 0% 5% 8%

Motor Bus 95% 76% 68%

Rapid Bus 0% 0% 1%

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 37

CONTEXTUALIZING REGIONAL TRANSIT PERFORMANCE

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE: BENCHMARKING TO PEER REGIONS

The performance of the region’s transit system can also be contextualized through 

performance benchmarking. Doing so establishes a frame of reference for the cost 

effectiveness of current operations, and identifies areas where other regions are providing 

service at a lower cost. Further, doing so will allow regional stakeholders to identify areas 

of possible improvement and to identify peer regions and peer agencies that might provide 

best practices examples.

Performance benchmarking through peer comparison is relatively new in transit;peer 

comparison exercises by public agencies are more commonly performed in the education 

and public safety fields. Increasingly though, transit properties are using the availability of 

National Transit Database (NTD) data to measure agency performance in comparison to peer 

agencies. It is also an emerging practice at the regional level.

Over the past ten years, several performance benchmarking exercises have been performed 

at the system level by regional bodies. Beginning in 2003, The Metropolitan Council of 

Minneapolis has added a benchmarking component to its quadrennial transit system 

performance audit. The Atlanta Regional Council (ARC) performed similar analysis in 

2005, focusing on peer regions with similar populations, growth rates, density and travel 

characteristics. The State of Illinois Department of Transportation’s Performance Audit 

of Mass Transit Agencies in Northeastern Illinois: RTA, CTA, Metro and Pace, included 

comparison of each mode in the region with five peer services.

Methodology

Previously, SCAG has performed performance benchmarking activities in the context 

of the State of the Region Report, where our region’s performance was measured and 

compared along a broad axis of multi-sectoral indicators. Historically, the peer group in 

this analysis has been regions with populations over five million. For the purposes of this 

exercise, that peer group metric has been retained. Using US Census 2013 estimates, 

a peer cohort of eleven Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) with more than five million 

residents was identified.

diminishing, particularly from the State Transit Assistance (STA) and Local Transportation 

Fund (LTF). These two funds provide transit operations funding, and if they continue to 

diminish strategies for transit in the SCAG region will need to be geared toward low-cost 

incremental improvements, operational enhancements, and policies that increase access 

to transit rather than increasing transit service to appropriate levels and corridors to 

meet passenger demand.

These positive developments have been significantly impacted, however, by recent 

revenue declines and cutbacks in funding. As mentioned above, the Great Recession and 

its anemic recovery have led to serious fiscal challenges for our transit operators. Since 

FY 2007-2008, transit providers within the SCAG region have seen a decrease in STA 

funds of about $759 million. LTF allocations for FY 2009-2010 were 21 percent lower than 

FY 2006-2007. By February of 2011, half of the surveyed agencies had cut service by 

between 2 percent and 20 percent. Of those, four agencies had cut service by more than 10 

percent. During this same period, 14 out of 25 of these operators had seen their boardings fall 

between 2 percent and 27 percent. Of those, four agencies had boardings fall by more than 

15 percent. To offset this large revenue decline, nearly all operators have raised fares. While 

this has increased fare revenues in the region, it does not provide an incentive for increased 

passenger boardings.

Coupled with the revenue setbacks, costs for transit providers are heading in the opposite 

direction by rising faster than inflation. Each mode has shown cost per passenger miles 

traveled (PMT) increase over the past decade: bus service by 24 nearly, Metro Rail by 41 

nearly and Metrolink by 48 nearly. Transit providers’ fare revenue has decreased from 32 

nearly of the cost of providing service to just 27 nearly since 2000.

These cost and revenue trends weaken the long term stability of transit services in the SCAG 

region. Unless transit operators in our region find ways to improve the fare revenue to cost 

ratio, transit services will require much greater subsidies or services will continue to be cut. 

This conflict will grow as new operational funds will need to be applied towards new capital 

projects currently in development once they are ready for revenue service.
 38 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

The Office of Management and Budget created the Combined Statistical Area in 2000 and 

currently recognizes 169 CSAs composed of 524 statistical areas. The OMB characterizes 

CSAs as “representing larger regions that reflect broader social and economic interactions, 

such as wholesaling, commodity distribution and weekend recreation activities and are 

likely to be of considerable interest to regional authorities and the private sector.” Combined 

Statistical Areas are often an amalgamation of adjacent Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas. Since they reflect connectivity between contiguous Metropolitan Statistical 

Areas, CSAs can be a valuable comparison geography for large metropolitan areas such as 

the SCAG region. See TABLE 14.

Using data provided by the National Transit Database at the Urbanized Area (UZA) level, 

various reporters were attached to a peer region at the CSA level. These data were examined 

in the context of variables that were identified as important by stakeholders during the FY 

2011-2012 Transit System Performance Report process.

Peer Regions Context

Population and Transit Expenditures

The peer regions group contains 115 million residents as of the 2013 Census estimates, more 

than one-third of the national population. The peer group also represents a significant portion 

of the nation’s transit investment, service and ridership. There are 279 separate agencies 

reporting data within the peer regions comparison group, across a variety of transit modes. 

To contextualize, the table below presents the amount of service and productivity of various 

modes in the peer regions comparison group. The group spends an enormous amount of its 

transportation resources on public transportation, including a combined $39.043 billion in 

FY 2011-2012. See TABLE 15.

Table 14 Peer Regions CSAs

Peer Region Combined Statistical Area Population

New York-New Jersey New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 23,368,541

SCAG Region Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA CSA 18,213,775

Chicago Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI CSA 9,891,237

Miami Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL CSA 6,375,718

Philadelphia Philadelphia-Reading-Camden,

PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 7,129,715

Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-OK CSA 7,097,014

Houston Houston-The Woodlands, TX CSA 6,369,855

Washington-Baltimore Washington-Baltimore-Arlington,

DC-MD-VA-WV-PA CSA 9,334,630

Atlanta Atlanta–Athens-Clarke County–Sandy Springs, GA CSA 6,088,358

Boston-Providence Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT CSA 7,991,835

Detroit Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, MI CSA 5,311,778

The Greater Bay Area San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA 8,364,559

Source: 2010 US Census, 2012 NTD

Table 15 Peer Regions Total Combined Transit Expenditures

Peer Region Total Combined Transit Expenditures

 FY 2011-2012

New York-New Jersey $17,750,397,725

Washington-Baltimore $3,929,929,850

Southern California $3,586,720,128

Greater Bay Area $3,463,710,654

Chicago $3,025,985,517

Boston-Providence $1,983,084,797

Philadelphia $1,696,803,066

Houston $894,431,244

Miami $845,767,313

Dallas-Fort Worth $840,854,221

Atlanta $645,869,305

Detroit $379,935,783

Peer Regions Total $39,043,489,603

Source: 2012 NTD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 39

Modes of Service

Heavy rail and local bus service dominate the service provided and consumed in the peer 

regions group. Bus services makes up roughly half of all service provided and heavy rail 20 

percent. Demand response constitutes another 17 percent. The distribution of total revenue 

hours in FY 2011-2012 is displayed in FIGURE 39.

Similarly, FIGURE 40 displays the importance of bus service and heavy rail service in 

providing mobility. Bus trips make up 42 percent of all trips in the group and heavy rail trips 

constitute 46 percent of all trips in the group.

These findings help to mark a clear distinction between regions with extensive heavy 

rail networks and those without. FIGURE 41 outlines the ration between bus and heavy 

rail revenue hours in each of the regions. In those regions where the ratio exceeds .20, 

differences in cost and productivity begin to appear.

53% 20%

17%

6%

2%

Bus

Heavy Rail

Demand Response

Commuter Rail

Light Rail

Other

2%

Figure 39 Revenue Hours in Peer Regions by Mode, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

46%

42%

6% Heavy Rail

Bus

Commuter Rail

Light Rail

Other

3% 3%

Figure 40 Unlinked Trips by Mode

Source: NTD 2012

0.75

0.02

0.49

0.07

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.38

0.29

0.37

0.00

0.26

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose,

San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 41 Ration of Heavy Rail Service to Bus Service

Source: NTD 2012
 40 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

System Level Performance

Peer Regions: Funding and Service Provided

The peer regions group offers just over three quarters of the nation’s transit service and 

expends just over 66 percent of the nation’s total operating dollars. As mentioned above, the 

group spent just over $39 billion dollars on transit in FY 2011-2012.

FIGURE 42 displays the breakdown of how those funds are spent across the regions. As 

seen below, New York-New Jersey dominates all spending on transit. Only WashingtonBaltimore and the Greater Bay Area are competitive with Southern California’s Capital 

spending. Similarly, only Chicago, Washington-Baltimore and the greater Bay Area compete 

with Southern California on operations and maintenance spending.

$5.22

$1.16

$0.74

$0.13

$0.34

$0.33

$0.50

$1.49

$0.17

$0.45

$0.06

$1.17

$12.53

$2.42

$2.29

$0.72

$1.36

$0.51

$0.40

$2.44

$0.47

$1.53

$0.32

$2.29

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Operating Capital

Figure 42 Peer Regions Capital and Operating Expenditure, FY2011-2012 (in Billions)

Source: NTD 2012

57,925,611 

19,160,239 

14,634,611 

6,560,809 

8,526,556 

3,841,913 

3,877,495 

14,844,969 

3,620,931 

9,625,374 

2,457,006 

12,323,798 

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 43 Peer Regions Vehicle Revenue Hours, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

The peer regions provided a grand total of 157 million revenue hours of service in FY 2011-

2012. New York-New Jersey provide roughly a third of that service, with 57.9 million hours 

reported. The SCAG provided the second highest total amount of service, with 19 million 

hours. As displayed in FIGURE 43 Chicago, Washington-Baltimore and the greater Bay Area 

also provided more than 10 million revenue hours of service. Detroit provided the least, with 

just less than 2.5 million hours.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 41

Peer Regions: Service Consumed

As previously mentioned, per capita trip making has been a historically important measure 

at SCAG and has been included in the system level performance analysis since SCAG's 

Transportation and Communications Committee endorsed it in 2001. Recently, stagnating 

per capita trip making, as documented in the FY 2011-2012 Transit System Performance 

Report, has been identified as a key issue for further investigation.

FIGURE 44 displays a comparison of per capita trip making across the peer regions group, 

using July 1, 2012 population projections at the CSA level provided by the U.S. Census. 

As displayed above, the SCAG region is solidly in the bottom half of per-capita trips taken. 

Despite being third in total combined spending on public transportation, the SCAG region is 

seventh in per capita trips.

FIGURE 45 excludes the New York–New Jersey region, whose 180 annual trips are more 

than two-and-a-half times as high as Chicago, the measure’s second place performer. The 

SCAG region is the seventh largest provider of per capita trips in the group. This should be 

understood in the context that the SCAG region is the second largest provider of revenue 

hours and expended the third largest combined funds of the group.

FIGURE 46 displays unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour for the peer regions. 

The SCAG region’s productivity is in the higher end of the bottom half of the distribution, 

roughly competitive with Washington-Baltimore.

180.12

39.03

67.16

26.23

54.77

10.99

12.35

64.22

25.59

55.06

12.51

60.13

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 44 Peer Regions per Capita Trips, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

Chicago 67.2

Washington-Baltimore 64.2

San Jose, San Francisco Oakland 60.1

Boston 55.1

Philadelphia 54.8

Southern California 39.0

Miami 26.2

Atlanta 25.6

Detroit 12.5

Houston 12.4

Dallas Fort Worth 11.0

Figure 45 Peer Regions per Capita Trips Excluding New York, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

New York 72.67

Southern California 37.10

Chicago 45.39

Miami 25.49

Philadelphia 45.80

Dallas Fort Worth 20.31

Houston 20.29

Washington-Baltimore 40.38

Atlanta 43.02

Boston 45.72

Detroit 27.04

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland 40.82

Figure 46 Peer Regions Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012
 42 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Cost Performance

The region’s operating cost per unlinked passenger trip performance is displayed 

below in FIGURE 47. The cost per trip is very competitive, and among the top half of 

performers in the group.

The region’s operating cost per passenger mile traveled performance is displayed in FIGURE 

48. The cost per trip is competitive, especially compared to other regions that are not highly 

reliant on heavy rail and commuter rail, such as Houston, Dallas, Miami, WashingtonBaltimore and Atlanta.

FIGURE 49 displays operating costs per vehicle revenue hour for the peer regions. The 

region’s performance is among the lower third in operating costs, though regions with large 

heavy rail systems, such as New York, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore and the greater Bay 

Area, tend to have the highest per-hour operating costs.

$2.98

$3.41

$3.45

$4.31

$3.49

$6.51

$5.04

$4.07

$3.04

$3.48

$4.79

$4.55

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 47 Peer Regions Operating Cost per Unlinked Passenger Trip, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

$0.57

$0.67

$0.53

$0.71

$0.73

$1.05

$0.85

$0.74

$0.57

$0.74

$0.99

$0.73

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 48 Peer Regions Operating Cost per Passenger Mile Travelled, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

$216.26 

$126.45 

$156.51 

$109.75 

$159.69 

$132.17 

$102.26 

$164.41 

$130.85 

$158.91 

$129.53 

$185.84 

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose San Francisco Oakland

Figure 49 Peer Regions Operating Cost per Revenue Hour, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 43

DEMAND RESPONSE PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING

Another key area for additional investigation identified in the FY 2011-2012 Transit System 

Performance Report was the growing average trip lengths for the demand response 

mode. As displayed TABLE 16, the SCAG region is the second largest provider of demand 

response trips in the group and provides nearly two-and-a-half times the median number of 

demand response trips.

FIGURE 50 displays the ratio of demand response trips to fixed route bus trips among the 

peer regions in FY 2011-2012. The FTA’s rulemaking process surrounding the mobility and 

access portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act mandates that:

(a) Service Area—(1) Bus. (i) The entity shall provide complementary paratransit 

service to origins and destinations within corridors with a width of three-fourths of 

a mile on each side of each fixed route. The corridor shall include an area with a 

three-fourths of a mile radius at the ends of each fixed route.

(ii) Within the core service area, the entity also shall provide service to small areas 

not inside any of the corridors but which are surrounded by corridors.

(iii) Outside the core service area, the entity may designate corridors with widths 

from three-fourths of a mile up to one and one half miles on each side of a fixed 

route, based on local circumstances.

(iv) For purposes of this paragraph, the core service area is that area in which 

corridors with a width of three-fourths of a mile on each side of each fixed 

route merge together such that, with few and small exceptions, all origins and 

destinations within the area would be served.

Citation: 49 CFR 7.121

The finding discussed previously and illustrated in FIGURE 27 on page 30, that demand 

response trip lengths have nearly doubled in the last twenty years, has also been a cause 

for concern among stakeholders. As displayed in FIGURE 51, however, demand response trip 

lengths in the SCAG region do not seem exceptionally long when compared with the peer 

regions. The SCAG region’s average trip length is only 7 percent higher than the aggregated 

total for the peer regions group.

Table 16 Peer Regions Demand Response Overview

Region

Total Demand 

Response Trips 

FY 2011-2012

Demand 

Response 

Passenger Miles 

FY 2011-2012

New York-New Jersey 10,457,140 93,057,088

Southern California 8,301,830 79,993,537

Chicago 5,030,637 39,366,827

Boston-Providence 4,951,240 34,516,082

Washington-Baltimore 3,962,247 30,889,130

Miami 3,470,151 41,312,946

Philadelphia 3,385,249 28,513,462

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland 3,246,924 30,043,260

Dallas Fort Worth 2,191,252 23,326,048

Houston 1,603,851 18,816,362

Detroit 1,275,117 10,958,672

Atlanta 785,390 8,736,939

Source: NTD 2012

0.0085

0.0141

0.0144

0.0263

0.0167

0.0477

0.0244

0.0145

0.0095

0.0325

0.0203

0.0147

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 50 Peer Regions Demand Reponse Trips Per Bus Trips, FY 2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012
 44 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Demand response trips per fixed route bus trip is a measure that provides a sense of 

how frequently paratransit services are being used in the context of total trips and the 

extent to which each fixed route trips subsidizes a demand response trip. As seen IN 

FIGURE 50, the region is performing very well in terms of total demand response per 

fixed route consumption.

RANKING THE REGION’S PERFORMANCE

TABLE 17 presents a ranking of the region’s performance among the various CSAs examined 

here, along five categories of measures. Given that the SCAG region is the second largest in 

the country, we should expect that its performance would be in the top half on measures that 

are impacted by population.

Measures of funding and service provided are sensitive to the size of the overall population, 

and we should expect that the region would perform well. As displayed above, the region 

ranks third on total operating expenditures, and combined expenditures and fourth on capital 

expenditures. The region ranks second on total revenue hours provided.

8.90

9.64

7.83

11.91

8.42

10.65

11.73

7.80

11.12

6.97

8.59

8.74

New York

Southern California

Chicago

Miami

Philadelphia

Dallas Fort Worth

Houston

Washington-Baltimore

Atlanta

Boston

Detroit

San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland

Figure 51 Peer Regions Demand Response Average Trip Length FY2011-2012

Source: NTD 2012

Table 17 Benchmarking Assessment of Regional Performance

Benchmarking Assessment of Regional Performance

Benchmarked Performance Measure Ranking Among 

Peer Regions

MEASURES OF FUNDING 

AND SERVICE PROVIDED

Populations Estimates 7/1/2012, US Census 2

Total Operating Expenditures 3

Capital Expenditures 4

Total Expenditures Combined 3

Vehicle Revenue Hours 2

MEASURES OF 

SERVICE CONSUMED

Unlinked Passenger Trips 2

Passenger Miles Travelled 3

Per Capita Trips 7

Unlinked Passenger Trip per Vehicle Revenue Hour 8

Passenger Miles Travelled per Vehicle Revenue Hour 8

COST PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES

Operating Cost per Unlinked Passenger Trip 3

Operating Cost per Passenger Mile Travelled 3

Operating Cost per Revenue Hour 3

CONSUMPTION 

BY MODE

Combined Bus Unlinked Passenger Trips 2

Demand Response Unlinked Passenger Trips 2

Heavy Rail Unlinked Passenger Trips 8

Light Rail Unlinked Passenger Trips 3

Commuter Rail Unlinked Passenger Trips 7

DEMAND RESPONSE 

SPECIFIC MEASURES

Demand Response Passenger Miles 2

Demand Response Average Trip Length 2

Demand Response Trips per Bus Trips 2

Source: 2012 NTD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 45

In the categories of aggregate service consumed, the region is ranked second on total 

unlinked trips and third on passenger miles. The region ranks eighth on per capita trip 

consumption, however, meaning that its competitiveness is largely a function of size and that 

the average resident is taking relatively few transit trips.

Moreover, in terms of productivity, the region ranks eighth in both trips and passenger miles 

per revenue hour. This appears to be a function of technology and mode of service. The most 

competitive regions are New York-Newark, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore, 

Atlanta, Boston and the Greater Bay Area. All of these regions have heavy rail to bus service 

ratios of more than 0.20, and this more intensive mode appears to allow them to move 

more passengers per hour. The SCAG region is the most competitive among those regions, 

having a ratio below 0.20.

The region ranks third among all three cost performance measures, implying that local cost 

containment strategies are relatively successful. Some of this would appear to be a function 

of mode of service, as those regions with higher heavy rail to bus service ratios tend to have 

higher costs per revenue hour. Further work to disaggregate cost performance data by mode 

will add to the understanding of these trends.

The fourth series of measures presented displays trip consumption by mode and they 

mainly help to provide context for how the region’s mode of service decisions compare with 

that of the region's peer groups.

The SCAG region’s performance, along demand response measures, is tracked in the final 

set of measures. The region ranks second in Demand Response Passenger Miles, Demand 

Response Average Trip Length and Demand Response Trips per Bus Trips. Given the growth 

trends of the region’s demand response operators, this would seem to reflect that the region 

is being affected by national trends.

Overall, it can be said that the region’s system is performing well on a comparative basis. 

Costs are relatively low, service levels are relatively appropriate for a region of this size, 

and productivity is relatively high for a region that is focused on bus service. However, per 

capita trip consumption is relatively very low, and additional work should be performed to 

understand this finding.
 46 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS

The existing transit network covers a wide area, but a better sense of its performance can be 

provided by analyzing how many jobs, households and residents are within 0.25 miles of an 

existing station stop.

A GIS based analysis of the region’s transit network was performed using a .25 buffer file, 

compared to the travel demand model’s base year 2012 network, categorized by service 

frequency. Socioeconomic data were added at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level. 

The numbers displayed in TABLE 18 represent access to transit via selected modes at 

various service levels.

EXHIBITS 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 display the extent of the transit network, and how it serves 

selected categories of residents across the network.

Table 18 2012 Availability Analysis

Source: SCAG

Heavy and 

Light Rail

Rapid Bus and 

Bus Rapid 

Transit

Express Bus

Local Buses 

with Less Than 

15 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses with 

16 to 30 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses 

with 31 to 60 

Headways

Local Buses 

with Greater 

Than 60 Minute 

Headways

Total Jobs with Access 554,105 1,731,579 2,534,674 1,918,967 3,606,523 4,560,839 3,501,895 

Total Household with Access 218,883 1,006,483 1,289,849 1,182,751 2,313,767 3,123,562 2,232,090 

Total Population with Access 624,537 2,849,109 3,751,796 3,571,051 7,118,808 9,647,878 6,909,394 

Residents in TAZs with 15% or more of 

Households Having No Vehicles Access 42,247 159,013 126,701 215,647 881,209 960,638 701,838 
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alham bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew ood

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwa lk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Tem ecu la

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valle y

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

New port

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

110

134

91

22

134

170

60

91

1

1

101

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

105

5

10

405

210

210

5

210

405

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2012) 15 Minutes Transit Network Access By TAZ 

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

Exhibit 7 2012 15 Minute Network Access by TAZ
San Diego

91

14

60

126

71

57

60

110

134

91

22

134

170

60

91

1

1

101

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

105

5

10

405

210

210

5

210

405

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2012) Median Income

$178,780 and More

$99,636 - $178,779

$59,874 - $99,635

$28,347 - $59,873

$28,346 and Less

(Source: SCAG, 2015)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 8 2012 15 Minute Network Access by Low Income Households
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alham bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew ood

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwa lk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Tem ecu la

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valle y

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

New port

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

110

134

91

22

134

170

60

91

1

1

101

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

105

5

10

405

210

210

5

210

405

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2012) 2012 Zero Vehicle Households by Taz (15% or more)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 9 2012 15 Minute Network Access by Zero Vehicle Households
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alha m bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew oo d

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

16 to 30 Minutes Transit Network Access (2012) 2012 Zero Vehicle Households by Taz (15% or more)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 10 2012 16 to 30 Minute Access by Zero Vehicle Households
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alha m bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew oo d

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

2012 Zero Vehicle Households by Taz (15% or more) 31 to 60 Minutes Transit Access Network (2012)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 11 2012 31 to 60 Minute Access by Zero Vehicle Households
 52 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

congested Westside Subregion, providing important alternatives to road travel. The 

Regional Connector will allow light rail vehicles to connect between now-unconnected rail 

corridors. Upon completion, passengers boarding a rail vehicle in Pasadena or Azusa will 

be able to travel to Long Beach without transferring; similarly passengers boarding at the 

terminus of the Metro Gold Line Phase 2 will be able to travel to Culver City or Santa Monica 

without transferring.

Other Measure R projects will extend the reach of the Metro Rail system to a large portion of 

Los Angeles County. The South Bay Metro Green Line extension will extend rail transit much 

deeper into the South Bay and connect residents of the South Bay cities to an important job 

center in El Segundo. Similarly, the Foothill and Eastside Gold Line Extensions will increase 

the ability of residents of eastern Los Angeles County to access the Metro Rail System and 

travel to important regional centers.

The West Santa Ana Branch Corridor will serve a currently underserved market in the 

Northeastern and Central Gateway Cities area, and provide important links to the Metro 

Green Line and a variety of transit options in Downtown Los Angeles. Many corridor area 

residents are in low income households and have limited vehicle access; the corridor serves 

them by connecting to important recreational and shopping opportunities, in addition 

to employment centers.

2012 RTP/SCS MAJOR CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN OTHER COUNTIES

The Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) will offer connectivity to the Anaheim Resort from 

the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). Travelers on ARC will 

be able to transfer to the Harbor Blvd Bravo! rapid bus service and to Metrolink, Amtrak’s 

Pacific Surfliner and High-Speed Rail at ARTIC. Similarly, the Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed 

Guideway will connect the central business district of Santa Ana to the Santa Ana Regional 

Transportation Center, allowing transfers to Metrolink and the Pacific Surfliner. The other 

terminus of the Santa Ana Garden Grove Fixed Guideway, at Harbor Blvd, will also offer 

connectivity to two separate BRT routes.

In the Inland Empire, new projects will also increase transit mobility. New BRT services in 

San Bernardino will complement the recently opened E street sBX BRT line, connecting 

to multiple Metrolink stations and extending the reach of our region’s commuter rail 

network. Furthermore, the Redlands Rail project will extend Metrolink’s service area 

deeper into the eastern San Bernardino Valley and provide access to one of San Bernardino 

County’s major universities.

Further south, the Metrolink system will be extended into Southwestern Riverside County 

into the Temecula Valley.

THE 2012 RTP/SCS

INVESTMENTS FROM THE 2012 RTP/SCS

The 2012 RTP/SCS included significant investment in public transit across all transit 

modes. There was a $56.6 billion dollar investment in transit capital, a $47.7 billion dollar 

investment in passenger rail and a $139.3 billion investment in transit operations and 

maintenance. Transit represented 64 percent of total operations and maintenance in the 

2012 RTP/SCS and 20 percent of capital investments. Passenger rail, including Phase I 

of the California High-Speed Rail program, accounts for another 18 percent of total capital 

investment in the 2012 RTP/SCS.

Projects carried forward from the 2012 RTP/SCS will form a major component of the 2016 

RTP/SCS constrained plan. Major capital investments from that plan are reviewed in 

more depth in TABLE 19.

THE MEASURE R EXPENDITURE PLAN

In November 2008, the voters of Los Angeles County approved a third Local Option Sales 

Tax to fund both capital and operations within Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which already administers Proposition 

A and C funds, will use 35 percent of Measure R revenues to develop a series of major 

transit capital projects.

Three large Measure R projects, the Westside Subway extension, the Regional Connector 

Transit Corridor and the Exposition Transit Corridor have the potential to connect residents 

to employment centers in the highly congested central Los Angeles area and the similarly 

Table 19 Major Transit Capital Projects Funded with Measure R Revenues

Major Transit Capital Projects Funded with Measure R Revenues

Exposition Transit Corridor, Phase 2 to Santa 

Monica South Bay Metro Green Line Extension

Regional Connector Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A

Crenshaw LAX Transit Corridor East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor

Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Metro Orange Line Extension (Completed)

Sepulveda Pass Corridor West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor

Airport Metro Connector Purple Line Extension [1]

Source:Metro, 2008 Measure R Expenditure Plan 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 53

The fixed guideway gap closure projects leverage existing investments in rail transit 

technology to expand the connectivity of the rail travel network, creating a system of 

seamless transferability throughout the network.

The Vermont Short Corridor is a three-mile southward extension of the Metro Red Line 

serving one of the most important transit markets in Southern California. Vermont Avenue 

has long been Metro’s second most productive bus corridor, and its ridership is often 

competitive with the entirety of the Metrolink system. On the north end, the Vermont Corridor 

will allow transferability to the completed Metro Westside Subway extension, allowing 

passengers to access important employment, residential and cultural centers on the 

Westside. On the southern end, the short corridor will allow onward transfers to the Metro 

Exposition Line, allowing passengers to travel to Culver City, Santa Monica, or to transfer to 

the Crenshaw Corridor and travel to South Los Angeles, Inglewood or LAX.

Important regional destinations, including the University of Southern California, Pico Union 

and Koreatown, are directly served by the Vermont Short Corridor. Similarly, the corridor 

has a high proportion of low-income transit dependent residents ; the corridor will allow 

them a greater ability to access job centers on the Westside, in the South Bay, and in 

Downtown Los Angeles.

FIXED GUIDEWAY GAP CLOSURES

To further develop the integrated transit passenger rail networks, SCAG staff developed a 

list of fixed guideway gap closures for the 2012RTP/SCS. These projects were developed 

by reviewing performance data from County Transportation Commission strategic planning 

documents and were analyzed from a list of more than 32 potential projects developed in 

these plans and studies. The resultant projects were analyzed on the basis of several factors:

1. Did the project close gap in the existing rapid transit network?

2. Did the projects serve comparatively dense areas?

3. Did the projects provide intermodal connectivity?

4. Did the projects serve important regional or subregional centers for 

housing or employment?

5. Using locally generated performance data, what was the capital cost 

per out-year boarding?

Five projects were selected using this analysis. These projects, collectively titled the “fixed 

guideway gap closures”, will provide important links in our 2035 transit network. All but one 

of the five projects serve a minimum of 20 tier 2 Travel Analysis Zones (TAZ) projected to 

contain more than 15 jobs or residents in 2035. All five projects connect a minimum of two 

other fixed guideway transit corridors, and leverage those connections into additional transit 

mobility and to produce at least one million annual boardings by the 2035 forecast year.

Table 20 Fixed Guideway Gap Closures Initial Performance Analysis

Source: Metro 2008 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (Technical Document)

Corridor Boundaries Length (miles) Cost

(in Millions)

Locally Estimated 

Annual Boardings Rail Transit Connections

Vermont Short Corridor Wilshire Vermont to Exposition 

and Vermont 3 $1,177.90 3,709,332 Metro Purple Line, Metro Red Line, Metro 

Exposition Line

Slauson Light Rail Crenshaw Corridor to Metro Blue Line 

Slauson Station 5.4 $554.00 5,213,808 Metro Crenshaw Corridor, Metro Blue Line

Metro Red Line Extension From North Hollywood Station to 

Burbank Airport Metrolink 2.4 $933.30 5,350,818 Metro Red Line, California High Speed Rail, 

Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink

Metro Green Line Norwalk Extension Norwalk Transit Center to Norwalk 

Metrolink (Aerial Option) 2.3 $480.20 1,495,006 Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, California High Speed 

Rail, Metro Green Line, Metrolink

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2B Sierra Madre Villa Station to Montclair 

Metrolink Station 13.1 $998.40 3,023,603 Metro Gold Line, Metrolink
 54 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

2012 RTP/SCS IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENTS 

BETWEEN 2012-2016

ONGOING PLANNING PROCESSES

The various counties of the SCAG region have chosen to pursue a variety of strategies to 

deliver public transit service. In Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, these 

strategies have been project based and using large capital investments to improve service on 

identified corridors. Imperial, Orange and Ventura Counties have focused on smaller capital 

investments and operational strategies to improve service.

Imperial County

The Imperial County Transportation Commission recently completed a Specific Operational 

Analysis for Imperial Valley Transit (IVT), which assessed how existing transit service can be 

altered to more efficiently and effectively meet existing travel demand. Given that Imperial 

County has had approximately 33 percent growth over the past ten years, this project is 

especially timely. The plan outlined a vision for serving Imperial Valley cities with local 

circulators, which would feed trunk services between those cities. The IVT Gold Line is an 

example of that strategy. 

The Comprehensive Operational Analysis built on ICTC’s FY 2010-2011 Short Range Transit 

Plan (SRTP). The SRTP for the ICTC was the result of a planning process that involved the 

examination of transit, socio-economic and demographic data, as well as an extensive public 

outreach process that involved meetings with members of the public and current transit 

system riders, as well as interviews with community stakeholders. The information gathered 

during this planning process was utilized to develop a set of recommendations for both 

the IVT fixed route bus system and the various demandresponse transit services operated 

throughout Imperial County.

The Northward extension of the Metro Red line to the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s 

planned Burbank station will similarly allow greater access to intermodal transportation. The 

likely Burbank station for Phase I of the High-Speed Train Project is at Bob Hope Burbank 

Airport, which is also served by Metrolink and Amtrak. By using tunnels and people mover 

technology in the new Red Line station, the station could serve all three transportation 

facilities. This extension will allow users to access intercity rail, commuter rail, high speed rail 

and air travel facilities.

Similarly the Norwalk Green Line extension will increase the ability of travelers in the South 

Bay and Gateway Cities to access to the proposed California High-Speed Train station in 

Norwalk. This station, which is already served by Metrolink and the very occasional Surfliner 

train, also provides good connectivity to bus transit via the Norwalk Transit System.

The Slauson Light Rail would connect the Crenshaw Corridor with the Metro Blue line and 

provide important mobility improvements in a dense corridor with a high percentage of 

transit dependent residents. As noted in Chapter 6 of the Harbor Subdivision Alternatives 

Analysis, the corridor is currently underserved by transit and would provide many stops 

within close distance to dense population and employment nodes.

Phase 2B of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension will extend the reach of the Metro Gold 

Line an additional 12.6 miles in to the San Gabriel Valley, adding stations in Glendora, 

San Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont and Montclair along a former Atchison Topeka 

Santa Fe right-of-way.

Table 21 Number of TAZs Served by Fixed Guideway Gap Closure Projects 

Project

Tier 2 TAZs with More 

than 150 Residents or 50 

Jobs per Acre

Tier 2 TAZs with More 

than 50 Residents or 

Jobs per Acre

Tier 2 TAZs with More 

than 30 Residents or 

Jobs per Acre

Tier 2 TAZs with More 

than 15 Residents or 

Jobs per Acre

Metro Red Line Extension 0 2 13 21

Vermont Short Corridor 7 39 60 66

Slauson Light Rail 0 10 39 77

Metro Green Line Norwalk Extension 0 0 0 23

Metro Foothill Goldline Extension Phase 2B 0 0 0 14

Source: SCAG, 2011 ACS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 55

The SRTP presents the proposed improvements to the IV Transit system in three phases, 

and those for the demand response services in two phases. Recommendations for 

consideration as part of Imperial County’s Long-Range Transit Vision are also provided. 

Finally, estimated impacts on the operating funding needs, the capital requirements and 

various other operational measures are also provided as part of this SRTP.23

Los Angeles County

LA County Metro recently completed work on a Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP). 

Metro’s 2014 SRTP was developed as a focused ten-year plan that guides actions through 

2024. The Plan will advance Los Angeles County toward the long-term goals outlined in 

the 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), a 30-year vision for addressing growth 

and traffic in LA County. The Plan monitors our progress in moving projects and programs 

forward to ensure that our system moves people and goods safely.

The 2014 SRTP sets out a vision for doubling rail vehicle revenue miles by 2024 and 

expediting Measure R investments.24

Orange County

In 2011, OCTA completed work on the Transit System Study which sought to find financially 

sustainable service delivery strategies and to more closely tie bus and rail services to 

passenger demand. This effort led to focused on identifying and investing in high performing 

services, integrating city shuttles to connect Metrolink service and community circulators 

with the fixed route network, matching service products to markets, and improving service 

efficiency and speeds in an integrated network. Key outcomes were new transit service and 

more frequent service in areas with high ridership potential. OCTA is proposing to implement 

many of these recommendations in 2016.

These strategies were incorporated into OCTA’s 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan. 

This plan also identified strategies including expanded Metrolink service, Metrolink station 

improvements and local streetcar circulators as part of their vision for increased mobility 

choice in Orange County.

Riverside County

The Riverside County Transportation Commission and RTA continue have both engaged 

local planning efforts. At the system level, RTA recently completed a Comprehensive 

Operational Analysis, leading to more frequent service on key corridors. RCTC continues 

to engage in corridor level planning efforts for commuter and passenger rail service. This 

project is discussed in greater depth in the passenger rail appendix.

San Bernardino County

The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) released a Long Range Transit 

Plan in 2011 outlining a series of investments and strategies throughout the county including 

a network of rapid and express bus service. In addition, corridor level efforts continue 

regarding the Redlands Rail project.

In the summer of 2015, SANBAG issued a draft County Transportation Plan (SBCTP). Similar 

to the long range plans of Metro and OCTA, this multimodal document laid out a strategy for 

the long term in, and management of, San Bernardino County’s transportation assets. The 

plan was developed in conjunction with the goals identified in SANBAG’s Mission Statement, 

to address existing and future mobility needs in San Bernardino County and in keeping with 

the Measure I Ten Year Implementation Plan.

The Draft SBCTP include most of the 2011 Long Range Transit Plan’s investment strategies 

in the San Bernardino Valley and identifies a network of express bus, rapid bus and bus 

rapid transit corridors to serve that area, in conjunction with a connection between existing 

Metrolink San Bernardino line and Los Angeles Ontario International Airport. The plan 

does not identify funds for service expansions in the mountain and desert sub-areas of 

San Bernardino County.

In addition, the plan notes the 2015 Barstow Area Transit merger with the Victor 

Valley Transit Authority (VVTA), to realize cost savings and achieve more efficient 

transit administration.

Ventura County

Ventura County has perhaps the most dynamic planning environment of any of the six 

counties in the region. As a result of legislative changes, public transportation in Ventura 

County is undergoing significant reorganization.

SB 716

The California State Legislature enacted the Transportation Development Act (TDA), SB 325, 

Chapter 1400, Statutes of 1971, to ensure “the efficient and orderly movement of people 

and goods in the urban areas of the state.” The TDA authorized the boards of supervisors 

in each county to impose a one-quarter-percent local sales tax for public transportation 

purposes. This included an allowance for rural counties to use these funds for streets and 

highways, given that they certified through a public process that no unmet needs could be 

met with those funds.

Senate Bill 716 of 2009 amended the TDA mandate that all counties with populations 

over 500,000 as of the 2010 census would have to allocate all TDA revenues to transit 

by 2014. However, cities with populations under 100,000 in these urban counties could 

continue to use TDA funds for either transit or local streets and roads, provided unmet needs 

certification. Ventura County was exempted from the legislation and given additional time to 

develop a transit plan.
 56 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

As a response to the mandates of SB 716, VCTC proposed strategies for responding to SB 

716, including the creation of a transit district in western Ventura County and the execution 

of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in East County between the cities of Camarillo, 

Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks and the County of Ventura for unincorporated 

East County, to further coordinate individual services.

This process led to the execution of an MOU between those agencies, for the implementation 

of an East County Transit Alliance. This alliance is seen as framework for enhancing service 

and connectivity, service, fare, eligibility and marketing coordination and establishing a 

single provider for ADA paratransit and Senior Dial-a-Ride in the east Ventura County. The 

MOU outlines a strategy for cooperation and coordination in the provision of transit service 

in Eastern Ventura County under the name East County Transit Alliance (ECTA), and it will 

assist the municipal transit properties in Eastern Ventura County with compliance with the 

requirements of Senate Bill 716.

In addition, the cities of Santa Paula, Fillmore and Piru have negotiated a joint powers 

agreement to form the Heritage Valley Transit District. This group seeks to implement 

a series of fixed route community circulators and fixed route service between the cities 

of Fillmore and Piru.

AB 664 and the Gold Coast Transit District

In a further response to the mandates of SB 716, stakeholders sought authority to establish 

a transit district in western Ventura County. As of July 1, 2014, per the recommendations of 

the VCTC “Regional Transit Study final Report: Executive Summary and Response to the 

Legislature,” the Gold Coast Transit (GCT) Joint Powers Authority was replaced by the Gold 

Coast Transit District. This new district was created by AB 664 and includes the Cities of 

Oxnard, Ventura, Port Hueneme and Ojai and unincorporated areas of the County of Ventura.

The new structure allows the district to pool all funds and allows Gold Coast to plan and 

operate service based on need, rather than local contributions. Also, by pooling funds, it 

will be easier for the District to guarantee local matches for state and federal grant funds. 

Additionally, the fiscal health of any one member will no longer affect service levels, as 

occurred during the recession.

Moving forward, an ongoing Short Range Transit Plan update will guide service delivery over 

the next 4-5 years, by providing:

z A Systemwide Evaluation by Route

z A Fixed-Route Service Delivery Plan

z A Capital Improvement Plan

z A Marketing and Regional Coordination

TRACKING IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

Since the 2012 RTP/SCS was adopted, the region has made progress toward completing 

several major transit and rail projects that are part of the region’s strategic expansion of mass 

transit and rail, while significantly regressing in terms of the amount of service offered.

Selected New Services

New services have also been initiated, including those displayed in TABLE 22. However, 

service levels have continued the downward trend discussed in the 2012 RTP/SCS. 

Between 2008 and 2012, total annual service hours dropped by roughly 5 percent. Initial 

analysis suggests that the downward trend may have ended in 2012, and that service 

hours reached their 20 million hours again in 2014. However these preliminary NTD data 

have yet to be audited.

Table 22 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Service Implementation Matrix

Status Project Name Completion Year SERVICES INITIATED

Metro Silver Line 2009

Imperial Valley Transit Gold Line 2012

Metro Valley Westside Express 2014

Gold Coast Transit District 2014

Heritage Valley Service 2015

Anaheim Resort Service Expansion 2011

VVTA Barstow Service 2015
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 57

Selected Capital Projects Completed

The region has made significant progress in delivering transit capital projects. TABLE 23

displays a selection of the transit capital projects from the 2012 RTP/SCS that have been 

completed since the adoption of that plan.

Metro completed construction and began operations of the Edward R. Roybal Metro Gold 

Line Eastside Extension, which extended Gold Line service to Boyle Heights and East Los 

Angeles in 2009. Revenue service on the Exposition Transit Corridor phase 1 began in early 

2012. The initial operating segment of the Expo Line opened April 28, 2012, serving an 

8.6 mile corridor from 7th Street Metro Center/Julian Dixon to La Cienega Blvd. Additional 

stations at Culver Blvd and Farmdale Ave opened on June 20, 2012. The Expo Line provided 

nearly 600,000 trips and 2.2 million passenger miles in FY 2011-2012, with a weekday 

average of 13,897 trips and 51,141 passenger miles.

Additionally, Omnitrans recently completed work on the E Street sbX BRT Corridor, between 

California State University San Bernardino and the City of Loma Lina.

Selected Capital Projects Initiated

The region has also made significant progress in initiating major transit capital projects. 

TABLE 24 displays a selection of the transit capital projects from the 2012 RTP/SCS that 

have been initiated since the adoption of that plan.

Many of Metro’s Measure R projects saw construction work begin since the adoption of the 

2012 RTP/SCS, including the Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, the Regional Connector and 

the Purple Line Extension Phase:

1. Additionally, work continues on the Exposition Transit Corridor, Phase 2 to Santa 

Monica and the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A. Both of those 

projects are expected to enter revenue service in 2016.

2. SANBAG continues to work with local transit properties to provide more travel 

options in the San Bernardino Valley. Two capital projects of note include 

and the Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project, which will extend 

Metrolink service into Downtown San Bernardino. Similarly, the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission is nearing completion of the Perris Valley Line, a 24 

mile extension of Metrolink “SR-91 Line” service to South Perris.

IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE

A key measure of the region’s implementation of the policies and strategies of the 2012 RTP/

SCS, is the total amount of service provided. NTD data are typically audited and released 

roughly two years after the completion of the fiscal year of their report. Unaudited monthly 

data are also made available for a large majority of reporting agencies and can be analyzed, 

but with a lower degree of confidence in the results. Below is discussion of a comparison of 

the trends of annual and monthly performance in the years following since the 2012 RTP/

SCS’s 2008 base year.

Table 23 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Capital Project Implementation Matrix

Status Project Name Completion Year PROJECTS COMPLETED

The Yucaipa Transit Center (Omnitrans) 2010

VVTA Administrative, Operations and Maintenance Facility 2011

Metro Orange Line Extension 2012

Metro Expo Line 2012

The Brawley Transit Center (ICTC) 2013

Fullerton Metrolink parking structure station (OCTA) 2013

Omnitrans E street SBX 2014

ARTIC 2014

Metrolink Perris Valley Line (RCTC) 2015

SunLine Transit Administrative Facility 2015

Table 24 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Transit Element Capital Project Implementation Matrix

Status Project Name Completion Year PROJECTS INITIATED

Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor 2019

Regional Connector 2020

San Bernardino Transit Center 2015

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension, Phase 2A 2016

Exposition Transit Corridor, Phase 2 to Santa Monica 2016

Placentia Metrolink Station (OCTA) 2017

OC Bridges Grade Separations (OCTA) 2018

San Bernardino Metrolink Station (SANBAG) 2016

Purple Line Extension Phase 1 2023
 58 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Since the 2012 RTP/SCS was adopted, the region has made progress toward completing 

several major capital projects while also experiencing significant realignments in terms 

of the amount of service offered. New services have also been initiated, including those 

discussed above. In addition, the total amount of rail and demand response service offered 

by the region’s providers has grown significantly, as the total amount of fixed route 

bus service has shrunk.

Initial estimates for FY 2014-2015, show that the total amount of service offered may have 

reached pre-recessionary levels. These preliminary projections, compiled using unaudited 

data, reflect that the region may have exceeded 20 million annual service hours for the first 

time since the recession. These gains are mainly due to growth in rail service hours (up 63 

percent over ten years) and demand response growth (up 29 percent over ten years) which 

are mitigating a decrease in total fixed route bus hours (down 3 percent over ten years). 

These contrasting growth trends led to a decline in bus service’s share of overall service 

provision from 79 percent in May 2005 to 72.9 percent in May 2015.

Total consumption of transit service appears to be dropping in FY 2014-2015. Initial 

estimates are that the region’s total transit trips taken will be below 700 million for the 

first time since FY 2003-2004. This trend indicates a ten-year drop in consumption 

of 1.7 percent and a 7.9 percent decline in per capita trip making. See FIGURE 52,

FIGURE 53 and FIGURE 54.

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

02-03 04-05 06-07 08-09 10-11 12-13 14-15

Summed Monthly Revenue Hours

NTD Annual Reporting Revenue Hours

Figure 52 Revenue Hours Trends (in Millions)

Source: NTD 2012

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

Summed Monthly Unlinked Per Capita Trips

NTD Annual Reporting Per Capita Unlinked Trips

02-03 04-05 06-07 08-09 10-11 12-13 14-15

Figure 53 Per Capita Trips Trend

Source: NTD 2012

550

600

650

700

750

800

02-03 05-06 08-09 11-12 14-15

Summed Monthly Unlinked Trips

Annual NTD Reporting Total Unllinked Trips

Figure 54 Total Trips Trend (In Millions)

Source: NTD 2012
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 59

The respective boards of directors of Metro and OCTA have begun examining these 

declines in transit ridership. Both agencies cut service and increased fares during the 

recession, and both boards are working to identify strategies to build ridership back to 

pre-recessionary levels.

OCTA has identified a mix of short- and long-range strategies that they believe will address 

local ridership losses. The identified short-term strategies include limited-stop service on 

busy routes, including Bristol/State College and Bolsa/1st corridors; stop consolidations to 

improve vehicle speeds; youth pass price reductions; and a marketing study. Longer term 

strategies include additional Bravo! and reallocating service from lower productivity routes to 

higher ridership corridors.

In Los Angeles County, the Metro Board of Directors has instructed staff to prepare a plan 

to evaluate existing travel demand and identify new ridership opportunities, optimize the 

existing network, improve on time performance and develop marketing campaigns.
 60 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Additional transit needs may arise due to changes in land use. Many stakeholders believe 

that compact development and "transit oriented development" will lead to increased demand 

for public transportation. If so, this additional demand would represent residents who move 

close to contemporary fixed route services, meaning that any additional demand they 

embody would be addressed via adjustments of service levels along contemporarily existing 

routes. These needs would be have to be addressed via the service planning process. 

TRANSIT DEPENDENCY, POVERTY AND ACCESS TO JOBS

In addition, poverty is an ongoing challenge for the region. By 2040, 13.8 percent of the 

region’s households will be living in poverty. Given that 455,054 households currently 

have no vehicle access, this should be interpreted as a major challenge. By 2040, between 

669,8467 and 777,763 households are forecasted to not have access to a vehicle.

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND TRANSIT 

CHALLENGES

Our region is set to grow by 3.8 million new residents by 2040, and it will add 1.5 million new 

households. In addition, 2.4 million new jobs will be in place in 2040.

Many of the most dramatic changes to the region will revolve around the region’s age 

demographics, as the share of older residents grows. In 2040, residents over 65 will 

comprise 29.1 percent of the total population and will head 18.1 percent share of households. 

The very old, those over 85, will comprise 2.93 percent share of residents.Many of these 

residents will have expanding mobility assistance needs and may create a strain on the 

demand response network.

Table 25 Trends in Job Proximity by Metro Area

Source:2011 Brookings 

All Residents Poor Residents

Metro name 2000 2012 Change 2000 2012 Change

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 638,289 591,079 -7% 745,798 668,270 -10%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 42,739 46,806 10% 40,084 44,570 11%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 115,127 126,418 10% 113,844 119,134 5%

Table 26 Trends in Job Proximity in Suburbs by Metro Area

Source: 2011 Brookings 

All Residents Poor Residents

Metro Name 2000 2012 Change 2000 2012 Change

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 549,872 510,488 -7% 631,649 563,106 -11%

Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 32,343 36,068 12% 27,477 31,106 13%

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 99,440 111,065 12% 92,476 96,925 5%
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 61

COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANS

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) Section 3046, amended 49 U.S.C. Sections 5302, 5303, 5310, 5311, 5314, 

5316 and 5317 to require metropolitan regions or component parts of metropolitan regions to 

produce a Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan.

Congress intended the Coordinated Plan to begin communication between the transportation 

industry and human service providers about the special mobility needs of particular target 

populations, especially low income workers and the elderly and disabled community.

MAP-21 amended 49 U.S.C. sections 5310 and 5307 to consolidate human services 

transportation grants at FTA and to require that projects receiving FTA funds in the 5310 

Transportation for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities, some 5311 Formula Grants 

for Other than Urbanized Areas, 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants to be included 

from the local adopted coordinated plan. The FTA has recently provided guidance, via FTA 

Circular 9070.1G, states that:

“Projects may be identified as strategies, activities and/or specific projects addressing 

an identified service gap or transportation coordination objective articulated and 

prioritized within the plan.”27

In the SCAG region, a mix of County Transportation Commissions and Consolidated 

Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs) are responsible for producing Coordinated Plans. 

These agencies operate at the county level and since the passage of SAFETEA-LU have 

produced coordinated plans at that level.

IMPERIAL COUNTY

The 2014 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan Update 

addressed the following four objectives on behalf of Imperial County:

1. To ensure compliance with law by Imperial County, including FTA Circular 

9070.1G that requires the regular conduct of a Coordinated Plan.

2. To validate past or identify new unmet transportation needs and mobility 

gaps of the target groups: older persons, persons with disabilities and persons 

of low-income. Veterans are also included as their mobility needs may differ 

from the general public.

3. To engender dialogue between two service sector public transportation and 

human services for purposes of identifying coordinated projects to address unmet 

needs and mobility gaps. The populations of interest here overlap with those of 

many Imperial County human service agencies. And trip needs described are 

often those most difficult to make or cannot be made on public transportation. 

Lower income households tend to have less access to vehicles per capita and higher mobility 

needs as a result. However, in the wake of the housing market instability and recessions 

of the 2000s, poverty has expanded, quantitatively and geographically. Nationally, more 

people are in poverty than ever before and those people are more likely to live in suburbs 

than urban or rural environments.25

TABLE 25 provides an overview of the change in jobs available within that region’s median 

commute distance. LA-Long Beach Anaheim lost jobs in that period, while Riverside San 

Bernardino and Oxnard-Thousand-Oaks-Ventura both added jobs. TABLE 26 displays that 

same statistic for suburban residents.

The Los Angeles Equity Atlas Framework, a study conducted by the California Community 

Foundation and Reconnecting America, used GIS mapping to analyze forecast the equity 

impacts of the Measure R expenditure package. They found that roughly 90 percent of 

transit commuters in Los Angeles County had incomes under $50,000, and 70 percent 

had incomes below $25,000. They also found that 31 percent percent of households with 

incomes under $25,000 who live near frequent transit take it to work, versus 13 percent of 

workers in households earning between $25,000 and $50,000.

Moreover, a key finding of the study was that low and middle wage jobs are increasingly 

decentralized throughout the county, while higher wage jobs are increasingly centralized 

in locations that are easily served by frequent transit and often located near fixed 

guideway station stops.

Given that low income commuters are key part of any transit market, this trend indicates that 

future transit service in the region will have to find better ways to serve dispersed jobs and 

residences with frequent service. Increased frequent bus service along productive corridors 

can be a key strategy to serve those areas.26

COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANS/PROJECT LISTS

As discussed on page 53 of this appendix, county transportation planning and programming 

efforts are a key RTP implementation strategy in the short run. In the long run, however, 

they are also a key tool for building the RTP investment package. County plans and corridor 

planning efforts are a tool by which local support and consensus can be built around projects 

and strategies. They are also a key tool for estimating service levels in the future and for 

setting local priorities.

One of the key new capital projects in the plan, the Sepulveda Pass Corridor, was first funded 

by Measure R and included in Metro’s 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan. Further 

details can be found in the Project List Appendix.
 62 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

z Persons in households without vehicles are almost 3,400 households or 11percent 

of Imperial Counties 49,000 households. Exhibit ES-1 identifies these geographic 

pockets and areas of high need around the county. 28

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Currently, the most recently updated coordinated plan for Los Angeles County is Action 

Plan: A Locally Developed, Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan 

for Los Angeles County, adopted by Access Services Incorporated in 2007.

Metro is in the process of updating this plan and the 2016-2019 Coordinated Public TransitHuman Services Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County was adopted in July of 2015. 

The 2016-2019 Coordinated Plan is intended to follow Federal guidance to:

1. Identify the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and 

people of low-income;

2. Identify strategies for meeting those needs;

3. Prioritize transportation strategies for funding and implementation.29

See FIGURE 55.

Seeking solutions to these trip needs for Imperial County’s older adults, persons 

with disabilities and those of low income will require solutions that go beyond what 

public transportation can do alone, hence the need for this Coordinated Plan.

4. To establish a list of responsive and prioritized mobility projects and strategies, 

positioning Imperial County stakeholders to pursue grant and specialized 

transportation funding opportunities that support such strategies over the 

next four to five years.

This effort included analysis on the changes to and distribution of this Plan’s target 

populations throughout Imperial County. The County’s 2012 population of almost 173,500 

persons had grown considerably over the previous decade, a 22 percent increase from 

2000, adding an additional 142,000 persons. There were changes among groups within the 

overall population that will impact the mobility of individuals.

z Older adults in Imperial County are 10.6 percent of the population, at 18,360 

persons. The proportion of older adults is increasing at rates faster than for 

the general population and three times that of the national growth rate for 

persons age 65 and older.

z Persons of low income, specifically adults who are at 100% of the federal poverty 

levels, are 11 percent of the total population, or 19,000 adults and an additional 

3,100 adults age 65 and older. Persons living at 150 percent of the federal poverty 

level are sometimes a better measure of low income. These low-income persons 

total nearly 64,000, or 39 percent of the County’s 2012 population.

z Persons with disabilities are difficult to compare with year 2000 demographics 

because the U.S. Census changed its reporting on disabilities. Individuals are 

now asked to identify functional areas with which they have difficulty. Among 

adults ages 18 to 64, almost 2,300 or 5 percent of the County’s population report 

ambulation difficulties, while almost 2,000 adults aged 65 and older report 

ambulation difficulties. Combined, these 4,300 persons are just under 10 percent 

of the County’s overall population and reporting varying mobility problems.

z U.S. military veterans number 6,631 persons. Vietnam-era veterans are the 

largest group, now beginning to age and some having increasing healthrelated difficulties. Working-age veterans in Imperial County have an 

unemployment rate of almost 15 percent, more than double the national veteran 

unemployment rate of 7 percent.

z LEP populations, or limited English proficiency are 49,398 individuals, or 31 

percent of the County’s total population, predominately Spanish speakers who 

speak English less than very well, according to the 2012 American Community 

Survey. This third of the population are residents only and do not include those 

who travel daily into Imperial County from Mexico and may also be of limited 

English proficiency.

Los Angeles County Population-9.9 million

29% at 150% of Federal Poverty Level (2.9 million low income residents)

Children 0-17

24% of Population

3% of Children 5-15 have a Disability

Older Adults 65%

11% of Population

37% of Older Adults have a Disability

Adults 18-64

65% of Population

7% of Adults have a Disability

25% of Children at 

Federal Poverty

Level-590,000

15.7% of Adults at 

Federal Poverty

Level-1 million

12.6% of Seniors at 

Federal Poverty

Level-140,000

American Community Survey 2009-2013 5-Year Estimates

Persons with 

Disabilities

9% of total 

population

LEP Population 

26% of Residents 

speak English 

less than very 

well-2.5 million

Veterans3.4% of 

Residents332,000

Figure 55 Los Angeles County Special Needs Populations

Source: 2016-2019 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County Draft Executive 

Summary
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 63

ORANGE COUNTY

The Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Orange County, or 

the Coordinated Plan, is mandated by FTA and brings together human service organizations 

and public transit agencies to identify and meet mobility needs of older adults, persons 

with disabilities and persons of low income. Building upon a history of coordination 

requirements within its Section 5310 program, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals 

with Disabilities, the Coordinated Plan aims to 1) identify the transportation needs of 

individuals with disabilities, seniors, veterans and people with low income; 2) provide 

strategies for meeting those needs; and 3) prioritize transportation services and projects for 

funding and implementation.

The Plan’s development process helps to identify, leverage and extend scarce transportation 

resources by coordinating often separate “siloed” service systems around the mobility 

needs of the target populations. In 2012, new transportation authorizing legislation, MAP21, included changes that impacted the Coordinated Plan. MAP-21 repealed both the Job 

Access and Reverse Commute and New Freedom programs, both of which had been tied to 

the Coordinated Plan. MAP-21 retained and strengthened the 5310 program, restating the 

requirement of the Coordinated Plan and providing funding support for the strategies and 

projects identified in and recommended through the Coordinated Plan process. Chapter 1 

includes additional information about the FTA Section 5310 program.

2015 Plan Purposes:

This 2015 Coordinated Plan will address the following three objectives:

1. Ensure compliance with law by Orange County, including FTA Circular 9070.1G 

that requires the regular conduct of a Coordinated Plan;

2. Validate past or identify new unmet transportation needs and mobility gaps of 

the target groups; Engender dialogue between two service sectors—the public 

transit provider and the human service agencies—for purposes of identifying 

and supporting coordinated projects by which unmet needs and mobility gaps 

can be addressed; and

3. Establish a list of responsive and prioritized strategies and projects by which to 

meet unmet needs and mobility gaps, positioning Orange County stakeholders 

to pursue grant and specialized transportation funding opportunities that support 

these efforts during the next four years.

See FIGURE 56.

Older adults make up 11.5 percent. The senior population is projected to increase further to 

14.9 percent of the population by 2020 and to 19.6 percent by 2030, reflecting the impact of 

the aging baby boomers.

Persons of low income, specifically adults who are at 100 percent of the federal poverty level 

are nearly 7 percent of the total population, or 205,331 adults. There are an additional 27,981 

older adults living at the federal poverty level. Persons with incomes at 150 percent of the 

federal poverty level are another measure of low income. These total over 600,000 persons 

or 21 percent of the county’s total population.

Persons with disabilities are difficult to compare with year 2000 demographics because the 

U.S. Census changed the way that it invites reporting on disabilities. Individuals now identify 

the functional areas with which they have difficulties. Among adults ages 18–64,101,722, 

or 3.4 percent of Orange County’s population, report one or more disability characteristics. 

Another 110,098 adults aged 65 and older report one or more disability.

Combined, these 211,820 persons total 7 percent of the county’s overall population.

Total Population 3,021,840

21% at 150% of Federal Poverty Level (631,625 low-income residents)

Persons with Disabilities

3.4% of Adults

3.6% of Older Adults

Older Adults 65+

11.5% of Population

Adults 18-64

63% of Population

6.9% at Federal 

Poverty Level

0.9% at Federal 

Poverty Level

LEP Population 

19% speak English 

less than very well

Veterans4.5% of 

Population

Figure 56 Orange County Special Needs Populations

Source: Source: 2016-2019 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County Draft 

Executive Summary
 64 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

The 2012 Update to the Public Transit—Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan 

for Riverside County augmented the 2008 Public Transit-Human Services Transportation 

Coordination Plan for Riverside County. These Coordinated Plans are intended to promote 

mobility by identifying needs and transportation service gaps of three targeted populations:

1. Older persons

2. Persons with disabilities

3. Persons of limited means.

The Riverside County Coordinated Plans do not provide for funding, but help to guide funding 

decisions, specifically those related to FTA 5307-Urbanized Area Formula Grant and the 

5310 Capital Program for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities, in addition to local Measure 

A Specialized Transportation Program. Projects funded from these programs must be 

“derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation 

plan.” This plan can also help support and provide rationale for additional funding requests, 

both by public transit providers and by its human services partners.

The 2012 Update found that Riverside County has grown by almost 40 percent in the past 

decade, adding another 600,000 new residents. The 2010 Census identified Riverside 

County as among the two fastest growing counties in the State of California, growing from 

1.5 million persons to 2.1 million residents. Within this growth, there have been important 

changes among the target group populations:

z Low-income adults, ages 18 to 64, are a fast growing sub-group, increasing by 

46percent over the past decade and adding 52,000 individuals.

z Adults with disabilities, ages 18 to 64, represent 8.5 percent of the adult 

population or 110,000 persons.

z Older adults, ages 65 and up, are now 11.7 percent of the County’s total 

population, or 253,000 persons.

z Oldest adults, ages 85 and older are the fastest growing sub-group, increasing to 

1.4 percent of the County’s total population, over 30,000 individuals.30

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

The county transportation commission is required to consider the longer-term transportation 

needs of its region. The San Bernardino County Long Range Transit Plan proposes strategies 

for a twenty-five year planning horizon, addressing the challenges, planning needs and 

projected future conditions as they can be best understood at the time of writing.

Addressing the issue of growth, the report states:

Population growth has pushed urbanized areas outward into the Victor Valley and the 

Morongo Basin. As urban expansion occurs further into the county, the sheer size of the 

county and low density development heavily restricts the role of transit in providing mobility 

to many of its citizens. As the population of the county ages and minority populations 

continue to grow, shifting demographics will continue to influence travel behavior and 

transit’s ability to serve regional needs. (ES-1) The plan anticipates continuing “explosive” 

growth that manifests in increases in populations, in the numbers of households, in the 

numbers of trips and, importantly, transit-related increases of 53% more travel trips by 

2035. Planning for such increases is the intent of the Long Range Transit Plan. With a 

focus primarily on the San Bernardino Valley and the Victor Valley, many of the plan’s 

recommendations promote “premium transit” including rapid buses and rail services. These 

mass transit modes are promoted because they may attract those currently driving in private 

autos onto public transportation.

Faster transit and regionally-oriented mass transit, which characterizes much of the 

premium transit discussed in SANBAG’s Long Range Transit Plan, will benefit seniors, 

persons of low-income and those with disabilities where it promotes greater accessibility to 

regional destinations they may use.

VENTURA COUNTY

Updated every four years, the Ventura County Public Transit-Human Services Transportation 

Coordination Plan identifies the needs and transportation service gaps of three targeted 

populations (older persons, persons with disabilities and persons of limited means). It does 

not provide funding but serves as a guide for funding decisions. Ventura County projects 

funded from such programs as Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom and 

Capital Program for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities must be derived from this plan.

The two principal recommendations from the previous plan included the implementation of 

a standard eligibility policy for older adults for publicly-operated paratransit systems and 

the implementation of a coordinated approach to automated dispatching and trip scheduling 

for public paratransit systems. The current plan accounts for changes in population and 

demographics (which found an increase among all three target populations), assesses the 

various modes of transit available to the public and inventories the eleven projects that VCTC 

has awarded through JARC and New Freedom projects.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

I TRANSIT 65

An analysis of the input garnered from various stakeholders identified four themes as they 

relate to the transportation needs of target population groups: z Regional and inter-city travel. Coordinating smooth connections between cities 

and speed of travel between jurisdiction via public transit

z Transit capacity building. Maintaining existing transit services and 

expanding where possible

z Individualized transit information and assistance. Customizing the provision of 

information and assistance to facilitate access to specialized transportation

Coordination of leadership and administration. Coordination outcomes that are well reported 

within the county and to constituents’ agency representatives Based on these themes, the 

Coordination Plan presents a framework for prioritizing service solutions, with each theme 

having a corresponding goal and implementing objectives. Finally, the plan recommends 

administrative actions for VCTC and agencies working with target populations to support the 

newly-established goals for mobility improvement.31
 66 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

THE 2016 RTP/SCS CONSTRAINED PLAN

The 2016 RTP/SCS fiscally constrained plan is the culmination of work with a diverse 

group of stakeholders including county transportation commissions, transit agencies, local 

government, advocacy groups and the general public. Many of the projects contained are 

derived from local corridor planning efforts or local long range plans, reflecting SCAG’s 

50-year commitment to local control in planning efforts and constitute a combined regional 

vision for public transportation as it will exist in 2040.

PROJECTS AND INVESTMENTS

The 2016 RTP/SCS includes significant investment in public transit across all transit modes. 

It includes a $56.1 billion dollar investment in transit capital, and a $156.7 billion investment 

in transit operations and maintenance. Transit represented 64 percent of total operations 

and maintenance in the 2016 RTP/SCS and 20 percent of capital investments. As 

discussed in the Passenger Rail Appendix, passenger rail, including Phase I of the California 

High-Speed Rail program, accounts for another $38.6 of the total capital investment 

in the 2016 RTP/SCS.

This investment package includes a selection of major capital investments as described 

in TABLE 28 which displays selected capital projects. These investments include new 

rail transit facilities, vehicle replacements, bus system improvements and capitalized 

maintenance projects.

Similarly, TABLE 27 describes all Transit Operations and Maintenance investments over 

$500 Million in the constrained plan. This list includes bus, rail and paratransit operations, 

the implementation of OCTA’s Short Range Transit Plan, Metrolink Operations, expanded 

bus service on targeted productive corridors, preventative maintenance and an increased 

commitment on asset preservation funded from innovative revenue sources.

EXHIBITS 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 AND 17 depict each county’s local transit network as the Plan 

envisions it in 2040.

Table 27 Major Transit Operations and Maintenance Projects And Investments (Over $500 Million)

County Project

Los Angeles Access Services Incorporated (Paratransit)–Metro subsidy

Los Angeles Preventive Maintenance (Capital & Operating Maintenance Items Only) - LA County

Orange Countywide Fixed Route, Express, and Paratransit Operations–Orange County

Orange OCTA SRTP Implementation

Orange Metrolink Operations–Orange County

Orange Transit Extensions to Metrolink–Go Local Operations–Orange County

San Bernardino San Bernardino Countywide Local Transit Service Operations

Regionwide Regionwide Transit Operations and Maintenance–Preservation

Regionwide Expand Bus Service: Productive Corridors

Regionwide Expand Bus Service: BRT

Regionwide Expand Bus Service: Point-to-Point

Source: 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 67

Table 28 Selected Transit Capital Projects

 County Project

Los Angeles Airport Metro Connector

Los Angeles Crenshaw LAX Transit Corridor

Los Angeles East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor

Los Angeles Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2

Los Angeles Exposition Transit Corridor, Phase 2 to Santa Monica

Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A

Los Angeles Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension: Azusa to County Line

Los Angeles Purple Line Extension to La Cienega, Century City, Westwood

Los Angeles Regional Connector

Los Angeles Sepulveda Pass Corridor

Los Angeles South Bay Metro Green Line Extension

Los Angeles West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor

Los Angeles Bus & Rail Capital—LA County Near Term

Los Angeles Countywide Bus System Improvement–Metro Fleet

Los Angeles Countywide Bus System Improvement—LA County Muni Fleet

Los Angeles Metro Rail System Improvements (Capital Costs Only)

Los Angeles Metro Rail Rehabilitation and Replacement (Capital Costs Only)

Los Angeles Transit contingency/new rail yards/additional rail cars (Capital costs only)–LA County

Los Angeles Vermont Short Corridor

Los Angeles Metro Red Line Extension: Metro Red Line Station North Hollywood to Burbank Bob Hope Airport

Los Angeles Metro Green Line Extension: Metro Green Line Norwalk Station to Norwalk Metrolink Station

Los Angeles Slauson Light Rail: Crenshaw Corridor to Metro Blue Line Slauson Station

Orange Anaheim Rapid Connection

Orange Countywide Fixed Route, Express, and Paratransit capital (Baseline)–Orange County

Orange Santa Ana and Garden Grove Streetcar

Riverside Coachella Valley Bus Rapid Service

Riverside Perris Valley Line

Riverside Perris Valley Line Extension to San Jacinto

San Bernardino Foothill/5th Bus Rapid Transit

San Bernardino Gold Line Phase 2B to Montclair

San Bernardino Metrolink San Bernardino Line Double tracking

San Bernardino Passenger Rail Service from San Bernardino to Ontario Airport

San Bernardino Redlands Rail

San Bernardino West Valley Connector Bus Rapid Transit

Source:2016-2040 RTP/SCS Project List 
MEXICO

ARIZONA

86

78

111

86

115

111

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

8

Brawley

Calexico

Calipatria

El Centro

Holtville Imperial

Westmorland

Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Exhibit 12 2040 Transit Network Imperial County
Kern

405

15

215

5

15

10

210

10

210

405

5

605

710

110

105

5

5

15

57

91

60

22

14

60

118

126

170

138

71

74

30

206

138

18

55

91

91

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

Orange County

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

101

395

101

395

Metrolink (2040) Urban Rail (2040)

Urban Rail Alternatives (2040)

Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (2040) Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3.5 7 1.75

Miles

Exhibit 13 2040 Transit Network Los Angeles County
San Diego

241

57

91

73

22

71

74

55

91

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

405

15

215

5

710

5

5

Aliso Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena Park

Costa Mesa

Cypress

Fountain Valley

Fullerton

Garden Grove

Huntington Beach Irvine

La Habra

La Palma

Laguna

Beach

Laguna

Hills

Laguna Niguel

Laguna Woods

Lake Forest

Los

Alamitos

Newport Beach Mission Viejo

Orange

Placentia

San Clemente

San Juan Capistrano

Santa Ana

Seal Beach

Stanton

Tustin

Villa

Park

Westminster

Yorba Linda

Dana Point

Metrolink (2040) Urban Rail (2040) Rapid Bus (2040) Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Exhibit 14 2040 Transit Network Orange County
San Diego

241

91

60

73

71

74

79

30

1

62

206

Riverside

County

15

15

215

10

10

210

5

10

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Indio

Indian Wells

Tem ecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Rancho Mirage

Corona

Coachella

Jurupa Valley

Cathedral

City

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Palm

Desert

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

La Quinta

Palm Springs

Commuter Rail (2040) Rapid Bus (2040) Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

10

Exhibit 15 2040 Transit Network Riverside County
57

91

60 

138

71

58

30

18

91

62

206

395

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

15

215

10

10

210

15

40

15

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Grand

Terrace

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho Cucam onga

Redlands

Rialto

San Bernardino

Twentynine Palms

Upland

Victorville

Yucaipa

Yucca Valley

Commuter Rail (2040) Rapid Bus (2040) Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Exhibit 16 2040 Transit Network San Bernardino County
118

126

23

126

33

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

101

101

101

Camarillo

Fillmore

Moorpark

Ojai

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Port

Hueneme

Oxnard

Santa

Paula

San Buenaventura

Metrolink (2040) Bus Routes (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

° 0 1.5 3 0.75

Miles

Exhibit 17 2040 Transit Network Ventura County Map
 74 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

RECOMMENDED OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES

Aside from capital projects, there are many improvements that can be made in transit 

accessibility and operations. The 2016 RTP/SCS recommends transit initiatives including: 

z Implement and Expand Transit Priority Systems:. Transit priority strategies include 

transit signal priority, queue jumpers and bus lanes. Signal priority is a highly 

effective treatment that speeds up bus service and attracts new transit riders. 

The Metro Rapid program in L.A. County has increased speeds by more than 20 

percent, compared with the local service on the same street. It also has brought 

new riders to its system. Bus lanes are even more effective at increasing speeds, 

however in our region there is a dearth of such lanes. Transit agencies should 

heavily lobby local jurisdictions in which they operate to implement them, at least 

for peak-period operation.

z Implement Regional and Inter-County Fare Agreements and Media. Implementing 

additional inter-jurisdictional fare agreements and media, such as L.A. County’s 

EZ Pass, will make transit more attractive and accessible. A pass that would cover 

all transit services in L.A. and Orange counties, or the whole SCAG region, is an 

example. The Pacific Surfliner also has fare agreements with some local transit 

operators along its corridor where an Amtrak ticket is good for a connecting transit 

fare. This could be expanded to all operators along its corridor.

z Implement new BRT and limited-stop bus service: BRT service provides frequent, 

high quality bus service and is characterized by features such as dedicated 

lanes, traffic signal priority, limited stops, pre-boarding fare payment, and unique 

branding. BRT is a good 20 percent faster than traditional local bus service. It 

is viewed as a premium service, and has proven to attract new riders to transit. 

BRT implementation does require some capital investment, but it is scalable so 

that transit agencies can implement a range of elements to improve bus service 

depending upon the resources available. In an environment of scarce funding, 

offering limited-stop service is also an excellent alternative to BRT because it 

simply involves strategically reducing the number of stops a bus would serve 

along a given route. Limited-stop service has been shown to be about 15 percent 

faster than traditional local service.

STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PRODUCTIVE BUS CORRIDORS

As discussed above on page 53, staff surveyed agencies and County Transportation 

Commissions on their short- and long-range plans for bus corridors. Current High Quality 

Transit Corriors (HQTC) were identified through consultation with transit providers in our 

region using 2014 schedules. In addition, SCAG staff asked transit operators to identify future 

corridors that they expect to improve to 15-minute or better headways in the future.

In addition, the 2016 RTP/SCS includes enhanced, BRT and express services for the 2040 

network. BRT includes BRT Light or rapid bus. These services are based on CTC submittal 

and short- and long-range planning documents.

The 2016 RTP/SCS includes additional corridors identified for improved, premium transit 

services, including implementing higher frequencies, point-to-point express services, 

and BRT and BRT “Light” service. These services are drawn from county transportation 

commission and transit operator planning efforts such as Metro’s “Strategic Bus Network 

Plan” and OCTA’s 2014 Long Range Plan, but they reflect additional investments above 

and beyond adopted countywide transportation plans and are assumed to be funded with 

innovative sources identified in the RTP financial plan strategy. The Metro Strategic Bus 

Network Plan closely mirrors the City of Los Angeles’ Transit Enhanced Network identified 

in its draft Mobility Plan 2035. These new services also coincide with active transportation, 

complete streets and livable corridors efforts. See EXHIBIT 18.
San Diego

91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

(Source: SCAG, 2015)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Fixed Guideway Gap Closures

Enhanced Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit

Enhanced Express Bus

Enhanced Local Bus

Metrolink (2012)

Metrolink (2040)

Urban Rail (2012)

Urban Rail (2040)

Urban Rail Alternatives

Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (2012)

Rapid Bus and Bus Rapid Transit (2040)

Bus Routes (Existing and Planned)

Exhibit 18 Productive Bus Corridors, Express and Bus Rapid Transit 

Corridors, Fixed Guideway Gap Closures Map
 76 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

RECOMMENDED ACCESSIBILITY STRATEGIES

z Increasing bicycle carrying capacity on bus and rail vehicles: Bicycling is 

becoming more popular, and our transit system can do more to accommodate 

bicyclists. Many buses have bike racks with capacity for only two bikes. 

Meanwhile, Metro and Metrolink are now allowing more bicycles on their railcars 

and providing bicycle lockers at rail and fixed guideway bus stations. Allowing 

more bikes on transit vehicles, to a reasonable point, will increase transit ridership.

z Expanding and improving real-time passenger information systems: Most 

medium- to large-size transit agencies now offer up-to-the-minute updates on 

arrival and departure times. This allows passengers to make more informed travel 

decisions and improve the overall travel experience.

z Implementing first/last mile strategies to extend the effective reach of transit:

This is an area of study with recent focus. Making transit more accessible for 

biking or walking that first mile to a transit station, or from a transit station, or both, 

will encourage more transit usage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More 

than 90 percent of Metrolink riders drive to their origin station, representing a 

significant potential for providing alternatives. As mentioned before, several cities 

in Orange County are planning streetcar services to connect Metrolink riders to 

their final destinations. 

z Implementing Local Circulators. Many cities in the region already have networks 

of local community circulators and fixed-route systems. Implementing more 

of these services would provide alternatives for residents of increasingly 

compact communities.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 77

As is discussed in the Active Transportation Appendix, the 2016 RTP/SCS calls for increased 

development near transit stations as well as improved access to and from transit. Walking 

and biking are the simplest methods for reaching transit stations in most situations. The Plan 

calls for $2.2 billion in improving bicyclist and pedestrian accessibility to rail transit and 

along busy transit corridors, improving sidewalks, wayfinding signage and bikeways. 

AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS — THE CONSTRAINED PLAN

The Availability Analysis on page 46, discusses how effective the existing transit system 

is in serving jobs, households and residents across the region. TABLE 31 demonstrates 

how effective the 2040 transit network is in serving those same classes. EXHIBIT 19

demonstrates the extent of the region having access to transit routes offering 15-minute or 

more frequent service in peak periods. See TABLE 32.

PLAN PERFORMANCE

SERVICE CONSUMED

The Plan's performance as a whole, including mobility, air quality, greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions, land consumption, accessibility, public health and economics, cannot 

be separated from its investments in public transportation. A holistic analysis of the Plan's 

performance, incorporating those measures of performance, is presented in Chapter 8 of 

the main document. An analysis of the Plan's performance specific to public transportation 

investments is presented here. 

On a per capita level, transit ridership is projected to grow. The region will see 3.8 million 

residents, 2.4 million new jobs and 1.5 million more households by 2040. Between 2012 

and 2040, per capita Metro Rail boardings are projected to grow by 124 percent and per 

capita Metrolink boardings are projected to grow by 47percent. Bus boardings are projected 

to grow by 60 percent, meaning that the overall per capita transit ridership are projected 

to grow by 67 percent.

Table 29 2040 Forecast Unlinked Passenger Trips

Source: National Transit Database (NTD) for past years and SCAG model estimates for 2040 based on Draft 2016 RTP/SCS

Total Trips 2001 2005 2008 2012 2040 Plan*

Metro Rail 61,802,000 74,243,000 86,707,000 101,516,533 275,411,594 

Commuter Rail 7,398,000 10,693,000 12,681,000 13,155,790 23,368,844 

Bus 548,728,000 609,795,000 622,286,000 587,830,836 1,141,705,164 

Total 617,928,000 694,731,000 721,674,000 702,503,159 1,440,485,602 

Table 30 2040 Per Capita Trips

Source: National Transit Database (NTD) for past years and SCAG model estimates for 2040 based on Draft 2016 RTP/SCS

Per Capita Trips 2001 2005 2008 2012 2040 Plan*

Metro Rail 3.67 4.41 5.156 5.56 12.4

Commuter Rail 0.44 0.64 0.75 0.72 1.1

Bus 32.61 36.24 36.98 32.21 51.6

Total 36.73 41.29 42.89 38.95 65.1 
 78 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

EXHIBIT 22 demonstrates the extent to which TAZs where 15 percent or more of households 

have no vehicle have access to transit services with frequencies between 16 to 30 minutes 

in peak periods. Compared with 2012, access grows from 881,209 to 1,335,343, an 

increase of 51.5 percent

EXHIBIT 23 demonstrates the extent to which TAZs where 15 percent or more of households 

have no vehicle have access to transit services frequencies between 31 to 60 minutes 

in peak periods. Compared with 2012, access grows from 960,638 to 1,527,654, an 

increase of 59 percent.

EXHIBIT 20 demonstrates the extent to which TAZs with 15 percent or more of households 

have annual incomes below $15,000 have access to frequent transit.

EXHIBIT 21 demonstrates the extent to which TAZs where 15 percent or more of households 

have no vehicle have access to frequent transit. Compared with 2012, access grows from 

401,543 to 571,901, an increase of 42.4 percent.

Table 31 2040 Plan Availability Analysis

Source: SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast

Heavy and Light 

Rail

Rapid Bus and 

Bus Rapid 

Transit

Express Bus

Local Buses 

with Less Than 

15 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses with 

16 To 30 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses 

with 31 To 60 

Headways

Local Buses 

with Greater 

Than 60 Minute 

Headways

Total Jobs with Access 561,439 1,637,340 1,540,270 2,166,997 4,492,118 5,542,140 4,436,380 

Total Household with Access 202,164 853,098 645,948 1,354,308 2,854,921 3,714,099 2,812,129 

Total Population with Access 500,716 2,257,696 1,620,567 3,781,883 8,225,999 10,871,899 8,196,868 

Residents of TAZs with 15% of Households 

Having No Vehicles Access 52,299 218,630 190,368 571,901 1,335,343 1,527,654 1,070,772 

Table 32 2040 Baseline Availability Analysis

Heavy and Light 

Rail

Rapid Bus and 

Bus Rapid 

Transit

Express Bus

Local Buses 

with Less Than 

15 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses with 

16 To 30 Minute 

Headways

Local Buses 

with 31 To 60 

Headways

Local Buses 

with Greater 

Than 60 Minute 

Headways

Total Jobs with Access 766,361 2,189,246 3,107,238 1,659,671 4,482,748 5,769,101 4,428,013 

Total Household with Access 327,408 1,236,674 1,589,244 949,189 2,768,299 3,759,583 2,699,856 

Total Population with Access 906,621 3,364,852 4,443,639 2,710,124 8,168,751 11,168,507 8,016,617 

Tazs with 15% of Households Having No 

Vehicles Access 85,555 244,136 210,480 620,122 1,351,077 1,502,339 1,080,429 

 Source: SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast
Kern

Camarillo

Moorpark

Ojai

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

D iam ond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Irwindale

La

Mirada

Los Angeles Monrovia

M ont erey

Park

N orw alk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long

Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Lom a

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Berna rd ino

Upland

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Fountain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

H untingto n

Bea ch

Irvine

La

H abra

Laguna

Niguel

Lak e

Fo re st

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda

Dana

Point

91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2040) 15 Minutes Transit Network Access By TAZ (2040)

(Source: SCAG)

8

0

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 19 2040 15 Minute Access by TAZ
San Diego

91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

405

105

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2040) Median Income

$149,072 and More

$81,014 - $149,071

$48,459 - $81,013

$18,965 - $48,458

$18,964 and Less

(Source: SCAG)

8

0

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 20 2040 15 Minute Network Access by Low Income Households

(TAZes Where 15% or More of Households Have Household Income Below 

$15,000)
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alha m bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew oo d

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

15 Minutes Transit Network Access (2040) 2040 Zero Vehicle Households by TAZ (15% or More)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 21 2040 15 Minute Access by Zero Vehicle Households

(TAZes Where 15% or More of Households Have No Vehicle)
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alha m bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew oo d

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

16 to 30 Minutes Transit Network Access (2040) 2040 Zero Vehicle Households by TAZ (15% or More)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 22 2040 16 to 30 Minute Access by Zero Vehicle Households

(TAZes Where 15% or More of Households Have No Vehicle)
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alha m bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew oo d

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Temecula

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valley

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

Newport

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

14

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

31 to 60 Minutes Transit Network Access (2040) 2040 Zero Vehicle Households by TAZ (15% or More)

(Source: SCAG)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 23 2040 31 to 60 Minute Access by Zero Vehicle Households

(TAZes Where 15% or More of Households Have No Vehicle)
 84 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

NEXT STEPS: EMERGING ISSUES

The implementation program for the 2016 RTP/SCS transit element encompasses 

environmental review, capital construction and new operational strategies. However, it also 

examines the issues that arose as a result of the outreach and technical work performed as 

part of the RTP/SCS update. Below is a discussion of those issues, which will continue to be 

a focus of SCAG’s transit planning efforts over the next four years.

TRANSIT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

This section discusses emerging technologies specific to public transportation. A more 

robust discussion of innovative mobility practices can be found in the Technologies and New 

Shared Mobility technical appendix.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (ITS) FOR TRANSIT

The FTA defines Intelligent Transportation Systems as techniques and methods for relieving 

congestion, improving road and transit safety, and increasing economic productivity. During 

the last few decades, there have been rapid advances in information and communications 

technology. Many transit agencies have employed a number of these different technologies 

in order to supplement or enhance the transportation services they offer to the public. ITS 

encompasses a variety of different technology-based systems. The FTA is currently dividing 

ITS applications into two broad categories:

Intelligent Infrastructure Systems

z Intelligent infrastructure systems

z Arterial Management

z Freeway Management

z Transit Management

z Incident Management

z Emergency Management

z Electronic Payment & Pricing

z Traveler Information

z Information Management

z Crash Prevention & Safety

z Roadway Operations & Maintenance

z Road Weather Management

z Commercial Vehicle Operations

z Intermodal Freight

Intelligent Vehicle Systems

z Collision Avoidance Systems

z Driver Assistance Systems

z Collision Notification Systems

Recently, it has become very common to refer to these strategies by the terms "connected 

vehicles" and "connected infrastructure".

ITS AT SCAG

As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six county area 

encompassing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura 

Counties, SCAG maintains the Southern California Regional ITS Architecture to address 

multicounty ITS deployments, per 23 CFR Section 940.5 and 23 CFR Section 940.9. In 

addition, the respective counties each maintain their own county-wide ITS architectures.

ITS projects, or projects with ITS elements, must be consistent with the Southern California 

Regional ITS Architecture in order to be eligible for federal funding. This architecture allows 

ITS systems to communicate with each other by mapping data transmissions and ensuring 

that data will be shared in consistent formats.

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION AND MODE CHOICE

In the summer of 2014, SCAG performed a review of existing literature on how new mobility 

technologies would impact travel behavior, particularly with regard to mode choice and 

vehicle miles traveled. This included a review of existing transit ITS applications and 

an overview of less established mobility technologies, including smart phone dispatch, 

open data standards and flexible routing. Findings of the effort revealed that these new 

technologies may not have pronounced impacts on travel behavior, though they may 

be very useful in terms of dispatching and operations control, cost containment, or as 

passenger amenities.

ON BOARD TRANSIT ITS APPLICATIONS

Computer Aided Dispatch Automatic Vehicle Location (CAD/AVL) is the package of ITS 

Applications that has the most potential to affect how transit agencies monitor and control 

their operations. AVL consists of a GPS unit that tracks vehicles, integrating their locations 

with GIS systems for display and analysis purposes. This auto-location technology is the 

data that is used for almost all location based transit ITS applications. The CAD portion of 

systems provide data of special interest to the dispatcher, including run assignments and 

communications and can be a key tool for implementing recovery strategies or in emergency 

response situations. These systems can also aid in implementing timed transfers. Some 

more advanced CAD/AVL systems allow for the monitoring of boardings, alightings and fare 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 85

collection in real time. Other agencies rely on an Automated Passenger Counter System as 

part of their farebox systems.

Two Transit ITS applications that have been developed in the last twenty years often employ 

CAD/AVL location data to project the arrival of individual transit vehicles at particular 

locations on their routes. These are Transit Signal Priority (TSP) technologies and Real Time 

Passenger Information (RTPI) systems.

TSP technologies react to the location of individual transit vehicles and, based on detection 

or communications technologies, employ an algorithm to predict the time of arrival of 

the vehicle at a particular intersection and send a message to the traffic control device 

at that intersection. The traffic control device would then adjust its phasing to reduce the 

oncoming transit vehicle’s exposure to a red phase. Eric Bruun, in the book “Better Public 

Transit Systems,” estimated that TSP could reduce transit vehicle travel times by 10 

percent to 25 percent.33

Metro and LADOT inaugurated a TSP system in the spring of 2001. This system was 

designed by LADOT staff and features a vehicle based transponder system that triggers 

a receiver in the traffic loop, sending a message to ATSAC, wherein the data is fed into a 

predictive algorithm and an intersection arrival prediction is sent to the intersection’s traffic 

control device. In combination with local detection by that intersection’s traffic loops, the 

system can reduce red phase exposure for the oncoming vehicle. This system has primarily 

been installed on Metro Rapid vehicles and routes.

Recently, Metro has begun switching to a GPS based system, which reduces the need to 

improve intersection detection loops and therefore the capital costs of installing the system. 

Nationally, GPS-based TPS systems appear to be gaining market share much faster than 

Loops and Transponders systems, for that reason. These systems usually function via 

communications from the Traffic Control Center to the intersection traffic control device.

Metro also introduced an on-street RTPI system, based on the arrival predictions generated 

through its TPS system. This information was pushed to a website hosted by LADOT and 

to changeable message signs as station stops. Metro found the O&M costs of these signs to 

be particularly high.

The Joint Committee on National Transportation Communications for Intelligent 

Transportation Systems Protocols, a joint project of AASHTO, ITE and the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association effort funded by the US DOT Joint Program on ITS, is developing 

a data protocol to define data elements for information management and operations of signal 

control and prioritization (SCP). This standard will organize functional user requirements and 

facilitate the installation of TSP across jurisdictional lines.

As displayed in TABLE 33, the brief literature review conducted seems to suggest that Real 

Time Passenger Information Systems have minimal observed impact on travel behavior. 

TPS systems affect transit vehicle speeds, which are not captured in the model. There is 

no reason to think that other Transit ITS applications will have a statistically significant 

impact on travel behavior.

At this point, it appears that there is no technically justifiable reason to make assumptions 

about the role of Transit ITS Applications in our modelling processes. Currently, the transit 

model includes a rapid bus mode to address the passenger benefits of the Metro Rapid 

service brand, including TPS. No further action is warranted.

There is already significant investment in these technologies in the region, though it is often 

difficult to capture the extent of it, as ITS applications or hardware are often bundled in with 

vehicle procurements or other capital expenditures. The 2015 FTIP has a total of $13.2 

million in transit projects with ITS program codes over the course of six years, though this 

does not reflect projects where the sponsor did not include a program code.

OPEN TRANSIT DATA

There is a growing trend toward transit agencies sharing the data feeds produced by their 

ITS and run cutting systems. Portland Trimet and Google Incorporated pioneered the notion 

that transit agencies should share schedule information with third parties via a common 

data format, the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), allowing third parties to supply 

trip planning applications to the general public. The GTFS format is a collection of comma 

separated value (.csv) files containing schedule data that can be pushed to a trip planning 

application or used to power a predictive arrival algortithm. As of 2011, GTFS can also 

package vehicle location, schedule adherence and incident management data.

The American Public Transportation Authority (APTA) is also at work on a standard for 

transit data transmission, the APTA Transit Communications Interface Protocol . This work is 

sponsored by the US DOT ITS Joint Program Office, and will include a concept of operations, 

model architecture, dialog definitions and a modular approach to conformance. This 

standard will address scheduling, passenger information, TSP, control center operations, on 

board systems, spatial referencing and possibly fare collection.

Open data practices are growing rapidly among the largest transit systems. Wong, Reed, 

Watkins and Hammond argued that in 2010, about 85 percent of transit passenger miles 

were on systems with open data, and 49 of the 50 largest providers of passenger miles are 

supplying open data feeds. Traditionally, hesitance to provide open data feeds has revolved 

around issue of legal exposure, brand protection, advertising revenue and loss of control of 

transit information dissemination, but these concerns appear to be waning.
 86 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

As part of the technological innovation and mode choice work effort described on page 83, a 

review of the literature surrounding transit data sharing and mode choice was conducted. At 

this point there is very little empirical evidence for the role of transit data in increasing transit 

ridership. A University of Washington stated preference study found that riders reported 

making 10-15 percent more trips, but RTPI systems have proven difficult to assess via stated 

preference methods. Roger Teal of DemanTrans Solutions, in a 2013 presentation to the Lake 

Arrowhead Symposium, stated that there is “no evidence yet that real-time data leads to 

major increases in ridership, or ‘market penetration.’”

An enormous variety of third party applications use open transit feeds to push schedule 

data to passengers’ computers or mobile phones. Map applications have been especially 

popular; Google maps have been the most expansive and successful, but Bing maps and 

Mapquest also incorporate some transit schedule data. OpenTrip Planner is an open source 

trip planner currently in beta-testing, incorporates multimodal trip planning, including 

transit, non-motorized transportation and driving. Other applications develop regularly and 

are of varying quality.

There is no feasible way to model data transmission in a travel demand model. Open data 

will not help to reduce vehicle miles traveled ,and it will not help to meet reduction targets for 

greenhouse gas emissions, as per SB 375. However, it can help to lead to agencies having 

more control over their data by lessening the incentive to “screen-scrape schedule data.” It 

can assist with marketing, and eventually it can be a format for communications between 

systems and infrastructure amongst a variety of agencies.

Table 33 Literature Regarding the Ridership Impacts of Real Time Passenger Information Systems

Literature Regarding the Ridership Impacts of Real Time Passenger Information Systems

Study Methodology Finding Date

“Examination of Traveler Reponses to Real-time Bus Arrival Information 

Using Panel Data” Zhang, Shen, Clifton Panel survey data analyzed using probit models. No significant impact on trip making. 2008

“Passenger Wait Time Perceptions at Bus Stops: Empirical Results and 

Impacts on Evaluating Real Time Bus Arrival Information” Mishalani, 

McCord, Wirtz, Edwards and Kelsey

Quantifying the difference between reported/perceived wait 

times and observed wait times.

The authors suggest that passengers derive 

value from the delta between perceived and 

observed wait times.

2006

“Traveler Response to Real Time Transit Passenger Information Systems” 

Zhang

Dissertation focusing on the psychological aspects of trip time 

uncertainty reductions due to real time passenger information, 

and resultant impacts to travel behavior.

Empirical results did not suggest that 

travelers would shift modes or increase transit 

trip frequency due to real time passenger 

information systems.

2010

“Ridership Effects of Real-Time Bus Information Systems: 

A Case Study in the City of Chicago” Tang, Thakuriah

Longitudinal monthly average weekday boardings from the 

CTA bus system to achieve a quasi-experimental design with 

limited controls, to examine pre and post implementation 

ridership.

Real time passenger information displays 

generate modest growth in ridership, roughly 

126 average weekday boardings more than prereal time display.

2012

“Analysis of the Role of Real Time Passenger Information on Bus Users in a 

European City: The Case of Dublin, Ireland” Sweeney Stated preference survey, based in Dublin Ireland.

30% of respondents reported that they would 

use transit more if Real Time Predictive Arrival 

were implemented

2012

“Examining the Political and practical Reality of Bus Based Real Time 

Passenger Information “ Holdsworth, Enoch, Ison

Case study examination of implementation of Real Time 

Passenger Information systems in two midsize English towns.

“The evidence is unclear as to whether RealTime Passenger Information does actually 

enhance public transport service provision.”

2006

“Riding in Real-Time: Estimating Ridership Effects of the Adoption of 

Mobile Real Time Transit Tracking Applications” Vonderschmitt

Panel survey of 27 medium sized transit agencies that 

implemented real time passenger information systems to 

evaluate the effects of adoption on ridership and passenger 

miles.

The study finds there is no impact of real time 

passenger information systems on ridership, 

and concludes that this is due to the “captive” 

nature of the transit market.

2014
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 87

The costs to this practice seem to be fairly small and it may in fact reduce the costs agencies 

are spending on developing their own trip planning applications. See TABLE 34.

FIRST MILE LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY

SCAG has been involved in first/last mile studies since 2007, including completing 

four studies completed in Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties. A further 

discussion of first/last mile connectivity can be found in the Active Transportation Appendix.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Metro and 14 other providers are entering into a Transit Mutual Assistance Compact. 

SCAG is initiating a transit climate change adaptation assessment to build on 

existing Metro-led efforts.

This Transit Mutual Assistance Compact (TransMAC) and its members have established 

a formal process whereby they may receive and provide Mutual Assistance to each other 

in the form of personnel, services and equipment as deemed to be necessary or advisable 

in an emergency. This agreement has undergone revisions, and upon implementation 

it can be a way for transit agencies to respond to the service disruptions that can 

accompany natural disasters.

POVERTY

SCAG has become involved in efforts to address poverty in the region. The Southern 

California Economic Recovery & Job Creation Strategy identifies the region’s strongest 

economic clusters and strategies to expand potential for job growth. A Regional Action Plan 

on Poverty identifies opportunities to grow jobs and improve access to jobs. A consistent 

theme has been the importance of improving mobility and increasing mobility choices 

through the implementation of its 2012 RTP/SCS.

In addition, the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plans also provide roadmaps 

for providing mobility to the very poor. Working with CTSAs, County Transportation 

Commissions and transit agencies to implement those plans can be a key strategy for 

connecting low income households with economic opportunity.

Table 34 Transit Agencies Providing Data to Google Via Gtfs

Transit Agencies Providing Data to Google via GTFS

Burbank Bus Anaheim Resort Transportation Laguna Beach Transit

Gold Coast Transit Banning/Pass Transit Long Beach Transit

Morongo Basin Transit Authority Barstow Area Transit Big Blue Bus

OMNITRANS Beaumont/Pass Transit System City of West Hollywood

Orange County Transportation 

Authority Mountain Area Transit Authority Culver City Bus

Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit 

Authority Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency LADOT

Sunline Transit Agency Cerritos on Wheels Metro-Los Angeles

Torrance Transit Corona Cruiser Metrolink 

Victor Valley Transit Authority Irvine Shuttle Needles Area Transit

Pasadena Area Rapid Transit 

System (ARTS Bus) Foothill Transit Riverside Transit Agency

Thousand Oaks Transit Glendale Beeline
 88 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

STAGNATING PER CAPITA DEMAND

A key finding of the FY 2011-2012 Transit System Performance Report was that per capita 

trips have stagnated when compared with FY 1990-1991. While per capita trips grew in the 

period before the recession, they have stagnated since that point. Unemployment rates and 

service cuts may have played a key role in creating that stagnation. SCAG will continue to 

work with County Transportation Commissions and transit agencies to identify the causes of 

this trend and potential remedies for it.

SYSTEM PRESERVATION, ASSET MANAGEMENT

AND ADAPTATION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Public transportation in the United States has faced long term maintenance funding 

challenges. The US DOT’s 2010 ‘Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges and Transit: 

Conditions and Performance Report to Congress’ forecasted a national transit maintenance 

shortfall of $116.5 Billion by 2028, with the share of assets in a maintenance backlog 

increasing from 11.7 percent to 17.5 percent by 2028. Within the next 40 years, the stresses 

of global climate change, including the potential ramifications of changes in storm activity, 

sea levels, temperature and precipitation patterns, will create additional stresses on transit 

assets and services. Providers of public transportation will need to develop strategies to 

protect key assets and services from added wear induced by climate change and to recover 

from natural disaster events exacerbated by climate change.

As noted in Caltrans’s April 2013 report, "Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change: 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Adapting to Impacts": “The Climate in California 

is already changing and further changes are anticipated throughout the 21st century. Climate 

Change will cause the sea level to rise, the temperature to warm and precipitation patterns 

to change-all of which have important implications on transportation assets and services.” 

These impacts will affect agencies’ ability to provide service and to properly maintain their 

assets, negatively impacting the mobility of low income transit dependent populations and 

affecting the region’s ability to meet its system preservation goals. In the wake of Super 

Storm Sandy, the FTA, FHWA, Caltrans and some transit operators are rapidly moving 

toward planning for climate adaptation and resilience, evaluating the potential effects of 

climate changes on transportation assets and services and seeking to ensure their ability to 

provide services in the face of climatic instability.

SCAG intends to work with stakeholders to complete a Transit Climate Adaptation and 

Resiliency Strategy for Southern California, leveraging work done by Metro to address these 

challenges by working with the region’s county transportation commissions, Caltrans and 

transit providers to collaboratively assess potential climate change related stresses to transit 

assets and key services and formulate strategies to address those impacts.

PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) first promulgated rules regarding transit bus fleet 

emissions in 2000. These rules were wildly successful; nearly 60 percent of the current 

fleet is composed of natural gas vehicles. The ARB is currently reviewing those rules, per the 

implementation of a zero-emissions bus vehicle rule. The agency is developing strategies 

to transition the heavy-duty mobile source sector to zero and near-zero technologies to 

meet air quality, climate and public health protection goals. The Advanced Clean Transit 

(ACT) being developed by the ARB is intended to achieve this transition in various modes 

of public transit.34

California faces challenging mandates to reduce criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas 

emissions to meet both federal air quality standards and state and local climate change 

goals, while protecting residents from exposure to harmful emissions. The emissions 

reductions goals affecting the ACT include:

z A 90 percent reduction in oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions to attain federal 

ozone standards by 2031;

z An 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 

and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2030;

z Significant improvements in efficiency and the use of renewable fuels to meet the 

Governor’s 50 percent petroleum reduction target by 2030; and

z Continued reductions in diesel PM and air toxics to protect public health.

California ARB staff are evaluating four comprehensive elements to the Advanced 

Clean Transit regulation:

z “Require Zero Emission Bus Purchases: mandate a modest fraction of bus 

purchases to be zero emission technology starting in 2018, and set a goal of 

complete transit fleet transition to zero emission technologies by 2040.

z Minimize Emissions from Conventional Fleet: require use of renewable fuels and 

the cleanest available engines as soon as feasible.

z Provide Regional Flexibility for Zero Emission Buses: allow fleets within 

a region the option to pool requirements and work together to achieve a 

zero emission bus fleet.

z Innovative Transit Beyond Buses: allow for transits to work with MPOs to develop 

and implement plans for increased efficiencies through the use of innovative 

transit technologies beyond conventional transit operations.” 35
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 89

Staff from the ARB have evaluated the feasibility of widescale zero emission and reduced 

emission bus vehicle procurements. The list of propulsion technologies evaluated includes:

z Battery Electric Bus Vehicles

z Fuel Cell Electric Bus Vehicles

z Diesel Hybrid Bus Vehicles

z Low NOx Buses

z Renewable fuels including renewable natural gas and biofuels

They find that there are still up-front price premiums on purchasing zero emissions buses, 

but that these premiums are rapidly declining. Prices for advanced zero emission propulsion 

technologies, such as Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric, are declining and vehicles 

are now commercially available. At least eight agencies statewide are operating zero 

emission bus vehicles.

In addition, nearly half of all current year diesel bus procurements are hybrids, which can 

lower emissions through greater fuel efficiency. The low NOx

 buses, expected to be available 

by 2016 or 2017, will reduce per vehicle NOx

 emissions by up to 90 percent.

The amended ACT rulemaking is likely to be formalized by the Spring of 2016. One of the 

key proposals that will be evaluated will require initial zero emission bus procurements by 

2018 and will require 100 percent zero emissions bus fleets by 2040. If adopted, this rule 

will require SCAG to work with providers of public transportation to identify and address any 

funding shortfalls due to these new procurement regulations.

TRANSIT AND EMERGING TRAVEL BEHAVIOR TRENDS

THE VMT INFLECTION

As was mentioned in the second section of this Appendix, Existing Conditions 

(Macroeconomic Context), aggregate national VMT growth peaked in 2007 and per 

capita growth peaked in 2004. The period following these years was one where VMT 

remained relatively level. Analysts have differed as to whether this represents a cultural 

shift, or a reaction to macroeconomic conditions including retail fuel prices and the 

recession of 2008-2009.

However, 2014 was the second highest year ever for aggregate VMT. Given short term fuel 

price trends, it seems safe to tentatively conclude that these prices may be having a great 

impact on mode choice. Going forward, SCAG must work with local county transportation 

commissions and transit agencies to account for fuel price volatility and subsequent impacts 

on travel behavior in planning processes.

VOLUNTEER DRIVER PROGRAM

The Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) for Riverside County 

California is a special self-directed, mileage reimbursement transportation service that 

complements public transportation by encouraging volunteer friends and neighbors to 

transport older adults and people with disabilities to access medical services and for 

other purposes where no transit service exists or when the individual is too frail, ill, or 

unable to use public transportation for other reasons.

The TRIP model was designed as a low-cost, low-maintenance, rider-focused approach 

to provide transportation for unserved and underserved, transit dependent older 

adults, persons with disabilities and other difficult to serve populations. Originally, 

TRIP was the outcome of a collaborative partnership between the Independent Living 

Partnership, sponsor of TRIP, the local Area Agency on Aging, and the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission in California.

TRIP began providing transportation assistance for older adults and people with 

disabilities through-out Riverside County in 1993. The efficiency and effectiveness of 

the TRIP Model has been proven in cities, suburban, and rural areas. So far the program 

has provided over 16.1 million miles of assisted travel and more than a 1.6 million free, 

escorted trips for 5,000+ Riverside County passengers with up to 1,000 volunteer 

drivers each year. TRIP continues to be funded by the Riverside County Transportation 

Commission, the Riverside County Office on Aging, foundations, and with support from 

cities that want service focused on their residents’ needs.

Innovative passenger friendly service characteristics include:

z Passengers are enabled to choose and recruit their own volunteer drivers from friends 

and neighbors they know and trust

z Volunteer drivers receive mileage reimbursement payments through the passenger

z Rides are scheduled by passengers and volunteer drivers, as mutually convenient

z Transportation is provided in personal volunteer driver’s vehicles

z 24/7 transportation is available, as agreeable between riders and volunteers

z Travel can be provided to other cities or even outside the county, if needed

z Rides are free to passengers.

z Each month, more than 10,000 trips are provided for Riverside County residents who 

would not have been able to travel to access needed services or for quality of life 

purposes. In 2009 TRIP was named by The Beverly Foundation as “the best volunteer 

driver model in the nation”. And also received the 2012 STAR AWARD for Excellence.

Source: : http://ilpconnect.org/trip-riverside/
 90 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Uber recently initiated Uber WAV service in New York City’s outer boroughs. This service 

allows application users to summon accessible livery vehicles (“Boro Taxis”), though 

payment is handled outside the application. A similar service has begun operating 

in San Francisco, but requires a $25 minimum fare and does not accept a locally 

subsidized fare card.

The City of Seattle, responding to this trend, initiated a $0.10 tax on TNCs trips, to be used to 

subsidize accessible taxi service.

In the long run, it is entirely possible that TNCs and local governments could partner to 

procure and operate accessible vehicles.

MILLENNIAL TRAVEL BEHAVIOR

As mentioned on pages 21 and 22 of this Appendix, national VMT trends indicated per capita 

and total decline between 2000 and 2012. Many observers have speculated that these 

declines were the result of the millennial generation’s changing mode choice proclivities. The 

United States Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) published a study in early 2013 

argued that there was a six decade period of steadily increasing per capita VMT, and that this 

period has ended. The PIRG researchers found that a combination of low fuel prices and an 

expanding workforce, including increasing female labor force participation, led to the boom, 

but that those conditions no longer existed. The team also found that “a new generation—

the Millennials—is demanding a new American Dream less dependent on driving.” 37

The PIRG report also found that “Young people aged 16 to 34 drove 23 percent fewer miles 

on average in 2009 than they did in 2001—a greater decline in driving than any other age 

group. The severe economic recession was likely responsible for some of the decline, but 

not all.” They argue that labor force participation fell from 67.3 percent in 2000 to 63.6 

percent in 2011, and cite a CBO projection that it would fall to 63% by 2021. They also argue 

that vehicle registrations per licensed driver fell 4 percent between 2006 and 2011, and that 

drivers licensing fell to 86 percent in 2011.

Perhaps most pertinent for public transportation, the authors also argue that a significant 

factor in future VMT decreases will be the increase in older Americans. Given that travel 

declines with age, the size of the “baby boom” generation means that we should expect 

significant declines in per capita VMT.

APTA completed the Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Mobility Mindset study 

in the 2013. This study assumed that millennials were less likely to drive, and sought 

to ascertain why and how transit agencies could capitalize on this assumed fact. The 

methodology employed telephone interviews with eleven self-identified transit riders in 

The baby boom generation is aging out of its peak driving years, and the millennial 

generation is aging into its peak driving years. The coming decade will provide an excellent 

test for the hypothesis that aggregate VMT is stagnating due to a generational cultural shift, 

as opposed to macroeconomic trends.

GROWING OLDER COHORT

One of the key themes of the 2016 RTP/SCS is the region’s evolving age demographics. 

Per the growth forecast, in 2040 18.1 percent of the region will be over the age of 

65 and 2.93 percent will be over the age of 85. Typically, travel patterns change 

drastically after retirement, and the trip types best served by fixed route transit, such as 

commuting, are no longer made.

However, as the cohort of the very old grows, there will be an increased demand for demand 

response transit services. As noted in the fifth section of this appendix, Needs Assessment 

and Transit Challenges, the counties in the SCAG region are engaged in coordinated human 

services transportation planning processes to identify the transportation needs of key 

populations, including the elderly and the disabled.

The region will have to move forward with more advanced paratransit demand forecasting 

techniques and strategies to provide cost effective mobility strategies to special needs 

populations. One key strategy to do so has been pioneered in the SCAG region–the 

volunteer driver program in Riveside (see page 88) and Los Angeles Counties. 

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES AND ELDER MOBILITY

One of the areas of greater uncertainty about mobility provision for elderly and disabled 

communities is the growing role of transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft.

In the short run, many analysts feel TNCs represent a threat to the taxi industry, which has 

been a key source of mobility for populations with special mobility needs.36 In FY 2011-

2012, local agencies reported providing roughly 850,000 demand taxi trips for a total of 

nearly 3 million passenger miles. Many cities and counties have worked with licensed livery 

companies to expand the ADA accessible taxi fleet; New York City had a goal of 50 percent 

accessibility by 2020. However, taxi drivers are increasingly switching to operating TNC 

service, leading to a shortage of drivers—San Francisco recently reported that 25 percent of 

its ADA accessible taxi fleet sits unused due to a driver shortage.

Five TNCs - Instacab, Sidecar, Wingz, Lyft and Uber - recently submitted ADA access 

plans to the California Public Utilities Commission as part of ongoing rulemaking processes 

regarding TNCs. Strategies discussed include nondiscrimination statements and application 

accessibility; a roadmap to guaranteeing service for populations with special mobility needs 

still needs to be agreed upon.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT 91

Boston, San Francisco, Austin, Boulder and Minneapolis, aged 18-34 and used the findings 

to compile an on-line survey. This on-line survey was then administered in Boston, San 

Francisco, Chicago, Portland and Washington DC to “Explore attitudes toward mobility 

generally, including factors that play a role in mobility decision-making (e.g., social, 

financial, environmental, etc.) and the relationship between major life decisions (e.g., where 

to live and work) to specific transportation choices.” The authors purposefully constructed a 

methodology to “Speak with Millennials living within or just outside of urban centers who are 

using public transit & other transportation options.”

The study found that millennials were likely to rank buses, trains and bicycles twice as 

highly as cars or walking in a ranked preference survey, were somewhat likely to state that 

having children would not force them to purchase a car or move to the suburbs and were 

more likely to report cost as a mode choice selection factor than other factors including 

logistical simplicity, convenience, flexibility and exercise.

Recent data released by the US Census suggests that focusing on very dense cities is 

not the best way to understand millennial location choice. These data indicate that far 

more workers under thirty are moving from cities to suburbs than vice versa. It should 

be understood that the ratio between these two factors is declining and that the rate of 

suburbanization among the young is slowing. Many analysts, though, believe that a 

pattern of urbanizing high income millennials and suburbanizing low to moderate income 

millennials is emerging.38

A team of UCLA affiliated researchers published a report in 2012 which attempted to look 

at travel behavior among youth and young adults from a broader, national perspective, 

encompassing both cities and suburbs.39 They examined reported travel data from the 

Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey of 1990 and the national Household Travel 

Surveys of 2001 and 2009, comparing the travel behavior of teens and young adults 

(15-26) with that of working aged adults (ages 27-61). The methodology involved the 

use of cross sectional statistical models. They found “little evidence in these data that 

living circumstances, technological innovations, or driving regulations are dramatically 

altering travel behavior.

Specifically, the researchers found that:

z “Economic Factors Predominate: (a) Employment status, household income and 

other measures of economic status strongly influence all forms of youth and adult 

travel behavior across all three study years, (b) these factors generally have an 

even greater influence on the travel of youth than adults.

z The Effects of Other Factors Are Mixed: The effects of (a) young adults living with 

their parents, (b) the explosion of information and communications technologies 

use and (c) stricter teen driver’s licensing requirements are far milder and more 

mixed compared to the consistently strong travel behavior effects of economic 

factors. Information and communications technology use is measured as daily 

web use and, when significant, tends to be associated with more travel and not 

less. 

z Graduated Driver’s License Regulations: (a) more teens are licensing later, but 

most do eventually license and drive, (b) the regulations are associated with lower 

teen person miles of travel over the short-term, but not much change in trips and 

(c) transit commuting is higher in states with stricter licensing regulations, but for 

adults as well as teens—as such, this probably says more about the states that 

adopt tough licensing laws than the effect of the laws on transit use.

z Demographic Travel Distinctions Are Fading: Travel behavior has long been 

observed to vary by demographic factors, such as race/ethnicity; while we 

continue to observe racial/ethnic travel patterns among adults, such distinctions 

are more muted for youth and appear to be lessening over time.

z Evidence of Generational Shifts In Travel Behavior: Our quasi-cohort models 

suggest moderate generational effects on travel behavior: all things equal, younger 

generations appear to (a) travel fewer miles and (b) make fewer trips than was 

the case for previous generations at the same stage in their lives; however, it also 

appears that younger commuters appear to drive alone to work more frequently 

than similarly aged workers from earlier generations.

z Many Findings are Suggestive, but Not Definitive: While many of our findings

are consistent and appear robust, others are merely suggestive due to (a) 

small sample sizes for some population groups (e.g. 1990 sample, recent birth 

cohorts, bike travelers, etc.), (b) construct validity questions related to our 

variables of interest (e.g. reported daily web use as a measure of information and 

communications technology use) and (c) a lack of true cohort data to allow us to 

follow the same individuals over time.” 40
 92

NOTES

1 American Public Transit Association (2009) Public Transportation Fact Book, Appendix B: Transit Agency and Urbanized Area Operating Statistics http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/transitstats.aspx

2 The U.S. Census Bureau defines urbanized areas (UZAs) based on incorporated places (e.g.,cities, towns, villages) and their adjacent areas. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a densely populated area of 50,000 people or 

more to be an urbanized area. There are 498 UZAs according to the 2010 U.S. Census and while urbanized areas make up 2.5 percent of United States land area, the populations of urbanized areas make up 71.5 percent of 

United States population. The FTA bases UZA designations on the most current Census. The NTD reporting system assigns a unique number to each of the UZAs in the 50 States and the District of Columbia a numerical 

ranking by population size. For the purpose of transit grants, the FTA also designates the Virgin Islands and certain areas in Puerto Rico as urbanized areas. National Transit Database (2013) National Transit Summaries 

and Trends 2013

3 California Department of Transportation, Mass Transit Division, Transit Development Act Statutes and California Codes of Regulations

4 California Department of Transportation, Mass Transit Division, Transit Development Act Statutes and California Codes of Regulations

5 American Public Transportation Association, 2013 Public Transportation Fact Book, page 37

6 California Department of Transportation, Mass Transit Division, Transit Development Act Statutes and California Codes of Regulations

7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2009 National Household Travel Survey

8 US Census, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates “Selected Economic Characteristics,” downloaded from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_3YR_DP03&prodType=table on 4/4/13

9 US Census, 2009-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates “Selected Economic Characteristics.”

10 This MSA’s name was changed per the 2010 US Census Boundaries to Los Angeles — Long Beach — Anaheim CA

11 Adie Tomer, “Transit Access and Zero Vehicle Households” Brookings Institution 2011

12 American Public Transportation Association, 2009, “Job Impacts of Spending on Public Transportation: An Update.” White Paper.

13 American Public Transportation Association in partnership with Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2010, Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits

14 Texas Transportation Institute, 2012 Annual Urban Mobility Report

15 Federal Highway Administration (2013) Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook

16 National Transit Database (2013) National Transit Summaries and Trends 2013

17 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 page 5 "What Drives US Gasoline Prices"

18 Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information: Traffic Volume Trends, December, 2014

19 Victoria Transport Policy Institute Transit Price Elasticities and Cross Elasticities May 2015

20 Journal of Transport Geography Volume 22, “A Time-Series Analysis Of Gasoline Prices And Public Transportation In US Metropolitan Areas” May 2012 pp 221-234

21 Lane, Bradley W. 2012 Modeling Transit Ridership in Repeated Cross Sections: How Do Gasoline Prices Affect Urban Transit Demand? MPA — UTEP Working Paper Series

22 Iseki, Hiroyuki and Ali, Rubaba 2014 Net Effects of Gasoline Price Changes on Transit Ridership in U.S. Areas, Mineta transportation Institute

23 Imperial County Transportation Commission FY2010-11 Short Range Transit Plan, 2012

24 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2014 Short Range Transportation Plan

25 Kneebone, Elizabeth (2014)The Growth and Spread of Concentrated Poverty, 2000 to 2008-2012 Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Brief

26 Los Angeles Equity Atlas Framework (2013) California Community Foundation and Reconnecting America

27 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2015) 2016-2019 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County Draft Executive Summary

28 Imperial County Transportation Commission (2013) 2014 Coordinated Public Transit — Human Services Transportation Plan For Imperial County

29 LA METRO (2015) Draft 2016-2019 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County Draft Executive Summary

30 2012 Update to the Public Transit — Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County

31 Ventura County Short Range Transit Plan, May 2015

32 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, population estimates from SCAG and California Department of Finance

33 Bruun, Eric, Better Public Transit Systems: Analyzing Investments and Performance American Planning Association 2007

34 California Air Resources Board (2015) Public Workshops on the Development of the Advanced Clean Transit Regulation Discussion Document
 93

35 California Air Resources Board (2015) Public Workshops on the Development of the Advanced Clean Transit Regulation Discussion Document

36 Oxera, 2014 http://www.oxera.com/Latest-Thinking/Agenda/2014/Is-the-ride-right-Transportation-network-companies.aspx

37 A New Direction Our Changing Relationship with Driving and the Implications for America’s Future

38 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2014 Annual Social and Economic Supplement

39 Evelyn Blumenberg, Brian D. Taylor, Michael Smart, Kelcie Ralph, Madeline Wander, Stephen Brumbaugh, (2012) What’s Youth Got To Do With It? Exploring the Travel Behavior of Teens and Young Adults, University of 

California Transportation Center

40 Evelyn Blumenberg, Brian D. Taylor, Michael Smart, Kelcie Ralph, Madeline Wander, Stephen Brumbaugh, (2012) What’s Youth Got To Do With It? Exploring the Travel Behavior of Teens and Young Adults, University of 

California Transportation Center Executive Summary page iii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

please recycle 2347 2016.03.31

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

WWW.SCAGRTPSCS.NET

APPENDIX

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I TRANSIT

REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street, Suite 1233 

Orange, CA 92868 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street, Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

MAIN OFFICE

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(213) 236-1800

www.scag.ca.gov