Municipality of Anchorage
Public Transportation Department
High Priority Transportation
Corridor Plan
October 28, 2010
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Context -- Anchorage and Public Transit
Chapter 3
High Performance Transportation Corridors
Chapter 4
Examining Transit Corridors Performance
Chapter 5
Findings and Recommendations
Chapter 1
Introduction
In 1972 the population of Anchorage was 144,200 persons. That year voters approved a
ballot issue to inaugurate Municipal public transportation service. A companion funding
measure was narrowly defeated so startup of People Mover transit service was delayed two
years. In July 1974 People Mover began bus service and has operated continuously ever
since.
People Mover grew rapidly over its first several years. By 1982, its buses provided 156,000
hours of service and attracted 4.01 million passenger boardings as Anchorage growth
mushroomed with military base expansion and Prudhoe Bay oil development and the
construction boom that followed. But as the booming environment slowed, over 50,000
hours of annual bus service was sliced while transit ridership declined, then remained
essentially stable through the 1990s.
Fast forward to 2008, 34 years later. Anchorage was home to nearly 284,000 residents.
People Mover carried 4.22 million passengers, its highest level in its entire history.
Figure 1 illustrates People Mover annual bus ridership over the twenty-six year period from
its early peak in 1982 through 2008; bus service hours per capita are also displayed.
Figure 1. People Mover Riders and Service Hours, 1982 - 2008
4,500,000
0.80
ANNUAL RIDERSHIP
HOURS PER CAPITA
4,000,000
0.70
RIDERSHIP
0.60
3,000,000
0.50
HOURS PER CAPITA
3,500,000
2,500,000
0.40
2,000,000
1,500,000
0.30
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
The turn-around in annual bus ridership from 1987-2002 levels to 2008 is remarkable. Even
more impressive is that the percentage gain in passengers exceeded the corresponding
increase in bus revenue hours of service as well as bus hours per capita. The stimulus for
People Mover’s ridership recovery was a 5-year People Mover Blueprint Plan for service
-1-
restructuring, completed in 2001. Implementation steps for the Blueprint Plan were
programmed over four-phases and several years. Initial restructuring changes began in 2002
and continued through 2004. Impressive results were achieved in those years as the
following changes were put in place:

Introduction of Route 1 Crosstown weekday service and suspension of services with
low productivity, most notably in the Hillside area.

Revision of peak period schedules to 30-minute headways on primary routes and
institution of memory headways (consistent schedule times from hour to hour of the
day) on most routes; airport service added on Route 7; Saturday and Sunday service
additions including expanded hours of operation.

Memory headways implemented on additional routes and revamping of the route
structure for Route 102, Routes 13, 15, and 77 replacing Routes 11, 12, 74 and 76
and changes in Eagle River plus demand scheduled service there and Hillside.

Establishment of a Muldoon transfer center.
But in 2005, efforts for the Blueprint Plan’s fourth phase to provide all-day weekday 30minutes service frequency were curtailed due to budgetary restrictions. Full completion of
the Blueprint Plan has not been possible with available operating budget resources. The
People Mover rider gains between 2002 and 2007 were largely due to the Blueprint route
restructuring program made possible by a federal Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality
grant. Modest service improvements were introduced in 2006 and in 2008. A fare increase
was an offsetting factor. Municipal population and economic growth also was a contributing
factor as was a sharp increase in gasoline prices in mid-2008.
Genesis for this Study Initiative
People Mover has sought to sustain the significant ridership gains and momentum achieved
over the past several years. In 2006, People Mover management began to consider ways to
maintain vigorous ridership gains experienced with the initial implementation phases of the
Blueprint Plan. Management efforts focused on implementing advanced technology
hardware and software systems to aid transit management and improve service delivery.
Contractor services were retained for the following technology elements:

bus schedules and driver assignment rostering optimization

driver payroll records

incident management module

on-board data communication and display terminals

automated vehicle location tracking

automated passenger counters

supporting database management, analysis and reporting capabilities
-2-
People Mover management recognizes that increased transit ridership is critical to attain
funding support and enable further People Mover service enhancements. Bus passenger
boardings between 2002 and 2005 jumped 28% due to the Blueprint Plan service changes,
and then flattened due to funding limits. As noted earlier, bus ridership increased in mid2008 as gas prices spiraled to record levels.
Other related Municipal programs and planning complemented the People Mover Blueprint
Plan work. A Comprehensive Plan for the Anchorage Bowl was adopted by the
Municipal Assembly in 2001. The Comp Plan identified four priority corridors for transitsupportive development. It also articulated a number of policies to encourage transit use denser urban development, a more walkable community, and provision of more travel
options to reduce reliance on private vehicle transportation.
About the same time, the Municipality’s Long Range Transportation Plan update was
launched with a household travel survey of Anchorage residents in spring 2002. Subsequently, the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solution (AMATS) Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) was completed and adopted by the Anchorage Assembly in
2005. Recommendations in the LRTP include increased transit service frequency and
improvements to attract more riders.
All three planning efforts – the People Mover’s Blueprint Plan, the MOA Comprehensive
Plan, and AMATS’ Long Range Transportation Plan – envision more extensive and robust
public transportation services in future years.
Prototype Transit Corridor Study
Sustaining People Mover’s recent five-year achievements is the objective for the research
reported in this study. The study examines strategies and initiatives that may be most
effective to further improve service, productivity and ridership. Elements encompassed in
the investigations include route and service structure, service reliability, service
scheduling/timing, bus stop locations, application of advanced technology, transit signal
priority, transit queue jumping, marketing, and passenger information systems. Part of the
analyses reported here addresses the People Mover system as a whole; other parts focus on a
particular “prototype” corridor as a microcosm of the entire system. Route 7 serving the
Spenard Jewel Lake corridor is used as the Prototype Corridor case.
Report Organization
Four chapters follow this introductory chapter. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the
Anchorage transit system, its level of service, and related land use and transportation
planning. Chapter 3 discusses different perspectives on what defines high performance
transportation and identifies the Glenn Highway as the major regional, multimodal
transportation corridor and People Mover Route 45 as the dominant high performance
transit corridor respectively. Chapter 4 analyzes the service changes made in People Mover’s
Blueprint Plan that led to the significant ridership gains between 2002 and 2008. It reviews
-3-
systemwide features and operations and evaluates Route 7 in detail. Chapter 5 presents
findings and recommendations for higher performance transit services.
-4-
Chapter 2
Context -- Anchorage and Public Transit
Anchorage’s population in 2008 was 284,000; the Municipality added over 62,000 residents
in the past two decades. Even so, the Municipality ranked 140th of the 147 U.S. metropolitan
areas with over 250,000 population in the 2000 US Census. Thus, among US metropolitan
areas, the Municipality remains a relatively small urban area.
Development patterns in Anchorage are generally medium to lower density. Major
commercial and employment centers are dispersed. There are six areas with significant
employment – Downtown, Midtown, two military bases, U-Med, airport, and the Dimond
Center area. The dispersed geographic distribution of major activity centers means that travel
patterns are also broadly dispersed, rather than concentrated on a few primary destinations.
The multiple activity centers and dispersed travel patterns make it more difficult for transit
to attract a large share of traveler destinations.
Current Transit System Configuration 1
The People Mover system in 2010 consists of fourteen (14) routes serving Anchorage, and
the Eagle River and Chugiak areas. The system focus is downtown Anchorage; all but one of
the fourteen routes serve the downtown Anchorage Transit Center hub. Transit service also
converges on three smaller satellite hubs within the Anchorage Bowl – one in the U-Med
area, another at Dimond Cener in South Anchorage and a third at the Muldoon Town
Center in East Anchorage. Another hub is found in the Eagle River commercial district (See
map on following page).
Bus schedules are time-coordinated to enable easier transfers at the Downtown Transit
Center, and to a lesser extent, at the other hubs. Table 1 summarizes People Mover service
hours and average headways in 2010 for each route.
Bus service generally begins operation on weekdays between 5:30 am and 6:30 am and ends
between 10:00 pm and 11:30 pm. Transit service runs from 7:30 am to 9:00 pm on
Saturdays, and from about 9:30 am to 7:00 pm on Sundays.

During weekdays Route 45 service operates most frequently (approximately 20
minute headways) and carries the highest route ridership.

Four routes (3, 7, 9 and 15) operate every 30 minutes during peak and midday hours.

Six routes (2, 13, 36, 60 and 75) have an additional trip(s) during the weekday peak to
provide 30-minute headways.

Three routes (1, 8 and 14) operate at 60-minute frequencies all day on weekdays.
1
This section is abstracted from the 2009 People Mover Short Range Transit Plan Update and updated for
2010 service.
-5-
Table 1 People Mover Bus Routes and Headways, 2010
Route
1
2
3
7
8
9
13
14
15
36
45
60
75
102
Service Hours
(Weekdays)
6:12a – 10:14p
5:30a – 10:23p
5:55a – 11:29p
6:155a – 11:23p
6:17a – 10:09p
6:51a – 10:26p
5:45a – 11:09p
6:45a – 10:08p
6:15a – 10:36p
6:00a – 11:21p
5:50a – 11:22p
6:12a – 10:05p
5:26a – 9:56p
5:44a -8:09a
2:45-p - 7:01p
Peak
60
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
20
30
30
20
Average Headway
Evening
Saturday
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
30/60
60
60
60
60
---
Midday
60
60
30
30
60
30
60
60
30
60
30
60
60
--
-6-
Sunday
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
--
In summary, weekday bus service during peak periods is at 20 minute headway on two
routes, 30 minute on 9 routes and at 60 minute on three others. For the majority of time,
many bus routes have 60 minute frequencies.
The 2020 Anchorage Comprehensive Plan Vision
The 2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan identifies four transit-supportive
development corridors which generally connect town centers with the three major
employment centers - Downtown, Midtown and U-Med. The Comprehensive Plan intent
for the transit-supportive development corridors is that these corridors represent optimal
locations for more intensive commercial and residential land use patterns which will
encourage and support higher levels of transit service.
The overall intent is to create a city in which there will be more opportunities to live a less
automobile-dependent lifestyle. The plan promotes transit- Anchorage 2020 stresses
supportive development corridors, pedestrian accessible
that travel choice is an
developments and multimodal roadway and trail networks.
important goal so that
residents are not, by
Residents of town centers could use the high frequency
necessity, required to
bus service provided along the transit-supportive developdrive everywhere. The
ment corridors to reach their job sites in major employment foundation for travel
centers. 2 These corridors are not intended to
choice is frequent transit
service to all mid-density
represent a transit route map, but illustrate where new
and higher-density areas.
medium to high-density housing development will occur.
A typical transit-supportive development corridor includes the following:
 medium to high-density housing (over 8 dwelling units per acre) within one-fourth
mile of the major street at the center of the corridor
 small scale commercial sites oriented to the street
 multi-modal facilities, emphasizing bus, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation
 expanded sidewalks and crosswalks, street furniture, bus shelters, and landscape
improvements
Transit-supportive development corridors tie major elements of the Land Use Policy Map
together. Higher residential density is a key to increasing transit ridership along these
corridors. Bus routes serving transit corridors should achieve a 15-minute headway during
peak periods and a 30-minute headway during non-peak periods.
Most of the town centers are linked to one or more employment centers by transitsupportive development corridors. For example the town center located near the intersection of Jewel Lake Road and Dimond Boulevard is connected to the major employment
2
“Transit-supportive development corridors are intended to be multimodal with the primary emphasis on
bus, pedestrian and bicycle transportation. Bus routes serving transit corridors should achieve a 15-minute
headway during peak hours and 30-minute headway during non-peak periods. (This reflects nationally
accepted standards.)” See pages 54-55, Chapter 4, Land Use Concept Plan. Anchorage 2020 Anchorage
Bowl Comprehensive Plan
-7-
centers in Midtown and Downtown by the transit-supportive development corridor along
Jewel Lake Road and Spenard Road. This corridor is examined for this prototype High
Performance Transit Corridor Project.
2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan Map
-8-
Public Transit in the AMATS 2027 Long Range Transportation Plan
The AMATS Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) notes that funding is a fundamental
determinant of the level of transit service that can be provided, and that public policy and
public perceptions of transit service value define willingness to support public funding. The
LRTP analyses of future growth and transportation scenarios finds that improved transit
service operations and service delivery can increase riders.
The LRTP concludes that public transportation patronage can likely be doubled (from 2002
levels), perhaps tripled. But to get the higher number of riders, public funding will need to
expand. The LRTP recommends high frequency bus rapid transit service from
Chugiak/Eagle River along the Glenn Highway corridor. Increasing transit service frequency
to 15 minutes during weekday peak periods by 2013 is also recommended on seven corridors
– Routes 2, 3, 7, 9, 15, 36 and 45.
-9-
Chapter 3
High Performance Transportation Corridors
This chapter examines the most important transportation corridors in the Anchorage region.
Initially the focus is on regional multimodal transportation corridors because these corridors
serve high travel demand and therefore impact many travelers as well as the communities
and neighborhoods they traverse. Coordinated, multi-modal, and multi-faceted
transportation systems are addressed as well as demand management strategies and policies
to yield significant benefits to travelers, transportation providers and the general public.
Next, public transportation corridors are reviewed to determine the highest performing
corridor. Potential ways to enhance performance are discussed.
Interpreting Transportation Performance
Travel for work, shopping, recreation, school and other needs is a basic element of urban
life. That is why transportation facilities and services are important parts of the core
infrastructure in urbanized communities and regions. Where travel demand is intense, higher
performance transportation facilities and services are required. Public transit works best in
high demand travel corridors because more travelers have similar origin and destination
patterns that can support better, more frequent, direct transit service.
What constitutes a high performance transportation corridor and how does one define or
measure high performance? The term “high performance transit corridor” may convey
different meaning or interpretations to various audiences. Some may interpret the phrase in
hardware or equipment terms, such as rail or guideway transit service operated on a separate
right-of-way (i.e., commuter rail, light rail transit), or perhaps what has been coined “bus
rapid transit” in which buses operate frequently and are given preferential space and/or road
priority to improve travel speed. Others may use a different perspective – thinking in terms
of how well the transportation service satisfies travel needs (i.e. customer service) with
respect to easy access, frequency of service, directness to desired destinations, comfort, and
safety/personal security considerations.
So, defining performance may depend upon one’s perspective. Stakeholders with an interest
in transportation performance include service providers, transportation users, and the
general public. The perspectives of each stakeholder group are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Service Provider Perspective
Almost all public transportation service in the United States is operated by public agencies.
Organizations providing public transit service operate within the constraints of finite
financial, equipment, facilities, and human resources. Of these, financial resources
-11-
dominate 1 . Allocating available resources to achieve maximum effectiveness is a primary
goal. Effectiveness can be measured by service productivity – how many riders/users are
attracted per mile or hour of bus service offered. A priority goal for People Mover is to
increase transit ridership while maintaining accepted standards for riders per hour of bus
service.
Travelers and Transit Riders Perspective
Travelers seek to minimize the time and effort required to accomplish their travel needs.
They make time of departure, mode, route and other decisions based on the options
available to them. Many travelers choose only auto travel. For others, several transit service
characteristics are important factors in deciding whether to use transit:





Service frequency. Travelers have an aversion to scheduling constraints, waiting,
and especially unreliable service. Time is the dominant factor influencing travelers’
choice of travel mode. In choosing a travel mode, people weigh time for “walking
and waiting” as two-to-three times more important than the same amount of time
spent riding in a vehicle. Extensive transit research and experience indicate that
travelers who have a choice between travel by automobile or by transit view 15minute transit service frequency as a threshold. Less frequent service is judged
unfavorably. 2
Direct service to destination. A transfer from one bus to another to reach a
destination has a highly negative effect. Few travelers are willing to accept the
inconvenience, added waiting delay, uncertainty, and longer journey time.
Transit versus automobile travel time. Bus travel times are often about two and a
half to three times longer than times for the same journeys by automobile. Similar
comparative travel time conditions are observed in Anchorage. That disparity needs
to be significantly reduced to attract more riders. Longer spacing between bus stops
and transit priority at signalized intersections can help improve transit speed.
Accessibility. A reasonable walking distance acceptable to most people is typically
one-quarter mile. Bus stops — both where trips originate and where they are
destined —need to be accessible and safe, ideally with sidewalk connectivity. The
walking environment matters too, especially during winter conditions.
Dependability, security, comfort, value. On-time reliability (dependability), sense
of personal safety and security, creature comforts, and cost-value perceptions
1
The significance of funding is aptly reflected in the severe impact of the current deep global recession on
transit agencies. An American Public Transportation Association membership survey in March 2010, found
nearly 70% of the nation’s transit operators project budget shortfalls this year, 84% have made or are
considering service reductions and/or fare increases, while more than half have eliminated positions and
one-third laid off employees.
2
The elasticity of transit use with respect to service frequency (called a headway elasticity) averages about
0.5, meaning that each 1 percent increase in transit service frequency increases ridership by 0.5 percent.
But considerable variation is observed. See Chapter 9 – Transit Scheduling and Frequency, TCRP Web
Document 12 (Project B-12) [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_12.pdf] and TCRP
Web Document 32 (Project H-32) Elements Needed to Attract High Ridership Transit Systems: Interim
Guidebook [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_32.pdf}.
-12-
contribute to positive traveler assessments of transit service. These factors generally
are subordinate to time and direct routing, but nonetheless come into play when a
traveler decides to use transit instead of a personal vehicle.
General Public Perspective
The majority of personal travel in small and mid-sized urban areas is made by personal
vehicle. Public transit generally accounts for less than five percent of all trips in these
communities. Naturally, then the general public tend to focus on traffic and road conditions
when they think about transportation corridors and service. The public perceives
transportation primarily in terms of travel time to desired destinations, safety and pavements
that are not full of potholes or deeply rutted. Citizens accept some degree of congestion
during commute periods, but they expect roads to be relatively congestion-free most of the
day. Since travel is predominantly in autos, adequate parking is yet another dimension of
public perception of transportation service.
While many people do not use public transportation frequently, or at all, nonetheless there is
generally broad appreciation and support for public transit service 3 . The dominant deterrents
to broader transit ridership are twofold – the relatively sparse service frequency that restricts
flexibility and limited direct-ride destination coverage that makes service convenient. The
public understands that not all citizens can drive or own vehicles and that access,
participation and contribution to the community is important for all. They support
specialized transportation for seniors, people with disabilities, low income, and other needy
individuals. They support school bus services to get students to and from schools. Further,
the public comprehends the impacts (positive and negative) of auto dependency on the
community, on the environment and air quality, and on neighborhood cohesion and
intrusion. The public wants a transportation system that meets travel needs, that is
affordable, cost-effective and efficient, that enables accessibility for all members of the
community, that is safe, that is consistent with community development plans, and that
satisfies existing and future growth conditions.
Glenn Highway – Regional High Performance Transportation Corridor
The Glenn Highway is arguably the most important high performance transportation
corridor in the Anchorage metropolitan region. 4 It serves over 51,000 vehicles per day
(which translates to about 70,000 daily person trips). The Glenn Highway is part of the
National Highway System linking the Anchorage Bowl to Chugiak/Eagle River and the
3
Surveys by RLS & Associates Inc. (People Mover Rider Survey, 2001; 2009 People Mover Route
Restructure Plan Update Community Survey, 2008); Craciun Research Group Inc.(Municipality of
Anchorage Bus Riders and Non-Bus Riders, October 2008; LRTP Public Opinion Survey Preliminary
Results, September 2005); NuStats (2002 Anchorage Household Travel Survey). An April 2010 transit
bonds ballot proposition garnered 48% in favor 52% against.
4
The Seward Highway also ranks as an important regional corridor, carrying over 58,000 vehicles per day
south of Dowling Road. But trip lengths on the Seward Highway are much shorter and its trafficshed area
is not growing nearly as rapidly as is the Glenn tributary areas in the Mat Su Borough and Chugiak/Eagle
River.
-13-
Mat Su Borough to the north. It is a primary motor freight backbone for freight and goods
movement flowing from the Port of Anchorage and Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport.
The Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) prepared and adopted by AMATS
in 2007 examined primary transportation corridors throughout the Municipality. The LRTP
designates the Glenn Highway corridor as a priority corridor and proposes a number of
multimodal projects to address future transportation needs. LRTP projects include roadway
widening, bridge and interchange improvements, more frequent transit service, upgrading
express bus or bus rapid transit, as well as ridesharing, telecommuting and other travel
demand management initiatives.
There are four compelling reasons why the Glenn Highway is a priority High Performance
Transportation Corridor for Anchorage:




High and growing travel demand between central Anchorage (the terminus of the
Glenn Highway) and Eagle River/ Chugiak and the Mat Su Borough.
The State of Alaska, the Municipality, the Mat Su Borough and the federal
government each have interest and a stake in sustaining efficient transportation
service in the corridor. Agency collaboration in funding, operating and coordinating
transportation services is a cost-effective, win-win approach for all parties and the
public.
Fully integrated, multi-modal system management and demand management
strategies will provide traveler choice options that sustain level of service while
reducing capital investment requirements.
Multi-modal management strategies for the corridor reinforce the Anchorage
Comprehensive Plan and goals by reducing traffic-generated environmental and air
quality impacts and by lessening vehicle traffic volumes and parking requirements in
the Bowl.
Rapid Growth & Long Trips
The Mat Su Borough is the fastest growing area in the state. Mat Su Borough population has
exploded five-fold over the past 30 years, far exceeding Anchorage’s growth rate. By 2008,
the Borough’s population was 82,500. Recent economic projections by the Institute of Social
and Economic Research at the University of Alaska, Anchorage estimate Mat Su population
at 95,400 in 2015 and 170,800 in 2035.5
5
Scott Goldsmith, Economic and Demographic Projections for Alaska and Greater Anchorage 2010–2035,
Institute of Social and Economic Research, UAA, December, 2009
-14-
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1971
1974
1977
1981
1984
1987
1991
1994
1997
2001
2004
2007
Mat Su Borough Population Growth
Source: Alaska Department of Labor.
http://laborstats.alaska.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/PopulatnReport.asp?menuchoice=Populatn
Over 12,000 Mat Su residents commute to workplaces in Anchorage where there are many
more employment opportunities and jobs are generally better paying. Forty-mile journey to
work commutes are common from Mat Su to Downtown and Midtown Anchorage; these
trips are much longer than average trips within Anchorage. 6
14,000
Mat Su to Anchorage
No. of Commuters
12,000
Anchorage to Mat Su
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Commuters from Mat Su Borough and Anchorage
Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. (Note:
chart excludes federal and self-employed workers)
Mat Su commuters use the Glenn Highway corridor. Thus, Mat Su Borough growth,
combined with Mat Su commuting trends to Anchorage workplaces, has significantly
increased traffic on the Glenn Highway. Daily traffic at Mirror Lake has grown at a
compounded annual rate of nearly 5% over the past thirty years. In 1978 daily traffic was
6,950; by 2008 daily traffic volume had reached 28,150.
6
Within Anchorage, most work trips are less than 8 miles long, using less than 8 vehicle-miles of capacity.
Each long Mat Su commute trip consumes more vehicle miles of roadway capacity. For example, a 40-mile
solo driver trip provides 40 passenger miles and uses 40 vehicle-miles of capacity. A 40-mile bus trip with
30 passengers uses the same 40 vehicle-miles of roadway capacity but serves 1,200 passenger miles.
-15-
Chugiak/Eagle River also has grown more rapidly than the Anchorage Bowl, with many
workers commuting to Anchorage. Daily Glenn Highway traffic flow east of Muldoon Road
was 51,400 in 2008, about 23,000 more than north of Chugiak/Eagle River.
+
35,000
Glenn Highway at Mirror Lake
Average Daily Traffic
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2008
2005
2002
1999
1996
1993
1990
1987
1984
1981
1978
1975
1972
1969
1966
1963
0
Glenn Highway daily traffic volume trends at Mirror Lake, 1963 -2008
Source: ADOT&PF Central Region Traffic Data
Glenn Highway LRTP Capital Investments Projects over $750 Million
The AMATS LRTP anticipates the Glenn Highway corridor will require over $750M for
road improvement projects by 2027 7 . Major improvements include adding lanes, rebuilding
interchanges, and widening bridges. In addition, the LRTP recommends $21 million for new
buses, more frequent express bus service, shelters, park’n’ride lots and improvements to the
Eagle River transit hub.
Collaborative Framework for Glenn Highway
The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities owns and operates
the Glenn Highway. Transit service in the Glenn Highway corridor is operated mostly by
the Municipality of Anchorage Public Transportation Department, but limited transit service
also is provided from the Mat Su Borough by MASCOT, a non-profit service, and Valley
Mover (a private operator). The Anchorage Rideshare Program manages vanpools operating
7
Table 8-1 Recommended Road Improvement Projects, AMATS Long Range Transportation Plan, 2007.
This cost estimate includes the Glenn Highway to Seward Highway Connection for which an environmental impact study is currently underway. Actual costs may significantly exceed $750 million because the
LRTP project cost estimates were done in 2004; more recent H2H engineering and cost updates are higher
than previously estimated.
-16-
in the corridor. In addition there is a large number of commuter carpools on the Glenn
Highway.
State, Municipality, Mat Su Borough and federal governments have a vested interest in
maintaining the Glenn Highway transportation level of service. A collaborative advocacy for
coordinated, multimodal, integrated transportation service strategies should be nurtured.
Coordination and funding support for transportation improvements and system
management by the state, the MOA, and the Mat Su Borough should emphasize balanced
transportation investments to maintain service levels, enhance mode options, provide
mobility for all citizens, and mitigate auto dependency and adverse community impacts.
Multi Modal Strategies for the Glenn Highway
Transit service, vanpool, and carpool choices reduce vehicle demand in the Glenn Highway
corridor. Long commute trips to Downtown and Midtown Anchorage that are made in
higher occupancy vehicles instead of solo driver vehicles will reduce roadway capacity
expansion requirements. Leveraging good transit services, ridesharing, telecommuting
and intelligent system management measures could effectively reduce peak vehicle
demand as much as an equivalent freeway lane.
About one-third of Mat Su Borough employed persons work outside the Borough. US
Census data indicate 23% of those who work outside the Borough travel to work in
carpools. 8 Most of these carpoolers commute on
the Glenn Highway to worksites in Anchorage.
Approximately 900 Mat Su commuters are active
participants in vanpools traveling to and from jobs
in Anchorage.
250.00
In 2007 People Mover’s Route 102 operated 16
weekday trips between Chugiak/Eagle River and
Downtown Anchorage with most trips scheduled
during peak commute hours. Route 102 passenger
trips average 12.3 miles, nearly three times the 4.5
mile systemwide average for People Mover.
Passenger Miles per Bus Hour
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
Rte 102
People Mover
Systemwide
Rider counts and bus hours data for People Mover reveal that Route 102 carried 232
passenger miles per bus hour of service in 2007 – compared to a systemwide average of 100
passenger miles per bus hour. Route 102 is a high performance transit corridor; it’s highspeed Glenn Highway express bus service can provide competitive peak period travel times
for Downtown and Midtown workers. Service frequency for Route 102 needs to be
increased to give travelers greater flexibility and more departure time choice.
8
US Census, 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table B08130. Means Of
Transportation To Work By Place Of Work--State And County
-17-
The cost for significantly more frequent Glenn Highway express bus service is modest
relative to the anticipated LRTP $750 million for Glenn Highway roadway projects. Assume
People Mover service were improved to 10-minute frequency over the next three years, then
30-minute service initiated to Wasilla over the next four years and both services were
continued at that level for another eight years (i.e. a total of 15 years). The net cost increase
to provide that significantly improved transit service would be under $18 million. Improved
transit service costs likely could be offset by avoided capital costs to expand road capacity. 9
Table 2. Estimated Cost for Improved Glenn Highway Commuter Express Bus Service
Service Frequency
Existing
20 minute
15 minute
10 minute
Scheduled Weekday
Bus Trips
16
25
29
43
Est. Annual
Revenue Miles
96,640
151,000
175,200
259,800
Est. Annual
Revenue Hours
3,690
6,190
7,180
10,650
Annual Cost (1000’s
in 2007$)
$510
$790
$920
$1,360
Collectively, transit, vanpool and carpool, and other options including telecommute can
dampen the vehicle demand on the Glenn Highway. Reducing vehicle demand during
commute periods can limit or delay the need for freeway capacity expansion.
Transportation System Management
Intelligent transportation systems management has demonstrated considerable success
across the nation in achieving better transportation system performance. 10 Example
applications include incident detection/response, traffic management through construction
work zones, and ramp traffic control to improve operations. These management best
practices and techniques could be deployed in the Glenn Highway corridor to reduce travel
delay and improve traffic flow and reliability. Travelers in all modes -- autos, buses, van and
car pools -- would benefit.
People Mover Route 45 – High Performance Transit Route
Route 45 is by far the best performing route in the People
Mover system. It carries more passengers, generates more rider
revenue, and delivers the best operating results per unit of bus
service of all routes in the entire system. Route 45 has the most
weekday riders, Saturday riders and Sunday riders. It also has
the highest number of boarding riders per timetable revenue
hour of service and the highest riders per revenue mile of
service (3.6 vs. system average of 1.9).
9
Route 45 is clearly a
high performance
transit route– it
sports the best route
operating metrics for
the entire People
Mover bus system.
Estimated annual cost to increase Route 102 to 10-minute commute period express bus service is about
$850,000 per year in 2007 dollars. Another $570,000 per year could provide Mat Su Valley commuters
with 30-minute commute period bus headways to Wasilla.
10
Notable examples include the State of Washington traffic incident management program and the State of
California statewide Performance Evaluation Measurement System (PEMS).
-18-
Passengers per
Weekday
3,000
2007 Weekday Service
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1
2
3
7
8
9
13
15
14
36
45
60
Route
Passenger per
Revenue Bus Hour
60
65
75
77B/G
79
102
2007 Weekday Service
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
7
8
9
13
15
14 36
Route
45
60
65 75 77- 79 102
B/G
Route 45 travels between the Downtown Transit Center and the Alaska Native Medical
Center via 3rd Avenue, Commercial Drive, Bragaw Road, UAA Drive, Providence and
Elmore Road. In 2008 a sub-route, 45G, was introduced to address high ridership and
overcrowding. It operates between Downtown and Mountain View and provides service to
the Glenn Square Mall; 45G does not travel south of the Glenn Highway.
Route 45 has consistently performed much better than all other People Mover peer routes.
Its history of riders per bus hour of revenue service is markedly better than the People
Mover systemwide average. Route 45 serves an area which clearly needs and uses public
transit service. Moreover, Route 45 is effective because it links denser residential
neighborhoods with jobs and commercial establishments in downtown, with community and
social services along the corridor, with hospitals and retail centers, and with the university
community.
People Mover began to implement its Blueprint Plan for route restructuring in 2002.
Weekday revenue service hours increased from 381 bus hours daily in 2002 to 439 bus hours
in 2007 (roughly 15%). See Table 3.
-19-
Passengers per Revenue Bus Hour
60.0
Route 45
Systemwide Average
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Route 45 has continuously outperformed other routes since 2001 by a wide margin in
passengers per revenue bus hour of service. Its productivity (riders per bus hour) is 55%
better than the People Mover weekday average and 38% better than the next best route.
Table 3. 2002 and 2007 Weekday Revenue Hours and Riders
2007
Weekday
Route
2002
Timetable
Revenue
Hours
2007
Timetable
Revenue
Hours
2002
Average
Weekday
Riders
2007
Average
Weekday
Riders
2002 2007
Timetable
Revenue
Hours
2002-2007
%
Timetable
Revenue
Hours
2002 2007
Average
Weekday
Riders
2002 2007 %
Average
Weekday
Riders
1
14.48
21.43
193
630
6.95
48%
438
227%
2
25.80
31.25
828
1,076
5.45
21%
248
30%
3/4
51.63
50.85
1,298
1,470
-0.78
-2%
172
13%
7
32.93
47.20
1,118
1,539
14.27
43%
420
38%
8
18.35
19.58
549
707
1.23
7%
158
29%
2.32
15%
130
21%
4%
347
28%
-4%
9
15.83
18.15
603
733
13/15*
51.12
53.38
1,237
1,584
14
6.08
6.90
213
205
0.82
13%
-8
36
29.58
26.13
613
583
-3.45
-12%
-30
-5%
45
46.55
46.80
2,007
2,568
0.25
1%
561
28%
60
29.38
29.05
734
768
-0.33
-1%
34
65
6.18
12.95
83
70
75
24.77
28.13
845
985
3.37
14%
140
17%
77-B/G
24.12
28.90
333
341
4.78
20%
8
2%
11.37
273%
219
285%
79
102
2.92
4.17
15.53
2.27
5%
-15%
11
74
293
Total
380.98 439.17
10,729
13,564
58.18
* Routes 13 and 15 in 2007 are compared to Routes 11 and 12 in 2002
15%
2,835
26%
The figure below displays the increase in weekday bus service revenue hours by route versus
the change in daily route ridership between 2002 and 2007. Route 45 timetable revenue
hours barely changed, 46.55 hours vs. 46.80 hours per weekday; nonetheless, Route 45
gained more weekday riders (561) than any other route over that time span.
Route 1, which started operation in July 2002, was next most productive; it gained 438
additional riders per average weekday with 6.95 additional timetable revenue hours of
-20-
600
Route 45
500
Route 7
Weekday Rider Gain
Route 1
400
300
Route 2
200 Route 8
100
Route 102
Route 75
Route 9
0
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-100
Weekday Bus Hours Increase
Year 2002 – 2007: Change in People Mover weekday bus service hours by route vs.
change in weekday average riders by route. Route 45 increased riders by 561 per weekday
with only 0.25 weekday revenue bus hours added. Route 1 showed 438 weekday
passengers for 6.95 more revenue bus hours; Route 7 had 420 riders and 14.27 added
weekday revenue bus hours
service. Route 7 gained 420 weekday riders with 14.27 added hours of service.
Initiatives to Enhance High Performance
Some actions to enhance higher performance on Route 45 have already been taken. The
schedule frequency has been increased so time intervals between successive buses are
shorter. Additional service has been added to reduce overcrowding on selected trips and
time-of-day. More service has been introduced by “short-turning” some bus schedules to
serve North Mountain View and the Glenn Square Mall.
Additional high performance initiatives may include the following for consideration:
 Reduce headway further as long as boarding passengers per revenue bus hour exceed
other routes in the People Mover system. Route 45 in 2009 had 38% more
passengers per weekday revenue hour than the next best major route and 55% more
than systemwide. This means each additional bus service hour is far more effective
on Route 45 than anywhere else.
 Institute transit signal priority to attain higher bus speed and reduce transit travel
times.
 Interline Route 45 with other routes to enable 1-seat bus rides to more regional
major destinations. For example, interlining Route 45 with Route 7 or Route 3 would
enable access to additional major trip attractions in the Bowl (public service agencies,
Dimond Center, Midtown commercial areas and jobs, Airport, etc.).
 Extend Route 45 service to the Tikahtnu Commons Mall to provide access to jobs
and major commercial establishments.
-21-
Chapter 4
Examining Transit Corridors Performance
Chapter 3 addressed multi-modal coordinated strategies for the Glenn Highway, the
primary regional multimodal transportation corridor. It also identified Route 45 as the
best performing transit route in the People Mover bus system and described
continuing operational initiatives for that route. In this chapter the focus shifts to what
actions and measures might be appropriate for the other 12 bus routes within the
Anchorage Bowl. One of those 12 routes – Route 7 – is used as a prototypical case for
analysis of higher performance opportunities.
Lessons from the People Mover Blueprint Plan, 2002 – 2008
People Mover began the first phase of its Blueprint Plan service restructuring in July
2002. 1 Three phases were carried out through July 2004. A fourth phase, to extend
30-minute all day headways to most routes, could not be fully executed within budget
resources and service remained generally static from 2005 through 2007. The Route 65
circulator in the lower hillside area was eliminated in mid-2007. In July 2008, 30minute midday service on Route 9 and 15 was introduced and added trips were
scheduled on Route 45 to address overcrowding.
Impressive passenger gains and operations productivity have been realized since 2002.
People Mover carried over 4,222,600 annual passengers in 2008, compared to
3,120,500 in 2002. The breakdown of that 1.1 million rider gain is shown below for
weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays.
Table 4. Increase in People Mover Annual Bus Passengers, 2002 to 2008
Weekdays
Saturdays
Sundays
Total
921,760
101,160
78,700
1,100,620
Source: MOA Public Transportation Department Ridership Reports
It is instructive to examine the individual Blueprint Plan service restructuring actions
and how each contributed to the passenger gains that People Mover achieved between
2002 and 2008.
The service changes that People Mover began in 2002 fall into six primary categories:
 Eliminate poor performing routes/services
 Increase service on existing routes, adding more frequent schedules
 Institute “memory schedules” with bus arrivals at the same time each hour
1
Not long before the first restructuring phase, People Mover bus service to Elmendorf Air Base and
Fort Richardson was eliminated along with bus services to military bases across the nation due to
heightened national security in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon.
-23-



Coordinate arrival and departure times Downtown and at other “hubs” for
easy transfers
Start new routes
Increase Saturday and Sunday service span and frequency of service
Each of these six service change actions contributed to the 1.1 million passenger
growth realized by 2008. Other factors such as gasoline price and population growth
also played a role. 2 An evaluation of the effect of each service change action and
external factors on ridership was conducted to interpret their respective importance.
The results are s presented in the following paragraphs.
Eliminate Poor Performers
In 2001 People Mover averaged 28.9 weekday riders per timetable revenue hour
(TTRH) of weekday bus service. But four routes serving the lower Hillside area had
single digit riders per revenue hour. People Mover eliminated those poor performers
and redirected the saved revenue hours to increase service on better performing routes.
That action yielded a gain of 153,000 annual riders by 2008.
Increase Service Frequency
Between 2002 and 2008 about 70 additional weekday timetable revenue hours of
serviced were added. That enabled 103 weekday bus trips to be added. Nearly every
routes gained revenue hours and trips to increase bus frequency (Route 36 had a
decrease of two trips). The added service (i.e., more TTRH’s) resulted in about 359,000
additional weekday riders annually by 2008.
Institute “Memory” Schedules
In 2003 and again in 2004 bus schedules were adjusted to “memory headways” with
bus arrival times consistent from hour to hour. Users now could remember bus times
more easily without constant referral to printed schedules. The easy-to-remember
weekday schedules also contributed additional weekday transit passengers – an
estimated 84,000 annually by 2008.
Coordinated Arrival & Departure Schedules Downtown
Each People Mover bus route serves a limited geographic corridor from a beginning
termini to its ending termini. Nearly all routes end at the Downtown Transit Center.
The Blueprint Plan revamped route schedules to come together and leave Downtown
at common times. This “pulse scheduling” practice enables passengers to more easily
transfer from one route to another without long delays. Coordinated scheduling was
also introduced (to the extent practical) at transit hubs serving U-Med, the Dimond
Center and the Muldoon Center. Coordinated scheduling contributed about 44,000
additional annual riders by 2008.
2
Gasoline prices spiked at over $4.40 per gallon in July 2008.
-24-
New Route Startup
People Mover initiated Route 1 in July 2002, a new crosstown route from DeBarr &
Muldoon roads to the Dimond Center. Route 1 operates from Muldoon via DeBarr
Road, Baxter Road, Tudor Road & Elmore to U-Med, then Providence to Lake Otis
Parkway and Abbot Road to the Dimond Center. Starting with weekday service only,
Route 1 service expanded from 14.5 TTRH in 2002 to 22.7 weekday TTRH in 2008
plus 14.8 hours on Saturdays and 11.1 hours on Sundays. Weekday ridership grew
from 24,600 in 2002 to 170,400 in 2008. Some of the weekday passenger growth is
attributed to the gasoline price surge in 2008; the net effect of new route service
TTRHs is estimated at 136,200 weekday riders. 3
Deploying transit service on a new route has both upside and downside effects. The
upside is new riders will be attracted to the service; the downside is a startup delay in
rider response to a new route. A similar but lesser effect occurs when service is added
on a pre-existing route. Two examples are examined below – the first for the Route 1
introduction and the second for added service on Route 9 in 2008.
Route 1. The figure below shows weekday riders and riders per timetable revenue
hour of bus service for the first 30-months operation of Route 1, beginning in July
2002. Route 1 underperformed the systemwide average each of its first 30 months of
operation. People Mover’s systemwide average was 28 to 29 passengers per revenue
bus hour on weekdays in 2002 through 2004. The new Route 1 did not achieve that
systemwide passenger productivity level until well after 30 months of operation.
Route 1 Weekday Passengers & Passengers per Revenue Bus Hour, Startup
to 30 months
Passengers per Revenue Bus Hour
37
500
450
34
31
System Avg Pass/Bus Hr
400
350
28
Service increased 40%
25
300
22
250
19
200
16
150
13
100
10
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Weekday Passengers
550
40
Passengers
2002
2003
2004
3
In addition, weekend service on Route 1 carried 30,200 riders in 2008. The weekend riders are
considered within the added weekend service category.
-25-
Passengers per Revenue Bus Hour
600
In the first 9 months, Route 1 passengers per revenue bus hour were less than one-half
the system average. Ridership grew quite steadily and began to level off at about 525
weekday passengers after month 25. Had the Route 1 bus revenue hours been
deployed elsewhere instead, at the systemwide average riders per revenue bus hour,
4,860 more passengers would have been carried. So, new routes carry a startup
surcharge – they are unlikely to be as productive in attracting riders as the system
average for the first two to three years.
.
Route 9 (added service to existing route). A similar, but lesser, startup lag generally
should be expected when service is increased on an existing route. For an established
route the scale and duration of the lag is less because riders are already familiar and
adaptation to improved service occurs more quickly. The figure below shows Route 9
performance for 18 months before and 21 months after weekday service frequency
was upgraded from hourly to 30-minute midday in July 2008 (just as gasoline prices
were peaking at $4.40 per gallon). Passengers per weekday trended upward
immediately, then fell back for several months, eventually holding at about 960 –
approximately 200 more passengers per weekday than were carried before the service
improvement.
Route 9 Before and After Added Weekday Revenue Bus Hours, July 2008
Passengers
48
Passengers/Revenue Bus Hour
1000
44
900
40
800
36
700
32
600
28
30 Min Midday Service Begins
500
400
24
Jan
2007
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
2008
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
2009
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
2010
Mar
Passengers per Revenue Bus Hour
Passengers per Weekday
1100
20
Passengers per weekday TTRH of bus service averaged 40.2 for January through June
2008 prior to the added midday service; it fell immediately but then rebounded to
average 36 passengers per bus hour through July 2009. Route 9 continues to attain
higher passengers per revenue hour than the weekday systemwide average. [Note:
Route 15 also was increased in 2008 from hourly to 30 minute frequency. Its passenger
volume increased from 700 weekday riders to 950 while passenger per revenue bus
hour initially declined sharply but then rebounded to about the same level as in 2007.]
-26-
Added Weekend Service
Saturday riders on People Mover number a little less than one-half as many as on
weekdays. Sunday riders number about one-quarter as many as on weekdays. But for
both weekend days, the trend in ridership has been upward since implementation of
the Blueprint Plan began in 2002. Weekend rider gains were due to more revenue
service scheduled as well as earlier and later hours of operation. Most of the weekend
service increases and rider gains took place in 2003 - 2005. In 2008 People Mover
carried 179,800 more weekend passengers than in 2002.
Annual Saturday and Sunday Riders, 2002 – 2008
400,000
Saturday
Sunday
Annual Passengers
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Other Factors – Gasoline Price Spike
Gasoline prices in Anchorage began to rise sharply in late February 2008. By May
gasoline was over $4.00 per gallon and spiked at over $4.40 per gallon in July 2008.
Travelers responded to the sharply higher gas prices by shifting to transit. From May
through August 2008, People Mover carried nearly 95,000 more passengers than for
the same months in 2007. The gas price surge is estimated to account for nearly
148,000 added bus trips in 2008.
Other Factors – Population Growth
-27-
Population in Anchorage grew by about 16,000 persons from 267,860 in July 2002 to
283,900 as of July 2008. 4 These new residents account for an estimated 650 annual
transit trips; thus they represent a very small fraction of the ridership gain that People
Mover achieved.
Summary of Findings
The six Blueprint Plan restructuring actions together with the effect of gasoline price
spiking collectively grew People Mover ridership by 1.1 million between 2002 and
2008. Population growth in the Anchorage region had a negligible ridership impact.
The effect of the various service change actions are illustrated in the pie chart below.
By far the largest ridership effect came directly from adding weekday timetable revenue
hours on existing routes; that contributed 33% of the ridership gain. Added timetable
hours for weekend service accounted for 16% of total passenger growth. Cancelling
poor performing route and redirecting those
TTRH hours to other routes provided
1.1 Million Riders Gained, 2002 to 2008
14% of the rider gain. Establishing
a new route (Route 1) delivered 12%
of the new riders; the gasoline price
Drop Poor
Add Weekend
surge in 2008 contributed 13%.
Rtes
TTRH
Memory headways and coordinated
schedules downtown reinforced and
Higher Gas
strengthen the effect of other service
Price
change actions; together they contributed
Add Weekday
TTRH
12% of the total system gain.
New Route
Coord
M emory
Schedules
Hdwys
Over 61% of the total rider gain is
attributed to added timetable revenue
hours of service on weekdays, weekends, and a new route.
Re-assigning TTRH from poorly performing routes and instituting memory headways
and coordinating arrival and departure route schedules downtown yielded about 25%
of the ridership growth.
Added Service vs. Added Riders
The strong relationship between timetable revenue hours of service and ridership also
is apparent for individual routes. The composite effect of added TTRHs of service,
memory headways and coordinated “pulse scheduling” Downtown is examined here
for weekdays. The chart below displays the percent change for each route in TTRH
4
http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/09T4-3.xls
Sources: US Census 2000, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and
Analysis Section, Demographics Unit. Table 4.3 - 2009 Estimates for Alaska Places, 2000-2009
-28-
from 2002 to 2007 vs. the corresponding percent increase in passengers. Year 2007 is
used in this analysis to exclude the effect of the gasoline price spike in 2008.
Route 1 and Route 102 had large percentage changes in TTRH and riders; they stand
out at the right side of the graph. All other routes exhibit a collinear pattern but are
clustered around the lower left of the chart. Route 102 exhibited a percentage increase
in riders very close to the percentage increase in TTRH of service. This service
elasticity – the percentage change in riders for a one percent change in service hours -is nearly 1:1; that is unusually high. Route 1 had even higher rider elasticity, showing
227% increase in riders compared to 49% increase in TTRHs of service over the fiveyear period.
% Increase in Revenue Bus
Hours
Increase in TTRH vs. Increase in Riders by Route, 2002 – 2007
300%
Route 102
250%
200%
150%
100%
Route 1
50%
0%
-50%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
% Increase in Riders
A larger scale display of the same information for selected routes (with Routes 1 and
102 excluded) is shown in the next chart. Again, it is apparent that a number of routes
achieved higher percentage rider gains than their corresponding percentage increase in
timetable revenue bus hours. Routes 60, 3, 9, 2, 8, and 45 performed well. Route 45’s
performance at 28% rider increase and only 0.5% increase in timetable hours was
particularly noteworthy.
System Route Structure and Coverage
A public transit system has to focus services where there is greatest demand and
opportunity to attract riders. People Mover orients nearly all of its routes to serve
Downtown because travel and activity is concentrated, downtown is walkable, parking
spaces are limited, and there are parking fees.
Over ninety percent of transit riders are traveling either from or to their home.
Therefore bus routes need to be near as many homes as possible and connect to a
variety of destinations. Most people choose not to walk more than one-quarter mile to
get to or from bus stops., Accordingly, each bus route effectively serves a relatively
-29-
Increase in TTRH vs. Increase in Riders for Selected Routes, 2002 – 2007
50%
Route 7
30%
Route 77
Bus Hours
% Increase in Revenue
40%
20%
Route 2
Route 75
Route 9
Route 14
10%
Route 8
Route 3
Route 60
Route 45
0%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
-10%
Route 36
-20%
% Increase in Riders
narrow 1/2 mile geographic band, ¼ mile each side of its path. As a consequence there
are many potential traveler destinations which are not directly accessible on a particular
bus route; transfer to a second bus route is required for such destinations.
Parts of the Anchorage Bowl, notably the Hillside area and south Anchorage, are
simply not hospitable to transit service due to low density development and terrain.
People Mover’s route system generally blankets the remainder of the Bowl. Transit
service is accessible to approximately three-quarters of the population within the
transit focus area.
Where Transit Riders Are Going
Boarding and alighting counts at People Mover bus stops give some clue about where
riders are going. Most bus stops have low counts because they serve adjacent
residential areas. Busier bus stops or route segments with large numbers of boarding
passengers are generally around major destinations.
The most active bus stops, displayed below, are highly concentrated Downtown and at
U-Med, the Dimond Center and Muldoon transit hubs 5 . Downtown is the dominant
destination. Others include the Northway Mall and Mountain View. Transit passenger
destinations are highly focused in areas that are served by multiple bus routes.
Bus Stops with High Passenger On and Off Activity, March 2005
5
Many passengers transfer to reach their destination. Transferring passengers are included in boarding counts
within the destination concentrations, especially in the Downtown area.
-30-
The Burden of Transferring
Majority of 2001 and 2005 Transit Riders Transferred to Reach Destinations
three or
more, 7%
two, 18%
three or
more,
18%
2001
2005
none, 38%
none,
48%
two, 21%
one, 27%
one, 22%
Note: Values show number of transfers, percentage of riders.
Direct service from origin to destination is important to most travelers. Changing
buses or modes en route is a significant deterrent to attractive service and typically
not favorably viewed. A 2001 People Mover rider survey queried passengers about
transfers. A second People Mover rider survey in 2005 also asked passengers if they
had to transfer to complete their bus trip. The 2001 survey found that 52% of
People Mover riders transfer buses to reach their destinations; while the 2005
survey reported 62% of riders reached their destinations by transferring.
-31-
TBEST – Route and Service Planning Tools
Travel within cities is diverse and complex. In Anchorage over one million individual
trips are made each day by residents for a variety of purposes to a broad array of
destinations. Estimating how many of those daily journeys will use transit is
complicated.
This project implemented a transit ridership estimation model to help People Mover’s
planning staff evaluate People Mover transit routes and potential service changes. The
Florida Department of Transportation sponsored research leading to development of
the ridership model, “TBEST”. TBEST is a computer simulation model that uses
descriptions of the transit system routes, bus stop locations, service frequency by time
of day and day of week, and detailed socio-economic characteristics of the population
along each route to compute ridership estimates at individual stops. TBEST is useful
for evaluating ridership changes due to routing changes, headway improvements, hours
of operation, and other modifications.
The TBEST model was calibrated for People Mover. It can be used by planning staff
for continuing analysis and assessments of possible service changes.
Schedule Interlining – Selectivity May Help
People Mover currently assigns buses and drivers to bus schedules without limiting the
itinerary that an individual driver/bus may be assigned. For example, a driver may
start his workshift on a Route 45 trip, then make a Route 7 trip, next complete a Route
60 trip schedule and so on throughout the day. Unconstrained interlining is used to
find the least costly way to operate all of the scheduled bus trips.
But this practice has two other consequences. First, People Mover bus driver work
runs commonly span multiple routes each day, so drivers must know every route and
its bus stop locations. Drivers assigned to a limited number of routes would be more
familiar with those routes and therefore may provide superior service. Also improved
passenger convenience may be realized if a conscious alignment of bus routings with
passenger transfer patterns could increase the likelihood that passengers transferring
between routes might obtain a one-seat ride.
Passenger surveys indicate strong transfer patterns between certain People Mover
routes. Routes 45, 75, 3 and 7 experience the highest passenger transfer interchange.
Selective interlining of these high transfer routes may serve riders better at very minor
cost to People Mover. Additionally, interlining between selective routes to enlarge
access to major employment, medical, services, and shopping attractions could
provides riders more destination accessibility opportunities. People Mover should
explore and evaluate these options.
-32-
Route 7 – Prototype Analysis for High Performance Transit Corridor
Route 7, serving the Spenard Road and Jewel Lake corridor is analyzed as a Prototype
Corridor case. The analysis examines a number of service attributes to achieve better service
quality and higher ridership response. The prototype corridor analysis is a pilot study on a
single People Mover route. Study considerations include route coverage, service headways,
ridership, bus running times, on-time performance, stop spacing, coordination among
routes, origin-destination patterns, transit signal priority, and household socio-economic
profiles along the corridor. In the future, the analysis methodology may be replicated on
other People Mover routes.
Route 7 Service Profile
Route 7 provides transit service between the
Downtown Transit Center and Dimond
Center via L and I streets, Spenard Road ,
Jewel Lake Road, Arlene Street, and Dimond
Boulevard. The route is split into two
separate travel patterns, or ‘sub-routes’: 7 and
7A. Every 7A goes to the Airport while
Route 7 does not except evenings and
weekends. South of International Airport
Road, 7 and 7A operate different route
patterns between Jewel Lake/Collins Way
and between Raspberry/Arlene, as shown
here. Route 7 transfers can be made to other
People Mover routes (3, 9 and 36) in addition
to transfers at the transit centers at
Downtown and the Dimond Center.
Coverage -- Split Routing Makes Sense
The development density along Route 7 is
markedly different north of the Airport than
south of the Airport where much lower
density prevails. In the latter environment,
added route coverage is achieved by spitting
service among the Route 7 and Route 7A
branches so that transit service is accessible
to more households in the Jewel Lake
community
Service Schedule & Frequency
Weekdays: Before 6 PM the overall frequency of weekday transit service along the majority
of the Route 7 corridor is every half-hour, alternating between the respective hourly service
of 7 and 7A. After 6 PM all buses (both 7 and 7A) go into the airport. South of International
Airport Road, 7 and 7A maintain their respective (different) routing.
-33-
Table 5. Weekday Scheduled Bus Travel Times (end-to-end), Effective July 2009
Direction and Route
AM peak
Mid-day PM peak
Inbound 7
40
40, 44
44
Inbound 7A
50
50, 52
52
Outbound 7
43
43, 50
50
Outbound 7A
53
53, 58
58
Saturday and Sunday: Weekend frequency is hourly, with all buses (both 7 and 7A) going
into the airport. South of International Airport Road, 7 and 7A maintain their different route
patterns.
Service Time Span
Service on weekdays starts at approximately 6 AM and continues through 11:30 PM. Weekend service is more abbreviated, spanning approximately 13 hours on Saturdays from 8 AM
through 9 PM while Sunday service operates approximately 10AM to 7 PM.
Table 6. Weekday, Saturday & Sunday Service Start & End Times, Effective July 2009
Route 7 Direction
Inbound
First bus leaves Dimond Center
Last bus arrives Downtown
Outbound First bus leaves Downtown
Last bus arrives Dimond Center
Weekday
6:02 AM
10:49 PM
6:15 AM
11:36 PM
Saturday
7:49 AM
8:41PM
8:35 AM
9:26 PM
Sunday
9:51 AM
6:40 PM
10:35 AM
6:56 PM
Passenger Boardings
Systemwide service changes were made in July 2003 and again in July 2004, generally
increasing frequency on routes and providing better connections between routes. Service
improvements on Route 7 made in July 2003 continued through 2006; they added 15 more
weekday scheduled trips, 7 more Saturday trips and 8 more Sunday trips. In 2007 service was
reduced slightly when intra-Airport service on Postmark Drive was discontinued. Ridership
on Route 7 increased by nearly 38% between 2002 and 2007, gaining 420 riders per weekday.
The corresponding systemwide rider increase was 27.1%.
Route 7 Average Weekday Riders, 2000 to 2007
Route 7 Average Weekday Ridership
Passenger Boardings
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
-34-
2005
2006
2007
Passengers per timetable revenue hour (productivity) on Route 7 fell in 2003 and 2004, even
as the number of riders rose steadily Productivity declined somewhat in 2003 and 2004
because passenger gains lagged the revenue hours increase in 2003. Productivity has edged
upward since 2004.
Hour
# of Passengers per Rev
Route 7 Passengers per Timetable Revenue Hour
Route 7 Passengers per Timetable Revenue
Hour
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
(YTD
2nd Qtr.)
Year
Passengers per scheduled bus trip inbound and outbound are shown below for weekdays
and Saturdays in mid-2007. Over 20 riders per trip are carried except for the early morning
and late evening schedules. On weekdays, the Route 7 trips scheduled at 58 minutes after
the hour consistently carry more than the Route 7A trips (at 12 minutes after each hour)
because the Route 7A weekday trips take an additional eight to ten minutes time to serve the
airport.
Route 7 Weekday Average
Inbound
Riders by
Time
of Day
(2nd Quarter 2007)
7 Inbound
Weekday,
2nd
Quarter
2007
Start of Inbound Run
-35-
9:12PM
10:00PM
8:12PM
7:12PM
6:10PM
5:54PM
5:10PM
4:55PM
4:10PM
3:54PM
3:10PM
2:54PM
2:10PM
1:54PM
1:12PM
12:58PM
12:12PM
11:58AM
11:12AM
10:58AM
9:58AM
10:12AM
9:12AM
8:58AM
8:12AM
7:58AM
7:12AM
6:58AM
6:12AM
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5:58AM
#of Riders
(YTD Average Ridership by Time of Day)
nd
Route
Route
7 Weekday
7 Weekday
Average
Average
Outbound
Outbound
Riders
Riders
by Time
by Time
of Day,
of Day
(2nd(2Quarter
Quarter
2007)
2007)
9:45 PM
10:45 PM
8:45 PM
7:45 PM
6:45 PM
6:15 PM
5:45 PM
5:15 PM
4:45 PM
4:15 PM
3:45 PM
3:15 PM
2:45 PM
2:15 PM
1:45 PM
1:15 PM
12:45 PM
12:15 PM
11:45 AM
11:15 AM
10:45 AM
9:45 AM
10:15 AM
9:15 AM
8:45 AM
8:15 AM
7:45 AM
7:15 AM
6:45 AM
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
6:15 AM
# of Riders
7 Outbound Weekday, 2nd Quarter 2007
(YTD Average Ridership by Time of Day)
Start of Outbound Run
Route 7 Saturday7Average
Inbound
Riders
byQuarter
Time of 2007
Day (2nd Quarter 2007)
Inbound
Saturday,
2nd
(YTD Average Ridership by Time of Day)
50
# of Riders
40
30
20
7:16 PM
6:46 PM
5:46 PM
4:46 PM
3:46 PM
2:46 PM
1:46 PM
12:46 PM
11:46 AM
10:46 AM
9:46 AM
8:46 AM
0
7:46 AM
10
Start of Inbound Run
Route 7 Saturday Average Outbound Riders by Time of Day (2nd Quarter 2007)
Start of Outbound Run
-36-
8:26PM
7:26PM
6:26PM
5:26PM
4:26PM
3:26PM
2:26PM
1:26PM
12:26PM
11:26AM
10:26AM
9:26AM
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8:26AM
#of Riders
7 Outbound Saturday, 2nd Quarter 2007
(YTD Average Ridership by Time of Day)
Route 7 Passengers On and Off by Segment
Route 7 has strong destination attractions at its northern Downtown termini and at its
southern Dimond Center termini. Most Route 7 passengers either board or alight at the
Downtown Transit Center or the Dimond Center. Between 75% and 80% of passengers get
on or off at those two centers. Elsewhere along the route passenger boarding and alighting
activity is significantly lower with only a few bus stops accommodating more than 10
passengers per day. Passenger on and off counts are higher north of the Airport than are
counts south of the Airport. This reflects both higher density and greater transit usage in the
Spenard community than in the Jewel Lake neighborhoods.
Route 7 Inbound Boarding Riders by Route Segment, March 2005
Route 7 Inbound Riders by Segment
(March 2005)
400
# of Riders
350
300
Boardings
250
Alightings
200
150
100
50
0
1. Chester Creek to 2. Chester Creek to
3.
Dow ntow nTC Spenard/Minnesota Spenard/Minnesota
To Int. Airport Rd.
4. Airport Area
5. Int. Airport Rd. to
6. Jew el
7.
Jew el
Lake/Straw berry to Minnesota/Dimond
Lake/Straw berry Minnesota/Dimond
to Dimond TC
Segment
Route 7 Outbound BRoute
oarding
Riders
by by
Route
Segment, March 2005
7 Outbound
Riders
Segment
# of Riders
(March 2005)
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Boardings
Alightings
1. Chester Creek to 2. Chester Creek to
3.
Dow ntow nTC
Spenard/Minnesota Spenard/Minnesota
To Int. Airport Rd.
4. Airport Area
5. Int. Airport Rd. to
6. Jew el
7.
Jew el
Lake/Straw berry to Minnesota/Dimond
Lake/Straw berry Minnesota/Dimond
to Dimond TC
Segment
Traffic Signal Impacts on Travel Times
Route 7 has over 30 traffic signals along its path between the Downtown Transit Center and
the Dimond Center. A series of auto travel time runs were made with a GPS receiver that
recorded time and location readings every five seconds. A total of 28 runs were made in
both directions. The auto travel route followed the #7 bus route between the Downtown
Transit Center (TC) and International Airport Road, then continued south (skipping the
Airport terminals) along Jewel Lake Road to Dimond Boulevard, then east to the Dimond
-37-
Center. Data was collected on weekdays between May 16 and June 14, 2007. Typical travel
time by auto varies from 25 to 35 minutes depending on traffic conditions. Waiting at traffic
signals accounts for approximately one-third of the total travel time.
Total Auto Travel Time and Signal Delay by Time of Day, Spring 2007
30.00
Travel Minutes
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Travel Time
0.00
AM PEAK
MIDDAY
Signal Delay
PM PEAK
EVENING
Multiple travel time runs between the Downtown Transit Center and the Dimond Center measured auto
travel times, averaging 25 to 30 minutes for the inbound direction and 30 to 34 minutes for the outbound
direction. Time stopped at traffic signals comprises about one-third of the total travel time.
Bus Travel Time
Bus travel time vis-à-vis auto travel time is a key factor in judging transit attractiveness. In
general, travel by bus in Anchorage can take two to three times the journey time by auto for
equivalent itineraries. 1 A detailed analysis of bus running times on Route 7 was conduced in
2007 using on-board GIS recorders to log bus travel time along the route. Data collected on
20 scheduled bus trips provides a picture of how much time is devoted to passenger pick up
and drop off, traffic congestion, and delay at traffic signals.
The Route 7 scheduled bus times between Downtown and the Dimond Center in effect
during the travel time field runs are summarized in Table 7 (published in the July 10, 2006
People Mover Timetable Ride Guide). Route 7A schedule times were longer than Route 7
by 14 to 17 minutes per trip due to service into Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport. 2
Passengers alighting and/or boarding for 400 individual events were observed. The bus
Table 7. Route 7 and 7A Weekday Scheduled Bus Travel Times, Spring 2007
1
The 2008 US Census American Community Survey reports average travel time to work for transit
passengers in Anchorage was 41.6 minutes; commute time for auto drivers averaged 19.4 minutes.
2
The airport service on 7A included service on Postmark Drive to and from the US Post Office and freight
carriers. People Mover service on that loop was discontinued in July 2007.
-38-
Direction and Route
Inbound 7
Inbound 7A
Outbound 7
Outbound 7A
AM peak
38
54
40
57
Mid-day
38, 42
54, 56
40, 50
57, 63
PM peak
42
56
50
63
dwell time for one passenger boarding (with no bicycle or ramp use) at a stop is approximately 15 seconds; a single passenger alighting takes 9 seconds. Most stops have only one or
two passengers boarding or alighting so bus dwell times per stop are relatively low. 3
Somewhat over three percent of the 400 stop events involved passengers mounting a bicycle
on the bus bike rack before boarding. Stops where a passenger with a bicycle is getting on
or off have longer dwell times, largely dictated by the passenger’s time to get the bicycle on
or off the bus’s bicycle rack. These dwell times ranged between 17 and 82 seconds, averaging
37 seconds.
A very few stop events involve boarding or exiting passengers in wheelchairs for which the
bus loading ramp is extended. Ramp use necessarily extends the bus dwell time as do passengers using a walker or crutches. Observed dwell times ranged from 45 seconds to 164
seconds for passengers using walkers or wheelchairs, including time to properly secure the
wheelchairs.
The breakdown of time for Route 7 bus trips is displayed in the chart below. Dwell time at
passenger bus stops varies from 15% to 20% of total travel time while traffic signal delay
accounts for 22% to 36% of total time. The actual time a bus is in motion typically accounts
for about one-half to two-thirds of the bus total travel time.
Route 7 Bus Time Spent In Motion, Signal Delay, and Stop Dwells
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Bus Travel
Signal Delay
Passenger Stops
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AM Peak
Mid-Day
PM Peak
Average
Bus schedule time on Route 7 typically took about 40 minutes in 2007 (56 to 63 minutes for trips
that serve the Airport). The total travel time is divided between time spent stopping to pick up and
3
Dwell time is the time the bus was stopped; it does not include either deceleration before the stop or
acceleration time after the stop.
-39-
drop off passengers (16%), time waiting at traffic signals (27%) and time in-motion along the
route (46%).
Signal delay puts more stress on on-time bus schedule performance. Other cities and regions
have implemented traffic signal schemes – termed transit signal priority -- that extend or
initiate signal green times for buses to improve bus speeds. Traffic signals delay tends to
increase over time with congestion. Signal delay lengthens bus schedule times which in turn
increases transit operating costs.
While the impact of delay at individual signals may seem slight, that is not the case for all
weekday bus trips aggregated over a full year. Route 7 has 60 trips per weekday or 15,300
per year. Assume implementation of transit signal priority could reduce bus running times
by 3% to 7%; that equates to roughly $30,000 to $98,000 annual savings for Route 7.
Extrapolation of the Route 7 transit signal priority savings over the entire People Mover
system might yield annual savings of $280,000 to $900,000 per year. These preliminary
estimates suggest it is worthwhile to conduct and evaluate a Transit Signal Priority Pilot Test;
the Public Transportation Department proposed such a pilot test for Assembly approval and
is currently conducting a limited pilot test on Routes 7 and 9.
On Time Performance – Monitoring and Measurements
On-time schedule performance was measured for 20 bus runs on Route 7 in June 2007.
Eleven trips arrived on-time at their Downtown or Dimond Center route termini. Nine (9)
trips or 45% were three or more minutes late; five trips (25%) arrived five or more minutes
late.
On-time performance and reliability of bus service is important to riders. The People Mover
2001 Blueprint Plan specifies 85% or better on-time performance as satisfactory; it notes
that schedule adherence is a critical success factor. 4 Collection of on-time schedule performance data for People Mover has been limited by availability of staff resources to conduct field studies and summarize results. As of 2008, on-time performance data is becoming
available from the Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system that People Mover installed on
its buses. Reports from the AVL system show the on-time schedule adherence for bus stops
along a chosen route for a specified date range. Other reports display the trip-by-trip
elapsed time between successive time checkpoints along a route for a specified date span.
The AVL system and associated reporting features are not fully operational as of June 2010.
Still, interim Route 7 schedule adherence reports for January, February and early March 2009
show a disturbing disparity between scheduled and actual time departures for Route 7 bus
stops. Similarly, AVL-generated running time reports for Route 7 in October 2009 indicate
recurring late arrivals.
4
Nationally, rail services typically set 95% or better as their on-time performance standard; bus on-time
standards tend to be lower, generally above 80% or 85%.
-40-
Bus Operations Information System
The AVL system referenced above is one of several advanced technology components of
People Mover’s emerging information management system for operations, scheduling and
management. Other components include mobile data computers, data and voice
communications between drivers and dispatch, computerized scheduling and driver
assignments, automated passenger counters, and passenger information signs. Evaluation for
final acceptance of the installed information system and reporting features is in progress at
People Mover as of June 2010.
The capabilities provided by the technologies and associated information system are
important to People Mover. They enable real-time monitoring for dispatch and operations
management and report alerts for unexpected events. Automated data collection supports
analysis of on-time performance, scheduled vs. actual running times between timepoints,
passenger boardings and alightings by location and passenger miles of travel, and driver duty
logs. The passenger boarding, on-time performance, and running time reports will prove
particularly powerful in evaluating and refining schedules for the entire system. Reporting
system performance metrics provides a benchmark for on-going analysis and improvements.
Bus Stop Spacing
People Mover Route 7 has over 50 inbound bus stops and over 60 outbound stops. The stop
locations determine how accessible bus service is for nearby residents and businesses. Stops
also affect bus travel speed; the more stops the slower the bus speed.
Bus drivers pull up to a bus stop if there is someone waiting or if a passenger wishes to get
off the bus. As a consequence, a typical Route 7 trip stops at only one-third to one-half of
all bus stops. Table 8 shows the number and percentage of bus stops utilized per bus trip
for Route 7 and 7A by direction and time-of-day for a sample of bus trips. Buses on Route
7 generally carry more passengers per trip and make more stops than do Route 7A buses.
Table 8. Route 7 Number of Stops Utilized and Percent of All Stops, Sampled Bus Trips
Direction and Route
AM peak
mid-day
PM peak
Inbound 7 (52 total stops)
21 (40.4%)
28 (53.8%)
Inbound 7A (55 total stops)
20 (36.4%)
15 (27.3%)
14 (25.5%)
11 (20%)
16 (29.1%)
16 (29.1%)
21 (38.2%)
Outbound 7 (64 total stops)
22 (34.4%)
22 (34.4%)
24 (37.5%)
23 (35.9%)
16 (25%)
33 (51.6%)
Outbound 7A (68 total stops)
20 (29.4%)
20 (29.4%)
22 (32.4%)
21 (30.9%)
24 (46.2%)
Spenard Town Center Analysis: Spenard Road between Hillcrest Drive and 30th Avenue
has the highest population density in the Route 7 corridor as well as the highest transit stop
usage. A planned Spenard Road reconstruction project anticipates reconfiguring the
-41-
roadway. A detailed analysis of Route 7 bus stop locations and spacing was conducted.
Population and jobs within ¼ mile of each intersection were computed to determine which
potential bus stop location(s) provide accessibility to the largest number of residents and job
opportunities. Existing bus stop locations were then compared to these most accessible
locations. Proposed changes to bus stop locations are shown in the figure below. Two
southbound bus stops (north of 26th and south of 27th) are proposed to be replaced by a
single mid-block stop. The northbound bus stop north of 23rd is proposed to be moved
closer to Hillcrest Drive. These stop location adjustments are intended to improve bus speed
and enhance access and pedestrian safety.
Spenard Road Existing and Proposed Bus Stop Locations, Hillcrest to 29th Avenue
Existing stops in purple (left) and proposed new locations (right) for stops in the Spenard Town Center area,
Red numbers show the population within ¼ mile of points designated by the red triangles.
Overlapping Routes - Route 7, 3 and 36
Routes 3, 7 and 36 traverse common paths between the Downtown Transit Center and
Chester Creek. South of Chester Creek, Route 7 (inbound and outbound) and Route 3
(outbound) run on Hillcrest and Spenard to Benson; Route 3 inbound operates on Northern
Lights Blvd and Minnesota. Route 36 operates inbound and outbound on Minnesota to
Northern Lights.
The scheduled departure time from the Downtown Transit Center for these three routes is
staggered by five minutes: Route 36 leaves at 10 minutes past the hour, Route 7 at 15 and 45
-42-
minutes past and Route 3 at 20 and 50 minutes after the hour. The result is uneven service
along L and I streets – with buses separated by 5 minutes, then 25 minutes, and again 5
minutes followed by 20 minutes. Alternatively, the five scheduled bus trips each hour could
be timed every 12 minutes and provide consistently-timed, superior service.
There is a tradeoff if coordinated 12 minute service were to be considered. Current
scheduling practice is structured around coordinated arrival/departure times for multiple
routes into and out of the Downtown Transit Center. Bus scheduling is intended to enable
easy transfer opportunities. In fact, route schedules arriving and departing are somewhat
staggered. This is partially due to limited curb space which cannot accommodate buses from
all routes simultaneously at the Transit Center, but also because of individual route
operational schedules and running times.
Would putting routes 3, 7 and 36 on a consistent 12 minute service interval along K and L
streets disrupt easy transfers between routes downtown? Passenger transfer activity at the
Downtown Transit Center was analyzed using data collected for six days in April 2008. A
total of 477 transferring passengers were observed. Key findings from the transfer
observations are:






Route 45 had the highest number of transferring passengers. Forty-six percent
(46%) of all observed Downtown transfers were to or from Route 45
Route 7 had the second highest number of transfers; 20% of total observed
transfers were to or from Route 7.
The highest number of passengers transferring from Route 3, Route 7 and Route
36 in each case was to Route 45.
22 passengers were observed transferring between Routes 3 and 45
28 passengers were observed transferring between Routes 7 and 45
14 passengers were observed transferring between Routes 36 and 45
Bus schedules for Routes 3, 7 and 36 arriving and departing the Downtown Transit Center
were examined to determine the wait time for transfers to and from Route 45. Table 9
shows the wait time for passengers arriving Downtown on Routes 3, 7 and 36 who transfer
to outbound trips on Route 45. Bus schedules from early morning through mid-day are
displayed.
The elapsed time from scheduled arrival on each of the three routes to scheduled Route 45
departure times is commonly over 20 minutes. Only four of the scheduled trips shown have
transfer wait time of less than 10 minutes.
-43-
Table 9. Downtown Transit Center Transfer Times from Routes 3, 7 and 36 to Route 45,
July 2009
Rte 3 Arr
6:49
7:14
52
8:16
46
9:14
44
10:14
44
11:14
44
12:22
52
13:22
52
Rte 45 Dep
7:05
35
8:05
21
9:05
35
10:05
35
11:05
35
12:05
35
13:05
13:35
2:00
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
16
21
13
5
19
21
21
21
21
21
21
13
13
13
8
Rte 7 Arr
6:42
7:12
42
8:12
42
9:12
42
10:12
42
11:12
42
12:12
42
13:12
42
Rte 45 Dep
7:05
35
8:05
21
9:05
35
10:05
35
11:05
35
12:05
35
13:05
13:35
2:00
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
23
23
23
9
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
18
Rte 36 Arr
Rte 45 Dep
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
6:42
7:12
42
8:12
42
7:05
35
8:05
21
9:05
21
23
21
9
23
9:42
10:05
23
10:42
11:05
23
11:42
12:05
23
12:46
13:05
23
Table 10 shows transfer wait times for passengers arriving at the Downtown Transit Center
on Route 45 who transfer to Routes 3, 7 and 36.
Table 10. Downtown Transit Center Transfer Times from Route 45 to Routes 3, 7 and 36,
July 2009
Rte 45 Arr
6:34
56
7:26
54
8:23
48
9:07
14
39
10:09
39
11:13
43
12:03
43
13:03
Rte 3 Dep
6:50
7:20
50
8:20
8:50
8:50
9:20
9:20
50
10:20
50
11:20
50
12:20
50
13:22
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
16
24
24
26
27
2
13
6
11
11
11
7
7
17
7
18
Rte 45 Arr
6:34
56
7:26
54
8:23
48
9:07
14
39
10:09
39
11:13
43
12:03
Rte 7 Dep
6:45
7:15
45
8:15
45
9:15
9:15
9:15
45
10:15
45
11:15
45
12:15
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
11
19
19
21
22
27
8
1
6
6
6
2
2
12
Rte 45 Arr
6:34
56
7:26
54
8:23
48
9:07
14
39
10:09
39
11:13
43
12:03
Rte 36 Dep
Trsfr Wait
(minutes)
7:10
7:10
8:10
8:10
9:10
9:10
9:10
10:10
10:10
10:10
11:10
12:10
12:10
12:10
The transfer wait times for passengers going from Route 45 to Route 3, 7 and 36 spans a
range from one minute to 56 minutes; in general, the transfer passengers from Route 45
have longer transfer times than those transferring from the three routes to Route 45. For
-44-
36
14
36
16
47
22
3
56
31
1
31
57
27
7
many cases the transfer time is over 20 minutes. Transfer wait times after 9 AM generally
are shorter than during the morning peak period except for Route 36.
Further examination of shifting Route 3, 7 and 36 schedules to more uniformly spaced trips
is suggested to provide better service between Downtown and Benson Boulevard. Route 7
has the most transfers with other routes Downtown. Therefore Route 7 may be the logical
time-coordinated connection to other routes at the Transit Center. Route 7 also has the
largest number of boarding and alighting passengers between Downtown and Northern
Lights Boulevard so it could be the service backbone through this area.
Route 7 Bus Service vs. O-D Patterns
The destinations of Route 7 bus riders are dominantly focused in the Downtown area and
the Dimond Mall area. In excess of three-quarters of all passengers go to those locations
while only a modest share of riders has intermediate destinations along the route.
Data from AMATS’ 2007 origin – destination travel patterns were summarized for the Sand
Lake, Jewell Lake and Spenard communities served by Route 7. Residents of these areas
make about 140,000 daily person trips by all modes. Approximately 10% of trips by corridor
residents are to Midtown and six percent to Downtown. Over 20% of resident trips have
destinations within the corridor area. Individuals from elsewhere in the Anchorage Bowl
make about 70% (65,000 person trips) of all destinations in the Route 7 corridor, compared
to 30% or 28,500 trip destinations by corridor residents. 5 Route 7 directly serves trips made
within the corridor; it also enables transfer connections at the Dimond Center (Routes 1, 2, 9
and 60 for destinations along Old Seward, Lake Otis Parkway and Arctic) and to east-west
Routes 3 and 36 across Midtown to the U-Med area.
The travel patterns clearly show that travel destinations of corridor residents are much more
broadly dispersed than are transit trips by corridor bus riders. Transit in the Route 7 corridor
attracts most of its riders from persons who are going downtown, but does not compete well
for residents going elsewhere in the Anchorage Bowl.
Route 7 Household Socio-Economic Profiles
The demographic and socio-economic profile of households is a strong indicator of
propensity for transit usage. The TBEST transit rider estimation computer model uses these
characteristics and transit service measures to estimate bus riders. Data from the AMATS
2007 travel modeling database for each traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within 1/4 mile each side
of Route 7 were compiled and mapped. Statistical summaries also were tabulated for five
geographic subareas along the Route 7 corridor: 6
5
For more detail on travel to and from individual geographic subareas in the corridor and trip purposes see
Working Paper “Travel Patterns in the Route 7 Corridor.”
6
The Airport area is designated as a sixth subarea but is not relevant to the socio-economic analysis
because it has no residential component.
-45-
The five subareas are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chester Creek to Downtown
Chester Creek to Spenard/Minnesota
Spenard/Minnesota to International Airport Road
International Airport Road to Minnesota/Dimond
Minnesota/Dimond to Dimond TC
Population Density
People are not willing to walk very far to a bus stop or a destination. Higher density close to
bus service means people have convenient access to bus stops. Conversely single family,
large lot neighborhoods are much more spread-out, often requiring longer walking distances
to reach a bus route.
Population density for the five Route 7 subarea segments is displayed below. Highest density
is in subarea 2 - Chester Creek to Minnesota at Spenard Road, south of 36th. The Jewel Lake
area south of Strawberry and the south Spenard Road to International Airport Road subarea
are the next highest in population density along the corridor.
Route 7 Corridor Population per Square Mile by Subarea Segments
Persons / Sq. Mile
Population Density
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1. ChesterCrkDow ntow n
2. ChesterCrk to
Spenard/Minn.
3. Spenard/Minn. to
Int. Airport Rd.
Airport Area
4. Int. Airport Rd. to
Jew el
Lake/Straw berry
5. Jew el
6. Minnesota/Dimond
Lake/Straw berry to
to Dimond TC
Minnesota/Dimond
Segment
Population density by traffic analysis zones is mapped below. The Spenard Road subarea
from Chester Creek to Minnesota has the highest density. Higher density is found further
south and west of Spenard Road to Wisconsin as well. A smaller density cluster can be seen
from Strawberry to 88th west of Northwood.
-46-
Population per Square Mile by TAZ, 2007
Multifamily Housing
The proportion of dwelling units in multifamily housing is summarized in Table 11. In the
two northerly subareas between Downtown and Minnesota at Spenard, multifamily housing
comprises nearly two-thirds of all housing units. The more southerly subareas have from
44% to 32% in multifamily units.
Multifamily and Total Residential Units by Subarea, 2007
Corridor Subarea
Residential Units in
Multifamily Housing
1. Chester Creek to Downtown
2. Chester Creek to Spenard/Minnesota
3. Spenard/Minnesota to Int. Airport Rd.
4. Int. Airport Rd. to Minnesota/Dimond
5. Minnesota/Dimond to Dimond TC
2488
3215
2028
2673
1158
..
Total
Residential
Units
3913
4971
4646
8154
3577
Percent Units in
Multifamily
Housing
64%
65%
44%
33%
32%
Household Income
The percent of households with income less than $40,000 per year along the Route 7
corridor is displayed in the chart below. The corridor segments from Chester Creek to
-47-
Minnesota has 57% of households in that income group while Spenard to International
Airport Road stands just under 50% of all households. Subareas south of the Airport have
notably lower percentage of households with incomes less than $40,000.
Households with Annual Income Less than $40,000
Households with an Annual Income of Less than $40,000
Percentage of Households
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1. ChesterCrkDow ntow n
2. ChesterCrk to
Spenard/Minn.
3. Spenard/Minn. to
Int. Airport Rd.
Airport Area
4. Int. Airport Rd. to
Jew el
Lake/Straw berry
5. Jew el
Lake/Straw berry to
Minnesota/Dimond
6. Minnesota/Dimond
to Dimond TC
Segment
Household Vehicle Availability
The same pattern prevails with respect to household vehicle availability. The northern
corridor subareas have much higher percentage of households with no vehicle while those
south of the Airport have notably fewer households with no vehicle. The percentage of
households with one vehicle is more consistently similar along the whole corridor.
Percent Households with No or One Vehicle Available
Percentage of Households with No or One Automobile
Percentage of Households
60%
No Auto
Only One Auto
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1. ChesterCrkDow ntow n
2. ChesterCrk to
Spenard/Minn.
3. Spenard/Minn. to
Int. Airport Rd.
Airport Area
Segment
-48-
4. Int. Airport Rd. to
Jew el
Lake/Straw berry
5. Jew el
Lake/Straw berry to
Minnesota/Dimond
6. Minnesota/Dimond
to Dimond TC
Chapter 5
Findings and Recommendations
People Mover has provided public transportation service in Anchorage since the 1970’s.
Management over the past seven years achieved a resurgence in transit ridership, hitting a
historic high of over 4 million annual passengers in 2008. This high performance transit
corridor project was initiated in search of strategies and actions to maintain ridership growth
momentum.
The Anchorage Long Range Transportation Plan and the People Mover Blueprint Plan
present evidence that more frequent service and reduction in travel time have a major
impact. Those findings provide a platform for interim and longer term strategies and actions
for transit in Anchorage.
Funding
Funding resources are pivotal for transit services. Funding dictates the level of service that
can be operated and controls what service improvements are possible. Indeed, in 1972 the
funding measure to support creation of People Mover was defeated and startup of transit
service was delayed two years. Again in 2003 and 2004, additional funding from the federal
Congestion Management and Air Quality Program enabled the People Mover Blueprint Plan
improvements to be initiated. And later stages of the Blueprint Plan were derailed by funding
limits.
People Mover’s objective of maintaining ridership growth momentum is not an easy one. A
gain of 1.1 million annual passengers (35%) was realized between 2002 and 2008 as People
Mover added over 30,000 annual timetable revenue hours of service. But annual systemwide
transit costs concurrently escalated $9.0 million over those same years 1 . Continued service
and rider increase clearly depends on sustained funding.
The prevailing global economic climate poses extreme fiscal challenges for federal, state and
local governments. Resources are stretched to a degree not experienced since the Great
Depression. Transit operators across the nation face restricted funding regimens. It is
difficult to anticipate more funding to increase transit service levels until the economy
regains its footing from this recession environment. Higher-cost service improvements likely
have to take a back seat in the near term. But that does not mean there are no avenues
available to improve transit performance.
Two strategies guide the recommendations presented in this chapter. The first strategy
focuses on steps to improve service delivery. These actions are relatively low cost. The
1
Bus operating expense was $12,681,744 in 2002 and $21,719,335 in 2008. Source: Federal Transit
Administration National Transit Database http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm, The
Anchorage Consumer Price Index increased 19.78% between 2002 and 2008, suggesting $1.8 million of
People Mover’s operating expense increase could have been driven by inflation.
- 49 -
second underlying strategy is to continuously direct resources to the most productive
services when implementing candidate transit performance improvements. In order to
boost the overall system performance, in the absence of added funding, underperforming
services may need to be trimmed. Service reductions, if necessary, should focus on the
lowest performing elements. The recommendations laid out below emphasize low cost
initiatives for the near-term and address more costly options over the mid to longer-term.
Exploiting Advanced Technology
People Mover’s emerging information management system for operations, scheduling and
management encompasses multiple components, including GPS vehicle location logging,
mobile data computers, data and voice communications between drivers and dispatch,
computerized scheduling and driver assignments, automated passenger counters, and realtime passenger information signs. The capabilities provided by the technologies and
associated data reporting are important to People Mover. They enable real-time monitoring
for dispatch and operations management and report alerts for unexpected events.
Automated data collection supports analysis of on-time performance, scheduled vs. actual
running times between time checkpoints, passenger boardings and alightings by location,
passenger miles of travel, and driver duty logs.
Refining Running Times and Schedules
Bus schedules are based on estimated travel time between route time checkpoints. Travel
times vary with traffic conditions by time-of-day. The entire bus and driver scheduling
system, as well as on-time performance, depends upon reliable travel time (running time)
estimates.
People Mover’s evolving technology and information systems provide new capabilities to
refine schedule running times that were never before available. The automated vehicle
location system captures and reports actual bus running time between successive time
checkpoints, segment by segment along each route. Statistical measures based on large data
samples of actual time data can now be used to derive more accurate bus running times for
all routes. This means that bus scheduling information is more accurate. In turn, on-time
performance should be more reliable because schedules are data-grounded.
People Mover scheduling staff should construct a database of field-measured, actual bus
route segment running times for each route, direction and time-of-day. Analysis on this
database should be performed to derive statistically-valid segment running times. This new
process should then drive construction of bus schedules and driver run assignments for each
scheduling cycle.
Monitoring On-Time Performance
The new transit management system technology helps drivers maintain on-time schedules by
alerting them when they are running ahead or behind schedule. It also can log scheduled vs.
- 50 -
actual arrival times by bus stop and report the percent of bus trips which were on schedule,
behind and ahead of schedule for a designated calendar period.
On-time schedule reliability is important to transit riders. People Mover’s schedule
adherence service standard is 85% or higher for satisfactory performance. Observations of
actual schedule adherence on Route 7 indicate that on-time performance is not meeting the
agency service standard. People Mover can improve its customer service by tracking on-time
performance trends and continually focusing attention on problem situations.
An on-time performance monthly benchmark report should be developed. On-time
performance should be monitored on a continuing basis. Corrective actions should be
devoted to routes, “hot spot” locations, time periods, and drivers who deviate from the
schedule and performance standard.
Transit Signal Priority to Reduce Bus Delay
Bus travel times exhibit a considerable disadvantage compared to auto travel times for many
trips. Bus speeds are slowed by signal light delays, traffic congestion, and dwell times at bus
stops. Field measurements of traffic signal delays for Route 7 reveal that they account for as
much as one -third of bus travel times 2 . Transit signal priority techniques offer a way to
help make transit service more reliable, faster, and more cost effective. Signal priority
schemes increase the likelihood of buses getting signal green time through intersections, thus
reducing traffic light delay for buses. The result is improved bus speed and shorter travel
time.
Signal priority systems consist of four basic components:
1. A priority request “emitter” on the vehicle that transmits a priority request to the
traffic signal control system
2. A “detection system” that lets the traffic signal controller know where a vehicle
requesting signal priority is located
3. Software that is programmed to manage the designated priority control strategy and
determine whether and how to grant priority
4. Management reporting that collects data and produces reports of priority events
Transit signal priority is implemented in many urban areas across the country. A handbook
for planning and implementing transit signal priority projects has been published by the US
Department of Transportation. 3 Case studies of a number of bus signal priority
implementations report bus travel time savings in excess of 10 percent. In Chapter 4, a more
modest estimate of the impact of implementing transit signal priority in Anchorage led to
projected potential bus operating savings approaching $1 million per year.
The following figure illustrates how the primary technology elements interact in a signal
priority system.
2
3
See Chapter 4 for details
Gannett Fleming Inc., Transit Signal Priority: A Planning and Implementation Handbook, May 2005
- 51 -
Source: An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (ITS America, 2004)
The MOA Traffic Department has installed the OptiCom traffic control system at its
signalized intersections within the Municipality. The system is already in use for emergency
fire and police unit response. OptiCom can provide Early Green (Red Truncation) and
Green Extension which are the two most commonly used TSP strategies.
People Mover is currently conducting a Transit Signal Priority pilot test on Routes 7 and 9 in
cooperation with MOA Traffic Engineering. The pilot test involves transit signal priority
only at selected intersections and uses an unconditional priority scheme; this priority strategy
is the simplest approach and provides priority to all transit buses approaching the selected
intersections.
An evaluation of the pilot test will be completed in 2011. If the results are favorable, transit
signal priority implementation should be programmed for additional routes. Consideration
should be given to more sophisticated signal priority control strategies and integration with
the People Mover automated vehicle location system.
Other Strategies to Reduce Transit Travel Time
Reducing transit travel time can be achieved by increasing transit operating speed, by
decreasing delays, and by shortening the access or waiting time for transit service.
Queue jumping: Enabling buses to bypass traffic congestion queues is an oft-cited
technique to decrease transit delay. But queue bypassing is practical only under very limited
circumstances. The physical roadway space required to permit buses to maneuver around
stalled traffic queues is seldom readily available. A large number of buses must use a queue
- 52 -
bypass road segment to justify it. On most routes in Anchorage there are generally 1 or 2
buses per hour; the limited number renders queue jumping impractical.
One location where a reserved lane/space for buses may have merit is at the Dimond
Center. Multiple routes serve the Dimond Center and buses often experience delay getting
into and out of the Center. The Municipality of Anchorage Assembly provided local match
funding in 2009 4 to support a Dimond Center Intermodal Facility Feasibility Study. People
Mover could find it advantageous to advocate a bus circulation proposal to address bus delay
within the shopping center as part of the study, and explore the proposal with Dimond
Center management.
Reduce Headway by Coordinating Route 3, 7 and 36 Schedules: Three routes – 3, 7
and 36 - traverse a common path along L and I streets between the Downtown Transit
Center and Chester Creek, then along Minnesota or Spenard Road. Scheduled departure
times from the Downtown Transit Center for these three routes are staggered by five
minutes; in 2009 Route 36 left at 10 minutes past the hour, Route 7 at 15 and 45 minutes
past and Route 3 at 20 and 50 minutes after the hour. The result is irregular service
frequency along L and I streets – with buses separated by 5 minutes, then 25 minutes, and
again 5 minutes followed by 20 minutes.
The five scheduled bus trips for Routes 3, 7 and 36 each hour could be timed every 12
minutes to provide consistent headways and superior service. Current bus schedules are
designed to enable easy timed-transfers among routes Downtown. By far the highest
number of Downtown transfers for Routes 3, 7 and 36 are to or from Route 45; but these
transfers often involve waits over 20 minutes.
Route 7 has the highest volume of transferees and its schedule should be timed to facilitate
connections with other routes Downtown, particularly Route 45. Route 3 and 36 trip
schedules could be adjusted to uniform, more frequent service. People Mover Planning and
Marketing should conduct a market research analysis of the Spenard to Downtown corridor,
determine passenger boarding and alighting counts, and identify the numbers of transfer
passengers to and from these three routes Downtown and their destinations. Planning
should examine bus scheduling with uniform headways and minimum Downtown transfer
times with Route 45. More complete facts then could help define the best operating plan.
See further discussion below under Cost to Increase Service Frequency.
Spenard Road Bus Stop Locations: Bus stops spaced too closely increase transit travel
time. However analysis of bus stops along Route 7 revealed that stop spacing is not an issue
because passengers are getting on or off at about one-third to one-half of the available bus
stops.
A planned Spenard Road reconstruction project anticipates reconfiguring the roadway.
Concurrent changes to the bus stops along Spenard Road between Hillcrest Drive and 29th
Avenue are proposed in conjunction with the reconstruction project. This road segment has
the highest population density in the Route 7 corridor and the highest transit stop usage.
The nine proposed bus stops will serve the community well and improve bus flow.
4
Assembly Resolution No. 2009-22 approved May 12, 2009
- 53 -
Traveler Information: People Mover gained additional riders when they introduced
“memory schedules” that made it easier for people to remember bus schedule times. The
internet has become a common conduit for transit information. User-friendly transit
websites such as Portland’s Tri-Met have proven to be powerful and valuable assets in
meeting rider information needs. Website layouts and design are important - they should be
visually attractive, easy to navigate and understand, and provide information quickly. People
Mover should explore best practices elsewhere and use that insight to streamline and
simplify their current website offering.
People Mover’s website currently does not include a tool for trip planning. Other transit
agencies have website aids to help travelers find a transit route to their desired destination,
determine bus schedule times and where they can board. The Public Transportation
Department intends to implement Google Transit for trip planning and is currently
developing data required for installation setup of the Google application. Using Google
Transit for customer information provides real-time information and mapping services via
the internet, phone, cell phone, or handheld/PDA.
Transit Marketing: People Mover has traditionally used print advertising and radio spots
for marketing both transit and rideshare services. Budget resources are split between print
and radio in roughly equal proportions. Marketing strategies seek to promote transit to
selected market segments such as youth, seniors, university students and staffs, visitors, etc.
Measures of effectiveness to assess the outcomes achieved by marketing efforts and
expenditures are needed.
As part of this High Performance Transit Corridor analysis, a direct mail marketing effort
along Route 7 was conducted in May 2008. A direct mail transit information packet was
distributed to nearly 10,000 households. The packet contained a Route 7 map, bus time
schedules, and a coupon for a day pass or a monthly pass discount. The mailer campaign
proved successful with nearly 7% of households north of Airport Road using the transit
coupon and 4% coupon users south of Airport Road. The mailer campaign is estimated to
have added 900 - 1,400 transit trips over a one-moth time span on Route 7.
The 2010 national census will soon provide a rich resource of socio-economic and travel
data that can help identify transit opportunities. People Mover should collaborate with
AMATS staff to exploit these market research data resources. Additionally, People Mover
should continue to refine and sharpen its marketing strategies for positioning and branding,
targeted marketing, customer information, community partnering initiatives, and market
research to understand customers and potential customers.
Costs to Increase Service Frequency
The Blueprint Plan implementation experience demonstrates that added service – weekdays
and weekends – accounted for the majority of added riders. In numerous interviews and
surveys, many Anchorage residents have responded that transit is not viable because existing
bus service frequency is too limiting.
- 54 -
Hourly service is currently operated on the two Route 7 branches traversing the Jewel Lake
community and 30-minute frequency is offered from Downtown to International Airport
Road and on Dimond Boulevard between Arlene Street and the Dimond Center. North of
International Airport Road, the route is much more heavily used than south of that location.
A cost analysis was conducted for Route 7 to estimate the funding needed to increase service
frequency. Table 12 summarizes operating cost estimates for six weekday service scenarios
with differing peak period, midday and evening service frequencies; the route branch
segments within the Jewel Lake area would have only one-half the service shown in the table
for each scenario. Transit service existing in 2009 was used as a benchmark. Increasing the
current 30 minute service during morning and afternoon peak periods to 15 minute service
would increase operating costs by about 40%; reducing peak period headways further to 12
minutes would add 57% while 10 minute peak headways would cost 72% more.
Table 12. Cost Estimates for Route 7 Increased Service Scenarios
Weekday Schedule (headways in minutes)
No of Daily Trips
2009 Actual
am & pm peak 30
midday 30
after 6:30pm 60
am & pm peak 15
midday 30
after 6:30pm 60
am & pm peak 12
midday 30
after 6:30pm 60
am & pm peak 10
midday 30
after 6:30pm 60
am & pm peak 15
midday 15
after 6:30pm 60
am & pm peak 15
midday 15
after 6:30pm 30
Est. Annual Cost (2008$)
% increase over 2009
60
$1,976,000
84
$2,766,000
+40%
94
$3,096,000
+57%
103
$3,392,000
+72%
109
$3,590,000
+82%
116
$3,820,000
+93%
Reducing midday and peak period headways to 15 minutes adds 82% more operating cost; if
evening service is upgraded to 30 minute headways as well the cost expands to 93%.
Route 7 accounts for about 11% of People Mover’s annual operating hours and cost. The
table above shows that costs rise rather dramatically with transit headway improvements –
40% to double peak period service and 93% for all day service improvements.
So, why is increasing transit service frequency desirable? Service frequency is a primary
determinant of transit ridership. Over one-million individual person trips are made every
weekday in Anchorage. If People Mover service were able to attract only one percent more
of those daily trips it would gain about 70% more riders. 5
5
For additional discussion and empirical data, see Chapter 9 – Transit Scheduling and Frequency, “TCRP
Web Document 12 (Project B-12), Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Handbook”, Richard H. Pratt et al, March 2000. [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_12.pdf]
- 55 -
Estimated Ridership Impact of Increased Route 7 Service Frequency: Route 7
ridership increased about 70% from 285,200 annual weekday riders in 2002 to 405, 400 in
2008. During that period timetable revenue hours of service increased 47%. The impressive
ridership gains were fueled by four primary factors – increased bus service, transition to
memory headways, coordinated route schedules Downtown and at the Dimond Center, and
sharply higher gasoline prices. Future service increases may not result in comparable rider
gains because the effect of memory headways and coordinated route schedules will be
muted. Future gasoline price changes are not known but they too may not be as
pronounced. The ridership gain due to the three service options shown above that increase
only peak period service to 15 minute, 12 minute or 10 minutes is estimated to range from
78,000 to 140,000 more annual riders. For the two options that also increase midday service,
ridership gain is estimated at 160,000 to 183,000 annual riders. The estimated added cost to
provide these improved levels of service range from $790,000 to $1.84 million per year in
2008 dollars.
Coordinated Routes 3, 7 and 36 Headways for Low Cost Frequent Service
As described earlier, coordinating Route 3, 7 and 36 schedule times on the inner portion of
Route 7 from Downtown to Northern Lights Boulevard/Spenard could offer a 12-minute
headway.
Increasing ridership is a primary goal for People Mover. More frequent service is the largest
contributor to increased ridership. However adding timetable revenue hours of service
requires additional budget allocation to cover higher operating costs. But coordinating
service schedules for Routes 3, 7 and 36 could implement 12 minute headways with
nominal if any additional cost. This is a unique opportunity to test the ridership
impact of much more frequent service in Anchorage. Coupling more frequent service
with development of more accurate running times, diligence in achieving high on-time
performance, and testing transit signal priority on this corridor is proposed as an effective
near-term action.
Route 45 High Performance Transit Route
Route 45 carries the most riders of all routes and has the highest riders per revenue bus hour
of all routes. It is clearly the high performance transit route in Anchorage. In 2008 Route
45G was introduced as a shortened segment serving the Glenn Square Mall and north
Mountain View. The chart below shows average passengers per weekday on each inbound
bus trip for the first quarter of 2010. Route 45G’s performance may not look impressive
compared to the full Route 45. However, that perception is deceptive; 45G actually carried
about 50 passengers per weekday timetable revenue bus hour compared to 52 for Route 45.
Both 45 and 45G are well above the system weekday average of 33.3 passengers per revenue
bus hour.
- 56 -
2010 1st Quarter Avg Riders
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5:
50
A
6: M
42
A
7: M
35
A
8: M
30
A
8: M
55
A
9: M
55
10 AM
:5
5 11 AM
:3
4 A
12 M
:0
5 12 PM
:3
5 P
1: M
05
P
1: M
35
P
2: M
30
P
3: M
25
P
3: M
55
P
4: M
55
P
6: M
09
P
6: M
54
P
7: M
56
P
9: M
02
P
M
0
Route 45 and 45G (in dark tone above) average riders for each weekday inbound scheduled bus trip in the
first quarter of 2010. Fewer riders use 45G trips. However, riders per bus hour of service on 45 and 45G are
considerably higher than the People Mover system average.
Additional Route 45 initiatives for consideration include the following:
 Continue to add service and reduce headways as long as boarding passengers per
revenue bus hour exceed other routes in the People Mover system. Route 45 in 2009
had 38% more passengers per weekday revenue hour than the next best major route
and 55% more than the systemwide average. This means each additional bus service
hour is far more effective on Route 45 than anywhere else.
 Following evaluation of a transit signal priority pilot test on Route 7, institute signal
priority on Route 45 to attain higher bus speed and reduce transit travel times.
 Selectively interline Route 45 with other routes to enable 1-seat bus rides to more
regional major destinations. For example, interlining Route 45 with Route 7 or Route
3 would enable access to additional major trip attractions in the Bowl (public service
agencies, Dimond Center, Midtown commercial areas, Airport, etc.).
Glenn Highway High Performance Strategy
The Glenn Highway is a primary transportation corridor in Anchorage as well as the sole
roadway connection between Anchorage and the Matanuska Susitna Borough. The Mat Su is
the fastest growing area in the state.
The 2027 Anchorage Long Range Plan incorporates over $750 million in capital
improvements for the corridor to accommodate future travel growth. A multimodal corridor
development strategy with roadway, transit, vanpooling, carpooling, travel demand
management, and advanced technology systems management elements would provide
superior transportation choice and service as well as mitigate capital costs and single
occupant vehicle environmental impacts.
The MOA Public Transportation Department and AMATS should advocate crafting a
collaborative, integrated, multimodal Glenn Highway strategy and funding consensus among
- 57 -
regional transportation providers. The pending 2011 AMATS LRTP update should be used
as the vehicle to formulate Glenn Highway operational strategies and funding for multiple
traveler mode options to meet transportation demand, exploit technology deployment to
manage congestion, relieve parking requirements and traffic impacts in the Anchorage Bowl,
minimize system costs, and improve air quality.
AMATS can build from the recent work for the Eagle River LRTP and analyses performed
for the Highway to Highway Connection project. The pending Regional Transportation
Authority study is another opportunity to frame integrated multimodal solution strategies for
the corridor.
Significantly more frequent transit service to Chugiak/Eagle River and new transit service
extended to Wasilla could be implemented for less than three percent of the anticipated
capital cost for Glenn Highway roadway improvements.
- 58 -
Technical Memorandum
Travel Origin and Destination Patterns
In the
People Mover Route 7 Corridor
Municipality of Anchorage
People Mover High Performance Transit Corridor Study
October 30, 2007
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
1
Travel Patterns in the Route 7 Corridor
This memorandum presents an analysis of travel patterns travel patterns to and from the
west side of Anchorage, generally the area served by People Mover Route 7. The travel
analysis is part of an assessment of potential opportunities for improving transit service
within the Route 7 corridor.
The travel patterns data is based on the AMATS travel model for the year 2007. Travel is
measured in person-trips. Travel origins and destinations are summarized into “districts”
which are clustered groups of traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Four designated ‘district
groups’ were chosen to represent the Route 7 corridor. The district groups are composed
of several adjacent ‘TAZ districts’, and each TAZ district is in turn composed of a
number of TAZs. The path of Route 7, along with the location of each district group in
the Anchorage Bowl, is displayed on the map below:
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
2
Route 7 Origin & Destinations
Four district groups (5, 12, 14 and 15) were selected to represent the corridor along Route
7, with person-trip “production-attraction” data assembled from the 2007 AMATS TAZbased travel model matrix. Person-trip attractions were tabulated at the district group
level, while the productions from the corridor were tabulated at the TAZ district level.
These TAZ districts selected for ‘trip productions’ along the Route 7 corridor correspond
directly to the district groups 5, 12, and 15, though make up only a selected portion of
district group 14, as highlighted in blue on the map below:
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
3
Total person-trips produced in the Route 7 corridor:
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
4
Summary – Major Destinations
Of the total universe of trips predicted by the model for the entire Municipality Of
Anchorage, the selected TAZ districts along the Route 7 corridor ‘produced’ 154,240
daily person-trips. Of this total number of trip productions within the designated Route 7
corridor district groups, 77% (119,164) were home-based travel, and 23% (35,076) of the
trips produced were non-home-based travel (defined as trips that have neither origin or
destination at the home of the trip-maker). About 40,100 (26%) of the 154,240 daily
person-trips produced in the Route 7 corridor’s selected TAZ districts are going to
attractions (i.e., destinations) within the four Route 7 corridor district groups (5, 12, 14,
and 15).
Table 1: Breakdown of the total attractions by district group, for all the 154,240 daily person-trips produced
within the selected TAZ districts along the Route 7 corridor:
Dist Grp
Grp Description
Total Daily Person-Trips
13 West Dowling/Raspberry
19011
12.3%
12 Sand-Jewel Lake
18608
12.1%
16 Midtown
15655
10.1%
17 Airport
15021
9.7%
15 Spenard
10346
6.7%
2 Downtown
10212
6.6%
9 Dimond/Abbott
8965
5.8%
14 Turnagin
8707
5.6%
6 Rogers Pk & U-Med
7837
5.1%
4 NE Bowl
6132
4.0%
10 Hillside
5548
3.6%
11 Southpark
5306
3.4%
1 Mil Bases & N of Glenn
5273
3.4%
8 Dowling Central
4666
3.0%
3 Fairview
3921
2.5%
7 Scenic Hills
3215
2.1%
5 Inner city s of CBD
2366
1.5%
20 Girdwood
1491
1.0%
18 Eagle River
634
0.4%
19 Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
602
0.4%
Yellow highlights are district groups in the Route 7 corridor.
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
5
Trip Productions - Sand Lake/Jewel Lake
Daily person-trips produced within district group 12 (Sand Lake/Jewel Lake) total
75,047; 28% of them (20,863) are to attractions within the four Route 7 corridor district
groups (5, 12, 14, and 15).
Table 2: Breakdown of the total attractions by district group, for the 75,047 daily person-trips produced
within the district group 12 (Sand Lake – Jewel Lake):
Dist Grp Grp Description
Total Daily Person-Trips
12 Sand-Jewel Lake
15171
20.2%
13 West Dowling/Raspberry
9731
13.0%
17 Airport
7470
10.0%
9 Dimond/Abbott
5814
7.7%
16 Midtown
5628
7.5%
10 Hillside
4038
5.4%
11 Southpark
3601
4.8%
2 Downtown
3549
4.7%
6 Rogers Pk & U-Med
3267
4.4%
14 Turnagin
2812
3.7%
15 Spenard
2478
3.3%
8 Dowling Central
2206
2.9%
4 NE Bowl
2182
2.9%
1 Mil Bases & N of Glenn
1832
2.4%
7 Scenic Hills
1384
1.8%
3 Fairview
1305
1.7%
20 Girdwood
939
1.3%
5 Inner city s of CBD
438
0.6%
18 Eagle River
249
0.3%
19 Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
230
0.3%
Trip Productions - Outer Spenard
Of the 33,597 daily person-trips produced within the selected TAZ districts of district
group 14 (Outer Spenard), 26% of them (8870) are to attractions within the four Route 7
corridor district groups (5, 12, 14, and 15).
Table 3: Breakdown of the total attractions by district group, for the 33,597 daily person-trips produced
within the selected TAZ districts of district group 14 (Outer Spenard):
Dist Grp
Grp Description
Total Daily Person-Trips
17 Airport
4441
13.2%
13 West Dowling/Raspberry
3882
11.6%
14 Turnagin
3683
11.0%
16 Midtown
3661
10.9%
15 Spenard
2981
8.9%
2 Downtown
2079
6.2%
6 Rogers Pk & U-Med
1915
5.7%
12 Sand-Jewel Lake
1825
5.4%
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
6
9
4
1
8
3
11
7
10
5
20
18
19
Dimond/Abbott
NE Bowl
Mil Bases & N of Glenn
Dowling Central
Fairview
Southpark
Scenic Hills
Hillside
Inner city s of CBD
Girdwood
Eagle River
Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
1444
1351
1166
1086
870
796
787
724
370
282
132
123
4.3%
4.0%
3.5%
3.2%
2.6%
2.4%
2.3%
2.2%
1.1%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
Trip Productions - Inner Spenard
Of the 32,097 daily person-trips produced within district group 15 (Inner Spenard), 23%
of them (7254) are to attractions within the four Route 7 corridor district groups (5, 12,
14, and 15).
Table 4: Breakdown of the total attractions by district group, for the 32,097 daily person-trips produced
within district group 15 (Inner Spenard):
Dist Grp
Grp Description
Total Daily Person-Trips
16 Midtown
4858
15.1%
13 West Dowling/Raspberry
4224
13.2%
15 Spenard
3892
12.1%
2 Downtown
2701
8.4%
17 Airport
2231
6.9%
6 Rogers Pk & U-Med
1846
5.8%
4 NE Bowl
1753
5.5%
14 Turnagin
1694
5.3%
1 Mil Bases & N of Glenn
1371
4.3%
9 Dimond/Abbott
1270
4.0%
12 Sand-Jewel Lake
1193
3.7%
3 Fairview
1042
3.2%
8 Dowling Central
997
3.1%
7 Scenic Hills
786
2.4%
11 Southpark
639
2.0%
10 Hillside
599
1.9%
5 Inner city s of CBD
463
1.4%
20 Girdwood
183
0.6%
19 Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
179
0.6%
18 Eagle River
176
0.5%
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
7
Trip Productions - North of Chester Creek
Of the 13,499 daily person-trips produced within district group 5 (Inner City West),
22% of them (3030) are to attractions within the four Route 7 corridor district groups (5,
12, 14, and 15).
Table 5: Breakdown of the total attractions by district group, for the 13,499 daily person-trips produced
within district group 5 (Inner City West):
Dist Grp
Grp Description
Total Daily Person-Trips
2 Downtown
1882
13.9%
16 Midtown
1508
11.2%
13 West Dowling/Raspberry
1174
8.7%
5 Inner city s of CBD
1096
8.1%
15 Spenard
996
7.4%
1 Mil Bases & N of Glenn
904
6.7%
17 Airport
880
6.5%
4 NE Bowl
846
6.3%
6 Rogers Pk & U-Med
809
6.0%
3 Fairview
703
5.2%
14 Turnagin
518
3.8%
9 Dimond/Abbott
437
3.2%
12 Sand-Jewel Lake
420
3.1%
8 Dowling Central
377
2.8%
11 Southpark
270
2.0%
7 Scenic Hills
259
1.9%
10 Hillside
188
1.4%
20 Girdwood
86
0.6%
18 Eagle River
78
0.6%
19 Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
69
0.5%
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
8
Travel between Home and Worksites
Trips which have origin or destination at the home of the trip-maker are termed “homebased”. For “home-based” trips, the home is considered the “trip production” and the
non-home end is defined as the “trip attraction”. So, for example, the home-based work
(HBW) trips produced within the Route 7 corridor are trips that start or end at the
traveler’s home in the corridor and are “attracted” to worksites. HBW data from district
groups 12, 14 and 15 were tabulated. District group 5, north of Chester Creek, was
excluded from the HBW analysis.
Summary – HBW Major Destinations (Attractions):
Of the 25,320 daily HBW trips produced from the designated parts of the Route 7
corridor (district groups 12, 14 and 15), only 10.8% of them (2728) are to attractions (i.e.
worksites) within the same three district groups.
Total HBW attractions by district group:
Dist Grp
17
16
13
2
6
1
9
4
15
7
14
12
3
11
8
10
18
20
5
19
Grp Description
Airport
Midtown
West Dowling/Raspberry
Downtown
Rogers Pk & U-Med
Mil Bases & N of Glenn
Dimond/Abbott
NE Bowl
Spenard
Scenic Hills
Turnagin
Sand-Jewel Lake
Fairview
Southpark
Dowling Central
Hillside
Eagle River
Girdwood
Inner city s of CBD
Chugiak/Birchwood MatSu
Total Daily HBW
Person-Trips
3685
14.6%
3316
13.1%
3065
12.1%
2690
10.6%
2267
9.0%
1426
5.6%
1281
5.1%
1235
4.9%
1223
4.8%
886
3.5%
841
3.3%
664
2.6%
629
2.5%
604
2.4%
482
1.9%
349
1.4%
210
0.8%
208
0.8%
136
0.5%
123
0.5%
Ch7-Rte7CorridorTravelPatterns, October 19, 2007
9
Technical Memorandum
Transit Signal Priority
Municipality of Anchorage
People Mover High Performance Transit Corridor Study
October 4, 2007
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 1 of 12
Introduction
Transit Signal Priority (TSP) is a traffic signal control strategy to provide preferential
treatment to transit vehicles at signalized intersections. TSP is a type of Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) which helps buses get through intersections more quickly.
TSP operational strategy typically involves giving transit vehicles at traffic signals a
small amount of extra green light time or a small amount of shorter red light time. The
net effect of TSP, also referred to as ‘bus priority’, is to reduce the waiting time of transit
vehicles at intersections.
TSP has been implemented successfully in many cities worldwide, particularly in Europe,
and its use is rapidly growing in North America. Dozens of U.S. cities have implemented
TSP, including large cites such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Seattle and Portland,
as well as in smaller communities such as St. Cloud, Minnesota and Bremerton,
Washington. The purpose of this memo is to make a case, based on evidence elsewhere,
that TSP could work for at least some Anchorage intersections where transit buses
experience significant delays. ITS America reports (2004) that on average, transit buses
spend about 15% of their trip time waiting for traffic signals. Field data observations in
Anchorage indicate a higher proportion of time for People Mover buses is absorbed by
traffic signal delay.
Benefits of Transit Signal Priority (TSP):





Reduced bus travel time
Improve schedule adherence/reliability
Reduced stops which leads to reduced vehicle wear and tear
Reduced bus idling and resulting emission/fuel use
Improve customer ride quality
Consistent on-time performance helps build ridership. Reduction in bus travel time makes
transit more competitive with the private automobile as well as potentially reducing
operating bus-hours and costs needed to service a particular route. Bus travel time
savings on the order of 15% are reported due to the implementation of TSP. However,
substantial variability exists in the nature of particular TSP deployments and magnitude
of impacts.
Potential negative impacts of TSP mostly consist of delays to non-priority traffic,
although such ‘side-street’ delays have proven to be minimal in cities where TSP has
been implemented (Smith et. al., 2005). In dozens of cities across the country which have
already implemented TSP, only very minor impacts on overall intersection operations
have been reported. In Anchorage, relatively few buses traverse a given intersection per
hour, so it seems likely that TSP would improve bus service with minimal impact to other
traffic. However, that thesis needs to be demonstrated. Improvements in transit travel
time with a TSP must not unfairly disrupt the normal traffic operations at the affected
intersections.
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 2 of 12
Pedestrian activity should be analyzed for each of the intersections along transit routes
where TSP is to be deployed, especially the length of time it takes for a pedestrian to
safely cross the signalized intersection. Pedestrian safety should not be compromised by
the implementation of TSP. As described in the document An Overview of Transit Signal
Priority (ITS America, 2004):
In most instances, the time required for a pedestrian to safely cross the street at a signalized
intersection limits the time available to provide TSP, and can decrease the responsiveness of
certain priority treatments (e.g., early green), due to the necessity of waiting for the pedestrian
phase to terminate before the priority phase can be activated. Importantly, the pedestrians are
often transit customers- hence they require service at the same time as the transit vehicles. Delay
for pedestrians should always be considered, as [transit signal] priority can potentially lengthen
the maximum waiting time for pedestrians waiting to cross the priority corridor. The impacts of
shortening pedestrian walk times should be evaluated on an intersection-by-intersection basis to
investigate these impacts and institute appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. establish a maximum
red time for pedestrians).
A potential problem may arise if the TSP system enables a bus to get ahead of its
schedule. Bus trip schedules need to recognize the time-saving effect of TSP and be set to
somewhat higher speed, yet maintain on-time performance. This problem could be
avoided by driver training and dispatch oversight. A general reduction in bus travel time
resulting from a successful TSP implementation along a route should lead to slightly
shorter scheduled running time for the route, as well as less schedule variability caused
by signal delay.
While the traffic signal terms ‘priority’ and ‘preemption’ are often used synonymously,
in practice they are different processes. Traffic signal priority modifies the normal signal
operation process to better accommodate certain (i.e., transit) vehicles. Traffic signal
preemption interrupts the normal signal process, and is usually reserved for emergency
vehicles (Smith et. al., 2005). As described in the document An Overview of Transit
Signal Priority (ITS America, 2004):
When a traffic signal is preempted there is no consideration for maintaining the existing timing
signal plan such that coordination can be maintained between adjacent traffic signals. Preemption
uses a special timing plan, requiring the traffic signal controller to transition out of and back into
the coordinated operation of the normal signal timing plan. Transit Signal Priority attempts to
provide some priority service opportunities within the coordinated operation of the traffic signal.
This allows the objectives of priority to be considered without significantly impacting other traffic.
Traffic signal preemption is generally reserved for emergency vehicles to reduce
response times.
Types of TSP Control Strategies:
Traffic signal priority at an intersection can be implemented in a variety of ways.
Technical aspects and more detailed descriptions of the various TSP options are
described in two reports by the Intelligent Transportation Society of America:
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 3 of 12

An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (ITS America, 2004)

Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook
(Smith et. al., 2005).
Priority Treatments
Several different types of ‘priority treatments’ for TSP are available. The most common
type is active priority, which selectively detects transit vehicles and communicates this
information to the traffic controller. In this treatment, signal priority is only given when
the transit vehicle is very near the intersection approach. The main active priority
strategies are listed below:

Green extension: extends the green light when a TSP-equipped bus is
approaching.

Early green: expedites the return to a green light when a TSP-equipped bus
approaches a red signal, also called “red truncation”.

Actuated transit phases are only displayed when a transit vehicle is detected at
the intersection. Such strategies, for example, might insert a left-turn green or be
used in conjunctions with a queue-jump. This application may be more advanced
than would be practical in Anchorage for the near future.
A simplified schematic of the process in executing a signal priority treatment is
illustrated in the figure on the following page. Four sequential stages of the priority
treatment control are described. The source of the schematic representation is Transit
Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook (Smith et. al., 2005)
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 4 of 12
Unconditional and Conditional Active Priority
There are generally two different approaches to providing active TSP:

Unconditional Priority is the simplest approach, providing priority to all transit
buses approaching equipped intersections.

Conditional Priority is a more sophisticated approach, usually employing GPSbased Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, which selectively provides
priority to transit vehicles based on whether or not the bus is behind schedule.
Unconditional priority is the more commonly used type of TSP and is simpler and less
expensive to implement than conditional priority systems.
Components of a TSP system:
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 5 of 12
Diagram copied from An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (ITS America, 2004)
As described in the report Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation
Handbook (Smith et. al., 2005), a TSP system consists of four basic components:
1. Detection: system to deliver data indicating that a bus is approaching a certain
distance/time away from the signalized intersection.
2. Priority Request Generator/Server: system that requests priority from the
traffic control system and manages multiple requests if needed.
3. Priority Control Strategies: Software enhancement for the traffic control system
to implement the signal priority strategies.
4. TSP System Management: integration of both transit and traffic management to
configure settings, record events, and provide reporting capabilities.
To make the case to municipal decision-makers for funding a TSP system installation for
the Municipality Of Anchorage, realistic computer simulations of traffic patterns can help
demonstrate its viability. Traffic simulation models provide an opportunity to assess the
impact of TSP on transit and non-transit traffic. An estimated cost for implementing TSP
on all or some People Mover bus routes in Anchorage is not yet known; however a major
cost component is covered in the intersection control device hardware updates which
Traffic Engineering is currently installing to handle signal preemption for emergency
vehicles.
People Mover and the MOA Traffic Department must work closely together to develop
implement and evaluation a TSP project. A ‘systems engineering’ approach is necessary
to integrate traffic signal operation and transit priority. For the People Mover system, the
MOA Opticom signal controls (described below) can provide for Early Green (Red
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 6 of 12
Truncation) and Green Extension, which are the two most commonly used TSP
strategies.
The Opticom Priority Control System:
In Anchorage, implementation of a system-wide traffic signal preemption system for
emergency vehicles is in progress. Signal pre-emption for emergency vehicles (fire
trucks and ambulances) has been installed at 20% of MOA intersections as of the present
time [September 2007], and is expected to be installed on all traffic signals within the
MOA by fall of 2008. The MOA Traffic Department has chosen the Opticom signal
priority/preemption system, which is capable of two modes of operation:

High priority: preemption for emergency vehicles (fire department and
ambulances, not police).

Low priority: signal priority for buses, consisting of the early green (or red
truncation), and green extension strategies described above. This low priority
mode is subject to a more constrained set of rules, in order to minimize impact
Once the Opticom Priority Control System is installed at all MOA signalized
intersections for emergency vehicle preemption, the cost of implementing TSP would be
much less than if People Mover would be installing the system ‘from scratch’. The
amount of priority to be granted for buses must be determined by an intersection-byintersection basis. Intersections where there is no bus route would be excluded from TSP
implementation.
The Opticom Priority Control System was developed by 3M Traffic Management
Solutions, a division which was recently sold by 3M to a Toronto-based private
investment firm. This group is forming a new Minnesota-based company called Global
Traffic Technologies, LLC. Opticom website:
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Traffic_Safety/TSS/Offerings/Systems/Op
ticom/
Opticom system components:

Emitter: broadcasts a secure, encoded priority request (using infrared light) to the
detector on the intersection signal

Detector: installed at the intersection signal, it receives the infrared transmission
and relays the request to the phase selector

Phase Selector: validates the priority request and provides input to the traffic
signal control system.
The Opticom TSP provides three options for controlling the emitter on-board each bus:
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 7 of 12



Conditional basis (using buses equipped with an AVL system)
Unconditional basis (also called continuous operation)
Driver discretion (so the individual driver can manually request bus priority when
needed)
(Diagram copied from Opticom brochure, downloaded from 3M website)
People Mover will have installed GPS-based automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems
on all buses by March 2008. The AVL systems by Mentor Engineering
(http://www.mentoreng.com ) sends a signal to People Mover central dispatch, showing
the location and on-time performance status of all transit buses in the city. The AVL
system also displays to the driver whether or not they are running on time. Automatic
passenger counters (APC) are installed item on People Mover buses. The AVL and APC
units combined provide passenger boarding/alighting data and location referencing for all
stops and all bus runs. The Opticom TSP could be coordinated with the Mentor AVL
system to provide conditional priority for buses. However, unconditional TSP appears to
be the simplest and most practical approach for an initial Anchorage pilot TSP project.
Integrating TSP with AVL is more complex, and there appears no immediate requirement
for an on-board Opticom TSP emitter to interface with the Mentor AVLs.
Spenard Road Corridor
The Spenard Road corridor could serve as a pilot project for implementing TSP in
Anchorage. The Spenard corridor’s high traffic volume and high transit potential (based
on census data) make it a favorable location for a pilot project for an initial pilot
implementation of TSP technology in Anchorage. A TSP pilot study could also test ontime schedule adherence and possible ridership growth in this high-priority transit
corridor. Route 7 would be the main beneficiary of TSP along the Spenard corridor,
although parts of the routes 3 and 36 also operate along Spenard Road.
The Spenard Road Reconstruction project, proposed by the state and municipal
governments, is planned to occur along the busiest section of Spenard, or the same
section where TSP would make the most sense (www.midtownroads.com/spenard ). The
key intersections for potential TSP deployment along this part of the Route 7 Spenard
Road corridor are listed below:
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 8 of 12




Spenard and Minnesota
Spenard and 36th Avenue
Spenard and Benson Boulevard
Spenard and Northern Lights Boulevard
The Spenard and Minnesota intersection has the greatest signal delay in this area, with a
2005 traffic Level of Service (LOS) of nearly ‘F’ (almost 80 seconds) during the PM
peak period, and D LOS (between 40 and 45 seconds) during the rest of the day
(Lounsubury & Associates, Inc et. al., 2006). The other three intersections listed above
have a reported LOS between ‘B’ and ‘C’ (or between 10 and 30 seconds of delay).
Engineering studies conducted for the Spenard Road Reconstruction project concluded
that a reduction from 4 to 3 lanes, combined with intersection improvements, would be
the best solution to improve safety while maintaining traffic level of service (Lounsbury
& Associates, Inc et. al., 2006). Part of this proposal includes significant changes to the
Spenard/Minnesota and Spenard/36th Avenue intersections: 36th would be one-way
traveling west from Spenard to Minnesota, and Spenard would be one-way traveling east
and north from Minnesota to 36th. When this traffic change is implemented, the outbound
Route 7 trips would have to traverse three intersections instead of two currently. This will
likely slow down the outbound Route 7, although it could also increase the
need/practicality for TSP.
Most other transit properties using TSP systems will not grant priority to a bus at an
intersection in which TSP has just been granted until the signals are back in
synchronization, which usually takes one or two cycles. With route 7 bus headway times
of 30 minutes, and perhaps 15 minutes for future service, the Spenard corridor would not
appear to have this synchronization problem. More sophisticated TSP treatments such as
actuated transit phases or “queue jumping”, requiring a special lane for buses waiting at a
traffic signal, would be impractical along the Spenard corridor because of limited rightof-way space.
Literature Review:
A literature review was conducted to find evidence of how and why TSP will help transit
service, and how and why it may affect normal traffic flow. Operating experience with
TSP exists in numerous cities around the nation and the world.
Comprehensive introductions to TSP are found in the two reports funded by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and published by the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America: An Overview of Transit Signal Priority (ITS America, 2004) and Transit Signal
Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook (Smith et. al., 2005).
A report on the implementation of TSP in the city of Calgary describes the use of the
Opticom priority control system for both emergency vehicle preemption and transit buses
(Calgary Transit, 2004), or very similar to the Opticom systems being installed at all
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 9 of 12
signalized intersections in Anchorage. The Calgary Transit TSP program has been
implemented is phases, with the first two phases consisting of TSP along a single,
heavily-used transit corridor (Route 3). Studies conducted on this corridor’s bus travel
time before and after TSP implementation indicate a 16% reduction in the time buses
spent waiting at traffic signals, and 9% higher level of schedule adherence. The Calgary
study also noted the popularity of the TSP system among bus drivers along the route 3
corridor, who actually lodged complaints if they didn’t receive a TSP-equipped bus for
the route. Another article from Canada (Shalaby et. al., 2006) is about the process used
by traffic and transit agencies of selecting a final TSP control concept, representing a
wide array of municipalities in the province of Ontario, Canada.
Much of the TSP literature reviewed describes computer simulations of the TSP/bus
priority, not actual field data from existing systems. One article (Abdelghany et. al.,
2006) describes modeling of the intermodal and ‘network level’ effects of bus priority at
signalized intersections, based on the DYNASMART assignment-simulation model.
Simulation experiments were done using a test network representing a major traffic
corridor in Fort Worth, Texas. For the simulation model, assumed bus frequencies were
24 and 12 buses per hour were used, or far in excess of what could be expected for
Anchorage transit corridors. The simulation experiments estimated bus travel time
savings of 7 percent and 22 percent under the red truncation and the phase advance
strategies, respectively. Phase advance is not likely to be practical for Anchorage because
it is outside of the mode of operation of the Opticom priority control system.
Two references described using VISSIM simulation software, including TSP modeling
for Granville Street in Vancouver (Ngan et. al., 2004) and for several bus routes in
downtown Fargo, North Dakota (Ova and Smadi, 2001). The Fargo study involved bus
routes with 15 and 30 minute headways, or more like those of Anchorage compared to
the many simulation studies done for larger cities. In this study, the ‘early green’ TSP
strategy performed better than the ‘extended green’ TSP strategy. Another article in the
Journal of Public Transportation describes a simulation model based on the city of
Southampton, UK using (McLeod and Hounsell, 2003). A specialized simulation model
called SPLIT, which was developed by the authors, was used for the comparison of
different strategy options (involving combinations of ‘early green’ and ‘green extension’)
for implementing TSP.
Experience with TSP in Small to Medium-Sized CitiesSt. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission (St. Cloud, MN):
Transit service around the city St. Cloud, Minnesota (population 60,000) is provided by a
system of 30 buses operating in a 6-route network. St. Cloud first implemented TSP in
2000, and achieved 100% implementation of TSP in 2004, including over 100 signalized
intersections with TSP. The St. Cloud buses and intersections were equipped with the
Opticom priority control system, or the same type presently being installed in Anchorage.
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 10 of 12
Four other smaller cities with installed or tested TSP systems are described in this
section. A published evaluation report was found only for St. Cloud (Westwood
Professional Services, 2000). This report evaluated 5 signalized intersections along St.
Cloud’s Southwest/Crosstown bus route both before and after TSP implementation. The
overall reduction in signal delay for buses was determined to be 43%, reducing overall
bus travel time by 5%.
Jefferson Transit Authority (Port Townsend, WA):
Bus service in Jefferson County (population 26,000) is provided by the Jefferson Transit
Authority. With only several signalized intersections equipped with TSP, it is perhaps the
smallest transit system using the technology. TSP was first implemented in 1996, when a
3M Opticom system was being installed in Jefferson County for emergency vehicles.
According to Jefferson County Transit’s general manager, said that the TSP helps with
schedule adherence, though not figures/numbers were given. Also, only a handful of nonbus drivers have complained about a bus receiving traffic signal priority, and the
community is generally supportive of TSP. Overall, Jefferson County Transit’s
experience with TSP has been positive, and the general manager recommended its
implementation with the Opticom traffic signal control system.
Skagit Transit (Burlington, WA):
A TSP demonstration project on selected routes was conducted in 1998-99 by Skagit
Transit, which serves most of Washington’s Skagit County (population 103,000).
However, public disapproval of the TSP concept led to the cancellation of the project,
according to Skagit Transit’s planner. The reasons for this “public disapproval” were not
given.
Glendale Beeline (Glendale, CA):
The Beeline bus system, serving the city of Glendale (population 207,000) in the Los
Angeles area, has used 17 signalized intersections equipped with TSP since 2001
according the TSP planning and implementation handbook by ITS America (Smith et. al.,
2005).
References:
Abdelghany, K.F., A.F. Abdelghany, H.S. Mahmassani, and A.S. Abdelfatah. 2006.
Modeling Bus Priority Using Intermodal Dynamic Network Assignment-Simulation
Methodology. Journal of Public Transportation 9(5): 1-22.
Calgary Transit. 2004. Traffic Signal Priority (TSP) and Automatic Vehicle Tracking
System (AVTS) For Calgary Transit Buses. Project #2001-06.
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 11 of 12
Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America). 2004. An Overview of
Transit Signal Priority.
McLeod, F. and N. Hounsell. 2003. Bus Priority at Traffic Signals- Evaluating Strategy
Options. Journal of Public Transportation 9(5): 1-14.
Ngan, V., T. Sayed, and A. Abdelfatah. 2004. Impacts of Various Parameters on Transit
Signal Priority Effectiveness. Journal of Public Transportation 7(3): 71-93.
Ova, K. and A. Smadi. 2001. Evaluation of Transit Signal Priority Strategies for SmallMedium Cities. Publication of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North
Dakota State University.
Shalaby, A.J., Lee, J. Greenough, S. Hung, and M.D. Bowie. 2006. Development,
Evaluation, and Selection of Advanced Transit Signal Priority Concept Directions.
Journal of Public Transportation 9(5): 97-120.
Smith, H.R., B. Hemily, M. Ivanovic. 2005. Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning
and Implementation Handbook, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, funded by
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Spenard Road Reconstruction: Preliminary Engineering Report Draft, prepared by
Lounsubury & Associates, Inc. in association with Brooks & Associates, and Tryck
Nyman Hayes, Inc., October 2006.
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 2000. St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission
Transit Priority Evaluation Project: Final Report.
Transit Signal Priority Review
Oct 4, 2007
Page 12 of 12
Weekday
001 Westbound
001 Eastbound
002 Outbound
002 Inbound
003 Core Outbound
003 Core Inbound
003C Outbound
003C Inbound
003N Weekday Outbound
003N Weekday Inbound
007 Core Outbound
007 Core Inbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Outbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Inbound
007J 88th Outbound
007J 88th Inbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Outbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Inbound
008 Outbound
008 Inbound
009 Outbound
009 Inbound
013 Outbound
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
402.7
418.2
609.9
599.4
676.7
475.1
79.4
180.9
43.5
103
593.3
268.6
111.6
298.2
93.5
271
13.6
32.9
413.6
424.2
429.4
445.3
577.4
28
28
28
28
30
29
15
14
15
14
29
29
15
15
12
12
3
3
28
27
28
28
29
314
317
548
528
638.2
461.8
73.3
164.7
42.5
89.5
546.6
261.9
109.8
255.6
92
226.4
13.6
33
345
362
372
361
476
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
16
16
20
20
30
29
15
14
15
14
29
29
15
15
12
12
3
3
17
16
19
19
18
320.5
326.2
561.4
537.5
662.9
462.5
75.2
169.8
43.6
91.8
577.8
265.6
111.6
264.7
93.4
234.7
13.6
32.9
350.8
364.8
423.9
390.1
493.7
16
16
20
20
30
29
15
14
15
14
29
29
15
15
12
12
3
3
17
16
28
28
18
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
314
317
528
548
754
716
332
334
561
563
796
740
762
777
802
782
345
362
372
361
476
350
355
466
449
491
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
29
28
28
29
30
29
41
39
28
28
28
28
19
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
013 Inbound
014 Loop
015 Outbound
015 Inbound
036 Outbound
036 Inbound
045 Outbound
045 Inbound
060 Outbound
060 Inbound
075 Outbound
075 Inbound
077 Core Northbound - OB
474
205
305
329
300
283
1266
1302
384
384
468
516
96.3
19
18
19
19
19
19
34
32
17
18
20
19
19
486
212.9
350.8
365.6
309.1
286.9
1361.2
1303.7
400.8
389.2
484.2
523.1
98.6
19
18
28
29
19
19
41
39
17
18
20
19
19
549.9
259.1
354.3
382.2
351.6
306.9
1398.5
1316.8
468.1
448.9
534.8
584.6
113.2
077 Core Southbound - IB
077B Northbound - OB
077B Southbound - IB
077G Northbound - OB
077G Southbound - IB
102 Outbound
102 Inbound
84.2
62.5
23.5
27
47.6
161
132
19
6
6
9
9
8
8
84.5
63.1
23.5
27.1
48.3
118
102.9
19
6
6
9
9
6
6
84.4
63.1
23.5
27
48.3
121.8
105.5
13482
733
13908.5
780
15103.9
Total Routes
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
474
205
305
329
300
283
1266
1302
384
384
468
516
298
ran as
loop in
19 2007
6
6
9
9
161
6
132
6
494
228
441
497
316
304
1357
1313
436
405
499
529
192
13439
14527
932
184
175
136
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
Saturday
2007 Base 2007 Base
Year
Year
2008
Routes
2008 to 30
(many
routes to 30
min
headways)
2008 to 30
(many
routes to 30
min
headways)
ROUTE
REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
001 Westbound
001 Eastbound
002 Outbound
002 Inbound
003 Core Outbound
003 Core Inbound
003C Outbound
003C Inbound
003N Weekend to CIHO Outbound
003N Weekend to CIHO Inbound
007 Core Outbound
188
176
261
314
281.8
199.3
31.5
70.8
33.7
70.9
250.1
12
12
11
11
13
13
6
6
7
6
13
173.3
174.3
268.8
330.5
288.4
201.9
31.4
70.6
33.7
70.9
266.3
2008
Routes
12
12
11
11
13
13
6
6
7
6
13
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
Actual 2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
Actual 2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
188
176
261
314
347
341
187
182
269
319
371
332
399
421
007 Core Inbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Outbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Inbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Outbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Inbound
008 Outbound
008 Inbound
009 Outbound
009 Inbound
013 Outbound
013 Inbound
014 Loop
015 Outbound
015 Inbound
036 Outbound
036 Inbound
045 Outbound
045 Inbound
060 Outbound
060 Inbound
075 Outbound
075 Inbound
077 Core Northbound - OB
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
94.8
70.5
145
78.4
165.3
184
196
230
190
218
214
129
165
191
134
134
504
548
248
225
272
276
35.8
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
13
6
7
7
6
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
12
13
13
12
13
12
6
94.5
70.6
146.9
78.6
164.7
199.1
195.1
245.3
195.8
222.3
214.8
128
177.2
190.4
151.3
133
527.9
553
256.4
224.6
285.2
276.4
36.1
13
6
7
7
6
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
18
19
13
12
13
12
6
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
405
389
184
196
230
190
218
214
129
165
191
134
134
504
548
248
225
272
276
146
186
206
224
192
224
224
140
183
211
139
132
567
574
264
240
279
265
76
077 Core Southbound - IB
077B Northbound - OB
077B Southbound - IB
077G Northbound - OB
077G Southbound - IB
Total Routes
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
25.4
14.4
27.4
9.8
33.2
7
3
3
4
4
25.1
14.1
26.8
9.6
33.1
7
3
3
4
4
6635.1
376
6786
388
Sunday
2007 Base 2007 Base
Year
Year
2008
Routes
ROUTE
REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
001 Westbound
001 Eastbound
002 Outbound
103
108
155
8
10
9
94.6
108.3
158.3
2008
Routes
8
10
9
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
ran as
loop in
2007
2008 to 30
(many
routes to 30
min
headways)
2008 to 30
(many
routes to 30
min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
70
6635
6866
Actual 2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
Actual 2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
108
103
155
102
110
175
002 Inbound
003 Core Outbound
003 Core Inbound
003C Outbound
003C Inbound
003N Weekend to CIHO Outbound
003N Weekend to CIHO Inbound
007 Core Outbound
007 Core Inbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Outbound
007A Northwood w/Airport Inbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Outbound
007JA 88th w/Airport Inbound
008 Outbound
008 Inbound
009 Outbound
009 Inbound
013 Outbound
013 Inbound
014 Loop
015 Outbound
015 Inbound
036 Outbound
036 Inbound
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
172
156.4
97.1
8.8
33.1
8.8
33.8
140.8
47.9
38.7
76.7
42.5
88.4
112
122
113
94
131
122
76
75
89
76
68
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
8
8
8
4
4
4
4
9
9
5
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
174.6
161.2
97.9
9.1
32.4
8.8
34.1
146.5
48.3
38.9
76.7
42.7
88.3
116
120.6
115.5
93.8
132.5
118.3
73.2
80.8
88.6
73.3
67.4
7
8
8
4
4
4
4
9
9
5
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
8
8
7
7
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
172
174
164
187
190
167
222
213
237
218
112
122
113
94
131
122
76
75
89
76
68
111
128
104
91
147
128
84
83
98
73
78
045 Outbound
045 Inbound
060 Outbound
060 Inbound
075 Outbound
075 Inbound
Total Routes
TBEST results with
actual 2008 additional
service increases
(Weekday Midday
Routes 9 & 15 to 30
Ridership put into
TBEST for calebration minute headways and
addition of 45G)
purposes
TBEST results using
2008 service increase
and potential with
moving more routes to
30 minute headways
midday
2007 Base
Year
2007 Base
REVENUE
Year TOTAL SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
TOTAL
BOARDINGS
2008 Routes
2008 Routes REVENUE
TOTAL
SERVICE
BOARDINGS TRIPS
298
316
111
102
144
128
9
9
9
8
9
8
337.9
328.6
113.6
102.4
148.5
133.4
12
12
9
8
9
8
3488
243
3565.1
248
0
Actual Average
Ridership counts
from Farebox
2008 to 30
(many routes to
30 min
headways)
REVENUE
SERVICE
TRIPS
0
2007 Actual
2007
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
2008 Actual
2008
Average
Ridership
from Farebox
298
316
111
102
144
128
326
322
117
114
148
133
3488
3671