City of West CovinaCity of West Covina
Green Line EvaluationGreen Line Evaluation
Green Line Evaluation
Presented ByPresented By
Joanne Coletta
Jim Jobst
Leticia Llamas
Kelly McDonald
Ana Rosales
Enrique Salgado
Shannon Williams
Alicia Velazquez
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Graduate Students
Dr. Sandra Emerson
Background & Background & ContextContext
Presented by: Joanne ColettaPresented by: Joanne Coletta
Needs to Be Met By the Program
C ity M e m os E lite In te rv iew F o cus G ro up
O b ta in ed fro m :
Green Line Evaluation
Project Description
• Target Population
• Program History, Funding & Issues
• Program Implementation & Rationale
Green Line Evaluation
Project Description
S o uth s ideR e s id e n ts
S e n io rs D isa b le d P erso ns
T a rge t P o p u la tion
Green Line Evaluation
Project Description
• Program History
• Funding
• Issues
Green Line Evaluation
Program Implementation & Rationale
1 . I nc re a s ed M o b ility 2 . R e duc e d C o nge s t ion 3 . I nc rea s e d R ide rs h ip
T h re e K e y P o in ts
Green Line Evaluation
Presented by: Leticia LlamasPresented by: Leticia Llamas
Study QuestionsStudy QuestionsWhat is the one thing we should know
about the city & Green Line?
What is the one thing you would like to know by the end of the project?
What are important
criteria & what kind of
evidence do you need?
Criteria
Impact of Service on Business
Diversity
Shift in Patron Needs
Quality and Viability
Impact on Quality of Life
Study Designs & Methods
Records Analysis
Ridership Survey
Field Observati
on
Study Designs & Methods
Records Analysis
• Data Reports from Contractor
• Budget & Expenditure Reports from City
Study Designs & Methods
Ridership Survey• DemographicsDemographics
• Purpose of TravelPurpose of Travel
• Satisfaction with Satisfaction with ServiceService
• Areas for Areas for ImprovementImprovement
Study Designs & Methods
Field Observatio
n
• Activity Within The Bus
• Bus Stop Conditions
Records AnalysisRecords Analysis
Presented by:Presented by: Enrique Enrique SalgadoSalgado
Green Line Evaluation
Cost ComparisonCost ComparisonEXTRABOLATED
DATA
RED/BLUE 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Ridership (average/m0) 12773.58 11339.33 13075.50 11415.34 9931.34
% Change from prior year n.a. -11% 15% -13% -13%
COSTS ($) $506,957 $487,707 $516,209
Average Cost/Mo $42,246 $40,642 $43,017
Cost/Rider/Mo ($) $3.23 $3.56 $4.33
Cost/Hour/Mo ($) $42.50 $35.69 $32.85
GREEN
Ridership (average/mo) $7,073.07
COSTS ($) $272,409.55
Average Cost/Mo $22,700.00
Cost/Rider/Mo ($) $3.21
Cost/Hour/Mo ($) $42.33
Green Line Evaluation
Red/Blue Ridership Red/Blue Ridership TrendTrendriders per mo. red/blue
July 1997-June 2001
50403020100
16000
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000
9000
8000
regression
Observed
Linear
curved estimate
Green Line Evaluation
Green Ridership TrendGreen Ridership Trendridership/month
Sequence
121086420
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
observed
linear est imat e
curved estimat e
Field Observations Field Observations andand
Quality of Service Quality of Service FindingsFindings
Presented by: Alicia Presented by: Alicia VelazquezVelazquez
Green Line Evaluation
Research Questions
Bus users
Schedule
Drivers
Bus Condition
Green Line Evaluation
Description of Findings Description of Findings (Users)(Users)
Adults, 2
Disabled, 0
Seniors, 1
Youth , 7
On Average: 10 users per bus ride (Adults: 2, Youth: 7, Seniors: 1, Disabled: 0)
Green Line Evaluation
Description of Findings (Schedule)17
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
On Schedule Off Schedule
31 Trips: 54% = on schedule,
45% = off schedule (2 min)
Green Line Evaluation
Description of Findings (Conditions)
1
No Problem
2 3 Limited Problem
4 5 Widespread
Problem
Bus stop Conditions
Bus Conditions
Bus Safety
Bus Noise
Green Line Evaluation
Explanation of Findings (Bus Stop Conditions)
Lark Ellen/ Francisquito max rating: 4
Shadow Oaks/ Nogales max rating: 5
Sentous/ Valley max rating: 5
Green Line Evaluation
Description of FindingsCourtesy of Drivers
1
Rude/ Sullen
2 3
Civil/ Polite
4 5
Friendly/ Helpful
* 3 – Does Not Necessarily Denote a Problem.
Field ObservationsField Observations
Presented by: Enrique Presented by: Enrique SalgadoSalgado
Green Line Evaluation
Field ObservationsField Observations
Rider TrafficRider Traffic
Weekday
Weekend
147% more
Green Line Evaluation
Field ObservationsField Observations
Morning Mid Day Afternoon and
Evening
Noise LevelsNoise Levels
Green Line Evaluation
Field ObservationsField Observations
Morning Mid Day Afternoon and
Evening
Driver CourtesyDriver Courtesy
Customer SurveyCustomer Survey
Presented by: Kelly Presented by: Kelly McDonaldMcDonald
Green Line Evaluation
The SurveyThe Survey
Interviews with Staff
Review of Records
Field Observations
Focus Group
With Commission
Subcommittees
Customer Survey
Development
The Survey The Survey
Green Line Evaluation
Two Surveys – User & Non-User
Demographics (Ranges)
Purpose of Trip – Spending (Ranges)
Satisfaction & Alternatives or Why Not Using
Implementation Implementation
Green Line Evaluation
Implementation Implementation
Green Line Evaluation
Conduct the Survey
The BaitData Analysis
Customer SatisfactionCustomer Satisfaction
Green Line Evaluation
Specific Area Satisfied to Very
Safety of the Bus 95.5%
Safety at the Stops 89.5%
Location of the Stops 82.0%
Bus Schedule 80.6%
Courtesy of the Driver 79.0%
Ability to Transfer 68.7%
Suggested Suggested ImprovementsImprovements
Green Line Evaluation
31.3 % Bus Schedule
7.8 % Stop Locations
7.8 % Transfers
6.3 % Driver Courtesy
39.1 % No Comment
Where Are Riders Where Are Riders Going? Going?
Green Line Evaluation
32.6 % Senior Center
Where Are Riders Where Are Riders Going? Going?
Green Line Evaluation
34.2 % Shopping
15.9 %Westfield, Eastland,& Fashion Square
Data SuggestsData Suggests
Budget Project
Boarding - Departure
Estimated Spending
Transfer to Other Lines
Incidental shopping at
South-end outlets
Green Line Evaluation
SummarySummary
Budget Project
Achieving Objectives
Some Improvements - High Satisfaction
As Defined - Highly Effective Service
Green Line Evaluation
Respondent Respondent Description & Description &
InferencesInferences
Presented by: Shannon Presented by: Shannon WilliamsWilliams
Green Line Evaluation
Description of Customer Survey Respondents
•102 Respondents
•Mix of Youth, Adults, & Seniors
Green Line Evaluation
Characteristics of Customer Survey
Respondentsage
55 and older36-55under 35
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Customer Survey Respondents by Age Categories
Green Line Evaluation
Customer Survey Respondents by Gender
gender
femalemale
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Green Line Evaluation
Customer Survey Respondents by Income Groups
income groups
35000 and above
$25000-35000
$15000-24999
less than $15000
no reponse
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
Green Line Evaluation
Respondent’s Use of West Covina Transit System
Survey of Customers by W.C. Use
not user
y ellowgreen
red
blue
Green Line Evaluation
Customer Survey Inferences
bus safety
less than very satisvery satisfied
Co
un
t50
40
30
20
10
0
age
under 35
36-55
55 and older
Satisfaction regarding bus safety differences by age categories
Green Line Evaluation
Satisfaction with bus schedule differences by age categories
schedule
less than very satisvery satisfied
Co
un
t
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
age
under 35
36-55
55 and older
Green Line Evaluation
Open-Ended Survey
Bus Schedule Bus Stops
Politeness
•More often
•Coordinate with FHT
•Information on connections
•Transfer
•Travel in both directions
•More stops
•Shelters
•Visible bus signs
•Slowing down at stops & waiting
Suggestions for Improvements
Green Line Evaluation
Alternative transportation if no transit by age groups
alternative modes
otherWalkFoothill Transit
Co
un
t
50
40
30
20
10
0
recoded age
under 35
36-55
55 and older
Green Line Evaluation
Association of transfer satisfaction with schedule satisfaction
satisfied with sched.
less than very satisvery satisfied
Co
un
t
40
30
20
10
0
transfer to buses
no transfer
foothill transit
other public lines -
red, blue, metro
Green Line Evaluation
Conclusion
•Overall Satisfaction is high
•Serves the South-end
•Seniors are critical of bus safety & bus schedule
•Users are concerned with transfers to other systems
Conclusions & Conclusions & RecommendationsRecommendations
Presented by: Ana RosalesPresented by: Ana Rosales
ConclusionsConclusions
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Customers Receptive and Satisfied.
25% of respondents did not know what they would do for transportation.
Others would walk, Foothill Transit, friends, relatives, or taxi.
ProductivityProductivity
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
Green Line has 10 persons per ride
Favorable Comparison
Problems with Problems with Bus ScheduleBus Schedule
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Persons transferring to other bus lines are more positive.
• Strained communication between driver and seniors.
RecommendationsRecommendations
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
Bus Stop Visibility
Bus Driver Interaction With Riders
Web Site Accessibility
Increase Ridership
Improved Data Accuracy
“Let West Covina Take You For A Ride.”
Bus Stop VisibilityBus Stop Visibility
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Bus stop schedule should contain all stops being made.
• Bus stops should be identified on all stops with reflective paint.
Driver Interaction with Driver Interaction with RidersRiders
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Train Drivers to interact with riders in effort to increase patronage
Increase RidershipIncrease Ridership
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Increase Ridership by promoting a “Let West Covina take You For a Ride”
Web Site AccessibilityWeb Site Accessibility
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Include southbound, northbound, weekend and weekday bus stop schedule on web site on one page.
• Direct hyperlink of Bus stop schedule via internet should be accessible on West Covina Home page.
Improved Data Improved Data AccuracyAccuracy
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
• Data gathering mechanism be reviewed and monitored to assure information is reliable.
• Random sampling methods of reports be reviewed during the year to assure accuracy of data.
Budget ProjectGreen Line Evaluation
Thank You for Your Attention