Research Task - Incorporate feedback to Transit Performance Metrics Portfolio #1514
Description
Research Task
Incorporate the feedback received from Juan Matute of UCLA ITS. Specially to address:
If you're taking requests, I'd like to see the Table 8.1 performance metrics on a statewide basis, along with a list for each performance metric of which individual transit agency-mode of service combinations are in the bottom 5% (approximately two standard deviations from the mean) for each. This would be illustrative for discussion purposes.
In a more advanced version, operators would be clustered into groups of 10 or more based on mode of service, vehicles available, population density of service territory, job density of service territory, and, perhaps, service area overlap with other transit operators (a GTFS spatial analysis exercise). An agency scoring in the bottom 1 or 2 of the cluster would get some remedial help in their triennial audit. Or face consolidation (FWIW, I like the BC Transit model for consolidation starting in 1979). Several large transit operators, especially those operating rail, wouldn't be candidates for consolidation and wouldn't fit this clustering method and would instead rely on a triennial audit, where I would expect trends over time for GTFS-RT quality, customer experience metrics (Transit App surveys or mystery shops) and several of these metrics to be considered holistically.And perhaps agency costs would be adjusted for regional consumer price index maintained by California Department of Industrial Relations. Either that or they'd just be clustered with regional peers.
table 8.1 Juan is referring too:
An Assessment of Performance Measures in the Transportation Development Act
-
Relevant PR (if applicable):
-
Question or Goal:
-
Data Required:
- Currently have:
- Need:
-
Research Required:
-
Metrics:
-
Expected Outputs / Findings: Exploratory notebook or dedicated portfolio site