- API
Vital Signs: Transit Cost-Effectiveness – by operator
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-07-06T18:04:51.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Transit Cost-Effectiveness (T13) FULL MEASURE NAME Net cost per transit boarding (cost per boarding minus fare per boarding) LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Transit cost-effectiveness refers to both the total and net costs per transit boarding, both of which are adjusted to reflect inflation over time. Net costs reflect total operating costs minus farebox revenue (i.e. operating costs that are not directly funded by system users). The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, mode, and system tables for net cost per boarding, total cost per boarding, and farebox recovery ratio. DATA SOURCE Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index http://www.bls.gov/data/ CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Simple modes were aggregated to combine the various bus modes (e.g. rapid bus, express bus, local bus) into a single mode to avoid incorrect conclusions resulting from mode recoding over the lifespan of NTD. For other metro areas, operators were identified by developing a list of all urbanized areas within a current MSA boundary and then using that UZA list to flag relevant operators; this means that all operators (both large and small) were included in the metro comparison data. Financial data was inflation-adjusted to match 2015 dollar values using metro-specific Consumer Price Indices.
- API
Vital Signs: Time in Congestion - Corridor (Updated October 2018)
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-10-24T00:31:33.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Time Spent in Congestion (T7) FULL MEASURE NAME Time Spent in Congestion LAST UPDATED October 2018 DATA SOURCE MTC/Iteris Congestion Analysis No link available CA Department of Finance Forms E-8 and E-5 http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-8/ http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ CA Employment Division Department: Labor Market Information http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/ CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Time spent in congestion measures the hours drivers are in congestion on freeway facilities based on traffic data. In recent years, data for the Bay Area comes from INRIX, a company that collects real-time traffic information from a variety of sources including mobile phone data and other GPS locator devices. The data provides traffic speed on the region’s highways. Using historical INRIX data (and similar internal datasets for some of the earlier years), MTC calculates an annual time series for vehicle hours spent in congestion in the Bay Area. Time spent in congestion is defined as the average daily hours spent in congestion on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during peak traffic months on freeway facilities. This indicator focuses on weekdays given that traffic congestion is generally greater on these days; this indicator does not capture traffic congestion on local streets due to data unavailability. This congestion indicator emphasizes recurring delay (as opposed to also including non-recurring delay), capturing the extent of delay caused by routine traffic volumes (rather than congestion caused by unusual circumstances). Recurring delay is identified by setting a threshold of consistent delay greater than 15 minutes on a specific freeway segment from vehicle speeds less than 35 mph. This definition is consistent with longstanding practices by MTC, Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation as speeds less than 35 mph result in significantly less efficient traffic operations. 35 mph is the threshold at which vehicle throughput is greatest; speeds that are either greater than or less than 35 mph result in reduced vehicle throughput. This methodology focuses on the extra travel time experienced based on a differential between the congested speed and 35 mph, rather than the posted speed limit. To provide a mathematical example of how the indicator is calculated on a segment basis, when it comes to time spent in congestion, 1,000 vehicles traveling on a congested segment for a 1/4 hour (15 minutes) each, [1,000 vehicles x ¼ hour congestion per vehicle= 250 hours congestion], is equivalent to 100 vehicles traveling on a congested segment for 2.5 hours each, [100 vehicles x 2.5 hour congestion per vehicle = 250 hours congestion]. In this way, the measure captures the impacts of both slow speeds and heavy traffic volumes. MTC calculates two measures of delay – congested delay, or delay that occurs when speeds are below 35 miles per hour, and total delay, or delay that occurs when speeds are below the posted speed limit. To illustrate, if 1,000 vehicles are traveling at 30 miles per hour on a one mile long segment, this would represent 4.76 vehicle hours of congested delay [(1,000 vehicles x 1 mile / 30 miles per hour) - (1,000 vehicles x 1 mile / 35 miles per hour) = 33.33 vehicle hours – 28.57 vehicle hours = 4.76 vehicle hours]. Considering that the posted speed limit on the segment is 60 miles per hour, total delay would be calculated as 16.67 vehicle hours [(1,000 vehicles x 1 mile / 30 miles per hour) - (1,000 vehicles x 1 mile / 60 miles per hour) = 33.33 vehicle hours – 16.67 vehicle hours = 16.67 vehicle hours]. Data sources listed above were used to calculate per-capita and per-worker statistics. Top congested corridors are ranked by total vehicle hours of delay, meaning that the highlighted corridors reflect a combination of slow speeds and heavy t
- API
Vital Signs: Transit Ridership by Mode – by Bay Area
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2022-06-29T23:30:44.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Transit Ridership (T11) FULL MEASURE NAME Daily transit boardings LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Transit ridership refers to the number of passenger boardings on public transportation, which includes buses, rail systems and ferries. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, mode and operator tables for total typical weekday boardings. DATA SOURCE Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) The NTD dataset was lightly cleaned to correct for erroneous zero values - in which null values (unsubmitted data) were incorrectly marked as zeroes. Paratransit data is sparse in early years of the NTD dataset, meaning that transit ridership estimates in the early 1990s are likely underestimated. Simple modes were aggregated to combine the various bus modes (e.g. rapid bus, express bus, local bus) into a single mode to avoid incorrect conclusions resulting from mode recoding over the lifespan of NTD. 2016 data should be considered preliminary, as it comes from the monthly data tables rather than the longer-term time-series dataset. Weekday ridership is calculated by taking the total annual ridership and dividing by 300, an assumption which is consistent with MTC travel modeling procedures; it was also compared to observed weekday boarding data (which is more limited in availability) to ensure consistency on the regional level. Per-capita transit ridership is calculated for the operator's general service area or taxation district; for example, BART includes the three core counties (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) as well as northern San Mateo County post-SFO extension and AC Transit includes the cities located within its service area. For other metro areas, operators were identified by developing a list of all urbanized areas within a current MSA boundary and then using that UZA list to flag relevant operators; this means that all operators (both large and small) were included in the metro comparison data.
- API
Vital Signs: Commute Mode Choice (by Place of Residence) – Bay Area
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2020-05-20T21:50:47.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Commute Mode Choice (T1) FULL MEASURE NAME Commute mode share by residential location LAST UPDATED April 2020 DESCRIPTION Commute mode choice, also known as commute mode share, refers to the mode of transportation that a commuter uses to travel to work, such as driving alone, biking, carpooling or taking transit. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, county, city and census tract tables by place of residence. DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census (1960-2000) - via MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/transportation/Means19802000.htm U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form B08301 (2006-2018; place of residence) www.api.census.gov CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) For the decennial Census datasets, the breakdown of auto commuters between drive alone and carpool is not available before 1980. "Other" includes bicycle, motorcycle, taxi, and other modes of transportation. For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year rolling average data was used for metros, region, and county geographic levels, while 5-year rolling average data was used for cities and tracts. This is due to the fact that more localized data is not included in the 1-year dataset across all Bay Area cities. Regional mode shares are population-weighted averages of the nine counties’ modal shares. "Auto" includes drive alone and carpool for the simple data tables and is broken out in the detailed data tables accordingly, as it was not available before 1980. “Transit” includes public operators (Muni, BART, etc.) and employer-provided shuttles (e.g., Google shuttle buses). "Other" includes motorcycle, taxi, and other modes of transportation; bicycle mode share was broken out separately for the first time in the 2006 data and is shown in the detailed data tables. Census tract data is not available for tracts with insufficient numbers of residents or workers. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas.
- API
Vital Signs: Transit Ridership per Capita – by operator
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-07-06T18:04:39.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Transit Ridership (T12) FULL MEASURE NAME Per-capita annual transit boardings LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Transit ridership refers to the number of passenger boardings on public transportation, which includes buses, rail systems and ferries. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, mode and operator tables for per-capita annual boardings (for an average resident in the given region or service area). DATA SOURCE Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Paratransit data is sparse in early years of the NTD dataset, meaning that transit ridership estimates in the early 1990s are likely underestimated. Simple modes were aggregated to combine the various bus modes (e.g. rapid bus, express bus, local bus) into a single mode to avoid incorrect conclusions resulting from mode recoding over the lifespan of NTD. 2016 data should be considered preliminary, as it is derived from the monthly data tables rather than the longer-term time-series dataset. The unlinked passenger trips recorded in NTD's Monthly Module Adjusted Data Release database is used to calculate 2016 year-over-year change in ridership. The calculated 2016 growth rate is applied to the 2015 annual unlinked passenger trips recorded in the TS2.1 - Service Dta and Operating Expenses Time-Series by Mode to estimate 2016 ridership numbers. 2016 ridership estimates were not made for small operators that did not report monthly ridership numbers. For the Bay Area, this means 2016 ridership estimates are unavailable for Union City Transit (UCT) and Vacaville City Coach. Due to the omission of some small operators from 2016 estimates, regional and metro ridership numbers are likely slightly underestimated. Weekday ridership is calculated by taking the total annual ridership and dividing by 300, an assumption which is consistent with MTC travel modeling procedures; it was also compared to observed weekday boarding data (which is more limited in availability) to ensure consistency on the regional level. Per-capita transit ridership is calculated for the operator's general service area or taxation district; for example, BART includes the three core counties (San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa) as well as northern San Mateo County post-SFO extension and AC Transit includes the cities located within its service area. ACE per-capita transit ridership is calculated using the population of Alameda and San Joaquin counties. For other metro areas, operators were identified by developing a list of all urbanized areas within a current MSA boundary and then using that UZA list to flag relevant operators; this means that all operators (both large and small) were included in the metro comparison data.
- API
Vital Signs: Transit Cost-Effectiveness – by metro
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-07-06T18:04:53.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Transit Cost-Effectiveness (T13) FULL MEASURE NAME Net cost per transit boarding (cost per boarding minus fare per boarding) LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Transit cost-effectiveness refers to both the total and net costs per transit boarding, both of which are adjusted to reflect inflation over time. Net costs reflect total operating costs minus farebox revenue (i.e. operating costs that are not directly funded by system users). The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, mode, and system tables for net cost per boarding, total cost per boarding, and farebox recovery ratio. DATA SOURCE Federal Transit Administration: National Transit Database http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index http://www.bls.gov/data/ CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Simple modes were aggregated to combine the various bus modes (e.g. rapid bus, express bus, local bus) into a single mode to avoid incorrect conclusions resulting from mode recoding over the lifespan of NTD. For other metro areas, operators were identified by developing a list of all urbanized areas within a current MSA boundary and then using that UZA list to flag relevant operators; this means that all operators (both large and small) were included in the metro comparison data. Financial data was inflation-adjusted to match 2015 dollar values using metro-specific Consumer Price Indices.
- API
Vital Signs: Time Spent in Congestion – by Corridor
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-07-06T18:04:35.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Time Spent In Congestion (T7) FULL MEASURE NAME Congested delay on regional freeways LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Time spent in traffic congestion – also known as congested delay – refers to the number of minutes weekday travelers spend in congested conditions in which freeway speeds drop below 35 mph. Total delay, a companion measure, includes both congested delay and all other delay in which speeds are below the posted speed limit. DATA SOURCE Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Iteris: Congested Corridor Analysis CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Delay statistics only include freeway facilities and rely upon INRIX traffic data. They reflect delay on a typical weekday, which is defined as Tuesday through Thursday during peak traffic months. Delay statistics emphasize recurring delay - i.e. consistent delay greater than 15 minutes on a specific freeway segment. Congested delay is defined as congestion occurring with speeds less than 35 mph and is commonly recognized as inefficient delay (meaning that the freeway corridor is operating at speeds low enough to reduce throughput - as opposed to speeds greater than 35 mph which increase throughput). Data sources listed above were used to calculate per-capita and per-worker statistics; national datasets were used for metro comparisons and California datasets were used for the Bay Area. Top congested corridors are ranked by total vehicle hours of delay, meaning that the highlighted corridors reflect a combination of slow speeds and heavy traffic volumes. Historical Bay Area data was estimated by MTC Operations staff using a combination of internal datasets to develop an approximate trend back to 1998. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the combined primary urbanized areas (San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose) as well as nine other major metropolitan areas' core urbanized area. Because the Texas Transportation Institute no longer reports congested freeway delay or total freeway delay (focusing solely on total regional delay), 2011 data was used to estimate 2014 total freeway delay for each metro area by relying upon the freeway-to-regional ratio from 2011. Estimated urbanized area workers were used for this analysis using the 2011 ratios, which accounts for slight differentials between Bay Area data points under the regional historical data and the metro comparison analysis. To explore how 2016 congestion trends compare to real-time congestion on the region’s freeways, visit 511.org.
- API
Vital Signs: Time Spent In Congestion – by metro
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2018-07-06T18:04:56.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Time Spent In Congestion (T7) FULL MEASURE NAME Congested delay on regional freeways LAST UPDATED May 2017 DESCRIPTION Time spent in traffic congestion – also known as congested delay – refers to the number of minutes weekday travelers spend in congested conditions in which freeway speeds drop below 35 mph. Total delay, a companion measure, includes both congested delay and all other delay in which speeds are below the posted speed limit. DATA SOURCE Texas Transportation Institute (unpublished analysis) 2011 Used for freeway ratio calculation Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Scorecard 2014 http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/ U.S. Census Bureau: Intercensal Estimates http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Metro Area Employment http://www.bls.gov/sae/ CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Delay statistics only include freeway facilities and rely upon INRIX traffic data. They reflect delay on a typical weekday, which is defined as Tuesday through Thursday during peak traffic months. Delay statistics emphasize recurring delay - i.e. consistent delay greater than 15 minutes on a specific freeway segment. Congested delay is defined as congestion occurring with speeds less than 35 mph and is commonly recognized as inefficient delay (meaning that the freeway corridor is operating at speeds low enough to reduce throughput - as opposed to speeds greater than 35 mph which increase throughput). Data sources listed above were used to calculate per-capita and per-worker statistics; national datasets were used for metro comparisons and California datasets were used for the Bay Area. Top congested corridors are ranked by total vehicle hours of delay, meaning that the highlighted corridors reflect a combination of slow speeds and heavy traffic volumes. Historical Bay Area data was estimated by MTC Operations staff using a combination of internal datasets to develop an approximate trend back to 1998. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the combined primary urbanized areas (San Francisco-Oakland and San Jose) as well as nine other major metropolitan areas' core urbanized area. Because the Texas Transportation Institute no longer reports congested freeway delay or total freeway delay (focusing solely on total regional delay), 2011 data was used to estimate 2014 total freeway delay for each metro area by relying upon the freeway-to-regional ratio from 2011. Estimated urbanized area workers were used for this analysis using the 2011 ratios, which accounts for slight differentials between Bay Area data points under the regional historical data and the metro comparison analysis. To explore how 2016 congestion trends compare to real-time congestion on the region’s freeways, visit 511.org.
- API
Vital Signs: Commute Mode Choice (by Place of Employment) – by county
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2020-05-20T21:51:59.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Commute Mode Choice (T2) FULL MEASURE NAME Commute mode share by employment location LAST UPDATED April 2020 DESCRIPTION Commute mode choice, also known as commute mode share, refers to the mode of transportation that a commuter uses to travel to work, such as driving alone, biking, carpooling or taking transit. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, county, city and census tract tables by place of work. DATA SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census (1960-2000) - via MTC/ABAG Bay Area Census http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/transportation/Means19802000.htm U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey Form B08601 (2018 only; place of employment) www.api.census.gov CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) For the decennial Census datasets, the breakdown of auto commuters between drive alone and carpool is not available before 1980. "Other" includes bicycle, motorcycle, taxi, and other modes of transportation. For the American Community Survey datasets, 1-year rolling average data was used for metros, region, and county geographic levels, while 5-year rolling average data was used for cities and tracts. This is due to the fact that more localized data is not included in the 1-year dataset across all Bay Area cities. Regional mode share was calculated using county modal data and calculating the weighted average based on county populations. "Auto" includes drive alone and carpool for the simple data tables and is broken out in the detailed data tables accordingly, as it was not available before 1980. "Other" includes motorcycle, taxi, and other modes of transportation; bicycle mode share is broken out separately for the first time in the 2006 data and is shown in the detailed data tables. Census tract data is not available for tracts with insufficient numbers of residents. Data for Napa County were not available due to small sample size. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas.
- API
Vital Signs: Greenfield Development – by metro area
data.bayareametro.gov | Last Updated 2020-07-03T16:36:42.000ZVITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Greenfield Development (LU5) FULL MEASURE NAME The acres of construction on previously undeveloped land LAST UPDATED November 2019 DESCRIPTION Greenfield development refers to construction on previously undeveloped land and the corresponding expansion of our region’s developed footprint, which includes the extent of urban and built-up lands. The footprint is defined as land occupied by structures, with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres. DATA SOURCE Department of Conservation: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GIS Data Tables/Layers (1990-2016) https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp U.S. Census Bureau: Decennial Census Population by Census Block Group (2000-2010) http://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey (5-year) Population by Census Block Group (2000-2017) http://factfinder.census.gov METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) For regional and local data, FMMP maps the extent of “urban and built-up” lands, which generally reflect the developed urban footprint of the region. The footprint is defined as land occupied by structures with building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres. Uses include residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes. To determine the amount of greenfield development (in acres) occurring in a given two-year period, the differences in urban footprint are computed on a county-level. FMMP makes slight refinements to urban boundaries over time, so changes in urban footprint +/- 100 acres are not regionally significant. The GIS shapefile represents the 2016 urban footprint and thus does not show previously urbanized land outside of the footprint (i.e. Hamilton Air Force Base). For metro comparisons, a different methodology had to be used to avoid the geospatial limitations associated with FMMP. U.S. Census population by census block group was gathered for each metro area for 2000, 2010, and 2017. Population data for years 2000 and 2010 come from the Decennial Census while data for 2018 comes from the 2017 5-year American Community Survey. The block group was considered urbanized if its average/gross density was greater than 1 housing unit per acre (a slightly higher threshold than FMMP uses for its definition). Because a block group cannot be flagged as partially urbanized, and non-residential uses are not fully captured, the urban footprint of the region calculated with this methodology is smaller than in FMMP. The metro data should be primarily used for looking at comparative growth rate in greenfield development rather than the acreage totals themselves.