transit best practices and strategies for the short, mid ... p… · transit best practices and...
Post on 24-May-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida
Transit Best Practices and Strategies for the Short, Mid, and Long Terms
Joel Volinski Director, National Center for Transit Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida
Tuesday , March 28, 2017 Miami Beach, Florida
2
U.S. Transit Ridership and Ridership/Capita Trends
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
5
10
15
20
25
1918
1923
1928
1933
1938
1943
1948
1953
1958
1963
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
Annu
al T
rips p
er C
apita
Annu
al R
ider
ship
, Bill
ions
Rides, Billion Per Capita Rides
3
Ridership in Three Modes: 1902 - Present
Bus trips peaked in 1950
Streetcar and LRT peaked in 1923
Heavy rail highest levels ever in 2015
4
Modal Breakdown
5
20-Year Ridership Trends have been Encouraging
6
Until Recently - Ridership Dipped in 2015 and 2016
7
Current National Trends
Indicator 2015 versus 2014 2016 YTD Source
U.S. Population +0.8% Census
Total Employment +1.7% BLS
Real GDP +2.4% BEA (third estimate)
Gas Price -28% EIA
VMT +3.5% +3.0% thru Nov FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -1.3% to -2.5% -1.96% thru Oct
(NTD/BTS) APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY) -0.1% Amtrak
Airline Passengers +5.0% USDOT, BTS
Consistently growing transit ridership is tough
8
Two-year Modal Snapshot (9 mo. 2014 vs. 2016)
Heavy Rail -0%
Light Rail +1.7%
Commuter Rail +1.9%
Trolleybus -1.2%
Bus Population Group:
2,000,000+ -5.9%
500,000 -1,999,999 -9.0%
100,000 – 499,999 -8.8%
Below 100,000 -4.8%
Bus Total -6.7%
Demand Response +1.1%
Other +2.0%
United States Total -3.0%
Canada Total -4.9%
9
Quarterly National Ridership by Mode (000)
APTA: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
1990
- Q
1
1990
- Q
4
1991
- Q
3
1992
- Q
2
1993
- Q
1
1993
- Q
4
1994
- Q
3
1995
- Q
2
1996
- Q
1
1996
- Q
4
1997
- Q
3
1998
- Q
2
1999
- Q
1
1999
- Q
4
2000
- Q
3
2001
- Q
2
2002
- Q
1
2002
- Q
4
2003
- Q
3
2004
- Q
2
2005
- Q
1
2005
- Q
4
2006
- Q
3
2007
- Q
2
2008
- Q
1
2008
- Q
4
2009
- Q
3
2010
- Q
2
2011
- Q
1
2011
- Q
4
2012
- Q
3
2013
- Q
2
2014
- Q
1
2014
- Q
4
2015
- Q
3
2016
- Q
2
Total Ridership (000s)
Heavy Rail (000s)
Light Rail (000s)
Commuter Rail (000s)
Trolleybus (000s)
Bus (000s)
Demand Response (000s)
Other (000s)
10
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%19
90 -
Q1
1990
- Q
419
91 -
Q3
1992
- Q
219
93 -
Q1
1993
- Q
419
94 -
Q3
1995
- Q
219
96 -
Q1
1996
- Q
419
97 -
Q3
1998
- Q
219
99 -
Q1
1999
- Q
420
00 -
Q3
2001
- Q
220
02 -
Q1
2002
- Q
420
03 -
Q3
2004
- Q
220
05 -
Q1
2005
- Q
420
06 -
Q3
2007
- Q
220
08 -
Q1
2008
- Q
420
09 -
Q3
2010
- Q
220
11 -
Q1
2011
- Q
420
12 -
Q3
2013
- Q
220
14 -
Q1
2014
- Q
420
15 -
Q3
2016
- Q
2
Heavy Rail (000s)
Light Rail (000s)
Commuter Rail (000s)
Trolleybus (000s)
Bus (000s)
Demand Response (000s)
Percent Change in Quarterly National Ridership Since 1990 by Mode
11
Changes Since 1992 Spending far outpaces Vehicle Miles and Trips
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Perc
ent C
hang
e Si
nce
1992
Total Trips Total Capital Cost Total Operating Cost
*Inflation adjustment performed using Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator using CPI
12
Percent Change in Transit Ridership and Vehicle Miles of Service Relative to 1970
-15%0%
15%30%45%60%75%90%
105%120%135%150%165%180%195%
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Perc
ent C
hang
e Re
lativ
e to
197
0 National Ridership relative to 1970
National Vehicle Miles of Services(billions)
13
Trends in Service Supply, Use and Investment
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Mill
ions
, Ann
ual
Total Trips Total Pass MiTotal Vehicle Mi Total Investment
Passenger Miles and Total Investment outpace Trips and Vehicle Miles.
14
U.S. Non-POV Commute Market Shares
6.2%
5.1%
4.6% 4.9%
5.2%
0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%
5.6%
3.9%
2.9% 2.8% 2.8%
2.3%
3.0% 3.3%
4.3% 4.6%
1.3% 1.1% 1.0%
1.2% 1.2%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Com
mut
ing
Mar
ket S
hare
Transit Bicycle Walk Work-at-home Taxi, Motorcycle, and Other
Sources: Census, ACS
15
Why has Ridership Decreased? A Mix of Factors…….
Changes in the mobility ecosystem – TNCs, car sharing, bike systems
Sustained low gasoline prices
Lingering impacts of the recession (service
cuts/fares)
VMT up steadily since 2014, following seven
years of flat or negative trends (VMT up 2.45%
in Q3).
Automobile purchases up/attitudes/cheap
loans
Sprawling regions / non-competitive bus travel
times
Work-at-home trends or Telecommuting
Drops in college enrollments / online
courses
Service quality issues in certain regions
TOD success stories / The trip not taken
Baby Boomer retirements resulting in
fewer commute trips
16
People are Moving from Higher to Lower Transit Areas
Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016 Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016
County Population Numeric Change
Percent Change
Transit Commute Share 2015
County Population Numeric
Change Percent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County, 4,242,997 81,360 1.95 2.3% Cook County, 5,203,499 -21,324 -0.41 18.8% Arizona Illinois Harris County, 4,589,928 56,587 1.25 2.8% Wayne County, 1,749,366 -7,696 -0.44 2.5% Texas Michigan Clark County, 2,155,664 46,375 2.2 4.2% Baltimore city, 614,664 -6,738 -1.08 19.6% Nevada Maryland King County, 2,149,970 35,714 1.69 12.6% Cuyahoga County, 1,249,352 -5,673 -0.45 5.1% Washington Ohio Tarrant County, 2,016,872 35,462 1.79 0.6% Suffolk County, 1,492,583 -5,320 -0.36 6.8% Texas New York Riverside County, 2,387,741 34,849 1.48 1.4% Milwaukee County, 951,448 -4,866 -0.51 6.2% California Wisconsin Bexar County, 1,928,680 33,198 1.75 2.6% Allegheny County, 1,225,365 -3,933 -0.32 9.1% Texas Pennsylvania Orange County,
1,314,367 29,503 2.3 3.2% San Juan County, 115,079 -3,622 -3.05 0.3% Florida New Mexico Dallas County, 2,574,984 29,209 1.15 2.9% St. Louis City, 311,404 -3,471 -1.1 9.7% Texas Missouri Hillsborough County, 1,376,238 29,161 2.16 1.7% Jefferson County, 114,006 -3,254 -2.78 0.0% Florida New York Average 3.4% Average 7.8%
17
So What Does This All Mean?
Are we growing into systems such that they are getting more productive over
time? System utilization has remained relatively constant.
Densification, increased mode split or self selection of transit travelers to transit areas (locally or
regionally) have not resulted in proven system ridership growth and/or we are expanding supply
such that average utilization remains constant.
18
Financial Support for Transit is Good
• The public is generally supportive of the social value of transit as a mobility safety net and understands some of the other indirect benefits.
• They tolerate spending a modest amount per household even if they aren’t direct beneficiaries.
• If transit use grows the cost per non-rider household may become less tolerable unless riders pay a far higher share of costs.
19
What does the future hold?
We have never been in a time of greater uncertainty • Effects of AV on transit use? • Will fuel prices remain affordable? • Will we continue to develop outward instead of focusing on
redevelopment? • Will legacy systems be financially sustainable/will there be
continued support for financing transit? • Will there be more income equality?
20
What does the future hold?
• Will TNCs complement or compete with transit? • Will telecommuting become even more widespread? • Will there be impactful societal or demographic changes? • Will new technologies providing new ways of being transported be
developed? • Will climate change and water shortages become more evident and
critical? • Will immigration to the U.S. and birth rates continue similar to the
past?
21
Some Best Guesses
• AV technology will make transit a bit safer and hopefully reduce paratransit, but will probably reduce transit’s appeal if cars have AV – we might tax empty cars to discourage unnecessary VMT
• On the other hand, Buses with AV would reduce transit costs and allow more/better service to be provided
• Transit agencies will probably move more toward electric power, helping to reduce operating costs
• We probably will continue to develop outward making transit less competitive in new markets (more suburbanization)
• Legacy systems will face greater challenges of financial sustainability without changes in labor agreements
22
Some Best Guesses
• TNCs will be both a help short term and a hindrance long term (though federal requirements may limit them)
• Telecommuting will probably grow but not continue to expand at the rate it has
• Major societal changes are hard to predict, but millenials will conform with classical patterns of travel behavior – Automation in the workplace will have profound impact on those with
skills no longer needed – Rising seas will cause more alarm and carbon taxes will come into play
• There could be new systems of transport such as hyperloops, large commuter helicopters, or personal electronic vehicles
23
Some Strategies and Best Practices for Transit
• More transit systems will focus their resources in areas with the greatest potential for ridership while coming up with new ways to serve areas of low demand
• Take advantage of technologies and data that allow more efficient scheduling, precise analysis of ridership, and the ability to track agency performance in all areas (AI for decision support for bus tracking)
• They will all need to provide real time information and flexible payment methods
• Public-Private Partnerships should be explored when feasible for major capital projects as well as contracting for new or expanded services
• All forms of partnerships should be pursued (universities, schools, businesses, hospitals, military bases, apartment complexes, etc.)
24
Some Strategies and Best Practices for Transit
• Support TODs, return to the cities, and other infill development • Paratransit expenses will be better managed and use TNCs • Use capital funds to build more energy efficient facilities • Automate subway operations and BRT (Europe and Asia) • Institute wellness programs and hire the necessary expertise to find
the most affordable insurance and deal with FMLA • Maximize advertising opportunities on all vehicles and facilities and
look for opportunities to sell naming rights
25
As it relates to the Interstate:
• Transit works best when it has more dedicated space to operate
• More opportunities for transit buses to operate on managed lanes
• More opportunities for transit to operate on Interstate shoulders
• Certain cities simply won’t function without good transit
26
Joel Volinski, Director of NCTR 954-554-7011 volinski@usf.edu
top related