transit ridership trends and reasonsgohart.org/board pdfs/ridership presentation-ridership... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
Monday August 12 2019
Steven E Polzin PhDSenior Advisor for Research and Technology
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
Outline
Transit in August 2019
Underlying trends driving demand
Why Ridership matters and what do we do
2
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018
Transit ridership near 60 year high
Millennials are different
We passed peak VMT
We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving
Developers embrace transit
Strong referendum success
TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue
2015-2017
Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs
Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline
VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth
Growth and migration resume historic patterns
System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators
How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing
TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership
Why do we need transit with CAV
3
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
Governing
Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future
June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
National Transit Ridership Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ride
rshi
p pe
r Cap
ita T
rips p
er Y
ear
Tran
sit R
ider
ship
Bill
ions
per
Yea
r
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Outline
Transit in August 2019
Underlying trends driving demand
Why Ridership matters and what do we do
2
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018
Transit ridership near 60 year high
Millennials are different
We passed peak VMT
We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving
Developers embrace transit
Strong referendum success
TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue
2015-2017
Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs
Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline
VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth
Growth and migration resume historic patterns
System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators
How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing
TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership
Why do we need transit with CAV
3
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
Governing
Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future
June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
National Transit Ridership Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ride
rshi
p pe
r Cap
ita T
rips p
er Y
ear
Tran
sit R
ider
ship
Bill
ions
per
Yea
r
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018
Transit ridership near 60 year high
Millennials are different
We passed peak VMT
We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving
Developers embrace transit
Strong referendum success
TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue
2015-2017
Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs
Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline
VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth
Growth and migration resume historic patterns
System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators
How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing
TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership
Why do we need transit with CAV
3
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
Governing
Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future
June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
National Transit Ridership Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ride
rshi
p pe
r Cap
ita T
rips p
er Y
ear
Tran
sit R
ider
ship
Bill
ions
per
Yea
r
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Governing
Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future
June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
National Transit Ridership Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ride
rshi
p pe
r Cap
ita T
rips p
er Y
ear
Tran
sit R
ider
ship
Bill
ions
per
Yea
r
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
National Transit Ridership Trend
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Ride
rshi
p pe
r Cap
ita T
rips p
er Y
ear
Tran
sit R
ider
ship
Bill
ions
per
Yea
r
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Perc
ent C
hang
e re
lativ
e to
197
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
9200000
9400000
9600000
9800000
10000000
10200000
10400000
10600000
10800000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Approximate 8 decline in four years
Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
Thou
sand
s
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
2017
2018
Approximate 17 decline in three years
Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years
Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT
12000000
12500000
13000000
13500000
14000000
14500000
15000000
15500000
16000000
16500000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
20142016
2015
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
US Context and Travel Trends
2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source
US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census
Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS
Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA
Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA
Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges
Co
Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA
Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census
VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and
NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bull
bull
bull
bullbull
bull
bullbull
bull
Seattle+19081 +92
Portland-4057 -35
Las Vegas-2595 -38
Phoenix-5608 -75
Denver+0402 +04
Salt Lake City-2103 -45
Miami-43622 -258
Orlando-4802 -156Tampa
-6016 -191
Atlanta-17606 -126
Dallas-9910 -122
St Louis-11618 -229
Minneapolis-4844 -49
Honolulu-4885 -71
Riverside-5188 -207
San Diego-13032 -117
Los Angeles-125727 -187
San Francisco-14461 -31
Sacramento-7154 -233
Washington DC-66127 -140
Baltimore-18991 -162
Philadelphia-38454 -105
New York City-187676 -43
Hartford-0002 -00
Providence-3242 -154
Boston-47218 -112
Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit
-1543 -40
Columbus-0138 -07
Cincinnati-2759 -131
Chicago-57212 -90
Milwaukee-10657 -247
Buffalo-2443 -93
Pittsburgh-0925 -14
Charlotte-6147 -215
Austin-4257 -125
Houston+4065 +47
New Orleans-1430 -62
San Antonio-4223 -98
bullSan Jose-7780 -173
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Miami-Dade Transit
-28737 -2620
Broward County Transit
-10551 -2718
Central FL RTA-5300 -1760
Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit
-3435 -2197
Jacksonville Transportation Authority
-0876 -686
Pinellas SuncoastTransportation
Authority-2684 -1836
PalmTran-2099 -1715
Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351
South Florida RTA-0076 -139
City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865
Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
Top 10 agencies make up 926
of Florida ridership from
2014-2018
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Hey Watson Have we found
the bottom yet
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
Sources ACS WSJ
86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)
50 of US HH with workers have no cars
In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)
SOVSUV Crush Competition
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor
Travel Behavior
Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor
Transit Ridership
Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
What Underlies the Ridership Trends
Increased auto availability
Aging
Migration trendsgentrification
Transportation network
companies (Uber Lyft)
Telecommutinge-commerce etc
Bikeshare carshare
System safetyreliability
Personal safetycleanliness
Gas prices
Service supply
FaresWeather
Parking costCommuter benefits
program changes
Enhanced traveler expectations
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS
We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income
The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC
choice
legal
medical
income
86 US63 FL
US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 110
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
Annu
al T
rans
it Tr
ips p
er C
apita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179 161 13
035038
04036
037
101
107109
104087
1990 1995 2001 2009 2017
Other
Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch
Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work
4341
3834
00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate
38
Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data
If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips
Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear
Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Com
mut
er M
ode
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus or trolley bus
Streetcar or trolley car
Subway or elevated
Railroad
Ferryboat
Total Public Transit
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Travel and Transit Use by Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Daily
Trip
s per
Per
son
Age Group
2009 2017
00
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Tran
sit M
ode
Shar
e
Age Group
2009 2017
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
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
CountyPopulation Numeric
ChangePercent Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland
King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999
MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more
Avg
Spe
ed (M
PH)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro Rank by
JobsMetro Area
Employment 2017
Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across America
Transit 2017) Met
ros R
ank
By
Tran
sit
Acce
ssib
ility Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Ratio
of T
rans
it Ac
cess
ible
Jobs
to
Auto
Acc
essib
ile
Jobs
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Changing Travel
People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019
Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)
Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
26
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
TNC as a Transit Alternative
28
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA
TNC connectingto transit
16 6 8 3
TNC instead ofTransit
11 16 17 39
Transit not anoption (reason)
32 16 19 13
(26 hour 6route)
(8 hour 8route)
(no data forreason)
(4 hour9 route)
Havenrsquot usedTNC in region
41 62 56 45
Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Implications of TNCs
Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)
Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline
The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)
29
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
30
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
So How Does Transit Respond
The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today
The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership
The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future
31
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
32
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Some Thoughts on Service
2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel
i For choice travelers competitiveness is important
ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness
33
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time
2594 Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes
Time components of an average transit trip
AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access
Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information
In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide
handling
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Prob
abili
ty o
f Tak
ing
Tran
sit
Minutes between Vehicles
Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit
When is Service Good Enough
Better Service attracts travelers
but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely
developed and well funded
frequency
Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers
135
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Some Thoughts on Service
3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers
Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide
37
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Why Ridership Matters
23
26
17
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach
Bus O
ccup
ancy
Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car
US average bus occupancy is 9 today
Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Hillsborough County
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Where Do West Shore Workers Live
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Legend
Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014
Legend
Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014
55872 Commuters
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
HART Monthly Ridership
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
Jan-
2000
Oct
-200
0
Jul-2
001
Apr-
2002
Jan-
2003
Oct
-200
3
Jul-2
004
Apr-
2005
Jan-
2006
Oct
-200
6
Jul-2
007
Apr-
2008
Jan-
2009
Oct
-200
9
Jul-2
010
Apr-
2011
Jan-
2012
Oct
-201
2
Jul-2
013
Apr-
2014
Jan-
2015
Oct
-201
5
Jul-2
016
Apr-
2017
Jan-
2018
Oct
-201
8
When Were You a board member
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-
- Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
- Outline
- What is Happening
- Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
- National Transit Ridership Trend
- Trends in Ridership and Service
- US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
- HART Monthly Ridership Trends
- US Context and Travel Trends
- Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
- Slide Number 12
- Slide Number 13
- Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
- What Impacts Ridership
- What Underlies the Ridership Trends
- Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
- Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
- Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
- 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
- Travel and Transit Use by Age
- Slide Number 22
- Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
- Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
- Changing Travel
- CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
- The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
- TNC as a Transit Alternative
- Implications of TNCs
- What is Next
- So How Does Transit Respond
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Transit Competitiveness
- When is Service Good Enough
- Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
- Some Thoughts on Service
- Why Ridership Matters
- Slide Number 39
- Where Do West Shore Workers Live
- Slide Number 41
- Slide Number 42
- Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
- HART Monthly Ridership
- Slide Number 45
-