Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida

Transit Best Practices and Strategies for the Short, Mid, and Long Terms

Joel Volinski Director, National Center for Transit Research

Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida

Tuesday , March 28, 2017 Miami Beach, Florida

2

U.S. Transit Ridership and Ridership/Capita Trends

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

5

10

15

20

25

1918

1923

1928

1933

1938

1943

1948

1953

1958

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

2013

Annu

al T

rips p

er C

apita

Annu

al R

ider

ship

, Bill

ions

Rides, Billion Per Capita Rides

3

Ridership in Three Modes: 1902 - Present

Bus trips peaked in 1950

Streetcar and LRT peaked in 1923

Heavy rail highest levels ever in 2015

4

Modal Breakdown

5

20-Year Ridership Trends have been Encouraging

6

Until Recently - Ridership Dipped in 2015 and 2016

7

Current National Trends

Indicator 2015 versus 2014 2016 YTD Source

U.S. Population +0.8% Census

Total Employment +1.7% BLS

Real GDP +2.4% BEA (third estimate)

Gas Price -28% EIA

VMT +3.5% +3.0% thru Nov FHWA

Public Transit Ridership -1.3% to -2.5% -1.96% thru Oct

(NTD/BTS) APTA and NTD

Amtrak Ridership (FY) -0.1% Amtrak

Airline Passengers +5.0% USDOT, BTS

Consistently growing transit ridership is tough

8

Two-year Modal Snapshot (9 mo. 2014 vs. 2016)

Heavy Rail -0%

Light Rail +1.7%

Commuter Rail +1.9%

Trolleybus -1.2%

Bus Population Group:

2,000,000+ -5.9%

500,000 -1,999,999 -9.0%

100,000 – 499,999 -8.8%

Below 100,000 -4.8%

Bus Total -6.7%

Demand Response +1.1%

Other +2.0%

United States Total -3.0%

Canada Total -4.9%

9

Quarterly National Ridership by Mode (000)

APTA: http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/ridershipreport.aspx

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1990

- Q

1

1990

- Q

4

1991

- Q

3

1992

- Q

2

1993

- Q

1

1993

- Q

4

1994

- Q

3

1995

- Q

2

1996

- Q

1

1996

- Q

4

1997

- Q

3

1998

- Q

2

1999

- Q

1

1999

- Q

4

2000

- Q

3

2001

- Q

2

2002

- Q

1

2002

- Q

4

2003

- Q

3

2004

- Q

2

2005

- Q

1

2005

- Q

4

2006

- Q

3

2007

- Q

2

2008

- Q

1

2008

- Q

4

2009

- Q

3

2010

- Q

2

2011

- Q

1

2011

- Q

4

2012

- Q

3

2013

- Q

2

2014

- Q

1

2014

- Q

4

2015

- Q

3

2016

- Q

2

Total Ridership (000s)

Heavy Rail (000s)

Light Rail (000s)

Commuter Rail (000s)

Trolleybus (000s)

Bus (000s)

Demand Response (000s)

Other (000s)

10

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%19

90 -

Q1

1990

- Q

419

91 -

Q3

1992

- Q

219

93 -

Q1

1993

- Q

419

94 -

Q3

1995

- Q

219

96 -

Q1

1996

- Q

419

97 -

Q3

1998

- Q

219

99 -

Q1

1999

- Q

420

00 -

Q3

2001

- Q

220

02 -

Q1

2002

- Q

420

03 -

Q3

2004

- Q

220

05 -

Q1

2005

- Q

420

06 -

Q3

2007

- Q

220

08 -

Q1

2008

- Q

420

09 -

Q3

2010

- Q

220

11 -

Q1

2011

- Q

420

12 -

Q3

2013

- Q

220

14 -

Q1

2014

- Q

420

15 -

Q3

2016

- Q

2

Heavy Rail (000s)

Light Rail (000s)

Commuter Rail (000s)

Trolleybus (000s)

Bus (000s)

Demand Response (000s)

Percent Change in Quarterly National Ridership Since 1990 by Mode

11

Changes Since 1992 Spending far outpaces Vehicle Miles and Trips

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Perc

ent C

hang

e Si

nce

1992

Total Trips Total Capital Cost Total Operating Cost

*Inflation adjustment performed using Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator using CPI

12

Percent Change in Transit Ridership and Vehicle Miles of Service Relative to 1970

-15%0%

15%30%45%60%75%90%

105%120%135%150%165%180%195%

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Perc

ent C

hang

e Re

lativ

e to

197

0 National Ridership relative to 1970

National Vehicle Miles of Services(billions)

13

Trends in Service Supply, Use and Investment

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

Mill

ions

, Ann

ual

Total Trips Total Pass MiTotal Vehicle Mi Total Investment

Passenger Miles and Total Investment outpace Trips and Vehicle Miles.

14

U.S. Non-POV Commute Market Shares

6.2%

5.1%

4.6% 4.9%

5.2%

0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6%

5.6%

3.9%

2.9% 2.8% 2.8%

2.3%

3.0% 3.3%

4.3% 4.6%

1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

1.2% 1.2%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Com

mut

ing

Mar

ket S

hare

Transit Bicycle Walk Work-at-home Taxi, Motorcycle, and Other

Sources: Census, ACS

15

Why has Ridership Decreased? A Mix of Factors…….

Changes in the mobility ecosystem – TNCs, car sharing, bike systems

Sustained low gasoline prices

Lingering impacts of the recession (service

cuts/fares)

VMT up steadily since 2014, following seven

years of flat or negative trends (VMT up 2.45%

in Q3).

Automobile purchases up/attitudes/cheap

loans

Sprawling regions / non-competitive bus travel

times

Work-at-home trends or Telecommuting

Drops in college enrollments / online

courses

Service quality issues in certain regions

TOD success stories / The trip not taken

Baby Boomer retirements resulting in

fewer commute trips

16

People are Moving from Higher to Lower Transit Areas

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016 Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change): July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

County Population Numeric

Change Percent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County, 4,242,997 81,360 1.95 2.3% Cook County, 5,203,499 -21,324 -0.41 18.8% Arizona Illinois Harris County, 4,589,928 56,587 1.25 2.8% Wayne County, 1,749,366 -7,696 -0.44 2.5% Texas Michigan Clark County, 2,155,664 46,375 2.2 4.2% Baltimore city, 614,664 -6,738 -1.08 19.6% Nevada Maryland King County, 2,149,970 35,714 1.69 12.6% Cuyahoga County, 1,249,352 -5,673 -0.45 5.1% Washington Ohio Tarrant County, 2,016,872 35,462 1.79 0.6% Suffolk County, 1,492,583 -5,320 -0.36 6.8% Texas New York Riverside County, 2,387,741 34,849 1.48 1.4% Milwaukee County, 951,448 -4,866 -0.51 6.2% California Wisconsin Bexar County, 1,928,680 33,198 1.75 2.6% Allegheny County, 1,225,365 -3,933 -0.32 9.1% Texas Pennsylvania Orange County,

1,314,367 29,503 2.3 3.2% San Juan County, 115,079 -3,622 -3.05 0.3% Florida New Mexico Dallas County, 2,574,984 29,209 1.15 2.9% St. Louis City, 311,404 -3,471 -1.1 9.7% Texas Missouri Hillsborough County, 1,376,238 29,161 2.16 1.7% Jefferson County, 114,006 -3,254 -2.78 0.0% Florida New York Average 3.4% Average 7.8%

17

So What Does This All Mean?

Are we growing into systems such that they are getting more productive over

time? System utilization has remained relatively constant.

Densification, increased mode split or self selection of transit travelers to transit areas (locally or

regionally) have not resulted in proven system ridership growth and/or we are expanding supply

such that average utilization remains constant.

18

Financial Support for Transit is Good

• The public is generally supportive of the social value of transit as a mobility safety net and understands some of the other indirect benefits.

• They tolerate spending a modest amount per household even if they aren’t direct beneficiaries.

• If transit use grows the cost per non-rider household may become less tolerable unless riders pay a far higher share of costs.

19

What does the future hold?

We have never been in a time of greater uncertainty • Effects of AV on transit use? • Will fuel prices remain affordable? • Will we continue to develop outward instead of focusing on

redevelopment? • Will legacy systems be financially sustainable/will there be

continued support for financing transit? • Will there be more income equality?

20

What does the future hold?

• Will TNCs complement or compete with transit? • Will telecommuting become even more widespread? • Will there be impactful societal or demographic changes? • Will new technologies providing new ways of being transported be

developed? • Will climate change and water shortages become more evident and

critical? • Will immigration to the U.S. and birth rates continue similar to the

past?

21

Some Best Guesses

• AV technology will make transit a bit safer and hopefully reduce paratransit, but will probably reduce transit’s appeal if cars have AV – we might tax empty cars to discourage unnecessary VMT

• On the other hand, Buses with AV would reduce transit costs and allow more/better service to be provided

• Transit agencies will probably move more toward electric power, helping to reduce operating costs

• We probably will continue to develop outward making transit less competitive in new markets (more suburbanization)

• Legacy systems will face greater challenges of financial sustainability without changes in labor agreements

22

Some Best Guesses

• TNCs will be both a help short term and a hindrance long term (though federal requirements may limit them)

• Telecommuting will probably grow but not continue to expand at the rate it has

• Major societal changes are hard to predict, but millenials will conform with classical patterns of travel behavior – Automation in the workplace will have profound impact on those with

skills no longer needed – Rising seas will cause more alarm and carbon taxes will come into play

• There could be new systems of transport such as hyperloops, large commuter helicopters, or personal electronic vehicles

23

Some Strategies and Best Practices for Transit

• More transit systems will focus their resources in areas with the greatest potential for ridership while coming up with new ways to serve areas of low demand

• Take advantage of technologies and data that allow more efficient scheduling, precise analysis of ridership, and the ability to track agency performance in all areas (AI for decision support for bus tracking)

• They will all need to provide real time information and flexible payment methods

• Public-Private Partnerships should be explored when feasible for major capital projects as well as contracting for new or expanded services

• All forms of partnerships should be pursued (universities, schools, businesses, hospitals, military bases, apartment complexes, etc.)

24

Some Strategies and Best Practices for Transit

• Support TODs, return to the cities, and other infill development • Paratransit expenses will be better managed and use TNCs • Use capital funds to build more energy efficient facilities • Automate subway operations and BRT (Europe and Asia) • Institute wellness programs and hire the necessary expertise to find

the most affordable insurance and deal with FMLA • Maximize advertising opportunities on all vehicles and facilities and

look for opportunities to sell naming rights

25

As it relates to the Interstate:

• Transit works best when it has more dedicated space to operate

• More opportunities for transit buses to operate on managed lanes

• More opportunities for transit to operate on Interstate shoulders

• Certain cities simply won’t function without good transit

26

Joel Volinski, Director of NCTR 954-554-7011 volinski@usf.edu