Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons...TNC’s address first-mile/last-mile issue 2015-2017...
42
Steven E. Polzin Senior Advisor for Research and Technology Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
Transcript of Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons...TNC’s address first-mile/last-mile issue 2015-2017...
Steven E PolzinSenior Advisor for Research and Technology
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology
Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
Sunday June 21 2019
Steven E Polzin PhD
Outline
Transit in July 2019
Underlying trends driving demand
Why Ridership matters and what do we do
3
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018 rarr
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
4
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
Sunday June 21 2019
Steven E Polzin PhD
Outline
Transit in July 2019
Underlying trends driving demand
Why Ridership matters and what do we do
3
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018 rarr
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
4
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Outline
Transit in July 2019
Underlying trends driving demand
Why Ridership matters and what do we do
3
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018 rarr
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
4
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
What is Happening
2012-2014
2018 rarr
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
4
Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
25
5
75
10
125
15
175
20
225
25
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
19
181
920
19
221
924
19
261
928
19
301
932
19
341
936
19
381
940
19
421
944
19
461
948
195
01
952
19
541
956
19
581
960
19
621
964
19
661
968
19
701
972
19
7419
76
19
781
980
19
821
984
19
861
988
19
901
992
19
941
996
19
982
000
20
022
004
20
062
008
20
102
012
20
1420
16
20
18
Rid
ers
hip
per
Cap
ita
Tri
ps
per
Yea
r
Tran
sit
Rid
ers
hip
Bill
ion
s p
er Y
ear
Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Trends in Ridership and Service
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
Per
cen
t C
han
ge r
elat
ive
to 1
97
0
National Ridership Relative to 1970
National 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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
Tho
usa
nd
s
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Miami Dade Total Monthly and Average Weekday Ridership
HART Monthly Ridership Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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 Trends
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
US Context and Travel Trends
As of May 2018
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 12Hedges 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 12APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY)
-03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12USDOT BTS
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Top 40 UZAs by 2017 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2017 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 852 of
US ridership
decline from 2014-2017
Source NTD Monthly Raw Database
And we donrsquot even have automated
vehicles yet
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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 Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
What Impacts Ridership
Demographic Economic and Land Use Factors
Demand Factor
Travel
Behavior
Transit Service Characteristics
Supply Factor
Transit
Ridership
Travel and Communications Options
Supply 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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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 cost
Commuter 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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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 US89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86
No vehicles
available FL66 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 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
229 38 10227 40 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles
An
nu
al T
ran
sit
Trip
s p
er
Cap
ita
2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
062 076 065 059 059
171197
179161
13
035
03804
036037
101
107109
104
087
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Real World Implications of Declining Trip Rates
96 of retail sales are via e-commerce (Q2 2018 +154 over 2017 Census)
Homeschooling increased from 17 to 33 of children from 1999 to 2016 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2017)
Church attendance declined 37 between 2007 and 2014 (Pew Research Center)
Banks have closed over 10000 branches since financial crisis (SampP Global Market Intelligence)
Movie Ticket sales in 2017 were the lowest in 20 years (httpswwwthe-numberscommarket)
Major League Football and Baseball in multiyear attendance decline (httpwwwespncomnflattendance)
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Changing Demographic Profile of Riders
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Less than$10000
$10000 to$14999
$15000 to$24999
$25000 to$34999
$35000 to$49999
$50000 to$74999
$75000 to$99999
$100000to
$124999
$125000to
$149999
$150000to
$199999
$200000or more
Mo
de
Shar
e
Annual Household Income
Bus Rail Water Total Public Transit
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Co
mm
ute
r M
od
e S
har
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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+
Dai
ly T
rip
s p
er P
erso
n
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
Mo
de
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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 PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit Commute
Share 2015
County
PopulationNumeric
Change
Percent
Change
Transit
Commute
Share 2015
Maricopa County4242997 81360 195 23
Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188
Arizona Illinois
Harris County4589928 56587 125 28
Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25
Texas Michigan
Clark County2155664 46375 22 42
Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196
Nevada Maryland
King County2149970 35714 169 126
Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County2016872 35462 179 06
Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68
Texas New York
Riverside County2387741 34849 148 14
Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62
California Wisconsin
Bexar County1928680 33198 175 26
Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County1314367 29503 23 32
San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County2574984 29209 115 29
St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough County1376238 29161 216 17
Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00
Florida New York
Average 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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
Sp
eed
(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
Sp
eed
(M
PH
)
MSA Size
2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22
Metro
Rank by
Jobs
Metro AreaEmployment
2017
Jobs Accessible by
Transit in 60 Mins
(Access Across
America
Transit 2017) Met
ros
Ran
k B
y
Tran
sit
Acc
essi
bili
ty Jobs Accessibile by
Auto in 60 Minutes
(Access Across
America Auto 2017)
Rat
io o
f Tr
ansi
t
Acc
essi
ble
Jo
bs
to
Au
to A
cces
sib
ile
Job
s
1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 249
11 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 172
7 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140
23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 139
45 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 138
15 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 130
33 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 129
10 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 122
47 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 120
37 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 119
3 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114
18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 112
32 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 94
27 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 91
14 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 84
6 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81
17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 79
48 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 78
29 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 78
22 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 77
2 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76
40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 73
30 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 69
31 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68
9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 65
13 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 63
20 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 58
46 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 57
28 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 54
19 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 53
41 Jacksonville 626060 32651 48 634122 51
39 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 50
35 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 49
42 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 47
34 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 47
5 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46
43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 45
25 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 44
38 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 42
26 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 41
36 Nashville 801589 34390 43 847287 41
8 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41
21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 40
24 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 37
4 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34
44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 34
12 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 33
49 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 31
16 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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
28
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests
moving people building places logistics and dollars
Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
TNC as a Transit Alternative
30
Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit trips
BART15 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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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)
31
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
What is Next
Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices
32
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
33
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Some Thoughts on Service
1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options
i Growing need
ii Public support
iii Challenge in addressing cost effectively
34
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
35
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
Transit Competitiveness
Access Time881
Wait Time 939In-vehicle Travel Time
2594Egress Time 108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Travel 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
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f T
akin
g T
ran
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
137
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
Bu
s O
ccu
pan
cy
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
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
40
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
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
40
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
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
40
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
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
