current travel behavior and transit ridership · strong referendum success tn’s address...
TRANSCRIPT
Current Travel Behavior and
Transit Ridership
APTA CEO SeminarMonday, February 11, 2018
Steven E. Polzin, PhD.
Outline
▪ What is going on with travel
▪ What factors are influencing transit use
▪ Critical Issues going forward
U.S. Context and Travel Trends2015/2014 2016/2015 2017/2016 YTD Months Source
U.S. Population 0.8% 0.5% 0.7% - Census
Total Employment 1.7% 1.7% 1.3% 11 BLS
Real GDP 2.9% 1.5% 2.3% 12 BEA (1st est.)
Gas Price -29.3% -14.8% 15.1% 12 EIA
Registered Cars andLight Trucks
2.1% 1.5% 3.0% 12 proj. Hedges Co.
Light Vehicle Sales 5.8% 0.1% -1.8% 12 BEA
Count of Zero-VehicleHouseholds
-1.0% -1.9%Census
VMT 3.5% 2.8% 1.3% 11 FHWA
Public Transit Ridership
-1.0% to -2.2% -2.3% to -1.6% -3.1, -2.4% 9, 11 APTA and NTD
Amtrak Ridership (FY) -0.3% 1.9% 1.9% 12 Amtrak
Airline Passengers 5.3% 3.9% 3.3% 10 USDOT, BTS
National VMT and VMT per Capita Trend, Moving 12-Month Total, 1990–2016
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Jan-9
2
Jan-9
3
Jan-9
4
Jan-9
5
Jan-9
6
Jan-9
7
Jan-9
8
Jan-9
9
Jan-0
0
Jan-0
1
Jan-0
2
Jan-0
3
Jan-0
4
Jan-0
5
Jan-0
6
Jan-0
7
Jan-0
8
Jan-0
9
Jan-1
0
Jan-1
1
Ja
n-1
2
Jan-1
3
Jan-1
4
Jan-1
5
Jan-1
6
Jan-1
7
VM
T p
er
Capita, A
nnu
al
Vehic
le-D
ista
nce T
ravele
d (
Bill
ion M
iles)
Annual Vehicle-DistanceTraveled (Billion Miles)
VMT per Capita
8 year reprieve
U.S. Transit Ridership and Ridership per Capita
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
5
10
15
20
25
19
18
19
25
19
32
19
39
19
46
19
53
19
60
19
67
19
74
19
81
19
88
19
95
20
02
20
09
20
16
An
nu
al T
rip
s p
er
Cap
ita
An
nu
al R
ide
rsh
ip, B
illio
ns
Rides, Billion
U.S. Transit Ridership, Fixed Route, 12-Month Rolling Average
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
JA
N08
AP
R08
JU
L08
OC
T0
8
JA
N09
AP
R09
JU
L09
OC
T0
9
JA
N10
AP
R10
JU
L10
OC
T1
0
JA
N1
1
AP
R11
JU
L11
OC
T1
1
JA
N12
AP
R12
JU
L12
OC
T1
2
JA
N13
AP
R13
JU
L13
OC
T1
3
JA
N14
AP
R14
JU
L14
OC
T1
4
JA
N15
AP
R15
JU
L15
OC
T1
5
JA
N16
AP
R16
JU
L16
OC
T1
6
JA
N17
AP
R17
JU
L17
OC
T1
7
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
illio
ns
Top 40 UZAs by 2016 Transit Ridership, Change 2014-2016 (Millions)
Top 40 urban areas make up 83.9% of
U.S. ridership decline from 2014-2016.
Source: NTD Monthly Raw Database
9.00%
5.10%
2.70%
0.60%
1.20%
5.00%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Mo
de
Sh
are
, Usu
al C
om
mu
te Car, truck, or van --carpooled Public transportation
Walked
Bicycle
Other means
Worked at home
Declining Carpooling and Growing Work-at-Home Dominate Trends
Where are We Headed?
2012-2014
2018
?
Transit ridership near 60 year high
Millennials are different
We passed peak VMT
We are urbanizing and CBD’s are thriving
Developers embrace transit
Strong referendum success
TNC’s address first-mile/last-mile issue
2015-2017
Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs
Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3rd year of decline
VMT and VMT/Capita continue 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 Hawaii's rail system open? How is that new streetcar doing?
TNC’s can cannibalize transit ridership
Why do we need transit with CAV?
Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership
1. Demographics and Land-Use
3. Competition
2. Transit Service Quality
How much of ridership change is explained by these factors?
Demand
Supply
Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership
1. Demographics and Land-Use
▪ Age
▪ Geographic Distribution across Metros
▪ Geographic Distribution within Metros (within proximity of service?/gentrification)
▪ Income
▪ Licensure Levels
▪ Auto Ownership
▪ Poverty Levels (SNAP enrollment)
▪ Unemployment
▪ Reduced College Student Ridership (APTA report)
▪ Core Values
3.23.5
4.04.3 4.2
4.03.6
2.9
2.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Tirp
s p
er
pe
rso
n p
er
day
Age group
1.0%
2.9%
2.6%
1.8%2.0%
1.6% 1.5%
1.2% 1.1%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+Shar
e o
f tr
ips
take
n v
ia t
ran
sit
Age group
0
10
20
30
40
50
5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Pe
rso
ns
(Mill
ion
s)
2015
2010
2000
1990
1980
Aging Population has a Negative Impact on Ridership
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 County,4,242,997 81,360 1.95 2.3%
Cook County, 5,203,499 -21,324 -0.41 18.8%
Arizona Illinois
Harris County,4,589,928 56,587 1.25 2.8%
Wayne County, 1,749,366 -7,696 -0.44 2.5%
Texas Michigan
Clark County,2,155,664 46,375 2.2 4.2%
Baltimore city, 614,664 -6,738 -1.08 19.6%
Nevada Maryland
King County,2,149,970 35,714 1.69 12.6%
Cuyahoga County, 1,249,352 -5,673 -0.45 5.1%
Washington Ohio
Tarrant County,2,016,872 35,462 1.79 0.6%
Suffolk County, 1,492,583 -5,320 -0.36 6.8%
Texas New York
Riverside County,2,387,741 34,849 1.48 1.4%
Milwaukee County, 951,448 -4,866 -0.51 6.2%
California Wisconsin
Bexar County,1,928,680 33,198 1.75 2.6%
Allegheny County, 1,225,365 -3,933 -0.32 9.1%
Texas Pennsylvania
Orange County,1,314,367 29,503 2.3 3.2%
San Juan County, 115,079 -3,622 -3.05 0.3%
Florida New Mexico
Dallas County,2,574,984 29,209 1.15 2.9%
St. Louis City, 311,404 -3,471 -1.1 9.7%
Texas Missouri
Hillsborough
County, 1,376,238 29,161 2.16 1.7%Jefferson County, 114,006 -3,254 -2.78 0.0%
Florida New York
Average 3.4% Average 7.8%
Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas
Improving Vehicle Availability Coincides with Declining Transit Ridership
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percent Change in Transit Ridership and Zero-Vehicle Households from 2005
Ridership Percent Change from 2005 Percent Change Zero-Vehicle Households from 2005
1.3 million fewer persons lived in zero vehicle households in 2016 than in 2014.
229
38
10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300A
nn
ual
Tra
nsit
Tri
ps
Per
Pers
on
Vehicles in Household 0 1 2+ Total
Change in Population
(5 and up), 2014-2016-1.094 million -1.440 million +5.360 million +4.265 million
Estimated Transit Trip
Change-251 million -55 million +67 million -239 million
Total Population
(5 and up), 201619.036 million 73.889 million 221.115 million 295.004 million
Each Fewer Resident in a Zero-Vehicle Household is Estimated to Reduce Annual Transit Trips by 191
Impact of Greater Auto Availability
Note: Fixed-route transit ridership was 10,331 million in 2014 and 9,881 million in 2016, declining 449 million trips.
Transit trip rates based on 2009 National Household Travel Survey and Census data suggest 240 million, or 53%, of the decline is explained by changes in vehicle availability.
Sources:
2009 NHTS,
U.S. Census,
NTD
191
Transit Use Correlates with Need-Based Program Participation
0%
30%
60%
90%
120%
150%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SNA
P U
sers
Per
cen
t C
han
ge f
rom
20
02
Rid
ersh
ip P
erce
nt
Ch
ange
fro
m 2
00
2
Percent Change U.S. Transit Ridership and SNAP Enrollment
Ridership Percent Change from 2002
SNAP Users Percent Change from 2002
Are Core Values that Impact Travel Changing?
▪ Do we value autonomy, privacy, flexibility, convenience, etc. more than in the past?
Money
Cost
Reliability
Travel
BehaviorComfort
Safety
Time Cost
Convenience
Flexibility
Image Environmental,
Social Impact
Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership
2. Transit Service Quality ▪ Fares (levels, convenience, ease of use)
▪ Level of Service (coverage, frequency, hours of operation)
▪ Speed (access, wait, in vehicle, transfer, egress)(tolerance for waiting in our immediate gratification culture)
▪ Reliability
▪ Safety/Security
• Accident Safety, In-Vehicle/Facility Crime
▪ Image
• Cleanliness
• Interpersonal Compatibility - Increased homeless/mental ill ridership (APTA report)
• Status/Persona
▪ Environmental Impacts
▪ Awareness/Marketing (trip planning, real time information, digital fare payment, etc.)
▪ Amenities (Wi-Fi, shelter, convenience retail, etc.)
Average Fare Revenue per Passenger Trip and Passenger Mile (2017 Dollars)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
$1.40
$1.60
$1.80A
vera
ge F
are
Rev
enu
e
per Passenger Trip per Passenger Mile
Pre 2014 data from APTA Fact Book, Post 2014 data from NTD
Service Supply
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DE
C0
2
AP
R0
3
AU
G0
3
DE
C0
3
AP
R0
4
AU
G04
DE
C0
4
AP
R0
5
AU
G0
5
DE
C0
5
AP
R0
6
AU
G0
6
DE
C0
6
AP
R0
7
AU
G0
7
DE
C0
7
AP
R0
8
AU
G0
8
DE
C08
AP
R0
9
AU
G0
9
DE
C0
9
AP
R1
0
AU
G1
0
DE
C1
0
AP
R1
1
AU
G1
1
DE
C1
1
AP
R12
AU
G1
2
DE
C1
2
AP
R1
3
AU
G1
3
DE
C1
3
AP
R1
4
AU
G1
4
DE
C1
4
AP
R1
5
AU
G1
5
DE
C1
5
AP
R1
6
AU
G1
6
DE
C1
6
AP
R1
7
AU
G1
7Hundre
ds o
f M
illio
ns (
Trips a
nd V
RM
)
12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Fixed Route
Ridership Service
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0D
EC
02
MA
Y0
3
OC
T0
3
MA
R0
4
AU
G0
4
JA
N0
5
JU
N0
5
NO
V0
5
AP
R0
6
SE
P06
FE
B0
7
JU
L0
7
DE
C0
7
MA
Y0
8
OC
T0
8
MA
R0
9
AU
G0
9
JA
N1
0
JU
N1
0
NO
V10
AP
R1
1
SE
P11
FE
B1
2
JU
L1
2
DE
C1
2
MA
Y1
3
OC
T1
3
MA
R1
4
AU
G1
4
JA
N1
5
JU
N1
5
NO
V1
5
AP
R1
6
SE
P16
FE
B1
7
JU
L1
7Hundre
ds o
f M
illio
ns (
Trips a
nd V
RM
)
12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Metro Bus
Ridership Service
Service Supply
Service Supply
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45D
EC
02
MA
Y0
3
OC
T0
3
MA
R0
4
AU
G0
4
JA
N0
5
JU
N0
5
NO
V0
5
AP
R0
6
SE
P06
FE
B0
7
JU
L0
7
DE
C0
7
MA
Y0
8
OC
T0
8
MA
R0
9
AU
G0
9
JA
N1
0
JU
N1
0
NO
V1
0
AP
R1
1
SE
P11
FE
B1
2
JU
L1
2
DE
C1
2
MA
Y1
3
OC
T1
3
MA
R1
4
AU
G1
4
JA
N1
5
JU
N1
5
NO
V1
5
AP
R1
6
SE
P16
FE
B1
7
JU
L1
7
Mill
ions (
Trips a
nd V
RM
)12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Light Rail
Ridership Service
Service Supply
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
DE
C02
MA
Y0
3
OC
T0
3
MA
R0
4
AU
G0
4
JA
N05
JU
N0
5
NO
V0
5
AP
R0
6
SE
P06
FE
B07
JU
L0
7
DE
C0
7
MA
Y0
8
OC
T0
8
MA
R09
AU
G0
9
JA
N1
0
JU
N1
0
NO
V1
0
AP
R11
SE
P11
FE
B1
2
JU
L1
2
DE
C1
2
MA
Y1
3
OC
T1
3
MA
R1
4
AU
G1
4
JA
N1
5
JU
N1
5
NO
V1
5
AP
R1
6
SE
P16
FE
B1
7
JU
L1
7Hundre
ds o
f M
illio
ns (
Trips a
nd V
RM
)12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service, Heavy Rail
Ridership Service
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45D
EC
02
MA
Y0
3
OC
T0
3
MA
R0
4
AU
G0
4
JA
N0
5
JU
N0
5
NO
V0
5
AP
R0
6
SE
P06
FE
B0
7
JU
L0
7
DE
C0
7
MA
Y0
8
OC
T0
8
MA
R0
9
AU
G0
9
JA
N1
0
JU
N1
0
NO
V1
0
AP
R11
SE
P11
FE
B1
2
JU
L1
2
DE
C1
2
MA
Y1
3
OC
T1
3
MA
R1
4
AU
G1
4
JA
N1
5
JU
N1
5
NO
V15
AP
R1
6
SE
P16
FE
B1
7
JU
L1
7
Mill
ions (
Trips a
nd V
RM
)12-Month Rolling Average of U.S. Transit Ridership and Service,
Commuter Rail
Ridership Service
Service Supply
Framework for Understanding Changes in Transit Ridership
3. Competition ▪ Communication Substitution for Travel
▪ Trip making levels (telecommuting, e-commerce, distant learning, online banking etc.)
▪ TNC availability/LOS/price
▪ Bike/Bikeshare
▪ Auto Cost• Fuel Cost• Purchase/Lease/Finance Cost• Parking Cost/Other Auto Costs
▪ Roadway Congestion/Speed
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Ave
rag
e U
.S. G
as
Pri
ce
Un
lin
ke
d P
as
se
ng
er
Tri
ps
(M
illio
ns
)
U.S. Average Gas Price U.S. Ridership
*Inflation adjustment performed using Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator using CPI, UPT for 2015 and 2016 from Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Gas prices from EIA
Gas Prices and Transit Ridership, 1994-2016
▪ The reasons for soft ridership differ across contexts with telecommuting, TNC’s, service reliability, auto ownership trends, fares, and other factors having different impacts in different markets.
▪ Transit has historically had the lowest mode loyalty (mode of last resort in many contexts).
Key Issues – Travel Behavior
Influences on Transit Choice (Hypothesized)
Economic Status
TNC Availability
Car Affordability
E-commerce, Telework
Safety, Reliability, Quality
Gas Price
Fares
Speed
Ge
ogr
aph
ic a
nd
Eco
no
mic
Dis
trib
uti
on
of
Po
pu
lati
on
Service availability
▪ Strong employment growth and growing real income could continue to undermine transit dependency and jeopardize ridership.
▪ Urban civility may influence future ridership trends.
▪ Demographic trends in proximity to transit services (TOD) will influence future ridership.
▪ Increasing roadway congestion could favor premium transit services but undermine mixed traffic transit operations.
▪ System condition and quality of industry execution may influence ridership.
▪ If declining fare revenues and/or dampened public willingness to increase subsidies result from soft ridership, it could jeopardize future service and ridership.
Key Issues – Travel Behavior
Research on Ridership Trends
▪ APTA. “Understanding Recent Ridership Changes: Trends and Applications.” Policy Development and Research. Nov. 2017.
▪ Agency Initiatives: “Falling Transit Ridership: California and Southern California.” UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies. Dec. 2017.
▪ FDOT, Understanding Ridership Trends in Transit – in progress
Pending:
▪ TCRP J-11/Task 28, Synthesis, “Analysis of Recent Public Transit Ridership Trends”, $60,000.
▪ TCRP A-43, “Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, Responses,” $400,000.
▪ TCRP H-56, “Reinventing Transit Networks for a New Mobility Future,” $300,000.
Is there an inflection point where service becomes more attractive to choice travelers? R
ide
rsh
ip
Pro
du
ctiv
ity
Accessibility
Speed
Frequency
Convenience, etc.
?
Key Issues – Strategic
Density
Auto Parking/Ownership Cost
How Do Stakeholders Respond?
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
