Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons

Monday August 12 2019

Steven E Polzin PhDSenior Advisor for Research and Technology

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology

Outline

Transit in August 2019

Underlying trends driving demand

Why Ridership matters and what do we do

2

What is Happening

2012-2014

2018

Transit ridership near 60 year high

Millennials are different

We passed peak VMT

We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving

Developers embrace transit

Strong referendum success

TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue

2015-2017

Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs

Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline

VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth

Growth and migration resume historic patterns

System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators

How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing

TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership

Why do we need transit with CAV

3

Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018

Governing

Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future

June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor

National Transit Ridership Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

25

5

75

10

125

15

175

20

225

25

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Ride

rshi

p pe

r Cap

ita T

rips p

er Y

ear

Tran

sit R

ider

ship

Bill

ions

per

Yea

r

Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

Outline

Transit in August 2019

Underlying trends driving demand

Why Ridership matters and what do we do

2

What is Happening

2012-2014

2018

Transit ridership near 60 year high

Millennials are different

We passed peak VMT

We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving

Developers embrace transit

Strong referendum success

TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue

2015-2017

Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs

Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline

VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth

Growth and migration resume historic patterns

System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators

How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing

TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership

Why do we need transit with CAV

3

Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018

Governing

Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future

June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor

National Transit Ridership Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

25

5

75

10

125

15

175

20

225

25

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Ride

rshi

p pe

r Cap

ita T

rips p

er Y

ear

Tran

sit R

ider

ship

Bill

ions

per

Yea

r

Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

What is Happening

2012-2014

2018

Transit ridership near 60 year high

Millennials are different

We passed peak VMT

We are urbanizing and CBDrsquos are thriving

Developers embrace transit

Strong referendum success

TNCrsquos address first-milelast-mile issue

2015-2017

Millennials buy cars and move to suburbs

Transit ridership loss accelerates in 3-year decline

VMT and VMTCapita returned to growth

Growth and migration resume historic patterns

System conditions reliability health care costs etc plague transit operators

How much will that subway cost When will Hawaiis rail system open How is that new streetcar doing

TNCrsquos can cannibalize transit ridership

Why do we need transit with CAV

3

Waymo to Buy Up to 62000 Chrysler Minivans for Ride-Hailing Service NYT May 31 2018

Governing

Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future

June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor

National Transit Ridership Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

25

5

75

10

125

15

175

20

225

25

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Ride

rshi

p pe

r Cap

ita T

rips p

er Y

ear

Tran

sit R

ider

ship

Bill

ions

per

Yea

r

Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

Governing

Its Been a Rough Year for Mass TransitWith falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future

June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor

National Transit Ridership Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

25

5

75

10

125

15

175

20

225

25

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Ride

rshi

p pe

r Cap

ita T

rips p

er Y

ear

Tran

sit R

ider

ship

Bill

ions

per

Yea

r

Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

National Transit Ridership Trend

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

25

5

75

10

125

15

175

20

225

25

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Ride

rshi

p pe

r Cap

ita T

rips p

er Y

ear

Tran

sit R

ider

ship

Bill

ions

per

Yea

r

Ridership (Billions) Ridership per Capita

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

Trends in Ridership and Service

-30

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

Perc

ent C

hang

e re

lativ

e to

197

0

National Ridership Relative to 1970National Vehicle Miles of Services Relative to 1970

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

9200000

9400000

9600000

9800000

10000000

10200000

10400000

10600000

10800000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Approximate 8 decline in four years

Losing over a half million trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

Thou

sand

s

HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count

2017

2018

Approximate 17 decline in three years

Losing 2500 trips per day for the past 4 years

Source httpswwwtranstatsbtsgovoseaseasonaladjustmentPageVar=TRANSIT

12000000

12500000

13000000

13500000

14000000

14500000

15000000

15500000

16000000

16500000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

20142016

2015

HART Monthly Ridership Trends

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

16000002014 2015 2016 2017 2018

US Context and Travel Trends

2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source

US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census

Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS

Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA

Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA

Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges

Co

Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA

Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census

VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA

Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and

NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak

Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS

US Context and Travel Trends

2015 vs 2014 2016 vs 2015 2017 vs 2016 2018 YTD vs 2017 Months Source

US Population 08 07 07 06 12 Census

Total Employment 17 17 13 13 12 BLS

Real GDP 29 16 22 29 12 BEA

Gas Price -293 -148 151 113 12 EIA

Registered Cars and Light Trucks 21 24 24 21 12 Hedges

Co

Light Vehicle Sales 58 01 -18 08 12 BEA

Count of Zero-Vehicle households -10 -19 -07 - - Census

VMT 23 24 12 04 12 FHWA

Public Transit Ridership -14 to -22 -21 to -18 -27 to -25 -195 to -197 12 APTA and

NTDAmtrak Ridership (FY) -03 19 19 00 12 Amtrak

Airline Passengers 53 39 35 48 12 USDOT BTS

Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)

Source NTD Monthly Raw Database (May 2019)

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bullbull

bull

bull

bull

bullbull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bullbull

bull

bullbull

bull

Seattle+19081 +92

Portland-4057 -35

Las Vegas-2595 -38

Phoenix-5608 -75

Denver+0402 +04

Salt Lake City-2103 -45

Miami-43622 -258

Orlando-4802 -156Tampa

-6016 -191

Atlanta-17606 -126

Dallas-9910 -122

St Louis-11618 -229

Minneapolis-4844 -49

Honolulu-4885 -71

Riverside-5188 -207

San Diego-13032 -117

Los Angeles-125727 -187

San Francisco-14461 -31

Sacramento-7154 -233

Washington DC-66127 -140

Baltimore-18991 -162

Philadelphia-38454 -105

New York City-187676 -43

Hartford-0002 -00

Providence-3242 -154

Boston-47218 -112

Cleveland-14105 -282Detroit

-1543 -40

Columbus-0138 -07

Cincinnati-2759 -131

Chicago-57212 -90

Milwaukee-10657 -247

Buffalo-2443 -93

Pittsburgh-0925 -14

Charlotte-6147 -215

Austin-4257 -125

Houston+4065 +47

New Orleans-1430 -62

San Antonio-4223 -98

bullSan Jose-7780 -173

And we donrsquot even have automated

vehicles yet

Miami-Dade Transit

-28737 -2620

Broward County Transit

-10551 -2718

Central FL RTA-5300 -1760

Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit

-3435 -2197

Jacksonville Transportation Authority

-0876 -686

Pinellas SuncoastTransportation

Authority-2684 -1836

PalmTran-2099 -1715

Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351

South Florida RTA-0076 -139

City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865

Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)

Top 10 agencies make up 926

of Florida ridership from

2014-2018

Source NTD Monthly Raw Database

Hey Watson Have we found

the bottom yet

Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013

Sources ACS WSJ

86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)

50 of US HH with workers have no cars

In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)

SOVSUV Crush Competition

What Impacts Ridership

Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor

Travel Behavior

Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor

Transit Ridership

Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Miami-Dade Transit

-28737 -2620

Broward County Transit

-10551 -2718

Central FL RTA-5300 -1760

Hillsborough Area Rapid Transit

-3435 -2197

Jacksonville Transportation Authority

-0876 -686

Pinellas SuncoastTransportation

Authority-2684 -1836

PalmTran-2099 -1715

Gainesville RTS-1466 -1351

South Florida RTA-0076 -139

City of Tallahassee-1230 -2865

Top 10 Agencies in Florida by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)

Top 10 agencies make up 926

of Florida ridership from

2014-2018

Source NTD Monthly Raw Database

Hey Watson Have we found

the bottom yet

Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013

Sources ACS WSJ

86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)

50 of US HH with workers have no cars

In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)

SOVSUV Crush Competition

What Impacts Ridership

Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor

Travel Behavior

Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor

Transit Ridership

Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Hey Watson Have we found

the bottom yet

Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013

Sources ACS WSJ

86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)

50 of US HH with workers have no cars

In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)

SOVSUV Crush Competition

What Impacts Ridership

Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor

Travel Behavior

Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor

Transit Ridership

Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013

Sources ACS WSJ

86 of US HH have zero vehicles down 05 since 2013 (about 59 of population)

50 of US HH with workers have no cars

In August 2018 lt 30 of new vehicles were autos (WSJ)

SOVSUV Crush Competition

What Impacts Ridership

Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor

Travel Behavior

Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor

Transit Ridership

Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

What Impacts Ridership

Demographic Economic and Land Use FactorsDemand Factor

Travel Behavior

Transit Service CharacteristicsSupply Factor

Transit Ridership

Travel and Communications OptionsSupply Factor

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

What Underlies the Ridership Trends

Increased auto availability

Aging

Migration trendsgentrification

Transportation network

companies (Uber Lyft)

Telecommutinge-commerce etc

Bikeshare carshare

System safetyreliability

Personal safetycleanliness

Gas prices

Service supply

FaresWeather

Parking costCommuter benefits

program changes

Enhanced traveler expectations

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining

Nearly half of all transit trips are made by residents of zero-vehicle households ndash 446 in 2001 NHTS 481 in 2009 NHTS 430 in 2017 NHTS

We do not know what share of zero-vehicle households are zero-vehicle by choice law physicalmedical condition or income

The share of zero-vehicle households ranges from 4 in Utah to 126 in Massachusetts then 29 in New York and 373 in DC

choice

legal

medical

income

86 US63 FL

US Household Vehicle Availability2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No vehicles available US 89 88 87 88 89 91 93 92 91 91 89 87 86

No vehicles available FL 66 66 62 66 66 70 73 74 72 69 68 66 63

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability

229 38 10227 40 110

50

100

150

200

250

0-vehicles 1-vehicle 2+ vehicles

Annu

al T

rans

it Tr

ips p

er C

apita

2009 NHTS 2017 NHTS

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making

062 076 065 059 059

171197

179 161 13

035038

04036

037

101

107109

104087

1990 1995 2001 2009 2017

Other

Social andRecreationalSchoolChurch

Shopping andErrandsTo or From Work

4341

3834

00 Daily Trip Rate Estimate

38

Source Nancy McGuckin analysis of NHTS data

If declining trip making occurred proportionally for transitbull Person trip rate declining 05 tripsdayper yearbull 215 million Floridians over 5bull If 1 were transit trips

Over 3 years this would be asymp 15000000 reduction in transit tripsyear

Approximately 40 of the decline in transit use

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Com

mut

er M

ode

Shar

e

Annual Household Income

Bus or trolley bus

Streetcar or trolley car

Subway or elevated

Railroad

Ferryboat

Total Public Transit

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Travel and Transit Use by Age

0

1

2

3

4

5

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Daily

Trip

s per

Per

son

Age Group

2009 2017

00

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+

Tran

sit M

ode

Shar

e

Age Group

2009 2017

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Top 10 Largest-Gaining Counties (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

Largest-Declining Counties or County Equivalents (Numeric Change) July 1 2015 to July 1 2016

County Population Numeric Change

Percent Change

Transit Commute Share 2015

CountyPopulation Numeric

ChangePercent Change

Transit Commute

Share 2015

Maricopa County 4242997 81360 195 23 Cook County 5203499 -21324 -041 188

Arizona IllinoisHarris County 4589928 56587 125 28 Wayne County 1749366 -7696 -044 25Texas MichiganClark County 2155664 46375 22 42 Baltimore city 614664 -6738 -108 196Nevada Maryland

King County 2149970 35714 169 126 Cuyahoga County 1249352 -5673 -045 51

Washington Ohio

Tarrant County 2016872 35462 179 06 Suffolk County 1492583 -5320 -036 68

Texas New York

Riverside County 2387741 34849 148 14 Milwaukee County 951448 -4866 -051 62

California Wisconsin

Bexar County 1928680 33198 175 26 Allegheny County 1225365 -3933 -032 91

Texas Pennsylvania

Orange County 1314367 29503 23 32 San Juan County 115079 -3622 -305 03

Florida New MexicoDallas County 2574984 29209 115 29 St Louis City 311404 -3471 -11 97Texas Missouri

Hillsborough County 1376238 29161 216 17 Jefferson County 114006 -3254 -278 00

Florida New YorkAverage 34 Average 78

Migration and Growth are Higher in Low Transit Use Areas

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 Transit 2009 Transit 2017 Transit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Not in MSA or CMSA MSA of less than 250000 MSA of 250000 - 499999 MSA of 500000 - 999999 MSA or CMSA of1000000 - 2999999

MSA or CMSA of 3 millionor more

Avg

Spe

ed (M

PH)

MSA Size

2001 POV 2009 POV 2017 POV

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017

Metro Rank by

JobsMetro Area

Employment 2017

Jobs Accessible by Transit in 60 Mins

(Access Across America

Transit 2017) Met

ros R

ank

By

Tran

sit

Acce

ssib

ility Jobs Accessibile by

Auto in 60 Minutes (Access Across

America Auto 2017)

Ratio

of T

rans

it Ac

cess

ible

Jobs

to

Auto

Acc

essib

ile

Jobs

1 New York 8654470 1287186 1 5165184 24911 San Francisco 2164298 415289 2 2414867 1727 Washington DC 2776148 357510 4 2555148 140

23 Portland 1093778 156682 11 1130378 13945 Salt Lake City 576320 144560 14 1044810 13815 Seattle 1709920 185318 8 1421132 13033 Las Vegas 897183 110821 23 856257 12910 Boston 2401512 275182 5 2261287 12247 Buffalo 529252 70219 24 582827 12037 Milwaukee 771322 139321 12 1172274 1193 Chicago 4389339 342635 3 3012464 114

18 Denver 1356387 180478 10 1617550 11232 San Jose 909053 203107 9 2163277 9427 San Antonio 986091 86468 26 949332 9114 Minneapolis 1794806 146905 13 1754122 846 Philadelphia 2793982 205692 7 2542247 81

17 San Diego 1363986 113058 18 1433964 7948 New Orleans 513830 48220 30 616252 7829 Austin 917901 81826 22 1051765 7822 Pittsburgh 1100915 76673 21 1000173 772 Los Angeles 5636421 341437 6 4517360 76

40 Louisvil le 627630 52872 37 720647 7330 Sacramento 915759 72932 28 1063577 6931 Columbus 911367 74521 25 1093480 68

9 Miami 2412346 113542 16 1737359 6513 Phoenix 1865829 109972 19 1739291 6320 Baltimore 1291995 111707 15 1926759 5846 Oklahoma City 574561 35139 44 619587 5728 Cleveland 955181 74528 29 1372782 5419 St Louis 1310349 64119 33 1200988 5341 Jacksonvil le 626060 32651 48 634122 5139 Virginia Beach 707752 33168 46 659585 5035 Charlotte 877360 55578 34 1137958 4942 Richmond 617617 33016 42 697915 4734 Indianapolis 886380 52705 35 1115194 475 Houston 2888073 114960 17 2520388 46

43 Hartford 593012 64698 27 1443504 4525 Kansas city 1023563 47330 40 1087996 4438 Povidence 757913 53339 31 1279767 4226 Cincinnati 1018914 48793 39 1197690 4136 Nashvil le 801589 34390 43 847287 418 Atlanta 2416397 72599 32 1791972 41

21 Tampa 1227356 52728 38 1328760 4024 Orlando 1050065 48584 41 1323827 374 Dallas 3206364 100304 20 2941638 34

44 Raleigh 583916 36321 47 1070759 3412 Detroit 1869538 64677 36 1975248 3349 Birmingham 476681 17858 49 582467 3116 Riverside 1635100 39302 45 1815028 22

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Changing Travel

People appear to be foregoing onerous travel to the extent they can ndash in spite of a strong economy VMT per capita contracted in 2018 and so far in 2019

Less outside the home activities and more communication substitution for travel (e-commerce distance learning gaming and media streaming etc)

Growth in person travel seems strongest for longer distance social recreational travel (millennials value experiences)

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets

26

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interestsmoving people building places logistics and dollars

Moving People is Not Just a Logistics Problem

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

TNC as a Transit Alternative

28

Reason for most recent TNC trip versus transit tripsBART15 MARTA NJ Transit WMATA

TNC connectingto transit

16 6 8 3

TNC instead ofTransit

11 16 17 39

Transit not anoption (reason)

32 16 19 13

(26 hour 6route)

(8 hour 8route)

(no data forreason)

(4 hour9 route)

Havenrsquot usedTNC in region

41 62 56 45

Source TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 195 Broadening Understanding of the Interplay Among Public Transit Shared Mobility

and Personal Automobiles

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Implications of TNCs

Analyst Bruce Schaller has noted 70 percent of Uber and Lyft trips are in nine large densely populated metropolitan areas (Boston Chicago Los Angeles Miami New York Philadelphia San Francisco Seattle and Washington DC)

Coincidentally the same nine metropolitan areas account for over 72 percent of public transit ridership nationally and with the exception of Seattle constitute a dramatic share of the national ridership decline

The New Automobility Lyft Uber and the Future of American Cities July 25 2018 Schaller Consulting Ridership data from APTA 2017 Public Transit Fact Book (2015 data)

29

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

What is Next

Bikes E-bikes Scooters other micromobility devices

30

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

So How Does Transit Respond

The goal is not to preserve the institutions or technologies that we know as public transportation today

The goal is not to remake the world to meet the vision of transit planners or undo the technological progress that has impacted transit ridership

The goal is to ensure that the public purposes public transportation serves continue to be met in the future

31

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Some Thoughts on Service

1 Safety Net Services for those without travel options

i Growing needii Public supportiii Challenge in addressing cost effectively

32

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Some Thoughts on Service

2 Competitive services in markets where transit can provide a resource effective means of travel

i For choice travelers competitiveness is important

ii Understand your market(s) if you contemplate trading off access for competitiveness

33

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Transit Competitiveness

Access Time881 Wait Time 939 In-vehicle Travel Time

2594 Egress Time 108

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Travel Minutes

Time components of an average transit trip

AccessEgress Timebull Route alignmentsdensitybull Stop spacingbull Land useTODbull Bikewalk networkbull ParkingTNCother access

Wait Timebull Frequencyheadwaybull Reliabilitybull Network designbull Customer information

In Vehicle Timebull Speed (exclusivity of ROW)bull Preferential treatmentsbull Route directnessbull Network structurebull Fare bike mobility aide

handling

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Prob

abili

ty o

f Tak

ing

Tran

sit

Minutes between Vehicles

Probability of a Given Trip Being on Transit

When is Service Good Enough

Better Service attracts travelers

but capacity overwhelms market size and resources unless densely

developed and well funded

frequency

Transit expansion fails to attract many new travelers

135

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Some Thoughts on Service

3 Provide a high quality transit corridor as part of the portfolio of community type choices the metropolitan area offers

Many metropolitan areas should have an urban corridor or corridors to offer an urban living environment that includes high quality transit It may not be particularly efficient or cost effective and may not be prudent to have high quality services region wide

37

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Why Ridership Matters

23

26

17

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Standard 40 Clean Diesel 40 CNG coach Hybrid 40 coach Electric 40 coach

Bus O

ccup

ancy

Bus Occupancy Required to Equal BTU Efficiency of Electric Car

US average bus occupancy is 9 today

Vehicle Emission DataSource Argonne National Lab GREET model

Hillsborough County

Where Do West Shore Workers Live

Legend

Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014

Legend

Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014

55872 Commuters

Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible

Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community

Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

Where Do West Shore Workers Live

Legend

Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014

Legend

Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014

55872 Commuters

Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible

Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community

Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

Legend

Job Location of Workers Living in Pinellas 2014

Legend

Home Location of Workers with Jobs in Hillsborough 2014

55872 Commuters

Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible

Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community

Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

Making Tampa ndash St Petersburg More Accessible

Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community

Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community

Donrsquot Force a Solution Where it Doesnrsquot Fit

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

HART Monthly Ridership

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

Jan-

2000

Oct

-200

0

Jul-2

001

Apr-

2002

Jan-

2003

Oct

-200

3

Jul-2

004

Apr-

2005

Jan-

2006

Oct

-200

6

Jul-2

007

Apr-

2008

Jan-

2009

Oct

-200

9

Jul-2

010

Apr-

2011

Jan-

2012

Oct

-201

2

Jul-2

013

Apr-

2014

Jan-

2015

Oct

-201

5

Jul-2

016

Apr-

2017

Jan-

2018

Oct

-201

8

When Were You a board member

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45

• Transit Ridership Trends and Reasons
• Outline
• What is Happening
• Governing Its Been a Rough Year for Mass Transit With falling ridership and scrapped expansion projects urban transit faces an uncertain future June 2019 Commentary By Alan Ehrenhalt | Senior Editor
• National Transit Ridership Trend
• Trends in Ridership and Service
• US Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Transit Ridership Trend Rolling 12-Month Count
• HART Monthly Ridership Trends
• US Context and Travel Trends
• Top 40 UZAs by 2018 Transit Ridership Change 2014-2018 (Millions)
• Slide Number 12
• Slide Number 13
• Commuting Share 2017 Change from 2013
• What Impacts Ridership
• What Underlies the Ridership Trends
• Zero-Vehicle Households are Declining
• Per Capita Annual Transit Trips by Household Vehicle Availability
• Possible Impact of Reduced Trip Making
• 2017 ACS Commuting Mode Share by Income and Transit Sub Mode
• Travel and Transit Use by Age
• Slide Number 22
• Transit Remains About Half as Fast as Driving
• Comparative Employment accessibility Auto VS transit 2017
• Changing Travel
• CAV ndash When What Price What Geographic Markets
• The transit industry The Technology and Financial Interests moving people building places logistics and dollars
• TNC as a Transit Alternative
• Implications of TNCs
• What is Next
• So How Does Transit Respond
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Transit Competitiveness
• When is Service Good Enough
• Fixed Route Transit Works Where Fixed Route Transit Works
• Some Thoughts on Service
• Why Ridership Matters
• Slide Number 39
• Where Do West Shore Workers Live
• Slide Number 41
• Slide Number 42
• Change it to make it work or find some other ways to help meet the mobility resource efficiency and quality of life desires of your community
• HART Monthly Ridership
• Slide Number 45