What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership

[M II A II R II K]

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership


May 21, 2012

By Eric Jaffe



Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...idership/2059/

At first glance Broward County, Florida, doesn't look like the friendliest place for public transportation. The metro area just north of Miami has a couple downtown areas — Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood — but lacks a strong central business district. It also lacks much transit-oriented development. On the contrary, Broward has a very typical postwar, auto-oriented design marked by wide highways and sprawl. Looks can, of course, be deceiving. As it happens, Broward County has one of the strongest transit systems among other mid-sized metro areas in the United States.

- Compared to 26 other bus-only metros in its class, Broward trails only Orlando and Las Vegas in terms of cost-effectiveness, outperforming higher-profile places like Austin, Charlotte, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. Its buses are full, as measured by per capita ridership, and they've stayed that way in recent years, even as transit in general has struggled.

- The analysis of transit work trip demand in Broward County indicates that the reason BCT [Broward County Transit] performs so well compared with most of its peers is that its multidestination route structure directly connects the county’s residential areas with the dispersed jobs to which they travel. … In Broward County, workers use transit to get to jobs in a multitude of locations that do not possess the built environment characteristics long thought to be important by most scholars in determining transit ridership.

- In the 1970s the county's bus routes focused on getting people to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, and later down to Miami, as per the conventional transit wisdom of the day. When ridership failed to increase, the transit authority restructured the system into a grid that traversed high-density (if not the highest) employment areas. The shift made sense considering that most Broward residents are so-called transit-dependents: among riders, 60 percent are from households that make under $20,000 a year, and about half don't own a car.

- In a word, Broward County de-centralized its transit system. Instead of clinging to the belief that all jobs were downtown, it accepted that people need to access jobs in all kinds of places throughout a metro area. We've seen this before: Tallahassee recently reached this conclusion, as Emily Badger points out; Atlanta's transit system also demonstrates the effectiveness of a multi-destination approach, as Thompson and colleagues have found. But since this realization remains the exception and not the norm, it bears repeating. Thompson and colleagues use their findings to make an intriguing policy point. At a time when cities are struggling to attract transit riders, many policy options focus on the need to increase smart growth.

- Simply put, the results of this study suggest that most US transit managers of bus-only transit systems and urban planners interested in transit are focusing on the wrong policy variables for improving transit ridership. More walkable, more mixed use environments are important amenities to encourage more transit use, but the most important consideration is easy access to employment. … Before we try to change the built environment, we need to make sure transit takes riders where they need to go.

.....

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership


May 21, 2012

By Eric Jaffe



Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...idership/2059/

Worth REQUOTING:

"
- Simply put, the results of this study suggest that most US transit managers of bus-only transit systems and urban planners interested in transit are focusing on the wrong policy variables for improving transit ridership. More walkable, more mixed use environments are important amenities to encourage more transit use, but the most important consideration is easy access to employment. … Before we try to change the built environment, we need to make sure transit takes riders where they need to go."

Rather than make huge real estate plays, or go down streets to make local boutique shopping areas.....

People should not have to take over an hour to get to their jobs.

People should not HAVE to work downtown to make public transportation work- single node switching* (as is developing in Denver downtown) reduces public transportation options and increases commute length, expcept to work downtown.

Etc.

*What is happening too often can be metaphored by requiring all cars that travel across town to have to go through downtown and stop at stop lights while there. After "switching" via the stop lighted downtown streets, then, the cars would access freeways.

The key, based upon superior systems that have been built out, such as in Tokyo, Osaka, Paris, Moscow, Mexico City, Seoul, etc., is to give the public transit rider as many options as possible to get through or around downtown as possible, without having to exit a bus, light rail, commuter rail, monorail, vehicle. Then, if he or she must change with modes or between modes, that change should require no more than a 5 minute walk between these modes and a 15 minute wait.

Until this is done in a new transit build out in the US, no new system will make a signficant impact on the percentages of users that commute to work without using a private car, in the US (barring a severe decline in our standard of living, and, a no other choice option scenario, which I think will happen...........anyway. Then the riders will be truly sullen and angry at having to use very poorly designed transit systems).

[llamaorama]

Interesting. I've felt the same way, just thinking about my own options if I didn't have my car.

Maybe more places should invest/experiment with smaller buses that are cost effective and energy efficient at lower average passenger loads and build a grid-like transit network.

In any case, for all the attention paid to transit oriented development, the lack of transit doesn't seem to stop developers from building higher density in places with higher land values. If the NIMBYs who are concerned about increased traffic congestion can be mollified then a city can build up successfully.

[vid]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Maybe more places should invest/experiment with smaller buses that are cost effective and energy efficient at lower average passenger loads and build a grid-like transit network.

Most of the cost of running a bus isn't the gas, it's the driver. The buses could be extremely energy efficient, but you're still going to have to increase the personnel line on the budget, which often takes up more than 75% of the total budget (in Canada at least) to actually move those smaller, more efficient buses. My city looked into getting smaller buses and decided not to because the difference in fuel costs was negligible, and they would have to deal with buses from another manufacturer. Capital costs alone for procuring the buses made the change prohibitively expensive even if they report turned out in favour of using smaller buses.

My city has done two things to design its new transit system:

- Done an extensive study to find out where people who use the bus need to go, and designed routes to serve those places efficiently

- Declared in its new zoning by-law that any new development on a bus route, an arterial road, or a street corner can be medium to high density. Existing high density areas are given better access to transit to encourage even more growth in those areas. Existing areas served by a lot of transit routes are now mixed use, high density zones, regardless of what presently exists there. Zones that were already mixed use have been given a wider variety of options for what can be developed on those properties.

Instead of sending transit to TODs, we've sent TODs to where transit already exists. The biggest challenge will be actually getting developments to happen. We've got one so far; there are literally hundreds of opportunities for them, though, in a city of only 100,000 people.

[lrt's friend]

The hub and spoke model is not the answer in the modern city with more employment increasingly spreadout. This really limits access by transit outside of the hub corridors. What is needed is good transit access to employment nodes and more of a grid model with multiple cross connections. You should not need to go downtown to make a connection to anywhere else in the city. If we want to encourage transit use, transfer wait times have to be minimal. Transfer wait times are killers and can make relatively short trips excessively long. At the same time, we have to plan our cities with transit in mind instead of just for cars as has been the case in most cities for the last 60 years.

[Doady]

What urban planners should do and what transit planners should do are two different things. Urban planners are not wrong when they focus on "more walkable, more mixed-used environments". It is not the job of the urban planner to design the transit routes.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The hub and spoke model is not the answer in the modern city with more employment increasingly spreadout. This really limits access by transit outside of the hub corridors. What is needed is good transit access to employment nodes and more of a grid model with multiple cross connections.

I don't think that makes sense. Hub-and-spoke system is about serving nodes. Grid system is about serving corridors. Strong nodes and strong corridors are required, respectively. If the focus is to service employment nodes then hub-and-spoke is better.

I think most smaller systems will have trouble adopting a grid system, but for larger systems grid is probably better because the corridors are busy enough, and having limited number of transfer points as in a hub-and-spoke system becomes extremely inefficent after a certain size (e.g. overcrowding at bus terminals).

A truly advanced and comprehensive transit system though has BOTH hub-and-spoke routes and grid routes. Sometimes a single route serve both a corridor and a node. It's not necessarily one of the other.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by vid

Most of the cost of running a bus isn't the gas, it's the driver. The buses could be extremely energy efficient, but you're still going to have to increase the personnel line on the budget, which often takes up more than 75% of the total budget (in Canada at least) to actually move those smaller, more efficient buses. ...

I was looking at some transit data over the weekend, and a study that the transit agency in Singapore did described efficiency with costs and revenue from different modes at different global agencies on a per-boarding basis

For Chicago, rail riders both paid a higher average fare AND cost less on average. And Chicago was the least or second-least efficient rail operator and less-than average, but not the least efficient bus operator (New York, Washington, and Dublin were worse). All the stats were taken from either the APTA fact book, or CTA publications.

I found it.

Chicago

Rail (CTA "L")
Average fare per passenger boarding: $1.24
Average cost per boarding: $2.50

Bus (CTA bus)
Average fare per boarding: $0.97
Average cost per boarding: $2.73

Barcelona

Rail
fare: $0.80
cost: $1.52

Bus
fare: $0.92
cost: $2.30

New York

Rail
fare: $1.55
cost: $2.27

Bus
fare: $1.25
cost: $3.45

[vid]

In a city like Toronto, the bus fare probably comes extremely close to actually covering the cost. I think it is something like 3.25 or 3.50 at this point. It probably isn't below an average of 2.25 per boarding when you consider discounts. Not sure what the cost would be.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by vid

In a city like Toronto, the bus fare probably comes extremely close to actually covering the cost. I think it is something like 3.25 or 3.50 at this point. It probably isn't below an average of 2.25 per boarding when you consider discounts. Not sure what the cost would be.

It's around $1.40 per boarding for the TTC system-wide (bus, streetcars, subway), because of free transfers. The average cost-recovery of buses in Toronto is around 50-60%, while systemwide it is around 70%.

Buses (and streetcars) in Toronto are less efficient than subways because they operate in mixed traffic. If those buses and streetcars were given their own lanes, with signal priority, and all door boardings, the efficiency would increase dramatically.

For example, say you have a 70 minute long bus route, that requires 28 buses in order to provide a 5 minute frequency. Imagine if this bus route were given its own lanes, signal priority, and all door boarding scheme, reducing the travel time in each direction from 70 minutes to 50 minutes. That means only 20 buses would be required to maintain the 5 minute frequency, allowing 8 buses to be taken off the road. That's a reduction in costs of almost 30 percent, possibly allowing that bus route to be profitable.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Doady

What urban planners should do and what transit planners should do are two different things. Urban planners are not wrong when they focus on "more walkable, more mixed-used environments". It is not the job of the urban planner to design the transit routes.



I don't think that makes sense. Hub-and-spoke system is about serving nodes. Grid system is about serving corridors. Strong nodes and strong corridors are required, respectively. If the focus is to service employment nodes then hub-and-spoke is better.

I think most smaller systems will have trouble adopting a grid system, but for larger systems grid is probably better because the corridors are busy enough, and having limited number of transfer points as in a hub-and-spoke system becomes extremely inefficent after a certain size (e.g. overcrowding at bus terminals).

A truly advanced and comprehensive transit system though has BOTH hub-and-spoke routes and grid routes. Sometimes a single route serve both a corridor and a node. It's not necessarily one of the other.

It is true that you likely need both but really that was what I was saying. A hub could be part of the transit grid.

The hub and spoke has some major restrictions that limits its value in the modern city on its own. With employment being increasingly spreadout, it becomes impossible for a hub to serve all employment nodes. Typically, the hub serves downtown. If you live in suburb A and work in suburb B, you will often be forced through downtown to connect to suburb B. This is why a grid or additional crossconnections is critical to the success of transit systems.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is true that you likely need both but really that was what I was saying. A hub could be part of the transit grid.

The hub and spoke has some major restrictions that limits its value in the modern city on its own. With employment being increasingly spreadout, it becomes impossible for a hub to serve all employment nodes. Typically, the hub serves downtown. If you live in suburb A and work in suburb B, you will often be forced through downtown to connect to suburb B. This is why a grid or additional crossconnections is critical to the success of transit systems.

Hub and spoke systems usually have multiple hubs, especially large ones (e.g. GO Transit, as already mentioned). All the employment nodes in a large metroplitan area can be connected together exclusively by a hub-and-spoke system as well, and whether that's actually a good idea is what the article tries to answer.

Obviously a single hub in a large metropolitan area would be impractical to serve multiple nodes, but that's not what the article is discussing. Even the example of Broward County Transit, the article mentioned that the system was originally designed to serve three different hubs.

I think the point of the article is that it doesn't make sense to think in terms of "nodes" at all in a decentralized, dispersed city because many people have destinations outside of these nodes. To suggest as you did that transit should designed to serve the nodes, but that means using a hub-and-spoke system. Using a grid system would mean ignoring nodes altogether and just focusing on the corridors, which is what the article suggests.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Doady

It's around $1.40 per boarding for the TTC system-wide (bus, streetcars, subway), because of free transfers. The average cost-recovery of buses in Toronto is around 50-60%, while systemwide it is around 70%.

Buses (and streetcars) in Toronto are less efficient than subways because they operate in mixed traffic. If those buses and streetcars were given their own lanes, with signal priority, and all door boardings, the efficiency would increase dramatically.

For example, say you have a 70 minute long bus route, that requires 28 buses in order to provide a 5 minute frequency. Imagine if this bus route were given its own lanes, signal priority, and all door boarding scheme, reducing the travel time in each direction from 70 minutes to 50 minutes. That means only 20 buses would be required to maintain the 5 minute frequency, allowing 8 buses to be taken off the road. That's a reduction in costs of almost 30 percent, possibly allowing that bus route to be profitable.

The biggest hurdle would be finding the capital to build the bus lane in the first place.

[M II A II R II K]

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Rail Edition


Jun 08, 2012

By Eric Jaffe

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...-edition/2218/

If you're a mid-sized metro area whose only form of public transportation is the bus, you might increase transit ridership just by tweaking the system. Lose a stop here, add one there, draw a few new maps. That worked for Broward County, Florida, which recently grew its passenger base by shifting its focus on job centers rather than downtown districts, but what if you're a big city with a major rail system? It's a bit harder for a conductor to steer the subway into another neighborhood.

- Big cities that want to increase ridership have a few larger policy options to consider. They might subsidize fares (that is, cover operating expenses that exceed the system's revenue). They might regulate automobile use (say, through congestion pricing or tolling). Or they might expand the rail system that's already in place. These aren't exactly simple efforts—the politics will be tough, the implementation expensive, the outcomes scrutinized—so you better choose wisely.

- On an average, a 10% extension of a city rail network generates an increase in transit use of almost 3% and a decrease in automobile use of more than 2%. We further concluded that regulation of automobile use and possession via policies such as road pricing and taxes on car acquisition also have a positive impact on transit patronage. In cities that have implemented effective regulation of this type, the use of cars has dropped by an average of 20–30% while transit use has risen in similar proportions. Lastly, we found no evidence that fare subsidies encourage the use of transit as an alternative to private cars, corroborating previously published research on the issue.

.....

[Wizened Variations]

[QUOTE=M II A II R II K;5729366]What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Rail Edition


Jun 08, 2012

By Eric Jaffe

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...-edition/2218/

"We" (the US being the slowest bottom line learner) are getting there, cm by cm.

"We" create highly politicized beaurocracies that, bottom line, design horrid systems. Many members of these beaurocracies are highly talented, but, most of the time, their collective work (design + ROW + implementation) is mediocre, at best. Most of these workers have to keep quiet, go with the "flow", or loose their jobs. As a buildout can take a decade or more, and, as the benefit package of such workers often totals over $100,000 per year, there are a lot of "reasons" to play along.

Sad.

[M II A II R II K]

Transit agencies should really get into the development business and perhaps energy as well so they can produce their own power to run trains and even have enough to sell off to others for a profit.

When they sell what they develop in their TODs they can also hold onto the land and receive indefinite lease payments to keep the case coming in. The less transit has to depend on politicians the better.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Transit agencies should really get into the development business and perhaps energy as well so they can produce their own power to run trains and even have enough to sell off to others for a profit.

When they sell what they develop in their TODs they can also hold onto the land and receive indefinite lease payments to keep the case coming in. The less transit has to depend on politicians the better.

Hear! Hear!

Perhaps a key might be (and the property developers et al will scream socialism) for the transit agency to have 100 -150 meter property swaths around stations with the proviso that the property can be leased to developers.

Another might be for private corporations to run the transit system, be able to develope that 100 to 150 meter swath, on conditions related to maintaining high quality service on the entire system in exchange for minimum lease rates on the public agency owned property.

I know, based upon what I have seen in Denver, that for other cities, new alternatives need to be implemented in order for any world class system ever to be built in any US city.

[M II A II R II K]

And have them run the money losing routes too? I was more of the persuasion that the transit agency itself venture into the private sector and not partner with it when it comes to service, and plus the land doesn't necessarily have to be limited to being by the rapid transit lines, as long as it makes money or provide perpetual lease payments.

The MTR does this and even has a listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, although they do have the advantage of having no shortage of riders to pay into the system.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

What Really Matters for Increasing Transit Ridership: Rail Edition


Jun 08, 2012

By Eric Jaffe

Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...-edition/2218/

I don't understand the graph. What numbers are they using? San Francisco for example is way above 18% (approximately what they show) for the city proper, but way below 18% for the metro area.

[Doady]

Ya, that is a bad graph. It's not really clear if modal split is for all trips or just work trips (a major difference), and if "city" means city proper or metropolitan area (another major difference).

The percentages for transit are pretty high so I'm guessing it is city proper and for work trips only. Percentage for work trips tends to be higher than for all trips, and of course includign the suburbs tends to bring down the percentages as well.

City of Toronto for example has around 24% transit modal split for all trips, and 34% for work trips, while the CMA as a whole has around 15% for all trips and 22% for work trips.

Excluding suburbs and counting work trips only is probably flawed methodology.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Doady

Ya, that is a bad graph. It's not really clear if modal split is for all trips or just work trips (a major difference), and if "city" means city proper or metropolitan area (another major difference).

The percentages for transit are pretty high so I'm guessing it is city proper and for work trips only. Percentage for work trips tends to be higher than for all trips, and of course includign the suburbs tends to bring down the percentages as well.

City of Toronto for example has around 24% transit modal split for all trips, and 34% for work trips, while the CMA as a whole has around 15% for all trips and 22% for work trips.

Excluding suburbs and counting work trips only is probably flawed methodology.

Right. There's also those who lack access/mobility in order to get to healthcare facilities or to the food store. I'm sure those are the two main trip generators of the lower-income folks not residing in any urban center...