Two Capitals: 1 w/lrt, 1 w/out How Has Transit Fared in Each?

Transcription

1 Two Capitals: 1 w/lrt, 1 w/out How Has Transit Fared in Each? Columbus, Ohio Sacramento, CA Photo courtesy of the Ohio Statehouse Photo Archive John Schumann Senior Transportation Consultant Updates TRB Paper , Progress and Survival: Assessing Transit Changes in Two State Capitals: Columbus and Sacramento

2 Columbus & Sacramento Similar Metro Areas State capitals Centers for business & higher education Regional transit authorities since early 1970s Regional populations close to 1.5 million Both metro areas growing

3 Population Both Metro Areas Growing Urbanized Area % Change Columbus 0.95 mil 1.37 mil 44.2% Sacramento 1.10 mil 1.72 mil 56.4% Sacramento as % of Columbus 116% 126% --

4 25 Years: Different Results for Transit Change in Columbus Sacramento Revenue Vehicle Miles -0.3% +69% Unlinked Trips -34% +105% Passenger Miles -46% +53%

5 What Happened? Obvious Answer: Sacramento built LRT and benefited Columbus didn t and suffered Reality is more complex: Political climates Funding opportunities and constraints

6 Columbus Since Different Paths for Transit Struggled to maintain funding Planned for LRT, but unable to fund Remains all bus, added transit centers Sacramento Interstate Transfer: 18-mile LRT opened 1987 Extended to 39 miles using increased funds Operates multimodal LRT/bus system

7 Columbus Local Funding Struggles 1985 Previous 0.5% levy sunsets COTA forced to rely on surplus funds 1986 & 1988 new levies defeated % transit sales tax passed % levy bus-only failed Local funds for LRT dropped before vote 1999 Permanent 0.25% sales tax passed

8 Sacramento: Acceptance Spawns Funding for More Improvements 1988, Sac County Measure A RT s first reliable local funding for ops Local share funding for transit projects 1990, CA Proposition 116 LRT improvements & extensions Bus fleet modernization (100% CNG fleet) 2004, Measure A renewed

9 Columbus Synopsis of Differences Has had a tough row to hoe Struggle to fund & maintain bus system Need consensus & funds for first rail line Sacramento Seized one-time funding opportunity Chose starter project to fit resources Successful opening led to more funds for extensions, more attractive & efficient service

10 In Essence Sacramento used Light Rail to: Improve transit service quality Win more funds to increase transit service quantity This approach has worked.

11 Sacramento LRT Interstate Transfer one-time opportunity Advocates convinced decision makers Budget conscious design & operating plan Multi-modal system Customer focus Clock-interval scheduling Reliable timed transfers Key stations = transit centers

12

13 RT s Growing LRT System 39 Miles Now 55 Miles Future Starter mi mi mi 2012-???? 17.0 mi

14 The Battle for Passengers Ridership the Three C s Captives Transit, walk or stay home Commuters Transit vs. drive/park costs/ hassles; mostly peaks, mostly downtown Choice Riders Multiple trip purposes, origins, destinations and times of day Effective system attracts all three Multi-modal, multi-destinational

15 Better Service More Riding Item Unlinked Trips Bus <14 mil 18 mil LRT mil Total System <14 mil 33 mil % Change 29% % Passenger Miles 77 mil 144 mil 87%

16 Sacramento More Service More Riders Item Rev Vehicle Miles 6.6 mil 9.9 mil 11.1 mil Passenger Miles 94 mil 119 mil 144 mil

17 Columbus Static Service Lower Ridership Item Rev Vehicle Miles 9.1 mil 9.0 mil 9.1 mil Passenger Miles 121 mil 67 mil 65 mil

18 What s Going On In Columbus? Residents voted for what they have. Transit per se is not important in Columbus. They like roads, and have built more urban Interstate highways. Source: Blind Peer Reviewer #4, a former Columbus resident

19 Improved Efficiency w/lrt (2010) Item COTA SRTD Bus Bus LRT Total % LRT Psgr Mls 63 mil 61 mil 83 mil 144 mil 58% RVM 9.1 mil 7.0 mil 4.1 mil 11.1 mil 37% Avg Load Fleet % O&M/PM $1.25 $1.22 $0.58 $

20 Implications Conventional wisdom sometimes wrong Expand bus, add rail later not productive For a weaker system, adding LRT can: Improve quality, perhaps quantity Organize service trunks, feeders, hubs Permanence signals long-term reliability Build case for dedicated funding Draw TOD, over time w/conducive LU policy

21 Thank You