Understanding Transit Demand. E. Beimborn, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Similar documents
1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

Briefing Paper #1. An Overview of Regional Demand and Mode Share

Travel Patterns and Characteristics

PASSENGER SURVEY RESULTS

Cheryl Thole CUTR/NBRTI, Senior Research Associate Tampa, Florida

City of Davenport CitiBus Public Transportation Study. April 2015

Americans in Transit A Profile of Public Transit Passengers

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Market Factors and Demand Analysis. World Bank

2011 Origin-Destination Survey Bicycle Profile

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

U.S. Bicycling Participation Study

Estimating Ridership of Rural Demand-Response Transit Services for the General Public

Highway Transitway Corridor Study

Potential MBTA Fare Changes in SFY 2017

Potential MBTA Fare Changes in SFY 2017

2017 North Texas Regional Bicycle Opinion Survey

Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis

METRO Now. Transit Leader. One of only four urban. gain bus ridership in Purple and Green Lines. Red Line is one

SMART 1 Public Meeting #1. February 24, 2016

VI. Market Factors and Deamnd Analysis

MTA Surveys: Facts and Findings. NYMTC Brown Bag March 12, 2014 Julia Seltzer, MTA Planning

Executive Summary. TUCSON TRANSIT ON BOARD ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY Conducted October City of Tucson Department of Transportation

AAMPO Regional Transportation Attitude Survey

June 2015 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SNAPSHOT

Transportation Trends, Conditions and Issues. Regional Transportation Plan 2030

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Walking in New Zealand May 2013

Acknowledgements. Ms. Linda Banister Ms. Tracy With Mr. Hassan Shaheen Mr. Scott Johnston

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

ORDINANCE NO

REGIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY:

Figure 39. Yearly Trend in Death Rates for Drowning: NSW, Year

Pocatello Regional Transit Master Transit Plan Draft Recommendations

Afeasibility study to evaluate bus rapid transit service in the East-West Corridor connecting major employment and activity centers between downtown

Bicycling Perceptions and Experiences in Oregon and Southwest Washington. Presented to: The Bicycle Transportation Alliance September 8, 2009

SoundCast Design Intro

Free Ride Transit System 2014 On Board Passenger Survey

2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey. Data Presentation

Travel and Rider Characteristics for Metrobus

Walking New Zealand Household Travel Survey September 2015

The Transit Last-Mile Problem

Title VI Fare Change Equity Analysis

The Who and What: Bus Rapid Transit Riders and Systems in the U.S.

How familiar are you with BRT?

Bicycling Perceptions and Experiences in Oregon and Southwest Washington. Presented By: The Inavero Institute September 8, 2009

METRO Light Rail: Changing Transit Markets in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area

Report Overview Policy versus Performance: Directions for North Carolina s Largest Transit Systems

Community Transportation Plan Acknowledgements

APPENDIX C Arlington Transit On-Board Survey Technical Memorandum

Capital Bikeshare 2011 Member Survey Executive Summary

2012 Transit Study Randolph County

THE 2010 MSP REGION TRAVEL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY (TBI) REPORT HOME INTERVIEW SURVEY. A Summary of Resident Travel in the Twin Cities Region

Understanding the Pattern of Work Travel in India using the Census Data

2020 K Street NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC (202)

Community Engagement Process

2014 Ontario Works Transit Survey: Final Results

Aging & Mobility: Stranded Without A Choice

January Project No

Transportation-Demand Management Community Presentation

Cobb Community Transit

RIDERSHIP PREDICTION

Philadelphia Bus Network Choices Report

Baseline Survey of New Zealanders' Attitudes and Behaviours towards Cycling in Urban Settings

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN

RVTD On-Board Passenger Study

Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. Ave

2014 Metro Transit Customer Survey Highlights

the Ministry of Transport is attributed as the source of the material

2017 COAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY SERVICE REVIEW

Bicycling Perceptions and Experiences in Oregon and Southwest Washington. Presented to: The Bicycle Transportation Alliance September 8, 2009

2015 Origin/Destination Study

2016 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Report

Governor s Transportation Vision Panel

2016 REGIONAL ORIGIN AND DESTINATION STUDY TDCHR WORKSHOP APRIL 27, 2017

Rochester Area Bike Sharing Program Study

2014 peterborough city and county. active. transportation. & health. indicators primer

2011 Countywide Attitudinal and Awareness Survey Results

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT: Six Congestion Reduction Strategies and Their. Effects on Mobility

the 54th Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate School of Planning (ACSP) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania November 2 nd, 2014

Is St. Louis Ready for a Bike Share System? May 14, 2014 Public Open House

Estimating Ridership of Rural Demand-Response Transit Services for the General Public

Uber ridership up since last year

TRANSIT & NON-MOTORIZED PLAN DRAFT FINAL REPORT Butte County Association of Governments

CITY OF COCOA BEACH 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Section VIII Mobility Element Goals, Objectives, and Policies

TriMet Review of Debunking Portland: The Public Transit Myth September 2007

Geometric Categories as Intersection Safety Evaluation Tools

Public bikesharing has emerged as one of the latest transportation

TRANSPORTATION TOMORROW SURVEY

Rail Station Fact Sheet CentrePort/DFW Airport Station

Deaths/injuries in motor vehicle crashes per million hours spent travelling, July 2007 June 2011 (All ages) Mode of travel

A Selection Approach for BRT Parking Lots Nicolls Road Corridor Parking Study

People killed and injured per million hours spent travelling, Motorcyclist Cyclist Driver Car / van passenger

CITY OF HAMILTON PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Transportation Planning and Parking Division

Calgary Transit Route 302 Southeast BRT Year One Review June

Rail Station Fact Sheet University of Dallas Station

NFL1. Do you think television shows, in general, are getting better or getting worse?

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Ridership Demand Analysis for Palestinian Intercity Public Transport

The Case for New Trends in Travel

Transcription:

Understanding Transit Demand E. Beimborn, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 1 Purpose To provide a basic understanding of transit ridership and some common misunderstandings. To explain concepts of choice and captive use To explain basic transit user characteristics. Ridership forecasting is the subject of another presentation 2

The Transit Mode Share Myth Transit is only 2 percent of the trips in our area and therefore no matter what we do, it doesn t matter This is the same as saying The Green Bay Packers won only 2 percent of the football games last year - it can be any number you want, depending on how many games you include in the denominator. The fact is a team does not play in all the games, nor does a transit system provide service for all of the trips. 3 What is the Denominator?? Mode share = Transit trips / what??? Time of day? Schedule? Connectivity? Access to stops on both ends? Transit may only adequately serve only a small portion of the trips can have a very good mode share for those trips. Transit can play a major role in serving travel to specific locations and at specific times, but there must be good service available. 4

What is the Numerator? Many transit users are occasional users, they use transit a couple times a week or a month, depending on circumstances of their travel. For example, consider the question: How often, on average, do you ride the bus? More than 5 times a week 3-5 times a week 1-2 times a week 1-3 times a month Less than once a month 5 Public Transit Available within ¾ mile* * From National Transportation Household Survey as quoted in NCHRP web-only document 86 Estimating the Impacts of the Aging Population on Transit Ridership, ICF Consulting, January, 2006, p 28 6

True market size? The previous slide shows that about 50% of the population has transit service available within ¾ mile. This percentage is even lower because: Maximum walking distances to regular transit service are typically ¼ mile. The walk has to be on actual paths, not airline paths Service is only available for limited times of the day. Services do not connect to the desired destination Generally about 30% of the population does not have an automobile available for trip making Too young to drive Not able to drive No vehicle available in the household at the time of the trip 7 Markets For planning purposes, need to identify potential markets where people have real choices with quality services. Specific corridors, population within reasonable walking distance or access to park and ride service enroute to their final destination Ridership = captive users + choice users 8

Six Conditions for Transit Use In order for a person to use public transit, all of the following six conditions must be met: Connectivity: Service connects users origin and destination Access: User must be able to get to the stops at both ends of the trip Schedule: Service operates at appropriate times Knowledge: User must have knowledge about how to use the service Boarding: User must be able to get on and off the vehicle with all they carry Security: User must feel safe and secure. 9 Six Conditions for Auto Use To be able to use an automobile the following conditions must be met: Connectivity: The road network connects users origin and destination Access: User must be able to find a place to park the vehicle at both ends of the trip, Schedule: Vehicle can be operated at appropriate times Knowledge: User must have knowledge about how to reach a destination Boarding: User must be able to operate the vehicle or have someone else operate it for them and be able to get in and out the vehicle with all they carry Security: User must feel safe and secure. 10

Choice or captive user? If a user has only one option that meets all six conditions, they are a captive user If a user has multiple options that meet all six conditions, they are a choice user If a user has no options, they cannot travel. All travelers in the long run have choices: move residence, change jobs, acquire a vehicle, etc.. 11 Transit user characteristics Usage patterns vary by city size, in larger cities, transit users look like the general population Transit rider numbers are dominated by a few large cities New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, etc. In smaller cities, transit users have greater portions of women, young, old, low income or ethnic minorities than the general population Source: A Profile of Transit Riders APTA 12

Rider profiles: In large cities the profile of users is similar to the population In cities of less than 1 million More than 60% of users are women About 20% of the users are under the age of 18, about 20% are over 65 Use of transit for non-work purposes shopping, medical, social purposes increases as city size decreases. There are greater portions of low income users 13 Rider profile of men and women Figure 2. Gender of Riders by Population Group Male Female 60% Percent of Riders 40% 20% 0% Under 50,000 50,000-200,000 200,000-500,000 500,000-1 million Population of Urbanized Area/Urban Place 1 million and more National Average 14

By age 15 By ethnicity and race 16

Trip purpose 17 By income 18

More data National Transit Database a Federal database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA funds are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. It includes data for over 650 transit agencies and authorities: Transit Profiles - A "snapshot" view of a given transit agency for a given year. Data Tables - data for all transit agencies ranging from Operators' Wages to Energy Consumption to Age Distribution of Active Revenue Vehicle Inventory. National Transit Summaries and Trends -national summary data showing trends over time. See: http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntdprogram/ 19 Acknowledgements Some of this material was developed as part of work being conducted by the Great Cities University consortium under the lead of the University of Alabama at Birmingham using funds provided by the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The opinions expressed are the product of independent university work and not necessarily those of the sponsoring agencies or of the agencies supplying data for the project. 20