Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
2022 T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 231 Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation Subject Areas Public Transportation â¢ Passenger Transportation â¢ Planning and Forecasting Recent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership ANALYSIS, CAUSES, AND RESPONSES Kari Watkins Simon Berrebi Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA Gregory Erhardt Jawad Hoque Vedant Goyal University of Kentucky Lexington, KY Candace Brakewood Abubakr Ziedan Wesley Darling University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN Brendon Hemily Toronto, ON Josephine Kressner Transport Foundry Portland, OR
TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 231 Project A-43 ISSN 2572-3782 ISBN 978-0-309-09450-4 Â© 2022 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta- tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM The nationâs growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob- lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera- tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213âResearch for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administrationânow the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop- erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser- vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Commission. Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the TOPS Commission to formulate the research program by identi- fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS Commission defines funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos- als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat- ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen- cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple- mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners. TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively address common operational problems. TCRP results support and complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Published research reports of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 231 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Lisa Whittington, Editor TCRP PROJECT A-43 PANEL Field of Operations Aaron S. Weinstein, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, CA (Chair) Justin D. Antos, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. Peter Carter, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, CA Baofeng Dong, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, Portland, OR Maribeth Feke, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), Cleveland, OH Kimberly B. Fragola, Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA), State College, PA Joel Huting, Metro Transit, MinneapolisâSt. Paul, St. Paul, MN Thomas C. Lambert, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, TX Seri Park, Villanova University, Villanova, PA Samuel L. Scheib, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. Edward F. Watt, Rockaway Park, NY Cynthia Wilson, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, Fort Worth, TX Michael R. Baltes, FTA Liaison Ryan Bartlett, FTA Liaison Matthew Dickens, APTA Liaison Katherine A. Kortum, TRB Liaison
TCRP Research Report 231 and TCRP Web-Only Document 74 present the research findings and conclusions from TCRP Project A-43, âRecent Decline in Public Transportation Ridership: Analysis, Causes, Responses.â The research deliverables will serve public transit agencies; the communities they serve; and researchers striving to understand the recent decline in bus and rail transit ridership, the factors influencing the decline, and strategies that may enhance transit ridership and mitigate future ridership declines. This research was undertaken to â¢ Understand the factors contributing to the pre-pandemic decline in transit ridership in the United States and quantify the relative contribution of each. â¢ Identify strategies for public transportation agencies to mitigate or reverse the ridership challenges they have faced, both pre- and post-pandemic, and to evaluate the effective- ness of those strategies. The initial phase of the research considered traditional and emerging factors that affect transit ridership and are controllable by transit agencies as well as external factors not control- lable by transit agencies. The second phase of the research used data that were more detailed from specific cities to conduct deep dives, including detailed route- and stop-level analyses of various critical factors regarding both the causes of ridership change and strategies to reverse declines. The results of these analyses, as well as simulation of future strategies, found that pre-COVID, peak-hour service was the most productive; transit priority, fare policies and discounts, and condensed service increase transit ridership; and micromobility has limited impacts on transit ridership. The research concluded that five strategies will lead to positive ridership outcomes: (1) Rethink mission, service standards, metrics, and service delivery; (2) rethink fare policy; (3) give transit priority; (4) consider partnerships with shared-use mobility providers carefully; and (5) encourage transit-oriented density. In addition to TCRP Research Report 231, this research project produced TCRP Web- Only Document 74, which contains the appendices to the report, and a PowerPoint presen- tation that is available as a supplementary deliverable on the TRB site. The PowerPoint presentation is available at www.trb.org by searching for âTCRP Research Report 231.â F O R E W O R D By Dianne S. Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
1 Summary 6 ChapterÂ 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Research Approach 7 1.2 Report Contents 9 ChapterÂ 2 Possible Causes of Ridership Decline Identified in the Literature 9 2.1 Internal Traditional Factors 11 2.2 Internal Emerging Factors 12 2.3 External Traditional Factors 13 2.4 External Emerging Factors 15 2.5 Conclusion 17 ChapterÂ 3 Multicity Evaluation 17 3.1 Transit Ridership Trends by Group 19 3.2 Sensitivity of Transit Ridership to Different Factors 22 3.3 The Contribution of Each Factor to Changes in Transit Ridership 29 3.4 Conclusion 33 ChapterÂ 4 Bus Ridership and Frequency Trends by Time of Day in Four Cities 33 4.1 Bus Ridership Trends 37 4.2 Comparing Bus Ridership and Productivity by Time Period 38 4.3 Bus Ridership Elasticity to Frequency 40 4.4 Modeling Elasticity for Bus Services 43 4.5 Conclusion 44 ChapterÂ 5 Examining the Peaking Phenomenon in Bay Area Rapid Transit Ridership 45 5.1 Ridership Trends 46 5.2 Single-Tracking 50 5.3 Conclusion 52 ChapterÂ 6 Competition and Complementarity Between Transit Modes in the Twin Cities 53 6.1 Metro Green Line 58 6.2 Metro A Line 60 6.3 Conclusion C O N T E N T S
63 ChapterÂ 7 The Impact of Shared E-scooters on Bus Ridership in Louisville, Kentucky 63 7.1 Objective of Shared E-scooters Analysis 64 7.2 Why Louisville as a Case Study? 64 7.3 Data Sources 65 7.4 Assigning Shared E-scooter Trips to Transit Routes 67 7.5 Results of Shared E-scooters Analysis 70 7.6 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications of Shared E-scooters Analysis 71 ChapterÂ 8 The Impact of Fare-Free Promotions on Bus Ridership in Topeka, Kansas 71 8.1 Objective of the Fare-Free Promotions Analysis 71 8.2 Fare-Free Promotions in Topeka 74 8.3 Data Sources 75 8.4 Results 76 8.5 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications of the Fare-Free Promotions Analysis 78 ChapterÂ 9 The Impact of Converting Bus Routes to BRT on Ridership in Cleveland, Ohio 78 9.1 Objective of BRT Analysis 78 9.2 BRT Routes in Cleveland 80 9.3 Data Sources 80 9.4 Ridership Trends 83 9.5 Results of the BRT Analysis 84 9.6 Conclusions, Discussion, and Implications of the BRT Analysis 85 ChapterÂ 10 Future Strategy Evaluation 85 10.1 MATSim Overview 87 10.2 Input Data 87 10.3 Identified Cities 88 10.4 Development of Scenarios 88 10.5 Atlanta, Georgia 91 10.6 Oshkosh, Wisconsin 97 10.7 Discussion 100 ChapterÂ 11 Strategies, Implementation Resources, and Key Lessons Learned 100 11.1 Findings from the Research 103 11.2 Implementation Considerations and Resources 103 11.3 Rethink Mission, Service Standards, Metrics, and Service Delivery 105 11.4 Redesign Fare Policy 107 11.5 Give Transit Priority 112 11.6 Consider Partnerships with Shared-Use Mobility Providers Carefully 115 11.7 Encourage Transit-Oriented Density 117 11.8 Future Transit Ridership Impacts 118 Acronyms and Abbreviations 119 Bibliography